Bottom Line Business Insights : Maryland Business Lawyer & Attorney : Wagonheim Law Firm : Mergers & Acquisitions & Contractual Negotiation

When I said the words “it’s time to have an adult conversation about money,” anyone overhearing might be forgiven for thinking I was talking to my 12 year old son. I wasn’t. I was looking in the mirror.

Toward the end of last year, I gave out bonuses to my employees. I do this every year and there was no doubt that they were well earned. Some people thanked me; some did not. Regardless, in what has become an unwelcome annual tradition following the delivery of the bonus checks, I found myself wondering.

“What did they think?”

“Were they pleased?”

“Were they disappointed?”

“Did they walk away thinking they were happy to be working for me or do they think I’m some kind of skinflint?”

I value each and every employee. There is no such thing as indentured servitude and, as people of talent and accomplishment, everyone who works here has options in the marketplace. I want to keep them happy. Of course, I also want to run a non-cash-strapped, profitable business.

That’s when it occurred to me: It’s time to sit each of my employees down and have an adult conversation about money. It’s time (or long past it) to talk to them individually about their wants, constraints, and expectations … and mine as well. After all, we share a common interest, they and I: we want this firm and everyone associated with it to prosper. 

That’s my task between this week and next – to sit down with each person and talk to them about raises and bonuses, profits, losses, and projections. If we each approach it the way I think and hope we will, for the first time I won’t have to wonder if we’re on the same page; I’ll know it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

2012 will mark my 25^th year serving as general counsel to small-to-medium-sized businesses. During that time, I have handled innumerable employment-related inquiries. For the first part of my career, my advice concerning personnel files and the building of a defensive wall against potential employee lawsuits was conventional, parroted established wisdom, and was dead wrong.  

You see, it used to be that when a business owner called and asked me if she would be in the clear if she fired someone, I would inevitably ask about the existence and contents of performance reviews. The conventional wisdom being that a paper trail of performance reviews in the file would bolster the company’s defense against a discriminatory or retaliatory firing. 

But I began to notice something curious about these supposedly these company-saving performance reviews. 99% of the time, the performance reviews were entered into evidence, not by the company, but by the disgruntled former employee. 

The reason? The performance reviews, even those preceding the firing decision by just a few months, would inevitably rate the soon-to-be-fired employee as “meeting expectations” or “above average.” Not one item of the laundry list of the employee’s grievous deficiencies could be found anywhere on the company’s own evaluation forms. What’s worse, the presentation of these deficiencies in court by the company would invariably have to come from the person who signed an adequate, if not glowing, performance review immediately prior to termination. 

 The reason? The vast majority of supervisors will check any box necessary to avoid the unpleasantness of confronting an employee with a less-than-positive evaluation. 

Last week, I attended a seminar presented by Garold (Garry) Markle of Engergage echoing and building upon this theme. Markle compared the performance review process to one in which the supervisor tells the employee “you hit yourself in the head with a hammer; I’ll hit you in the head with a hammer, and then we’ll see if both blows felt about the same.”

Instead, Markle emphasized the need for establishing a frank coaching dialog with employees on the things that really matter -- both to the employee and the business. 

Now, I disagree with one of Markle’s apparent assertions that the coaching be conducted primarily on an annual basis. I would prefer to build a system in place for a continuing dialog. 

Where I wholeheartedly agree with Markle is that conventional performance reviews -- whether conducted because “you’ve always done them in the past,” “that’s the way everyone does it,” or “my lawyer insists that I paper the personnel file” should be tossed in the trash never to see the light of day again. 

In place of performance reviews, work to install something that’s rationale, true, and doesn’t come back to bite you in court.

_____________________________________________________________________________

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Success in business, particularly in a small business, often hinges upon how well the entire organization understands the company’s vision, philosophy, and procedures. Unfortunately, these are often the very topics which are overlooked at company meetings where business owners focus on immediate goals and/or problems. Relationships are saved and deals are made by a staff that understands what the business is trying to accomplish, stays on message, and speaks with the same voice. 

Memos won’t do it. Retreats or pep rallies held once every blue moon won’t do it either. Too many business view team building with a binge and purge mentality. These owners seem to feel that one can make up for a lack of consistency with an intensive effort every year or two. I advise these owners to save their breath and their money rather than engage in these pointless exercises. 

Instead, team building is more like a fitness regimen. Effort consistently applied over time, even in short bursts, will always have the desired effect. In contract, we're one to attempt to get in shape by running a four hour marathon once every 18 months instead of adopting a consistent training regimen, one would be much more likely to end up in the hospital than at the finish line.

Similarly, there is no substitute for regular hands-on training in everyday policies and procedures. If your company decides to put in the effort to tighten up its documentation, for example, the effort would be wasted unless each front line person were personally introduced to and trained in the use of the new materials. The training may take five minutes or five days. But in either case, every business owner should know that the best procedures in the world will not overcome the problems caused by a staff ill-prepared to use them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every month, I ask our Empty Hourglass Clients to meet with me, free of charge, so that I can keep a better handle on their businesses and answer any questions they may have. You see, many business owners have questions that arise in the day-to-day operation of their companies which, while important, do not seem to rise to the level of immediacy required for the payment of legal fees. So the questions sit…unanswered. The issues remain unaddressed. And frequently, though not always, large problems grow out of what could have been minor inquiries.

I have noticed a trend in these meetings. In more than half of them, my clients ask me if I would review their Personnel Manual/Employee Handbook. 

In view of this trend, I thought it might be beneficial to list and comment on one of the most common issues I have found in company after company … industry after industry:

The Manual Should Reflect Policies, Not Aspirations

The purpose of the Manual is to describe the rules by which the company operates. Time and time again, after reading a company’s Manual, I find myself asking clients “is that really what happens in your company?” Often, the answer is “no.” Maybe there is no formal procedure such as that described in the Manual.  Many there are no written forms or step-by-step investigatory approach. 

That’s OK. Many companies have not formalized their processes. My recommendation, however, is that management take the time to figure out small, doable steps to put into place and describe them.  By spending page after page describing procedures which everyone in the company knows will never take place, the company has generated a Manual that is simply not worth the paper it’s printed on.  Other than double checking paid holidays and the amount of vacation, the rest of the Manual is just wasted words on useless paper.

If you’re wondering whether your Personnel Manual needs an overhaul…or even if you’re thinking of writing one for the first time, take a look at any sections which detail company procedures – from requesting Paid Time Off to describing disciplinary procedures – and ask whether the words on the page reflect what happens in reality.  If not, change one or the other.

Because when it comes to Personnel Manuals, Shakespeare was right: 

To thine own self be true.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Guest Blogger: Michael Lentz, Esquire

It’s that time of year again. The NCAA’s annual tournament to determine college basketball’s national champion, colloquially known as “March Madness®,” started last week. In one of Thursday’s games, tiny Morehead State upset traditional powerhouse Louisville, in a true David-vs.-Goliath outcome. Trailing by 2 with roughly twenty seconds left, Morehead State had the ball and called its final timeout.

            Morehead State’s coach told his team to deliver the ball to Demonte Harper and just wait. The plan was that Harper would hold the ball for one final three-point attempt, as time expired. The game would be decided then and there. At the time, Harper had made only two of his nine shots, none of his five three-point shots, and by all accounts was having a terrible game. Of course, Harper made his shot, and Morehead had its Hollywood ending. 

            In interviews after the game and the next day, Morehead’s coach said that he planned to use Harper in an all-or-nothing spot because he was generally an excellent shooter, and he was several inches taller than the players likely to be guarding him. As a result, he would likely have an easier time taking a shot. The coach knew his players’ respective strengths, put them in position to succeed, and trusted them to do their jobs.

            That’s great advice for any small business owner. Figure out what every member of your team does best, and put him or her in a position to do that, as often as possible. If you’ve got a genuinely wonderful “people person” who would be an excellent ambassador for your company, get him in a position to interact with the people that matter to your company. Similarly, a shy, quiet wallflower type is probably best not being your receptionist or leading a sales team. Let your speakers speak and your writers write. 

Of course, once you’ve identified each person’s strength, keep asking them to use it, even if they’re in a bit of a slump. This is true even when the outcome really matters – in fact, it’s especially true when the outcome really matters. That’s (probably) why you hired them in the first place.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Raise it for discussion on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is no such thing as privacy. You would know that if you were inclined to take even a casual glance at Sports Illustrated as 2010 ran down. The sports world was consumed with stories about Brett Favre’s alleged texts to Jets sideline reporter, Jenn Sterger and now two massage therapists as asserted in recent court filings. Not to be outdone, Jets head coach, Rex Ryan, found himself on the sidelines while all of New York seemingly became obsessed about his wife’s internet persona. 

Now, a Michigan court is preparing to weigh in on the subject of online privacy. According to the ABA Journal, a Michigan man is facing felony charges for reading his wife’s e-mail in an effort to determine whether or not she was having an affair. He was charged under a statute intended to apply to computer hacking, but is read to apply to a circumstance in which someone uses another person’s password, without permission, to, in this case, do a little investigative research.

Given the prevalence of online activities in our society, the issue of online privacy has almost universal ramifications.   A week doesn’t go by when we do not hear a question from one of our clients involving employees texting, using Facebook accounts, or simply shooting e-mails around the office. The legal issues can run the gamut from unauthorized use of equipment to sexual harassment and the creation of a hostile work environment.

But what are the employer’s rights?

There are three statutes which have to be considered when an employer contemplates monitoring the employee’s use of e-mail, telephone or the internet: (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; (2) the Maryland Wiretap Act; and (3) the Maryland Stored Communications Act.   Maryland courts have consistently explained that the purposes of Maryland law on the subject is to prevent the unauthorized interceptions of conversations where one party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

If asked, many employers would maintain that no employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy if company equipment is being used for the communication. But that is not always the case. The question can turn on the type of monitoring at issue and the employer’s goals in taking the offending actions. For example, videotaping employees is different than recording their phone conversations or perusing their e-mail after they have left for the day.

In each case, there may be a legitimate business purpose behind the company’s actions. We’ve all heard the recorded message that “calls may be monitored for quality assurance.” Another reason for monitoring, this time relating to e-mail, is that companies can be sued for copyright infringement or even sexual harassment, depending upon information downloaded by employees onto company systems. 

By far, the best policy for any business where monitoring will take place or even where employees have access to e-mail and the internet is to create and distribute a written policy explaining the company’s right to engage in the specific type of monitoring anticipated by the company. The warning alone, if well drafted and universally distributed, will serve to limit or eliminate the employee’s expectation of privacy. And in the end, that’s what it comes down to – fair warning, reasonableness, and the question of what a normally intelligent person’s privacy expectations should have been.

We’ll just have to see how the court defines “reasonable expectation of privacy” where Brett Favre and the Michigan husband are concerned.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Raise it for discussion on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Guest Blogger: Michael J. Lentz, Esquire

Ordinarily, employment in Maryland is “at will,” meaning that in the absence of a contract that says otherwise, an employer can fire an employee at any time, for any (non-discriminatory) reason, or for no reason at all. Of course, a written employment contract will govern the relationship between the employer and its employee. 

However, in some circumstances, Maryland courts will interpret a shareholders’ agreement to be an employment contract. If a shareholder, who also happens to be an employee, enters into a shareholders’ agreement with the employing corporation, and the agreement includes the employee’s duties, compensation, and other employment related terms, the terms of the shareholders’ agreement will govern the employment of the employee-shareholder. A shareholder’s agreement that doesn’t speak to the issue will not change an employee’s at-will status, or provide post-termination benefits, but courts will enforce all written terms. Also, Maryland law requires all parties to a contract to deal with each other fairly and in good faith, even if no such requirements appear in the parties’ agreement. Since a shareholder’s agreement that addresses terms relating to employment will be construed as a an employment contract, this implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing will be implied in the parties’ employment relationship. 

As a practical matter, this means that if you have employee shareholders, their shareholder agreements should include either nothing relating to their employment or all pertinent terms of their employment.

Perhaps just as significantly, even in the absence of a written employment contract, shareholders in closely-held corporations may be entitled to rights similar to those found in employment contracts. This is because a shareholder who invests in a closely held corporation may, depending on the nature and size of his investment, expect to be involved in the management and day-to-day operations of the corporation. Maryland courts have held that a shareholder in a closely-held corporation is entitled to “reasonably expect that ownership in the corporation would entitle him to a job, a share of the corporate earnings, and a place in corporate management.”  

Corporations, and their majority shareholders, should take care to respect these reasonable expectations of minority shareholders. Maryland law suggests that courts have a wide variety of remedies available to them to ensure that the investment expectations of minority shareholders are protected, including the appointment of a receiver to run the corporation and, if no less drastic measure will protect the minority shareholder, the dissolution of the corporation. 

Bottom Line: In closely-held corporations, minority shareholders present challenges not faced by publicly-traded corporations and other corporations with large numbers of shareholders. The corporation, its majority shareholders, and any minority shareholders are well advised to reach explicit, concrete agreements regarding their expectations for the venture, and to commit those agreements to writing thoroughly and precisely. 

Michael graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1998. After spending five years with large Baltimore firms and three years as a solo and small firm practitioner, Michael joined Wagonheim Law in 2006, where he continues to utilize his extensive experience in commercial, bankruptcy, and appellate litigation to work with companies throughout the mid-Atlantic region.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Raise it for discussion on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I found myself at a traffic light behind a company truck.  The truck belonged to and advertised a dog waste removal company.  I pondered this.  For a while, I wondered what the job interview was like.  But as the light turned green and traffic started to move, I noticed something else.  The truck was sporting a bumper sticker that read:

Your Life is not My  Problem.

I turned my pondering up a notch.  "How is it," I wondered "that in this one moment, frozen in time, the dog poop guy seems to be looking down on my life?"  Now, don't get me wrong.  This guy, perhaps even the owner, had a company, did honest work, and maybe even made a killing performing a service hordes of people would pay to avoid having to do.  But why was his employee insulting me.  And did the company's owner know it?

And this led me to my question:

How many owners realize the hidden (and not-so-hidden) messages their employees are sending?

Several years ago, Walgreens faced a lawsuit over just this issue -- only in more extreme form.  It seems that Walgreens pharmacy employees entered their thoughts on various customers in the comments field of the company's perscription software.  There, stapled right to a perscription for a customer's anti-anxiety medication, was a print out featuring some anonymous employee's assessment "She's CRAZY." 

Now maybe she is, and maybe she isn't.  But one thing we know for sure.  Walgreens has spent millions of dollars on a campaign to convince the public that it is a friendly neighborhood pharmacy.  How much money, then, did this one errant employee flush down the drain with one careless, or in this case, incredibly stupid example of personal expression?

Appearances matter.  If your employees have customer contact, check every aspect of the interaction.

• What do the outgoing voice mail messages say?
• Look for bumper stickers on vehicles used for delivery -- political, religious, or even humorous.  What's funny to one is insulting to another.
• Listen to how your employees express themselves.  Do they have a penchant for telling ethnic jokes or making sexist comments in an attempt to be funny?  Some people do  these things so often they don't even notice them anymore.

Can you see your company through your prospective customer's eyes?  If the dog waste company could, they might have taken the time to ponder that bumper sticker.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employees are expensive.  Misclassifying them as independent contractors is more so.

Most state laws require employers to pay for their employees' workers' compensation coverage and unemployment insurance...at a minimum.  The Federal government imposes additional (and very expensive) requirements.  Specifically, employers must:

• Pay Social Security contributions of 6.2% of salary up to $106,800 (in 2009),
• Withhold 1.45% of all earnings for Medicare,
• Pay overtime to eligible employees
• Provide unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for those companies to which the Act applies.

Independent contractors, on the other hand, receive 1099 forms at the end of the year and are responsible for their own taxes.  Employers contribute nothing.

It is tempting, therefore -- particularly in difficult economic times -- for employers to classify people as independent contractors and save both the money and the headache of withholding taxes insurance payments, and contributions.  But it's not that easy.  The IRS looks very carefully at each situation to determine the exact nature of the relationship between the company and the individual.  For the most part, it comes down to a question of control. 

The IRS and most states examine the following factors to determine the nature of the relationship:

1. The company's right to direct or control how the work is being performed
2. Who establishes training programs and whether they are mandatory
3. The source of the tools (including computers and software) used to perform the work
4. The location where the work is performed
5. Whether the company has the right to assign additional projects
6. Whether the hired party hires and pays his or her assistants or support staff
7. THe company's right to determine when the work is performed and/or set certain hours

Bottom line, if your company has the right to control or direct what is being done, how it is being done, and when it is being done, your company is most likely and employer.  

Most importantly, a wrong answer can be extremely expensive.  Companies which misclassify employees and independent contractors can be subject to huge tax bills for unpaid taxes as well as penalties for failure to file required tax forms and, in certain circumstances, failure to adhere to Federal and State statutes such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (applicable to employers who have 15 or more employees).  In addition, misclassified employees can pursue their own claims against the company for any losses they may have sustained.

Both companies and individuals can ask the IRS to make a determination of employment status by filing with the IRS Form SS-8:  Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link