In terms of hiring contingent workers, there is a range of problems that might arise, and it is crucial to watch out for red flags to anticipate possible losses to the company. First, if I had former employees coming back as contractors or especially as independent contractors, it might result in the loss of trade secret information. Second, a severe risk of proprietary information losses also arises when I have employees who retain their badge and network access after their assignment or project end dates have passed (“The biggest risks in your contingent workforce program,” n.d.). Paying attention to these two flags is of considerable interest to the organization.
Employing contingent workers, companies should mitigate risk concerning hiring them. One effective way to reduce it is to identify the relationship with contingent workers by asking them to sign onboarding documentation clarifying their role in the working process and an NDA (“The biggest risks in your contingent workforce program,” n.d.). This would make it impossible for them to have network access after a project end, and an NDA guarantees their legal responsibility for the dissemination of commercial information. The second and the third mitigation actions to implement is to ensure the contracts clearly state that the supplier is answerable for taxes, insurance, and regulatory compliance and make the benefits program explicitly define an eligible employee for all benefits (“The biggest risks in your contingent workforce program,” n.d.). These preliminary actions can help benefit from employing contingent workers.
Workers are not the only ones who profit from the enforcement of discrimination laws. Laws prohibiting employment discrimination greatly benefit companies as they help promote consistent treatment among employees by providing equal job prospects (Phillips & Gully, 2014). Consequently, it supports the perception of equality among work candidates. They will not disseminate information about the company’s bad faith, which leads to improved organization’s reputation among employees who are sure that they got the job exclusively due to their qualifications.
With regard to the general barriers to legally defensible staffing, the “like me” bias, stereotypes, and ignorance seem to be the most widespread. The “like me” bias is a belief in one’s professionalism and unwillingness to recognize others’ abilities, especially if they belong to another social group by gender, age, or any other characteristic (Phillips & Gully, 2014). It is closely related to stereotypes implying that everyone in a particular group will behave the same way as people used to think about them. Ignorance means that the company’s management or hiring managers are unacquainted with all employment laws’ requirements, which prohibit discrimination based on color, sex, etc.
To remove the above-mentioned barriers, companies can promote several practices. An effective way to combat the managers’ unawareness of employment laws’ requirements is to conduct training seminars concerning staffing laws for HR-department workers. Having the necessary knowledge in this area, they will not make mistakes that can result in reputational losses for the company. In relation to the “like me” bias and stereotypes that might influence the decisions of people responsible for recruiting, it is considered to be more complicated to eliminate. First, it can be beneficial to hire a corporate psychologist who is able to identify these biases and help get rid of them. Second, it is important to suppress in the working collective any statements that convey these prejudices. These measures can be effective in eradicating the most common barriers to legally defensible staffing.
References
The biggest risks in your contingent workforce program (and how to mitigate them). (n.d.). Beeline. Web.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2014). Strategic staffing (3rd ed.). Pearson.