But it’s not all good productivity: Employees spend about half an hour of that time troubleshooting AI errors and on prompt iteration, according to BambooHR’s report, Redesigning Work: AI’s Performance Review.

This hasn’t stopped employees’ enthusiasm for AI: 65% are confident and excited about using it, mostly fueled by expectations that they’ll save time. And many companies use it as the organizational knowledge base: More than a third of employees say knowledge is transferred primarily through AI tools rather than humans.

AI Helps Build Enthusiasm, Productivity

Enthusiasm can’t replace actual productivity, though. And productive knowledge transfers can’t happen if employees don’t have the right skills to use AI properly.

While every organization is different and AI use can be specific to roles and outcomes, there are some common, essential skills for employees to get the most out of AI.

Gartner has practice identified six must-train-for skills to help employees manage AI, rather than become overwhelmed by its capabilities and their expectations to master the evolving tech.

“Organizations are treating AI skills as an ever-expanding checklist,” explained CV Viverito, a Senior Director Analyst at Gartner explained in the Harvard Business Review. “A better approach focuses on developing fewer core skills that have the potential to evolve as AI also evolves.”

The six skills fall under two core areas: work-orchestration skills and oversight and governance skills. Here’s what Viverito and Gartner shared.

Work-Orchestration Skills

These are skills employees likely already have or have experimented with: how they work with AI to get results. More specifically, you’ll want to help them improve:

Problem Formulation

Employees want to build problem-formulation skills. That means they take the right problem, with the right background information and ultimate goal to AI.

AI tool’s output is only as good as the input it receives. So employees need to lead work with their knowledge rather than letting the technology lead.

Many organizations are moving away from generic or self-taught AI training to workshops organized by HR and IT that scope and define business challenges a problem statement, determine objectives, and establish boundaries to guide effective solutions.

You can find HR-specific prompts here: 25+ Useful Gen AI Prompts for HR Pros. More importantly, there’s a formula for creating specific, clear prompts.

Systems Thinking

According to Viverito, systems thinking is the ability to understand how individual components interact and connect within the larger whole. It’s important because systems thinking improves employee performance by 1.6x where AI is being used in the workplace.

The reason is relatively obvious: When employees work thinking about the system, they’re out of their silos and overcoming complexity becomes easier.

But how? You want to create formal ways for employees to understand the ripple effects of an interconnected system. For instance, Jean in receiving needs to understand how her workflow affects accounts payable. Input mistakes, bottlenecks or failed AI oversight can lead to billing issues.

Some companies are mapping what front-line employees do before introducing company-wide AI systems so they can bear out real workforce barriers, tedious workarounds and other bottlenecks. This also helps gain employee buy-in to systems thinking.

Strategic Foresight

Once organizations move employees through problem formulation and systems thinking, the next step is to strategic foresight, creating new ways of working that improve scale and possibly disrupt markets.

Employers will want to help employees shift from just using AI as a productivity tool to using it to anticipate future scenarios and building adaptive solutions. 

“The goal is not to successfully predict the future, but to build change-ready mindsets that anticipate disruption,” Viverito wrote.

The best tool is actually an old tool: Embed “what-if” scenario-planning into existing decision-making processes and AI processes as they evolve, prompting employees to anticipate and plan for the best, worst or any disruption.

Oversight and Governance Skills

Oversight and governance skills are the ways employees ensure AI results are accurate, safe and trustworthy for your organization to use. Those include:

AI Judgment and Risk Mitigation

The researcher noted that inherent trust in AI outcomes and overreliance on the tools leads to errors, biases and compliance issues. So beyond using and mastering AI, employees will need to verify reliability, mitigate risks and practice ethical AI governance.

That’s more than just “a human in the loop.” It starts with formal training and guiding principles on responsible AI use. Beyond that, teams will need to develop shared expectations for questioning and checking AI’s work.

The researcher shared one success story along these lines: A marketing research firm developed a verification audit process. Employees are required to be fact-checkers for their first few AI-generated briefs. They follow a structured scorecard to verify data, cross-referencing back to original documents and websites. They log unvalidated claims to help fine-tune future research.

Human-AI Mediation

“Employees will increasingly need to interpret ambiguous situations and make nuanced decisions in an AI-enabled work environment,” Vivetero wrote.

AI changes how we work nearly every day. Automation will likely increase, so human judgment will meet machine logic more often. And employees will need to override or comply based on human logic.

The author used this example: AI cancels a customer’s subscription after a few missed payments, but it doesn’t recognize that the customer was impacted by a natural disaster — something a human would make an exception for.

One solution is having teams do post-mortems and even pre-mortems (similar to the what-if scenarios mentioned above) to review and anticipate how to handle complicated exceptions to the rules AI follows.

Ethical Leadership

Verifying outputs and ensuring that AI delivers fair and correct results isn’t just leadership’s responsibility. Every employee who uses AI will need to have the ability to have a hand in managing the design and operation of the AI systems you employ. It’s everyone’s responsibility to shape a trustworthy system.

According to Vivetero, one tactic is “red teaming.” Employees systematically and intentionally test their AI systems to find weaknesses. They act as internal ethical hackers, trying to identify biases or purposely confuse autonomous workflows before they’re rolled out to a larger population.

“Ultimately, building workforce skills that evolve in lockstep with the maturity journey of the technology itself is the input needed to drive real AI value,” Vivetero wrote.

The state’s Labor Commissioner’s Office recovered the money for 136 former employees of Capital Mailing Services, a printing and bulk mailing company that shut down in February 2016.

The state sued the company and its owner over unpaid minimum wages and failure to provide advance notice under California’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Cal/WARN). The recovery includes a $1.3 million judgment upheld on appeal and about $688,000 collected through a separate enforcement action.

Under Cal/WARN, covered employers generally must give 60 days’ advance written notice before covered layoffs, relocations or closures. Failure to provide that notice can mean owing affected workers up to 60 days of back pay and lost benefits.

More info: CA DIR Release Number: 2026-84

On Sept. 30, 2026, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a group of laws that limit how employers use artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, evaluate and lay off workers. Together, they reach discipline, surveillance and reductions in force, three areas where HR decisions increasingly run through software. Because other states often follow California, HR leaders everywhere should understand these AI laws.

What the New AI Laws Require

SB 947: No Robo Bosses. Employers may not rely solely on an automated decision system (ADS) to discipline or terminate an employee. An ADS is any tool built on machine learning, statistical modeling, or AI that produces a score, classification, or recommendation used to assist or replace human decisions.

Employers that “primarily rely” on ADS output must take steps to corroborate the information and notify the employee. Specifically, when making the disciplinary or termination decision, a person must independently corroborate the ADS output using other sources, such as supervisor evaluations, personnel files, employee work product, peer reviews or witness interviews. If the employer cannot corroborate the ADS output, it cannot be used to make the decision. Employers that primarily rely on an ADS must give the employee a written post-use notice and, on request, a description of the employee’s own data that the system used. The law also bars using an ADS to infer protected characteristics or to retaliate.

AB 1883: AI emotion and neural monitoring. Employers may not use AI-enabled workplace surveillance tools to recognize, infer or predict an employee’s emotional state, or to collect neural data. Examples of surveillance tools that may not be AI-enabled to monitor emotional state include video or audio surveillance, continuous incremental time-tracking tools, geolocation, electromagnetic tracking, photoelectronic tracking or photo-optical systems. Monitoring that does not use AI, and tools used to ensure safety, remain permitted.

AB 1331: Bathroom surveillance. Employers may not use surveillance tools to monitor employees in workplace bathrooms, with narrow exceptions such as court orders, safety cameras, and badge or alarm access that has no recording or AI features. Employees may leave tracking devices behind when entering a bathroom.

SB 951: AI and layoffs. When a mass layoff, relocation or termination is caused in whole or in substantial part by AI or automation, the existing 60-day Cal/WARN notice must also identify the job functions that will be automated and the specific category or type of AI or other automating technology that substantially resulted in the displacement. The notice must state “This notice is for a technology displacement” at the top.

Enforcement of AI Laws

The Labor Commissioner and public prosecutors enforce SB 947, AB 1331 and AB 1883, with civil penalties of $500 per violation. Because penalties are per violation, exposure grows with headcount.

SB 951 carries penalties of up to $500 per day, and affected employees may sue under Cal/WARN.

Practical Takeaways for HR Leaders

1. Inventory every tool. Employers may want to list all AI, ADS, and monitoring features, including those embedded in HR, security, and productivity platforms, and ask vendors in writing what each tool collects and infers.
2. Determine whether you “primarily” rely on an ADS for discipline or termination. SB 947 uses the term “primarily” without defining it. Employers may want to assess discipline or termination processes in which an ADS output served as a trigger or a principal factor.
3. Implement human review. Where employers primarily rely on an ADS for discipline or termination decisions, they may want to build a genuine review process in which a person corroborates the output using other sources, such as supervisor evaluations, personnel files or witness interviews.
4. Prepare notices now. Employers may want to build the post-use notice template, data request process and contact person before July 1, 2027, when SB 947 takes effect.
5. Map the overlapping California rules. SB 947 is not the only source of obligations for automated tools. Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, the CCPA regulations on automated decision technology require covered businesses that use it for significant decisions, including hiring, discipline and termination, to give advance notice, offer an opt-out or an appeal to a human reviewer, and answer requests for information about how the tool was used. Employers may want to align the SB 947 notices and review process with these requirements instead of building each one separately.
6. Retire prohibited features. Before Jan. 1, 2027, employers may want to disable bathroom location tracking and emotion inference functions and update handbooks and device policies.
7. Review emotion analytics. Call center sentiment analysis, mood scoring, and stress or engagement analytics are likely to be trouble spots under AB 1883. Employers may want to ask vendors whether any feature infers mood, stress or engagement, and turn off or replace any that do.
8. Coordinate layoff communications. Employers may want to decide early whether AI or automation is a cause of a reduction in headcount, then align the WARN notice with separation agreements and public statements.

Multistate Employers Face a Growing List of AI Laws

Other jurisdictions are moving in the same direction. Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois and New York City have adopted rules on automated employment tools, so a single review-and-notice protocol is usually more efficient than a separate California process.

Employers may also want to watch for Labor Commissioner guidance and possible cleanup legislation, since the Governor’s signing message invited refinements to AB 1331 and AB 1883.

This area is still evolving, so employers will want to build processes that can adapt.

Understanding and developing workforce capability has always been central to that role. And for HR leaders, a manager’s ability to do that well impacts everything from internal mobility and succession planning to retention and workforce readiness.

The challenge is that workforce capability is becoming harder to see at the very moment it matters most. Skill requirements are evolving faster than ever. They’re becoming increasingly difficult for organizations to track. And they’re also more closely tied to business performance and risk.

The result is a gap between responsibility and information. Managers own performance outcomes. But they can’t always see who in their team has the capabilities to drive them.

That’s not a management failure. It’s a visibility failure.

Managers Think They Know; Employees Disagree

What managers are missing is the data needed to make capability decisions with confidence and at the speed today’s workplace demands. That very real, structural disconnect becomes clear when we compare manager and employee perspectives.

TalentLMS skills visibility research shows that 90% of managers say they understand their team’s skills. Only 69% of employees agree.

A similar pattern appears in career growth. While 90% of managers believe they actively support employee development, only 60% of employees feel they experience that backing.

These numbers don’t mean managers aren’t trying to build an understanding of team capability. What they do suggest is that they’re relying on methods that are, at best, incomplete and, at worst, misleading.

Why Managers Default to Tracking the Wrong Things

When time is tight and performance data is limited, managers are forced to measure what’s easiest to see and easiest to access.

That usually means visible performance inputs. For example, targets met, projects delivered, KPIs achieved. It also means learning activities such as course completions, training attendance and annual review ratings.

All of these inputs matter. They help managers build a picture of how an employee is performing. But they rarely reveal the full extent of what they’re capable of.

An employee may already have valuable skills that never appear in their current role. They may be ready for a stretch assignment, a leadership opportunity or a move into a different function without their manager ever realizing it.

This is what I often describe as the completion trap. The tendency to confuse activity with capability.

When employees complete training, dashboards look positive. Progress looks like it’s happening.

But completion doesn’t mean competence.

The question isn’t whether someone finished a course. It’s whether they can apply a skill in the context of their work, now and in the future.

What Happens When Skills Go Unseen

When workforce decisions are based on assumptions and activity metrics, employees feel the impact almost immediately.

Internal mobility slows. Opportunities for cross-training are missed. And development conversations become less effective. More than half (56%) of employees surveyed in TalentLMS’ Skills Visibility Report say career progression stalled because their skills went unnoticed.

The effects are already visible in the labor market. According to iCIMS, internal applications increased by 8% year-over-year in December 2025. At the same time, internal hires fell by 1%. This highlights a growing gap between employees’ desire to grow within their organization and employers’ ability to connect them with new opportunities.

The business consequences take longer to surface, but they inevitably follow. Workforce agility suffers. Retention comes under greater pressure. And valuable talent becomes harder to keep. Forty percent of employees believe it’s easier to find a new job outside their organization than to discover a new opportunity within it.

For HR leaders, the result is a costly paradox. Companies are actively investing in learning and development. Yet they’re simultaneously overlooking the capabilities those investments are creating. Instead of redeploying or developing talent that already exists internally, they often turn to recruitment to fill perceived gaps. Half of all employees say their company hires externally for skills that already exist within the workforce.

What Managers Actually Need

Without visibility, skill development remains disconnected from workforce decisions. So, how can managers close the visibility gap?

Employees are clear about what would help. Nearly half (47%) say regular skills assessments would improve visibility into workforce capability. Another 45% want clearer connections between skills development and career progression.

That doesn’t mean adding administrative burden. In fact, the opposite is true.

Closing the visibility gap doesn’t require more performance reviews or complicated talent processes.

It requires three things.

1. Visibility: What Skills Exist?

Managers need lightweight, practical ways (such as AI skill-mapping tools) that make capabilities easier to see within their teams.

Not just those demonstrated in current roles, but also the capabilities employees have developed elsewhere and may not have had the opportunity to apply.

2. Context: What Skills Matter Most and Why?

Knowing what skills exist is only part of the picture. Managers also need to understand how those skills align with future business needs, emerging priorities and the capabilities their teams will need next.

3. Actionability: What Should Happen Next?

Skills data should help managers make better decisions and align with targeted skills training. Who’s ready for a stretch assignment? Who could move into an open role? Which employees would benefit most from targeted development? And where can existing talent be redeployed before looking externally?

Importantly, those decisions shouldn’t be limited to a manager’s immediate team. Managers need ways to identify skills across the organization, uncover hidden talent, and connect employees with opportunities that align with both their capabilities and future business needs.

When skills become visible in this way, workforce decisions become more proactive. Development becomes more targeted. Internal mobility becomes more achievable. And succession planning becomes more effective.

Most importantly, managers gain the confidence to make decisions based on evidence rather than assumptions.

Capability, Not Completion

A manager’s role is becoming increasingly complex. But the support they need to unlock the potential within their teams is straightforward. Managers don’t need another leadership course. They need the ability to see what their people can do and a way to act on that insight.

The state Department of Labor & Industry has updated its minimum wage and overtime poster, available in English and Spanish, to reflect the new rate. Although the poster is optional, the department recommends that employers display it alongside required workplace notices where employees can easily see it.

More info: MT Department of Labor & Industry

Worker Alleged Misclassification, Sought OT

Jerry Merritt managed a team of insurance agents for Texas Farm Bureau. Like all agency managers at the company, he was classified as an independent contractor. He set his own schedule, wasn’t paid hourly and didn’t track or report his hours. From 2016 to 2018, his commissions ranged from $552,000 to $627,000 a year.

A district court ruled he should’ve been classified as an employee and was owed at least 816 hours of overtime. A jury then found the company didn’t know or have reason to know he worked those hours. The Fifth Circuit upheld the verdict, holding that failing to track hours doesn’t, by itself, show an employer knew about overtime.

What It Means for Overtime Pay Liability

The case shows that employer knowledge remains central to FLSA overtime liability, even when a worker is later found to have been misclassified. Within the Fifth Circuit, the lack of a timekeeping system alone won’t prove a company knew about overtime.

The Supreme Court’s denial of review sets no national rule, so tracking hours for nonexempt employees is still the safest practice everywhere.

More info: No OT Pay Despite Misclassification: Fifth Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict

Nothing about that story is unusual, and nothing about it was inevitable. HRMorning’s look at how recognition builds lasting motivation makes the point that recognition only works when it becomes part of how people work, not an event. What separates a program that fades from one that lasts is mostly what happens in the planning stage and in the first six months after launch.

Month One: The Launch Feels Like Success

Early enthusiasm is real, but it’s also misleading. New platforms get attention because they’re new. The question HR should be asking in month one isn’t how many recognitions were sent. It’s who sent them, what they were for and whether they pointed at anything specific.

Back at the distribution company, most early messages were variations of “thanks for all you do.” Kind, but not useful. Nobody reading them could tell which actions the organization actually valued, so nothing about day-to-day behavior changed. An employee recognition program that starts with named behaviors, such as catching an inventory error before it ships or training a new hire on the floor, gives people something concrete to notice and repeat from the very first week.

Months Two to Four: Participation Quietly Narrows

This is where most programs start to slide, and it usually comes down to managers. Some recognize their teams constantly. Others intend to and simply forget. Within a few months, the participation data shows a clear divide between teams where recognition is part of the rhythm and teams where it barely registers.

Employees notice that divide even if HR doesn’t report on it. Someone in a quiet department sees colleagues elsewhere getting recognized and draws a reasonable conclusion: their work isn’t seen. Gallup’s research on workplace recognition found that the most memorable praise tends to come from an employee’s own manager, which is exactly why manager habits decide whether an employee recognition program reaches everyone.

The fix is less about motivation than about prompts. Calendar nudges, a standing recognition item on one-on-one agendas and monthly participation reports shared with managers turn good intentions into a habit. Recognizing the managers who recognize others helps spread it further.

Month Five: The Budget Problem Surfaces

Around midyear, budget issues tend to appear. Some teams have spent their allocation already. Others have barely touched theirs. Neither outcome means the employee recognition program is working or failing, but both signal that spend wasn’t planned around how recognition would actually be used.

A sound recognition budget is built before launch, not patched together midyear. It sets total spend based on headcount and engagement goals, divides that spend across monetary, experiential and social recognition, and plans for how engagement data will guide adjustments over time. Inspirus’s white paper, Budgeting for a Successful Rewards and Recognition Program, walks through each of those steps and how to manage costs while maximizing impact.

Month Six: Rebuild or Recommit

By the six-month mark, HR has enough data to decide what the program needs. For some organizations, that’s a light refresh: updated categories, a manager push and clearer examples of specific, behavior-based praise. HRMorning’s collection of employee recognition letter examples is a useful model for what that kind of praise looks like in writing.

For others, it means going back to the design questions that were skipped at launch. Which behaviors qualify? How should peer, manager and organization-wide recognition work together? Which milestones deserve a formal moment, and which everyday wins need a fast, low-friction way to be noticed? What will you measure, and when will you use it to adjust?

Inspirus’s Employee Recognition Playbook offers a tested framework for answering those questions, including how to design recognition that motivates the behaviors you want, implement peer, manager and organizational initiatives, and overcome the barriers that keep programs from sticking.

Writing a Different Ending

The distribution company’s story doesn’t have to end with a forgotten platform. An employee recognition program that starts with named behaviors, prompts managers consistently, budgets with a plan and gets reviewed on a schedule can look as strong in month six as it did in week one, and keep getting stronger from there. Learn more about Inspirus’s recognition and engagement solutions at inspirus.com.

The state Department of Labor and Workforce Development sets the rate each year based on Consumer Price Index increases, as required by the state constitution.

More New Jersey Wage Increases to Note

Separate minimum wage rates also take effect Jan. 1:

• Workers at seasonal businesses and businesses with fewer than six employees: $16.25, up from $15.23
• Farm workers paid hourly or piece rate: $15, up from $14.20
• Direct care staff at long-term care facilities: $19.48, up from $18.92, and
• Tipped workers’ minimum cash wage: $6.61, up from $6.05. The maximum tip credit stays at $9.87.

Employers must cover any shortfall when a tipped worker’s cash wage plus tips falls below the state minimum wage.

More info: New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

Still, there continue to be embarrassing WFH stories — with colleagues, bosses and clients witnessing the best of the worst behaviors.

This is for certain: Embarrassing WFH stories are worth a little laugh — and a big lesson in what to avoid.

And the laughs and lessons aren’t likely to slow any time soon. Of the remote-capable jobs across the U.S., 26% of the employees are fully remote and 52% are hybrid, according to Gallup data.

Roles in Embarrassing WFH Stories

Even better, nearly anyone can play a part in a WFH disaster: On a Zoom call, there’s always an audience that can be a witness or part of the plot.

Some of the most embarrassing WFH stories uncovered in one survey roundup were purely accidental. Others uncovered on Reddit were the result of a player not knowing — or, perhaps knowing but not following — virtual etiquette rules.

Regardless of the players or witnesses, each of these tales carries a lesson all of us can use to make sure we aren’t the next idiot going viral.

No. 1: Naked, Smoking, Drinking!

Issue: Accidentally turning on a camera.

What went wrong: Benjamin P., from Seattle, was on a call with a vendor: “He was doing a software demo for us … He accidentally turned his camera on, and he was shirtless, smoking a cigar, and had a giant glass of whiskey on his desk.“

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: Camera on or off, you want to dress, speak and act as professionally as you would if you were meeting in person.

No. 2: Potty Break

Issue: Taking a live camera to the bathroom.

What went wrong: Reddit user Disjointed Chameleon was hosting a Zoom meeting for more than 30 people: “One of my male older colleagues gets up from his home office desk, which is in his basement … He trudges up his stairs, and putzes around his kitchen a bit — washes some dishes, makes himself a sandwich. He’s quiet enough, so whatever, no big deal. Then I see him climb some steps. I see tile flooring. I see a large mirror. I see two vanity sinks. No. Oh god. No.“

I interrupt the call and try to tell him we can all see/hear him. Apparently, he can’t hear us. I desperately try and fumble for the ‘remove participants’ button. It’s been disabled. No. Please. No. I furiously try and mash the ‘mute all’ button.The button decides TODAY is the perfect day to stage a rebellion. Zip. And just like that, we all got to see (and hear) him do his business.”

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: If you were in an in-person meeting and started to feel unwell, you would excuse yourself from the meeting to care for yourself, right? The same goes for virtual meetings — take care of yourself without others around.

No. 3: Sharing an Unshareable

Issue: Sharing something that shouldn’t be on a work device and shouldn’t be shared.

What went wrong: Lauren W., a marketing manager in Denver, was working together, but physically separate, with a team member: “A colleague and I were supposed to be presenting to a prospective client. When my colleague shared his screen to show some work examples, he had a background tab opened to, let’s just say an ‘adult’ website. I was mortified.”  (Note: Lauren reported the team member was a freelancer, and HR terminated the contract with him immediately.)

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: For one, (and we’re confident you know this) never, ever use company equipment for personal business. Secondly, close screens and tabs you won’t need for online meetings before they start.

No. 4: Hot Cheeks

Issue: An unexpected — albeit innocently cute — visitor jumped into a live screen.

What went wrong: Dave N. was working from home while his young son was also home for the day: “I was on a call with a bunch of clients, and my stark naked son walked into my office and asked me to ‘fix his butt.‘”

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: Working from home can be difficult and awkward when others are also home. Young children who are schooling or just home for the day sometimes add an extra difficult element. Ideally, try to physically separate space so you don’t interfere with each other (without putting anyone in danger, of course). Or use a sign — perhaps as simple as a Stop sign that hangs near your workspace — to indicate it’s not OK to be nearby.

No. 5: Brawling Sisters

Issue: Arguing, then punching, on a Zoom call.

What went wrong: Bryan C. was on a work call with siblings who also worked at his company: “One of the sisters was presenting her weekly forecast to her manager, with other higher-ups present on the call. Just as she was deep into her presentation, her twin — also her roommate — entered the frame, livid about her clothes being worn without permission. What began as a verbal disagreement escalated quickly into a physical altercation, with both sisters brawling while the Zoom call was still live.” (Note: Bryan reported that the company investigated the incident and ended up letting go of both sisters.) 

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: For one, don’t take your sister’s clothes without permission! But really, this makes another case for finding a way to separate your workspace from the rest of the household and being able to shut out others during calls.

No. 6: Talking Trash

Issue: Talking badly about colleagues.

What went wrong: Ben P. from Austin, TX, heard more than his colleague wanted him to: “One time on a Zoom call, one of the women on the call forgot to go on mute and was caught talking s*** about other people on the call. Oops!” (Ben noted that besides the general embarrassment, the colleague was punished and had to attend sensitivity training.) 

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: First off, don’t talk badly about colleagues to other colleagues. Secondly, keep your microphone on mute when you aren’t talking. That helps to eliminate distracting noises in general — and prevents colleagues from hearing things around you that you don’t want to be heard.

No. 7: Asking for Too Much Information

Issue: Boss too nosy.

What went wrong: On a Brightside post, one employee explained that she’d been working from home for two years when this happened: “A few days before a big meeting, I asked to keep my camera off. Personal reasons. My boss replied, ‘Working from home doesn’t mean working from your pillow.’ Fine.”

Meeting day came. I logged in and waved hello. The room went dead silent. Behind me was a hospital monitor, beeping softly. I was in a hospital bed, IV lines clearly visible. No explanation. The client froze. My boss laughed awkwardly and told me I could turn my camera off after all. After the call, he said I was ‘unprofessional’ and had embarrassed him. I reminded him I’d asked to keep my camera off. I just followed the rules.”

Don’t make this embarrassing mistake: The lesson is for the boss and the employee. Be transparent before you’re too transparent. Bosses need to explain why it’s important for employees to be on camera — when it’s totally necessary. And employees need to explain their circumstances if it affects the quality of meetings.

The law shifts employer contributions from medical leave to family leave to mitigate the impact of IRS guidance on PFML benefit taxation. Employers with 25 or more covered individuals will continue to pay a combined contribution of 0.88% of eligible wages. Employers with fewer than 25 covered individuals will have an effective contribution rate of 0.46% and won’t pay the 0.42% employer share.

Coming Changes for Massachusetts Employers

Beginning Jan. 1, payroll teams must apply the new allocation to wages earned on or after that date:

• Family leave: Employers with 25 or more covered individuals contribute at least 0.42% and may withhold up to 0.28%.
• Medical leave: Employers with 25 or more covered individuals may withhold the full 0.18% contribution.

More info: Massachusetts PFML contribution rates and calculator