Management

Two members of an immediate family are employed by the library. They were hired long ago at different times by a previous administration. After many years and changes in leadership one family member is now in a supervisory position over the other. There is no other supervisor for him to report to. Is there any reason why the employee cannot continue to be employed?

There are many scenarios where one family member supervising another goes just fine: everyone gets along, the supervisor’s feedback and constructive criticism is cheerfully received, and everyone—from trustees to fellow employees—finds things fair, above-board, and ship-shape.

Background: On Jan 1, 2023 we instituted several changes to employee time off accrual policies. We constructed the new vacation accrual policies carefully and gave some of our more senior staff "legacy policies" in order to not decrease any current employee's vacation accrual rate.

Vacation time is weird.

Why is it weird?

Well, first, it's fictional: it's time you get "paid" for, even though you are not at work.[1]

Second, unlike earned wages, vacation time can be magically obliterated, with employers deciding through policy that only a certain amount can be "carried over" or accrued.

It's January 6, 2022, and I am trying to pinpoint what libraries are obligated to do for employees with regard to COVID safety measures.  Are employers still required to provide safety implements such as masks to their employees and encourage social distancing? What about providing testing kits at no cost to employees?

Here we are in January, 2022, and frustratingly, there is no ONE right answer to this question.[1]  Between OSHA, CDC, WHO, and NYSDOH, together with state-wide and local Executive Orders and states of emergency, the answer to this question is a big, tangled web.

[NOTE:  This question was submitted in response to the guidance posted at Minor Employees and Obscenity in the Library.

After sharing your reply with my board, we have a follow-up question seeking clarification. The question is in regards to the following paragraph:

This question is an example of why clear, precise writing is so important.

To make sure no reader is in suspense, first I'll answer the member's question: I intended the guidance to convey the member's interpretation (with the information about accession, cataloging and appeal policy being supplied only after a parent expresses concern).

We have a school district public library board considering requiring background checks for new employees. They are concerned that they may be legally required to background check all current employees. Would there be any legal reason they would need to do so?

[NOTE: for background to this short answer, please see the much longer "Ask the Lawyer" Background checks and fingerprinting for new employees, that addresses the tightrope walk/legal minefields of employee background checks.]

Should what we think of as the personnel policy be called Employee Handbook or Personnel Policy?

Ooh, an ontological question!

I am not sure about the basis of the past legal input mentioned in the question, differentiating a "policy" from a "handbook," but I (mostly) agree with it.

I appreciate your thorough treatment of the topic of pornography in libraries, especially couching it in the larger context of objectionable content. Our library's policies and staff training take a similar approach.

This submission stands at the complicated crossroads of First Amendment, employment law, library ethics, and equal protection.[1]

As such, I could write on this topic endlessly.  But "Ask the Lawyer" is not here to provide endless commentary, but rather, helpful guidance inspired by real-world questions. 

My questions involve background checks for potential new employees, fingerprinting, developing policies, procedures, and best practices.

This...is a big question.  It's only three short paragraphs.  But it's BIG.

It's "BIG" because the risks of getting this topic wrong are immense--from not only the obvious risks involving legal concerns, but risks involving ethics, privacy, and the goal at the heart of the issue: safety.

Can an employer require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work? We have discussed it on our [public library system] member directors list but have not come up with a clear yes or no answer.

Here's something positive and affirming I can say: it's possible that the members expressing different opinions on the member directors' list are actually all correct.

Can a public library compel staff members to get vaccinations for COVID-19, when they are available? If so, can an employee request an exemption? Do we need waivers of library liability if a staff member chooses not to get vaccinated?

This is an incredibly sensitive, important, and complex set of questions.  I know a lot of people out there in "library land" are waiting on the answer—from many different perspectives.

So we're going to take it slow, break it down, and unpack the components of the answers one step at a time.