The average US employee costs their employer about $45.42 per hour in total compensation expenses, excluding members of the armed forces. A little less than 70% ($31.29) of that total compensation was earned in salary and/or wages while a little more than 30% ($14.13) of that expense covered employee benefits and perks according to the BLS.

‍

Benefits and perks cross a number of segments. Below is the full breakdown but as you can imagine, the majority comes from medical, social security, leave, and retirement. While life, disability, dental and vision are all important, the only represent a small percentage of the full medical.

‍

Employers each year invest over $1T into their employee's benefits, this is over 5% of the US GDP. Your firm does the same, employee benefits are often one of the top five expenses each year for an employer, in some industries it is in the top three.

‍

Going one level deeper, the average hourly wage/salary costs were nearly identical between service employees and goods producing employees at $30.34 and $30.31 hours, respectively, whereas the average hourly employee benefits expense was a couple dollars higher for goods-producing employees at $14.44 an hour per employee than for service employees at $12.44 an hour per employee.

‍

Expenses derived from leave, however, whether paid time off or sick leave, were slightly higher for the service industries at $3.34 per hour relative to the $2.82 per hour average leave expense for employees in industries that produce goods.

‍

Employee Compensation Costs by Industry

First, lets take a look by industry. As the following chart illustrates, the information industry had both the largest wage/salary expense at $48.25 per hour and the largest employee benefits expense at $26.60 per hour, for an average total compensation expense of $74.85 per employee per hour.

‍

Despite paying a slightly lower average wage/salary expenses per employee at $47.95 than the information industry’s $48.25, the utilities industry nonetheless has the highest average hourly total employee compensation expense at $76.91 as a result of boasting the largest average hourly employee benefits expense of $28.96.

‍

The other services industry had the lowest average total employee compensation costs of just $17.82, followed by leisure and hospitality at $19.44, and the retail industry at $25.08 before making the jump up to the manufacturing industry, which spends an average of $43.68 on employee compensation per hour.

Interestingly, despite paying the lowest wages and salaries, the other services, leisure and hospitality, and retail industries pay the largest proportion of total employee compensation in the form of wages and salaries. In short, the pay is relatively bad in these industries and the benefits are even relatively worse.

‍

‍

Employee Benefit Expense Breakdown

As noted above, the split between wages/salary expenses and employee benefits expenses was about 70% to 30%.

‍

The 30% of total employee compensation expenses that went toward employee benefits can be further broken down, the largest portion of which went to health insurance of course, which cost private employers about $2.94 per hour per employee on average.

‍

Social Security contributions were the next largest expense at $2.06 per employee per hour, followed by paid leave at $1.67, non-production bonuses at $1.20, and defined contribution benefits which cost employers an average of $1.07 per employee per hour in 2023.

‍

Those 5 employee benefit expenses alone (totally $8.97 per employee/hour) accounted for more than 70% of the average total hourly employee compensation expense of $12.77 per hour.

‍

The least expensive eight benefits expenditures combined to equal a little more than $1 in total cost per employee per hour, or a bit over 8% of the total average employee benefits expense.

‍

While the list stacks up for the minor benefit offerings, with a negligible impact on cost. some of them are the most important to certain segments of employees. As noted above, the split between wages/salary expenses and employee benefits expenses was about 70% to 30%.

‍

‍

Employee Compensation Costs by Occupation Type

Next, lets look at the specific occupation. While workers in private industry cost their employers $43.11 per hour in total compensation expenses, those figures unsurprisingly varied quite significantly based on occupation type.

‍

Management, business, and financial occupations had the highest average hourly compensation costs at $81.72, followed by professional and related occupations at $66.53.

‍

Construction, fishing, farming, and forestry employees cost their employers an average of about $44.50 per hour in compensation expenses, while sales, transportation, and office and administrative employees had an average compensation expense of about $33 per hour. Service industry employees came in at the bottom of the list costing just $21.55 per hour in total compensation.

‍

It is worth noting that the benefits expenses incurred for sales employees is surpassed by all other occupations outside service occupations, and although sales occupations pay higher wages and salaries than transportation and office/administrative jobs, transportation and office/administrative jobs are nonetheless more expensive in total compensation because of their relatively more substantial benefits offerings.

‍

Employee Compensation Costs by Industry & Occupation

When accounting for both industry and occupation type at the same time, the combined effect that these independent factors have on average employee compensation expenses can be seen even more clearly, as in the following charts outlining employee compensation costs by industry, further broken down by occupation type.

‍

For example, management, business, and financial jobs in the professional and business services industry cost their employers ($89.79 per hour) more than $12 more an hour in total compensation expenses than employees in the same field that work in the manufacturing industry ($77.56 per hour).

‍

On the other hand, office and administrative support jobs compensation expenses were slightly more expensive in the manufacturing industry, albeit largely consistent across industries - $34.4 per hour in the manufacturing industry, $32.31 in the professional and business services industry, and $32.38 per hour in the trade, transportation, and utilities industries.

‍

‍

‍

‍

In a future installment, we’ll take a look at how these employee compensation expenses also vary by company size and region as well as how occupation and employee headcount combine to affect average hourly employee compensation cost.

While the concept of a living wage has become an issue of increasing importance to both employers and employees in recent years, the number of workers actually earning a living wage has been steadily decreasing at the same time - though that decrease has not been experienced across industries and/or geographies in equal measure.

‍

It may once have been easy to confuse minimum wage standards with living wage standards. In fact, the federal minimum wage was initially devised in part to ensure a living wage, those standards long ago diverged with cost of living significantly outpacing minimum wage increases on balance since the 1950s.

‍

That said, the chasm between minimum wage and living wage seems to have become all the more stark in recent years, especially during the pandemic recovery when workers paid well above minimum wage found themselves unable to keep up as cost of living climbed faster than rising wages despite (and because of?) the historically labor-friendly labor market. 

‍

Inflation has largely been under control for the better part of a year now, with the last 9 months holding steady below 4% annualized, but cost of living remains high and the minimum wage remains exactly where it has been for the last 15 years - 7 dollars and 25 cents an hour.

‍

That $7.25 an hour in 2009 would be worth $10.58 today accounting for inflation, etc. Meanwhile, as of 2022, the average living wage in the US according to MIT was just over $25 dollars an hour at the time, or $27.53 in today’s dollars. 

‍

‍

With more workers than ever failing to secure a living wage, the repercussions of this situation are likely to be felt far beyond those who are personally affected, though not all industries are contributing equally to the issue nor are all cities/states/regions responding passively to the growing problem.

‍

Industries With the Highest Living Wages

According to data from Revelio Labs, more than one third of workers (36%) employed by the top one thousand companies in the US are paid less than a living wage, defined here as a wage sufficient for two full-time workers to support themselves as well as two dependents. Even worse, nearly 1 out of 5 of those employees (19.2%) does not make enough money to meet basic needs. 

‍

As the following graphic illustrates, among the 10 largest industries in terms of total number of employees (which collectively account for 10% of the US workforce), the industries involving technology development dominate the upper end of the scale, with the software, computer services, technology hardware, and pharmaceuticals/biotech industries all paying more than 80% of their employees at or above the living wage threshold.

‍

On the other extreme, both the restaurant and leisure as well as the retail industries pay living wages to fewer than 40% of their employees, while the commercial support services, medical equipment, banking, and industrial goods industries all pay living wages to about 70% to 80% of their employees. 

‍

‍

Even when taking into account geographic variance in cost of living, the big picture doesn’t change much, although the following graphic seems to indicate a somewhat less favorable view of the tech industry’s propensity toward paying living wages when factoring for local cost of living, with the total percentage of employees that are paid a living wage in the software and pharmaceuticals/biotech industries dropping by between 3% and 4%, respectively.

‍

Mostly, however, the information best illustrated by this graphic may simply be that industries like tech and media tend to gravitate toward areas with a relatively higher cost of living while the more industrial industries tend to be located in areas with a relatively lower cost of living compared to the national average.

‍

‍

Minimum Wage Across States

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington DC currently has the highest minimum wage among ‘states’ at $17 per hour, followed by Washington state at $16.26, then California and New York at $16 each. 

‍

Beyond the 5 states that have no internally legislated minimum wage and are therefore subject only to the federal minimum wage standard (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee), there are 15 states that have set their minimum wage to the current federal level of $7.25 per hour - Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

‍

Average minimum wage across the remaining states is about $13 per hour.

‍

Minimum Wage Increases Coming Soon

There are 9 states that currently have enacted increases to their current minimum wage thresholds that have not been enacted yet:

‍

• Delaware: Increase of $1.75 from $13.25 to $15 effective January 1, 2025
• Florida: A series of three minimum wage increases of $1 each are set to occur on September 30th of each of the next three years, raising the statewide minimum wage from $12 up to $15 by October 1, 2026.
• Hawaii: 2 minimum wage increases are currently planned, raising the current minimum wage of $14 per hour up to $16 per hour effective on January 1, 2026 followed by another $2 increase up to $18 per hour two years later, effective on January 1, 2028.
• Illinois: $1 increase from $14 per hour up to $15 per hour effective on January 1, 2025.
• Michigan: Annual rate hikes are planned for January 1 of each of the next 6 years, increasing the statewide minimum wage from $10.33 per hour up to $12.05 by 2031.
• Nebraska: 2 minimum wage increases of $1.50 each are currently planned to take effect on January 1 of 2025 and 2026, respectively, increasing the current minimum wage from $12 to $15.
• Nevada: On July 1 of 2024, Nevada’s minimum wage will climb from $11.25 to $12.
• Rhode Island: The minimum wage is set to increase by $1 per hour on January 1, 2025, bringing the pay rate up from $14 per hour to $15.
• Virginia: 2 minimum wage increases of $1.50 each are currently planned to take effect on January 1 of 2025 and 2026, respectively, increasing the current minimum wage from $12 to $15.

‍

What Comes Next?

It’s been almost 12 years since fast food workers launched the Fight for 15 movement to push for better pay (specifically $15 per hour) as well as better/safer working conditions. Currently, the US average living wage is about $27 per hour - nearly double the lofty (and obviously unachieved) goal that $15 per hour represented little more than a decade ago.

‍

In the 85 years since the federal minimum wage was first introduced, it has been raised at least 23 times - most recently in 2009 - with an increase on average more than once every 4 years, but never in the past had more than 10 years passed in between increases, which makes the current 12 year pause all the more noteworthy. Perhaps even more concerning is that the previous record gap between federal minimum wage threshold increases was between 1997 and 2007, which indicates a troubling trend.

‍

Some states are evidently trying to take up the mantle in lieu of waiting for further federal action, but even among the states with the highest planned minimum wages, those thresholds fall significantly short of the living wage standard.

‍

It is also worth noting that all of the states that currently have minimum wage increases set on the books also already have a statewide minimum wage threshold that is meaningfully higher than the current federal standard. 

‍

With 40% of states effectively mirroring the federal minimum wage standard, this problem will likely only worsen in the near term and become exacerbated on a regional basis, until some kind of federal solution is enacted.

‍

Still, whenever Congress eventually gets around to increasing the federal minimum wage again, based on current conditions there is virtually zero chance that the increase will close much of let alone all of the gap between the minimum wage and living wage in a given area. 

‍

Of course, failure to raise minimum wage standards to meet base standard of living expectations does no preclude other factors and/or market forces from reversing the trend toward larger proportions of the workforce earning unlivable wages, but whatever those factors may be they have yet to emerge, and the long-term implications of these conditions remain unclear.

‍

One recent lawsuit is testing uncharted legal waters when it comes to determining exactly what fiduciary duty employers owe employees with regard to the provision of employee health plans.

‍

On February 5th, a class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson in US District Court alleging the company breached its fiduciary duty to employees by egregiously overpaying for prescription drugs.

‍

The plaintiffs, or employees and former employees, support their claim by citing the seemingly exorbitant sticker prices that the company plan appears to be paying for certain medications - prices that supposedly far exceed the cost that uninsured customers pay for the same medication.

‍

Interestingly, in addition to naming Johnson & Johnson as a defendant in the case, the plaintiffs also filed suit specifically against the Johnson & Johnson Planning & Benefits Committee as well as each of the individual fiduciaries that make up that committee, which may be the first time that such fiduciaries have been personally named as defendants in a case like this for employee benefits.

‍

ERISA Fiduciary Liability 

‍

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs primarily two components for an employer - their retirement and employee benefits. 

‍

Retirement - As a corollary, about 10-15 years ago, with new ERISA requirements for retirement plans, a number of lawsuits were filed against employers for violation of fiduciary duty. These lawsuits have primarily focused on allegations that plan fiduciaries failed to uphold their duties, leading to significant repercussions for plan participants and beneficiaries. The core issues at the heart of these legal battles include:

‍

1. Excessive Fees - One of the most common grounds for ERISA lawsuits is the accusation that plan fiduciaries allowed excessive fees to be charged for plan administration and investment management. Plaintiffs argue that fiduciaries did not adequately review or negotiate lower fees, which could erode retirement savings over time. Courts have scrutinized whether fiduciaries have conducted regular and thorough fee benchmarking against comparable plans to ensure that fees are reasonable for the services provided.

‍

2. Poor Investment Options - Another significant area of litigation involves claims that fiduciaries offered poor investment options that underperformed relative benchmarks or were inappropriately risky for the plan’s investment objectives. These lawsuits often allege that fiduciaries failed to properly monitor investment options and replace underperformers, leading to lower returns for plan participants.

‍

3. Mismanagement of Plan Assets- Lawsuits also have targeted fiduciaries for mismanagement of plan assets, accusing them of failing to follow the plan's investment policies, engaging in prohibited transactions, or not acting in the best interests of plan participants. These cases often hinge on the fiduciary duty of prudence and loyalty, requiring fiduciaries to act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances.

‍

The outcomes of these lawsuits have varied, with some resulting in substantial settlements or judgments against fiduciaries, while others have been dismissed. The legal landscape surrounding ERISA fiduciary liability has evolved, with courts increasingly setting higher standards for fiduciary conduct. These cases have led to greater awareness and changes in how retirement plans are managed, including more transparent fee structures, improved investment option monitoring, and the adoption of best practices in plan governance.

‍

Fast-forward to benefits - It remains to be seen how receptive the judicial system will be to the plaintiffs’ claims given that the excessive list prices plaintiffs are highlighting in the suit may be more a reflection of bundling practices common among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) than an indication of price gouging or negligent administration.

‍

Perhaps regardless of the ultimate outcome, however, any validation of the underlying premise that the fiduciary duty owed to employees by employers and health plan fiduciaries may extend to these matters will likely bring with it a surge in employees suing their employers for excessive medical care costs and fees.

‍

These suits could come in a variety of forms as it relates to employee benefits, which span not only medical but also cover dental through disability and voluntary. Key items that attorneys may be considering include:

• Failing to manage employer benefit spend as a fiduciary, specifically overpaying for medical, dental, vision or other as in the J&J case
• Improper payments to a broker, consultant or third-party vendor
• Denial of benefit claims
• Improper amendment or termination of a plan
• Failure to provide proper updates or adjustments
• Failure to act in a timely manner

‍

Strategy vs. Duty

Company leadership is hired to run a company effectively. They have a duty to shareholders to run the business to the best of their ability. Senior officers, directors and officers have insurance to protect themselves. When a company performs below expectations, are they liable to shareholders? Only if there are egregious and potentially illegal errors.

‍

The same line is drawn here. You cannot sue someone for implementing a strategy that was ineffective, but you can sue someone if they were negligent.

‍

How to Reduce Your Company’s Risk

‍

In order to minimize the risk exposure that the expansion of fiduciary duty in line with the plaintiff’s perspective presents, here are 3 steps employers can take to ensure that they are properly exercising their fiduciary duty with regard to employee health plan administration.

‍

Organize and Authorize a Health Plan Committee: In the complaint against Johnson & Johnson, the fact that they did not have a health plan committee in place to oversee health benefit plan issues may end up working against the company, especially in light of their implicit acknowledgment of the potential value of a such a committee as evidenced by the existence of their pension plan committee, which serves a similar function with regard to employee retirement benefits. 

‍

Request Disclosures From EBCs and PBMs: According to the Johnson & Johnson complaint, federal law requires contract service providers like employee benefits consultants and pharmacy benefits managers to disclose in writing any compensation of more than $1,000 that they receive for their services, whether that compensation is acquired directly or indirectly. Further, failure to obtain such written disclosure prior to entering into, renewing, or extending a contract with a contract service provider makes that contract a de facto ERISA violation, so fiduciaries responsible for these matters should insist that such disclosures are documented before those contracts and renewals are signed.

‍

Take Personal Responsibility: With each member of the benefits committee being named individually as a defendant in the Johnson & Johnson class action suit, proper oversight of health plans as well as the associated costs and administration is no longer any single fiduciary’s job - it is every fiduciary's job - which further underscores the value of health plan committees that are organized in part to provide accountability for these kinds of health-plan related issues.

‍

***

‍

Although the outcome of the lawsuit has not yet been determined at this point, the ripples across the benefits industry are already being felt, and with rising medical costs trending in the opposite direction of many people’s ability to afford them, employers and benefits managers are almost certainly going to be targeted as possible recipients of the blame with increasing regularity going forward.

‍

You can read more about this case here.

‍

‍

In the digital age, where transparency and corporate reputation are increasingly scrutinized, the significance of an employer's Glassdoor rating has become a topic of much debate. Glassdoor, a platform where current and former employees anonymously review companies, has transformed into a crucial tool for job seekers and a barometer for companies' workplace cultures. But does this rating genuinely matter, especially in the context of hiring new people and retaining current employees? Moreover, how does it compare with other metrics like the 'Best Places to Work' awards in the United States, which, intriguingly, have shown a strong correlation with organizational success?

Firstly, Glassdoor ratings play a pivotal role in shaping a company's image in the eyes of potential hires. In an era where candidates often research a company as rigorously as their potential employers scrutinize them, a low Glassdoor rating can be a red flag. It can deter top talent from applying, as these ratings are perceived as reflections of employee satisfaction, management style, and company culture. Conversely, a high rating can enhance an employer's brand, making it more attractive in a competitive job market. This aspect is particularly crucial in industries where talent is scarce and highly sought after.

However, it's essential to approach these ratings with a nuanced understanding. They can be subject to bias, as disgruntled employees might be more inclined to leave reviews than satisfied ones. Therefore, while these ratings offer valuable insights, they should be considered alongside other factors like company achievements, industry reputation, and direct feedback from current employees.

Regarding employee retention, Glassdoor ratings can serve as a useful barometer for internal health. A sudden drop in ratings can be an early warning sign of underlying issues, such as poor management practices or declining job satisfaction. Proactive companies monitor these ratings not just for external branding but also to gauge internal sentiment and address potential problems before they escalate.

Interestingly, when it comes to predicting a company's success, the 'Best Places to Work' awards in the United States offer a surprisingly accurate metric. These awards, determined through comprehensive employee surveys and an audit of company policies and practices, provide a more holistic view of an organization. They consider factors like employee engagement, job satisfaction, benefits, and work-life balance, which are crucial for long-term organizational success.

Companies that consistently rank high in these awards often demonstrate strong financial performance, lower employee turnover, and higher levels of innovation. This correlation suggests that a positive work environment is not just beneficial for employee morale but is also a critical driver of business success. For potential employees, these awards offer a reliable insight into a company's culture and values, often more so than standalone reviews on platforms like Glassdoor.

In conclusion, while an employer's Glassdoor rating is an important metric in the modern job market, influencing both hiring and retention, it should be viewed in context and supplemented with other information. The 'Best Places to Work' awards, on the other hand, provide a more comprehensive overview of a company's workplace environment and are a surprisingly effective predictor of organizational success. As the corporate world evolves, these tools and metrics will continue to shape the landscape of employment, emphasizing the growing importance of transparency and employee satisfaction in the quest for business excellence.

‍

My mom was an airline stewardess in the glory days of PanAm. People would dress up to go on the plane. That is a distant memory if you have flown in the past two decades. The rise of hybrid work has been well-documented both here and elsewhere, but often less publicized is the massive effect that the proliferation of off-site work arrangements has had on work attire expectations, taking an already occurring evolutionary trend and massively accelerating it.

‍

Where a worker is conducting their work can make a substantial difference in how they dress, of course, and it is no surprise that nearly 4 out of 5 employees (79%) who work hybrid schedules dress differently depending on their work location - whether that be at home, on-site, or in a third place.

‍

Perhaps more interesting, however, is how on-site and in-office dress codes are becoming increasingly more casual at the same time. For example, the most recent polling data from Gallup indicates that only about 3% of US workers wear a suit to work - down 4% from the 7% of respondents who did so in 2019. 

‍

Another survey indicates that the proportion of offices with formal dress codes in the US has fallen from 1.2% to just 0.2% over the last 4 years.

‍

What was once a widely observed professional standard across an array of industries has now become an outlier, and the trend lines for business casual wear in the workplace, while not nearly as drastic, may ultimately lead to a similar fate. 

‍

This recent piece from BizWomen takes a broad look at some of those trends that are emerging with regard to workplace attire:

Work Attire By The Numbers

• Current Work Attire Breakdown: As of the most recent data from Gallup, about 41% of US workers currently dress in business casual attire, while about 31% wear casual clothing, and 23% wear uniforms on the job. 
• Employee Perspective: Nearly 3 out of 4 employees believe flexibility in dress code expectations is vital, which includes just about the entire respondent pool if you exclude employees who wear uniforms at work. Further, in a separate poll almost 1 in 4 workers claimed that they would be willing to accept a cut in salary or wages in exchange for the loosening of attire-related restrictions and a more informal dress code generally.
• Talent Attraction: There was a 20% swing in the number of job postings that mentioned business-casual work attire between 2019 and 2022. In January of 2019, about 40% of job postings referenced business-casual attire, but only 3 years later in January of 2022, just under 20% of job listings did so. Over that same time period, the percentage of job postings that referenced casual attire climbed from about 60% to nearly 80%. 
• Dress Code Evolution By Gender: 85% of men respondents reported noticing a casual evolution in their professional in-office work attire while 77% of women said the same.
• Back-to-Office Perk: Nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) claimed that their resistance to spending more time in the office would be reduced significantly if they could wear the clothing of their choosing within reason.

‍

You can read more about this topic and find additional insight on the subject from industry professionals here.

Benefits PRO recently released a piece that highlights an interesting perspective on the likely influence and prevalence of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives in the year ahead.

‍

The article notes that there has been a significant reduction in the scope and number of DEI programs across US companies over the past 2 years - in part in response to the additional calls for oversight and negative attention coming from some policymakers and legislators, as we have covered in previous blog entries.

‍

Even beyond the direct action that has been taken in opposition to some DEI initiatives, the resulting uncertainty surrounding the legal foundation and limitations set on diversity-encouraging efforts has had a chilling effect that has likely discouraged additional DEI exploration and investment more than just staying in line with the letter of the law.

‍

The author’s premise, however, is that these dynamics have resulted in a gap in the market, which creates an opportunity for forward-looking companies to bolster their DEI efforts and potentially not only reap all the benefits that diverse thinking, experience, and representation can bring to cooperative problem-solving, but reimagined and reinvigorated DEI programs can better position your organization to attract and retain a more diverse and currently underserved talent pool.

How Will DEI Programs Evolve In 2024?

Three of the top ways that DEI initiatives are expected to adapt and change over the coming year are through an increased focus on inclusion and equity, better integration into the overall business in a way that can be apparent from both internal and external perspectives, and increased adoption of AI to open up enable more opportunities for people with disabilities.

• Focusing on Inclusion and Equity: Given that some of the more contentious backlash against some DEI efforts was largely specific to the diversity component, additional emphasis and building out the more inclusion and equity oriented aspects of these programs makes a lot of sense. Some companies are taking a look at their existing policies and looking for ways to expand them to cover additional, complementary services or employee groups who may not have been considered when the policy was originally envisioned and enacted - for example, broadening fertility benefits to include adoption support and/or to apply to same-sex couples. 
• Ingraining DEI Companywide: To optimize the return on investment that can be gained through well-executed DEI programs including the talent-pool-broadening effect, these DEI efforts must be built into the company culture and operations so that people both inside and outside the company can see that these efforts are a priority, which is a necessary first element in order to maximize their impact. 
• AI Further Enabling People With Disabilities: Artificial intelligence seems well positioned to impact just about every aspect of life and business in the relatively near future, but one less discussed opportunity that AI will afford is to both increase inclusion and broaden the talent pool by making a much wider range of tasks and roles accessible to disabled people.

‍

You can read more about DEI initiatives and which ones your company should be prioritizing here.