Lots of interesting posts and articles and so little time.  So just quick hits today on some new and interesting developments.

  • The Genetic Discrimination Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) became law on Wednesday.  I highlighted the bill a few weeks ago and opined that it’s not going to have a big impact on Connecticut in light of the state requirements already in place. For another recap, the Employer’s Law Report has a pretty good summary here.
  • A group called the Families and Work Institute released a survey on Wednesday studies the practices of U.S. employers as they relate to work-life issues.  Nolo’s Employment Law Blog has the details.  Interesting factoid? "Racial and ethnic diversity at the top predicts a more work-life friendly workplace."  Other notable fact? Employees are paying more for some of their benefits.
  • The New York Times had an interesting piece this week on background checks, not simply for line workers — but for executives as well.  One "expert" provided the following guidance:
    "[The expert’s] primary recommendation is to screen all potential employees, starting with their résumés. If you detect a single lie, he says, throw the résumé in the wastebasket.Be wary, too, of claims that are difficult to verify, gaps in applicants’ job histories and vague descriptions of what they did."  I’ve talked about the need for such checks and how Connecticut’s criminal records are now available on state websites. 

  • With the high price of gas, will more employers start to consider telecommuting for employees? After all, those employees with long-distance commutes are assuredly feeling the pinch.  The Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog has a post about some of the legal issues involved in telecommuting.  I’ve touched on Connecticut’s approach to the issue in this post last October.
  • Finally, on the human resources front, Kris Dunn over at HR Capitalist has a thought provoking piece about the interview process that many companies engage in. His theory? Perhaps to ditch the second interview and see how the candidates respond to a "real-life situation".  Given the pitfalls and the unpredictability of interviews, and the risks of hiring "duds", it’s an interesting thought.