SHRMingham

Don’t be stingy with the swag!

If swag brings so much joy, why are some companies so stingy when it comes to sharing it with their employees?  The cost of swag usually goes down when the number of items ordered increases.  Obviously the cost is minimal relative to the cost of replacing an employee.  I am going to speak for myself here…I’m not saying that I would stay with a company because they gave me a water bottle with the company logo on it, but when I regularly get things like that it begins to make me feel like I belong.  

Swag, also known as the tacky toys and office trinkets with company logos that get peddled at conferences like passing without one could jeopardize your career.  No, it doesn’t matter that your company already has an insurance carrier or that those decisions are made at the corporate office on the other side of the country.  You want that ink pen/highlighter/sticky note flag combo and you’re going to take it! Gathering swag can best be described as Halloween for grown-ups.  Tables of people can often be seen comparing loot and making swaps with their cohorts.  It really takes very little to make us feel like we have a treasure chest of goodies. 

 Using swag can create employee loyalty in addition to reminding them of your company’s mission and values.  Companies often use swag at conferences and conventions to get new customers and remind them of the services we can offer but what if that same swag could increase your employee loyalty resulting in decreased turnover and increased job satisfaction?

 The feeling of belonging can be shared in using swag as prizes for productivity and attendance, creating welcome kits for new hires and as holiday gifts.  Use it as a way to keep your company’s mission and vision right in front of your employees on mouse pads, calendars and such.  Being stingy with the swag will not get you that gazillion dollar contract but more importantly it will not remind your employees about how much you care.  

So, that’s it.  Get off your tush and give out the swag, give it out generously so your employees feel like they belong to a team, Your Team!

Editors note: Becci Cantrell, PHR is an HR professional specializing in training and development and public speaking.  She writes, edits and publishes technical training manuals, policies and soft skills programs.  Her training experience includes classroom, web based and computer formats.  The same passion and creativity  used to create training materials spills over into hobbies including scrapbooking and photography.

Working at One of the "100 Best Companies to Work For" - Meaningless If Your Manager Doesn't Rock...

OK - the latest list of Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For is out, and undoubtedly, there are a lot of great companies on the list.  After all, who doesn't want to work at some of the companies listed in the top 10.  Google?  Cisco?  Goldman Sachs?  Sign me up today, because it's all good.  I can't wait to experience the culture... the rewards... the freedom...

And that's just the reaction to the companies within the list that I know.  Also included are some incredible companies we don't know, who obviously have great environments where talent can bloom.

But, hid inside the underbelly of these environments is a dirty little secret.  The dirty little secret also applies to companies not listed as well.  I'll outline it for you two ways - one for the "best companies to work for, and one for "the unwashed masses".  It goes a little something like this:

--The golden rule - "A company's culture and attractiveness as a place to work is contingent on the effectiveness, approachability and progressiveness of your manager.  That means:

1.  A company often listed as a great place to work is often mocked by those within the company with an ineffective manager, and

2. A company not listed as a great place to work will receive many of the same retention benefits among employees, who have a great manager who reinforces, supports and leads.

Before you label me as a cynic, understand what I'm saying.  The leadership of a company can create an environment where talent can flourish, and tools, resources and freedom to innovate are present, etc.  Companies should strive to create that type of environment.  It's a good thing...

However, a bad manager can make it all worthless in the eye of an employee.  Consider the recent article about Google as reported by TechCrunch:

"In 2008 Google HR set up a private Google Group to ask former employees why they left the company. We’ve been forwarded what appears to be authentic posts to the thread by a number of ex-Googlers, which we reprint below minus identifying information other than their first names.

The thread shows a brutal honesty about what it’s like to work at Google, at least from the point of view of employees who were unhappy enough to resign. Top amongst the complaints is low pay relative to what they could earn elsewhere, and disappearing fringe benefits seemed to elevate the concern. Other popular gripes - too much bureaucracy, poor management, poor mentoring, and a hiring process that took months."

I would encourage anyone who feels like they aren't at a "best employer" to read the entire article.  The result for me is an understanding that the best employers in America struggle just like you do with many management issues, and the best way to ensure your employees are engaged is to be a good manager who coaches, cares, communicates and has flexibility.

What do your exit interviews say?  Most of the same stuff heard in the rundown at TechCrunch about Google.

Most Bad Bosses Were Once Sweet Individual Contributors...

Let's call it what it is.  You know people in your company who are really good at one thing, but really stink at a bunch of other things.  That's not a huge issue when the person is an individual contributor (let's call them a savant to focus on the fact they are super in one important area to your business).  As an individual contributor, you can usually wall them off and keep them out of harm's way. 

Except for email.  You probably wish you could take that away from them, but you can't.  Apparently, this Internet thing isn't a fad.

Back to the issue - The problem with the savants in your organization is that their critical strength is projected to other areas, like managing others.  From Steve Roesser at All Things Workplace:

"Do Any of These Situations Look Familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

Let's call it what it is.  You know people in your company who are really good at one thing, but really stink at a bunch of other things.  That's not a huge issue when the person is an individual contributor (let's call them a savant to focus on the fact they are super in one important area to your business).  As an individual contributor, you can usually wall them off and keep them out of harm's way. 

Except for email.  You probably wish you could take that away from them, but you can't.  Apparently, this Internet thing isn't a fad.

Back to the issue - The problem with the savants in your organization is that their critical strength is projected to other areas, like managing others.  From Steve Roesser at All Things Workplace:

"Do Any of These Situations Look Familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

This Bud's For You - And I'm Going to Need You to Use Both Sides When You Make Copies...

There's nothing more interesting to talk about than when two cultures come together through an acquisition.  How will the cultures mesh?  What's the fit between products/services?  And the big questions if you're an HR Pro - are there going to be fewer jobs, and who's got the better benefits?  If I'm involved in executing the transition, that's what I've got to sell, so those are the key info points for me.

But of course, there are small cultural items that ultimately will mean just as much to employees day to day.  Take the Anheuser-Busch acquisition by InBev for $52 Billion, which BusinessWeek reports may result in Budweiser employees using both sides of the paper to make copies:

"To pay for those deals, Brito (InBev CEO) cuts costs to the bone: The native of Brazil orders his executives to fly coach on most flights, is stinting with standard industry perks like company cars and free beer, and encourages employees to photocopy on both sides of each sheet of paper.

By contrast, InBev's new bride, Anheuser-Busch, comes to the marriage with expensive tastes. The company has spent lavishly on New Media ventures. There was ESPN in the 1970s and more recently the ill-fated BudTV.com. Longtime CEO August Busch III routinely made the 10-mile commute to work by helicopter and once mused whether to buy a castle in Europe for a commercial shoot. His successor and son, August Busch IV, continues the tradition: Employees enjoy free admission to the company's theme parks and get two free cases of beer each month. "I think even the Clydesdales [stabled at Anheuser-Busch headquarters] get better treatment than your average InBev employee," jokes one industry consultant. Executives at Anheuser-Busch and InBev declined comment for this story.

This InBev CEO is known more as a steely operator than motivator.  Brito recalled how he once chafed when given a promotion that included oversight of human resources and technology: "For me, sales was everything," he recalled, while a "touch-feely" concept like leadership "was for poets."

Ouch.  With that quote in mind, I bring you perhaps the biggest leading indicator to let you know how an acquisition is going to go - the profile and history of the acquiring CEO when it comes to acquisitions.  The vast majority of CEOs are going to say the right things when it comes to the culture of the company being acquired.  After all, the integration process is a long one, you have lots to learn and things change.  No reason to shake things up early.

But occasionally, you get a profile like Brito's, who is already imposing restrictions on his own culture and feels like leadership is for "poets".  That can't be good.  It feels like Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap all over again, except maybe a more stylish version.

I'm from the show-me state, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out for my friends at Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis.  Be sure to take a look at the article from an education standpoint; it has some great stats on how InBev is walking a tightrope to pay for the deal, and how things like the average margin on a case of beer for Anheuser-Busch distributors plays into making the deal work.

Final thought - how cool would it have been to put "This Bud's For You" on your recruiting collateral?  That had to be like shooting fish in a barrel...

The Medical Records of Paris Hilton - Would Your Team Violate HIIPPA and View Them?

New reports out of LA show that the UCLA Medical Center employees love looking at the medical records of celebrities.  Nice!

So, the employees got caught looking and now they're paying the price.  I get that.  I'm supportive. More interesting to me is that in a small, medium or large HR shop, HR people have access to a lot of PHI data, often without the login security and tracking that an EMR provides.  Also, a lot of data exists in medical files related to PHI.  Here's the $64K question.  If given the chance, would your HR people look at that data and maybe look up a code on the treatment provided?  Are you sure?

More on the UCLA Medical Center situation from the LA Times:

"Even after UCLA Medical Center warned employees that it was cracking down on unauthorized access to medical records, the privacy of a "well-known individual" was breached by two nurses and an emergency room technician who called up the patient's computerized records in mid-April, according to a critical state report released Monday.

Monday's report was the fifth by the public health agency following articles in The Times this year about UCLA employees' prying into the records of celebrities and prominent patients, including California First Lady Maria Shriver, actress Farrah Fawcett and singer Britney Spears.

State regulators continue to fault the hospital for failure to take adequate steps to maintain patient confidentiality. After the April violations, the report said, one nurse was fired and the two other employees received warnings.

The latest findings detail how one employee -- a former administrative specialist who faces federal criminal charges for violating Fawcett's privacy -- looked at the records of 939 patients "without any legitimate reason" from April 2003 to May 2007. In previous reports, the state had linked her to viewing the records of about 60 patients. She also looked at other personal information, including Social Security numbers, the state now says."

Now, that's what I call an admin gone bad... Do you even know what your employees have access to?  How do you protect access to this type of information on Joe Schmoe?  The same procedures/systems that protect Schmoe protect Paris. 

Human nature is at work here.  We're imperfect.  Name a privacy officer in your department and route all system access, dealing with Medical vendors, FMLA certifications, etc. through them unless someone has the need to know or is working the case.

I mean, can you imagine how many HR people would take a peek at David Hasselhoff's medical history?   The life-event section of the employee file alone probably requires one of those book-size rubber bands.... 

Dropping Labor Day for Muslim Holiday? The Case for Floating Holidays....

A Tyson plant in Tennessee has decided to offer the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr -- which marks the end of Ramadan -- as a paid holiday instead of Labor Day.  Almost 700 of the plant's 1,200 employees are Muslim.  Somehow, I think this is going to be an emotional one...

More details from MSNBC:

"Workers at the Tyson Foods poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day but will instead be granted the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr. According to a news release from the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, a new five-year contract at the plant included the change to accommodate Muslim workers at the plant.

Tyson's director of media relations Gary Mickelson said the contract includes eight paid holidays -- the same number as the old contract.

Eid al-Fitr -- which falls on Oct. 1 this year -- marks the end of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.  Union leaders said implementing the holiday was important for the nearly 700 Muslims, many of them Somalis, who work at the plant that employs a total of 1,200 people.

Nineteen-year plant veteran William Pentecost doesn't agree with the decision. "I don't think it's right. I really don't think it's right," he said.

Tyson company spokeswoman Libby Lawson said by phone that, "This isn't a religious accommodation, this is a contractual agreement. The majority asked for it."   The change didn't bother some workers.

"I think it's fine. I don't have any problem with it. There's a whole bunch of them here, so they've got to do something for them," said worker John Smith.   Nineteen-year plant veteran William Pentecost doesn't agree with the decision.  "It shouldn't happen. I mean, I think, we're in America, you're in America, I think that they should go with our holidays," Pentecost said."

Lots of stuff imbedded in this one.  America, religion, etc.  For most work locations, the standard operating procedure of Amercian and Christian holidays satisfies the majority.  When that's challenged or no longer makes sense in a mutil-cultural environment, doesn't it make sense to move a large portion of the fixed holidays into floating holidays to offer employees the flexibillity to identify the days most important to them to be away from work?

Just thinking out loud.  The other issue embedded in this one is workforce planning, in that the plant needs to know when they are going to shut down for full days to plan production. 

Is it ever easy?  The answer is most certainly no, but we'll see the standard idea of Christian holidays challenged more and more in the future, as the Amercian workforce continues to diversify. 

The Best and Worst Cube Farms in America...

Admit it - you've daydreamed about doing something cool with your office.  Maybe you're thinking about painting that accent wall, or maybe you're thinking about doing something cool with your cube.  Something to spice it up.  Something to take it to the next level, way past where Les Nessman left it.

Before you do that, manage your expectations.  Most of you probably aren't in Silicon Valley, or working at Google.  That's OK, but it probably means you aren't getting the marble counter top for the juice bar coffee closet at work.

That's fine - you can still dream, and maybe even have a cooler workspace than Yahoo.

Here's a look at the best workspaces in Tech via Valleywag. In the snapshots, you'll find cool workspaces from Six Apart (they provide the software that runs this blog), Netflix and Digg.  Pretty cool.

Then, there are the worst workspaces in Tech via Valleywag.

Get ready, because the standard for a cool workplace in high tech is probably higher than what you are used to.  Case in point - I say "Yahoo Offices" and you automatically have an expectation for some cool stuff, right?   Well, maybe that exists somewhere in the Yahoo real estate portfolio, but the Valleywag feature ranks Yahoo as one of the worst workplaces in tech, featuring the picture to the right.

The good news - Yahoo still has some apparently highly motivated employees - note the guy taking five in his cube...

The bad news - Yahoo's workspace in that picture looks like about 98% of corporate America.

Manage ye expectations, you Peter Gibbons clones of the world.  And if you are sprucing up the cube, bring it with more strength than the guy shown napping here...

Admit it - you've daydreamed about doing something cool with your office.  Maybe you're thinking about painting that accent wall, or maybe you're thinking about doing something cool with your cube.  Something to spice it up.  Something to take it to the next level, way past where Les Nessman left it.

Before you do that, manage your expectations.  Most of you probably aren't in Silicon Valley, or working at Google.  That's OK, but it probably means you aren't getting the marble counter top for the juice bar coffee closet at work.

That's fine - you can still dream, and maybe even have a cooler workspace than Yahoo.

Here's a look at the best workspaces in Tech via Valleywag. In the snapshots, you'll find cool workspaces from Six Apart (they provide the software that runs this blog), Netflix and Digg.  Pretty cool.

Then, there are the worst workspaces in Tech via Valleywag.

Get ready, because the standard for a cool workplace in high tech is probably higher than what you are used to.  Case in point - I say "Yahoo Offices" and you automatically have an expectation for some cool stuff, right?   Well, maybe that exists somewhere in the Yahoo real estate portfolio, but the Valleywag feature ranks Yahoo as one of the worst workplaces in tech, featuring the picture to the right.

The good news - Yahoo still has some apparently highly motivated employees - note the guy taking five in his cube...

The bad news - Yahoo's workspace in that picture looks like about 98% of corporate America.

Manage ye expectations, you Peter Gibbons clones of the world.  And if you are sprucing up the cube, bring it with more strength than the guy shown napping here...

The "Love Broker" - Making Your Employees Sign A Workplace Relationship Prenup...

This topic would have gotten A LOT more attention around Valentine's Day.  Hard to believe a "news" organization like Good Morning America didn't do a better job focusing their leads with national holidays - or at least what days Hallmark says are important...

Anyway, some lawyers have come up a with a product that might have some legs - a workplace hookup prenup.  From ABC News:

"Think of it in terms of a prenup," said Good Morning America workplace contributor Tory Johnson. "In this particular case, you're saying to the employer, 'We'll prevent you from being held responsible for employment issues in the event of a failed personal relationship.' The employer should not have that burden."

""It is documenting the relationship. You need to define the relationship. Is [it] welcome? It is not sex harassment," explained Stephen Tedesco, an employment lawyer, who said that it is important to make clear that whatever personal conduct has gone on is not harassment.

"It also defines how they are going to conduct themselves in the workplace going forward," he said."

Not a bad idea, but the heavy lifting is still left to you as the HR pro - you get to figure out what relationship rumors are real, and then decide based on what you think you know whether to intervene and have both parties sign something to say they won't hold you responsible for harassment claims, etc.

Once again, the heavy lifting is still yours.  I offer two rumor-based situations where it's very difficult to see your way clear to confront:

1.  The married employee who's having an affair with a co-worker.  Or is it an affair?  See John Hollon's notes on the office spouse...

2.  The guy or gal who is rumored to be having an affair with a co-worker 10-20 years younger than they are... Have fun with that one...

So, the workplace relationship prenup has some legs, and that's cool.  Don't let anyone fool you if you are a HR pro in charge of the employee relations environment.  You're still doing ALL the heavy lifting through the actual decision on whether to confront.

That's why you get $11.64 an hour.  Now move forward and rid our workplace of some ALL liability!!

Title Inflation in Organizations - When the Mailroom Guy Has a VP Title...

Ever see the scene in Office Space where the two Bobs (OD consultants) are trying to figure out what people do at Innotech?  They would have loved to tackle the topic of Title Inflation (Bob #1 - "What would you say your title means here?").

There's a solid article from 2007 at Knowledge at Wharton focusing on the topic of title inflation in the C-suite, noting that companies have expanded C-Level titles from CEO, COO and CFO to include the less standard CMO (Chief Marketing Officer), CPO (Chief Privacy Officer) and CTO (Chief Talent Officer).  The article correctly points out that a primary reason for the inclusion of more C-level titles is the desire on the part of the organizations in question to show a functional area's importance and clout in an organization.

Of course, HR Pros know that title inflation has long been an issue underneath the C-suite in companies big and small.  Over the years, it seems like the most pressure in an organization (big and small) from a title perspective revolves around the designations of manager, director and vice-president.  With these titles in mind, here are my top reasons why your managers occasionally want to "beef up" the title of an associate:

1.  Limited funds exist for an aggressive Merit Increase - If the funds aren't there to be super aggressive on the merit side for a high performer, throwing in a beefier title seems like a good way to reward an employee.

2.  Retention Concerns - A manager may believe that a high performer values title and prestige over money, and thus feels pressured to deliver a paper title to a high performer - although their role won't change via the promotion.

3.  Customer Clout - A title occasionally is bestowed on a high performer based on the rationalization that the employee holds a position that is key in dealing with (often negotiating) customers.  In this space, the title is rationalized as being helpful in giving the employee the authority he/she needs with customers. 

4.  Internal Equity - Managers may feel pressure from certain high performers to promote them aggressively in title, due to the titles that others in the organization have for their respective roles.  This factor is intensified when the employee feels like they are on uneven ground with the other direct reports of the manager in question.

Left to the chaos of a non-standardized organization (especially with a decentralized HR function), everyone does their own thing (which is to give out titles without much structure or consistency).   Then someone in the org runs a report, and discovers the mailroom services guy is an AVP (Associate Vice President for all you non-title inflators out there).

You know the drill, especially if you have spent time in a larger company.  What follows the AVP of Mailroom Services discovery is a title standardization campaign leaving many (and I mean many) employee relations issues (hard feelings) as titles are stripped away and replaced by more realistic tags describing what the employees actually do (or as close as they can get).

Been through some of that - it's always much better to provide a little resistance up front and make sure all in the org are on board before handing out inflated titles.  Best place to start?  No manager titles if the person doesn't manage direct reports, and no Director or VP titles if the person doesn't manage managers who have direct reports (multiple layers in their organization). 

After all, you don't want the two Bobs asking YOU about the titles...   

Ever see the scene in Office Space where the two Bobs (OD consultants) are trying to figure out what people do at Innotech?  They would have loved to tackle the topic of Title Inflation (Bob #1 - "What would you say your title means here?").

There's a solid article from 2007 at Knowledge at Wharton focusing on the topic of title inflation in the C-suite, noting that companies have expanded C-Level titles from CEO, COO and CFO to include the less standard CMO (Chief Marketing Officer), CPO (Chief Privacy Officer) and CTO (Chief Talent Officer).  The article correctly points out that a primary reason for the inclusion of more C-level titles is the desire on the part of the organizations in question to show a functional area's importance and clout in an organization.

Of course, HR Pros know that title inflation has long been an issue underneath the C-suite in companies big and small.  Over the years, it seems like the most pressure in an organization (big and small) from a title perspective revolves around the designations of manager, director and vice-president.  With these titles in mind, here are my top reasons why your managers occasionally want to "beef up" the title of an associate:

1.  Limited funds exist for an aggressive Merit Increase - If the funds aren't there to be super aggressive on the merit side for a high performer, throwing in a beefier title seems like a good way to reward an employee.

2.  Retention Concerns - A manager may believe that a high performer values title and prestige over money, and thus feels pressured to deliver a paper title to a high performer - although their role won't change via the promotion.

3.  Customer Clout - A title occasionally is bestowed on a high performer based on the rationalization that the employee holds a position that is key in dealing with (often negotiating) customers.  In this space, the title is rationalized as being helpful in giving the employee the authority he/she needs with customers. 

4.  Internal Equity - Managers may feel pressure from certain high performers to promote them aggressively in title, due to the titles that others in the organization have for their respective roles.  This factor is intensified when the employee feels like they are on uneven ground with the other direct reports of the manager in question.

Left to the chaos of a non-standardized organization (especially with a decentralized HR function), everyone does their own thing (which is to give out titles without much structure or consistency).   Then someone in the org runs a report, and discovers the mailroom services guy is an AVP (Associate Vice President for all you non-title inflators out there).

You know the drill, especially if you have spent time in a larger company.  What follows the AVP of Mailroom Services discovery is a title standardization campaign leaving many (and I mean many) employee relations issues (hard feelings) as titles are stripped away and replaced by more realistic tags describing what the employees actually do (or as close as they can get).

Been through some of that - it's always much better to provide a little resistance up front and make sure all in the org are on board before handing out inflated titles.  Best place to start?  No manager titles if the person doesn't manage direct reports, and no Director or VP titles if the person doesn't manage managers who have direct reports (multiple layers in their organization). 

After all, you don't want the two Bobs asking YOU about the titles...   

42% of Tampa Bus Drivers Have Signed Up for Intermittent Leave..(!)

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

Does Your Company Sponsor Employee Clubs? Not Even a Wine Club?

Kristina Shevory has a cool article up at the New York Times about employee clubs.  From her article at the NYT:

"Fat paychecks, pensions and health insurance are not enough to recruit and keep employees these days. Companies are again finding that adding a bit of social context to work is crucial to keeping employees happy and productive. That is where employee clubs come in. Workplace specialists say clubs are a way to build camaraderie and help people get to know fellow employees away from work. Companies benefit, too. Clubs help create loyal employees, reduce turnover and improve morale while costing very little."

Interesting stuff.  I should know because she called me last year (found me from the HR Capitalist) and we talked about the challenges for employers who aren't Boeing or Google.  It was good conversation, and we talked about things that cash-challenged companies can do.

We talked for about 30 minutes.  What she quoted me on serves as a cautionary tale.  Here's my quote from the story.  Get ready to channel the Grinch:

"Still, perks can be impermanent. During the technology boom in the 1990s, companies piled on the benefits to attract talent and then promptly got rid of them when the economy soured. Many companies, whether they are battling bankruptcy or are flush with cash, have rolled back benefits, eliminated pensions and increased health care premiums to reduce expenses. Any nonessential perk, like an employee club, is also fair game.

“If they ever existed, the first thing that goes is the frilly, frilly stuff,” said Kris Dunn, vice president for human resources at SourceMedical, a Birmingham, Ala., software company, and author of the blog The HR Capitalist."

Bah Humbug... So my quote is true, but Mercer and the consultants get the fun quotes.  I get the fiscal hawk quote.... The HR person's trying to take all the fun out of the workplace...

Check out the article, it's a good read.  Finding out that Boeing funds over 100 employee clubs at seven locations nationwide is kind of like finding out that a Massage Therapist from Google is now a millionaire from her stock options.

It's hard to relate to from the trenches.... Boeing has a VP of Wine....

Kristina Shevory has a cool article up at the New York Times about employee clubs.  From her article at the NYT:

"Fat paychecks, pensions and health insurance are not enough to recruit and keep employees these days. Companies are again finding that adding a bit of social context to work is crucial to keeping employees happy and productive. That is where employee clubs come in. Workplace specialists say clubs are a way to build camaraderie and help people get to know fellow employees away from work. Companies benefit, too. Clubs help create loyal employees, reduce turnover and improve morale while costing very little."

Interesting stuff.  I should know because she called me last year (found me from the HR Capitalist) and we talked about the challenges for employers who aren't Boeing or Google.  It was good conversation, and we talked about things that cash-challenged companies can do.

We talked for about 30 minutes.  What she quoted me on serves as a cautionary tale.  Here's my quote from the story.  Get ready to channel the Grinch:

"Still, perks can be impermanent. During the technology boom in the 1990s, companies piled on the benefits to attract talent and then promptly got rid of them when the economy soured. Many companies, whether they are battling bankruptcy or are flush with cash, have rolled back benefits, eliminated pensions and increased health care premiums to reduce expenses. Any nonessential perk, like an employee club, is also fair game.

“If they ever existed, the first thing that goes is the frilly, frilly stuff,” said Kris Dunn, vice president for human resources at SourceMedical, a Birmingham, Ala., software company, and author of the blog The HR Capitalist."

Bah Humbug... So my quote is true, but Mercer and the consultants get the fun quotes.  I get the fiscal hawk quote.... The HR person's trying to take all the fun out of the workplace...

Check out the article, it's a good read.  Finding out that Boeing funds over 100 employee clubs at seven locations nationwide is kind of like finding out that a Massage Therapist from Google is now a millionaire from her stock options.

It's hard to relate to from the trenches.... Boeing has a VP of Wine....

HR Nightmare - Web 2.0 Meets Layoffs...

There's nothing cool about layoffs.  Whether you are an impacted employee or an HR person charged with holding meetings, there's not much positive to be found.

Leave it to Web 2.0 to liven up layoffs.  Or to take it to the next level of desperation.  All depends on your perspective.

Ryan Kuder lost his job at Yahoo on Tuesday. He was senior manager of integrated campaign strategy at Yahoo.   The Web 2.0 twist?   He Twittered how he was feeling throughout his last day.

For my 1.0 friends, Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send "updates" (or "tweets"; text-based posts, up to 140 characters long) to the Twitter website, via short message service, instant messaging, or a third-party application such as Twitterrific.

Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them.

Ryan apparently loves Twitter, because he Twittered throughout the day he was laid-off.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'm erring with the mantra "transparency is good".  From the rundown at Valleywag:

"Lots of whispered conversations. Like people are afraid to ask who's gone. about 4 hours ago

Dear Blackberry, What great times we had. I'll miss you. At least until tonight when I stop on my way home and buy an iPhone. Love, Me about 4 hours ago

Oh...and my badge. He's going to take that too. Will I be able to get a latte for the road still? about 4 hours ago

I'm going dark in a few minutes. The HR guy is on his way over to confiscate my laptop. about 4 hours ago

Last free triple non-fat latte from Beantrees. Sniff. about 3 hours ago

Signing off from Yahoo!. Fade to black... about 3 hours ago

Celebrating unemployment with a giant margarita at Chevy's. 5 minutes ago"

There's nothing cool about layoffs.  Whether you are an impacted employee or an HR person charged with holding meetings, there's not much positive to be found.

Leave it to Web 2.0 to liven up layoffs.  Or to take it to the next level of desperation.  All depends on your perspective.

Ryan Kuder lost his job at Yahoo on Tuesday. He was senior manager of integrated campaign strategy at Yahoo.   The Web 2.0 twist?   He Twittered how he was feeling throughout his last day.

For my 1.0 friends, Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send "updates" (or "tweets"; text-based posts, up to 140 characters long) to the Twitter website, via short message service, instant messaging, or a third-party application such as Twitterrific.

Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and instantly delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them.

Ryan apparently loves Twitter, because he Twittered throughout the day he was laid-off.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'm erring with the mantra "transparency is good".  From the rundown at Valleywag:

"Lots of whispered conversations. Like people are afraid to ask who's gone. about 4 hours ago

Dear Blackberry, What great times we had. I'll miss you. At least until tonight when I stop on my way home and buy an iPhone. Love, Me about 4 hours ago

Oh...and my badge. He's going to take that too. Will I be able to get a latte for the road still? about 4 hours ago

I'm going dark in a few minutes. The HR guy is on his way over to confiscate my laptop. about 4 hours ago

Last free triple non-fat latte from Beantrees. Sniff. about 3 hours ago

Signing off from Yahoo!. Fade to black... about 3 hours ago

Celebrating unemployment with a giant margarita at Chevy's. 5 minutes ago"

Best Superbowl Ad - The NFL Network's "Employee Referral Program" Ad....

Anyone beside me think it was a weak Super Bowl, in terms of the commercials?  It just seemed that the laughs were few, and the quality was poor, with a few exceptions...

My vote for best ad was an easy one.  During the playoffs, the NFL ran a contest where they allowed every player in the league to step in front of the camera and tell a unique story about their life in the league.  The reward for the winner?  To be featured in the NFL Network's 30-second spot during Super Bowl XLII.

The winner was Ephriam Salaam of the Houston Texans, who tells the story of his personal experience, in the form of an "employee referral program."  Here's a rundown of the story from www.houstontexans.com:

"The commercial tells how Salaam, while at San Diego State University, convinced Pitts to try out for the Aztecs football team. Pitts was a student working as a grocery bagger at a local supermarket. He had attended a math and science academy in high school, which had no football team.

But he heeded Salaam’s advice, walked on to the team and, a few years later, had developed so rapidly that he was selected by the Texans in the second round of the 2002 NFL Draft.

Salaam, a seventh-round draft choice by the Atlanta Falcons in 1998, reunited with Pitts in Houston as a free agent signee in 2006. He since has started 30 consecutive games next to his former college teammate on the left side of the offensive line.

“It is a phenomenal story that is true,” Salaam said. “Hollywood couldn’t write a script like this. We’re playing next to each other. How about that? I’m having fun playing next to one of my close friends that I knew before football and that doesn’t happen, ever.”

When I saw the commercial, I immediately thought of how all of us have tried at times to have managers and employees carry referral cards, usually with weak results, because most of the folks we were arming with the cards aren't salespeople.  The last thing they want to do is pitch someone on a job.

Then you see a story like this and remember that the best hires are equal parts chance, fate and awareness.  Makes me want to run out and create this type of commercial in an employment branding campaign.

Enjoy the spot if you didn't see it.  Make sure you think twice about the checkout clerk that gives you great service.  You might be missing an obvious hire...

You Should Play Football - NFL

Anyone beside me think it was a weak Super Bowl, in terms of the commercials?  It just seemed that the laughs were few, and the quality was poor, with a few exceptions...

My vote for best ad was an easy one.  During the playoffs, the NFL ran a contest where they allowed every player in the league to step in front of the camera and tell a unique story about their life in the league.  The reward for the winner?  To be featured in the NFL Network's 30-second spot during Super Bowl XLII.

The winner was Ephriam Salaam of the Houston Texans, who tells the story of his personal experience, in the form of an "employee referral program."  Here's a rundown of the story from www.houstontexans.com:

"The commercial tells how Salaam, while at San Diego State University, convinced Pitts to try out for the Aztecs football team. Pitts was a student working as a grocery bagger at a local supermarket. He had attended a math and science academy in high school, which had no football team.

But he heeded Salaam’s advice, walked on to the team and, a few years later, had developed so rapidly that he was selected by the Texans in the second round of the 2002 NFL Draft.

Salaam, a seventh-round draft choice by the Atlanta Falcons in 1998, reunited with Pitts in Houston as a free agent signee in 2006. He since has started 30 consecutive games next to his former college teammate on the left side of the offensive line.

“It is a phenomenal story that is true,” Salaam said. “Hollywood couldn’t write a script like this. We’re playing next to each other. How about that? I’m having fun playing next to one of my close friends that I knew before football and that doesn’t happen, ever.”

When I saw the commercial, I immediately thought of how all of us have tried at times to have managers and employees carry referral cards, usually with weak results, because most of the folks we were arming with the cards aren't salespeople.  The last thing they want to do is pitch someone on a job.

Then you see a story like this and remember that the best hires are equal parts chance, fate and awareness.  Makes me want to run out and create this type of commercial in an employment branding campaign.

Enjoy the spot if you didn't see it.  Make sure you think twice about the checkout clerk that gives you great service.  You might be missing an obvious hire...

You Should Play Football - NFL

The Many HR Uses of the Word "Dude"...

I was watching the wild card playoff games in the NFL over the weekend.  The clear winner?  Not the Chargers, Jaguars, Giants or Seahawks.  For me, the clear winner is Bud Light and their series of "Dude" commercials, which show a specific person using "Dude" in at least ten different contexts in his life.

That got me thinking - how many different ways do HR Managers, Directors and VPs use the word "dude" in their day-to-day professional lives?  The number has to range in the hundreds, but here's my top 5 after doing a little brainstorming:

-After hearing of an event sure to result in a termination ("Dude" with a sense of disdain, slow head nod in the "no" motion)...

-In an effort to correct someone on the fly who is making a career limiting decision/statement ("Dude" with a sense of urgency and alarm, eyes wide open)...

-In a moment of weakness after seeing a large, self-insured medical invoice for your company ("Dude" with a sense of despair and an external locus of control, falling back in your chair from the upright position)...

-In an effort to get a little privacy when you are holding a private meeting with an employee and someone does a quick knock and walks in ("Dude" with a sense of disbelief, hand out with palm pointing upwards to show the fact you need a little privacy)...

-To confirm with hiring manager that you have found the perfect candidate for the open spot on their team (Walking into their office after both of you have interviewed the candidate and you're stopping by to compare notes.  "Dude" with both hands open as you walk in like you expect to hug it out)...

I'm sure you can think of others that rule your workday.  Hit me in the comments with your freshest example and enjoy the many meanings of "Dude" below...

I was watching the wild card playoff games in the NFL over the weekend.  The clear winner?  Not the Chargers, Jaguars, Giants or Seahawks.  For me, the clear winner is Bud Light and their series of "Dude" commercials, which show a specific person using "Dude" in at least ten different contexts in his life.

That got me thinking - how many different ways do HR Managers, Directors and VPs use the word "dude" in their day-to-day professional lives?  The number has to range in the hundreds, but here's my top 5 after doing a little brainstorming:

-After hearing of an event sure to result in a termination ("Dude" with a sense of disdain, slow head nod in the "no" motion)...

-In an effort to correct someone on the fly who is making a career limiting decision/statement ("Dude" with a sense of urgency and alarm, eyes wide open)...

-In a moment of weakness after seeing a large, self-insured medical invoice for your company ("Dude" with a sense of despair and an external locus of control, falling back in your chair from the upright position)...

-In an effort to get a little privacy when you are holding a private meeting with an employee and someone does a quick knock and walks in ("Dude" with a sense of disbelief, hand out with palm pointing upwards to show the fact you need a little privacy)...

-To confirm with hiring manager that you have found the perfect candidate for the open spot on their team (Walking into their office after both of you have interviewed the candidate and you're stopping by to compare notes.  "Dude" with both hands open as you walk in like you expect to hug it out)...

I'm sure you can think of others that rule your workday.  Hit me in the comments with your freshest example and enjoy the many meanings of "Dude" below...

Lie on the Job Like Ferris - Is It OK to Use Sick Days for Job Interviews?

Everyone loved Ferris except for Ed Rooney.  How about you?   Do you look the other way when people use sick days to kick back?  Do your feelings depend on what the person is using the sick days for?

A BusinessWeek Interactive Case Study recently asked the following question - Is it OK for a solid, high-performing employee to use sick time, for non-illness related events, in order to save their vacation and personal days, for other uses?

Here's the crux of the case from BusinessWeek:

"In this case scenario, we visit a senior IT director at an insurance corporation. Although he has a  great relationship with superiors and subordinates alike, he wants a new job (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). The top brass consistently skimps on the funds needed to upgrade the company's technology to the state of the art, and he fears he will get stale in his present position. Plus, he's moving out of the city and buying a house in the suburbs. The commute would be an hour-and-a-half each way. He owes it to himself to move on.

When his first interview comes up—with the human resources department, at a corporation 50 miles from his office—our executive can't stomach the thought of using his little remaining vacation or personal time. The morning of the interview, he calls his supervisor and says he's not feeling well, that he suspects it's bronchitis, and he'll need to use a sick day to see a doctor.

His boss is understanding, of course. The man rarely calls in sick, so there must be a good reason for it now. But did our executive do the right thing?"

This case hits you with an extreme from the start- not only is the guy telling a lie, but he's doing it to take time off from work to get another job.  That's an emotional powder-keg for the people charged with enforcing policies.  Bad style point #1 on his part.

Here's my take on bad style point #2.  He's a mid-to-upper level manager.  Since he's answering his blackberry in the shower (details from the case study when you click through), I'm assuming he's not a 9 to 5 guy, nor is he viewed as that.  With that, and the fact that he's a technology professional, I'd hope that he could wrangle the ability to work remotely for the half-day he needs for the interview (hour to and from, 2 hours for the initial process at the company).  I'd also hope that he could remain productive and do this occasionally without anyone getting anxious. 

If he can't figure that out, I probably don't want him as my Director of IT - with new technologies leading the charge for IT professionals and all...  As a HR person, I want to manage performance - not office hours here and there for a solid, well-regarded professional.

Of course, if he can't work remotely when he has to in his current culture, maybe that type of inflexibility is the real reason he's looking.

PS- From the HR perspective, I like to be liberal with the use of sick time.  Use it for anything related to illness - including the care of others.  Just do me the solid of not showing up at Outback that night.  Or me seeing you walk in a corporate office park across town where I have a meeting.   Also, to my PTO friends out there who never have to deal with this scenario, track the Healthy Families Act closely, because you may be tearing down your PTO policy if the HFA becomes law...

And you're correct - it's never OK to lie about that type of thing.  Unless you have the max cool factor like Ferris.  Then you'd make the HR people chasing you look like Ed Rooney...

Everyone loved Ferris except for Ed Rooney.  How about you?   Do you look the other way when people use sick days to kick back?  Do your feelings depend on what the person is using the sick days for?

A BusinessWeek Interactive Case Study recently asked the following question - Is it OK for a solid, high-performing employee to use sick time, for non-illness related events, in order to save their vacation and personal days, for other uses?

Here's the crux of the case from BusinessWeek:

"In this case scenario, we visit a senior IT director at an insurance corporation. Although he has a  great relationship with superiors and subordinates alike, he wants a new job (BusinessWeek.com, 10/16/07). The top brass consistently skimps on the funds needed to upgrade the company's technology to the state of the art, and he fears he will get stale in his present position. Plus, he's moving out of the city and buying a house in the suburbs. The commute would be an hour-and-a-half each way. He owes it to himself to move on.

When his first interview comes up—with the human resources department, at a corporation 50 miles from his office—our executive can't stomach the thought of using his little remaining vacation or personal time. The morning of the interview, he calls his supervisor and says he's not feeling well, that he suspects it's bronchitis, and he'll need to use a sick day to see a doctor.

His boss is understanding, of course. The man rarely calls in sick, so there must be a good reason for it now. But did our executive do the right thing?"

This case hits you with an extreme from the start- not only is the guy telling a lie, but he's doing it to take time off from work to get another job.  That's an emotional powder-keg for the people charged with enforcing policies.  Bad style point #1 on his part.

Here's my take on bad style point #2.  He's a mid-to-upper level manager.  Since he's answering his blackberry in the shower (details from the case study when you click through), I'm assuming he's not a 9 to 5 guy, nor is he viewed as that.  With that, and the fact that he's a technology professional, I'd hope that he could wrangle the ability to work remotely for the half-day he needs for the interview (hour to and from, 2 hours for the initial process at the company).  I'd also hope that he could remain productive and do this occasionally without anyone getting anxious. 

If he can't figure that out, I probably don't want him as my Director of IT - with new technologies leading the charge for IT professionals and all...  As a HR person, I want to manage performance - not office hours here and there for a solid, well-regarded professional.

Of course, if he can't work remotely when he has to in his current culture, maybe that type of inflexibility is the real reason he's looking.

PS- From the HR perspective, I like to be liberal with the use of sick time.  Use it for anything related to illness - including the care of others.  Just do me the solid of not showing up at Outback that night.  Or me seeing you walk in a corporate office park across town where I have a meeting.   Also, to my PTO friends out there who never have to deal with this scenario, track the Healthy Families Act closely, because you may be tearing down your PTO policy if the HFA becomes law...

And you're correct - it's never OK to lie about that type of thing.  Unless you have the max cool factor like Ferris.  Then you'd make the HR people chasing you look like Ed Rooney...

Why the Girl Scouts Think HR People Hate Them...

Stop me when you've heard one of these scenarios before:

-HR Team huddles to determine what to do about Mary, who has posted a flyer in the break room touting the fact she's now selling Amway on the side, and her prices are great...

-HR Managers debates how to handle the request by a local credit union to come in and do a workshop on the benefits of Credit Unions....

-HR Team gets a complaint from the floor about Fred, who is selling Girl Scout Cookies out of a suitcase located in his cube and actively approaching employees and asking for their patronage.

Why are we forced to think long and hard about these situations?  Everyone say it with me - NON-SOLICITATION POLICY!!  Everyone has one in their handbooks, and I'm always surprised that a lot of HR people don't fully comprehend why those policies are there.

Still, the execution of the non-solicitation policy is more art than science.

First up, of course we don't want employees to face a daily barrage of closet entrepreneurs selling stuff in the workplace.  More importantly, the non-solicitation policy is grounded in a desire to remain union-free.  If you have a non-solicitation policy in place and enforce it, the NLRB will generally uphold your ability to prevent unions from being on your property to solicit support from employees.

If you don't have that policy, or more common, don't enforce it, the NLRB will likely allow unions to come on your property to solicit employees, since you are allowing others to solicit your employees on site as well.

The scope of the non-solicitation policy has been expanded to include email based on a recent court decision. From CBS4.com in Miami:

"Employers can prohibit workers from using the office e-mail system for union activities, so long as they prohibit solicitations from any outside organization, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.

The board said its 3-2 decision sets a new labor relations standard that allows employers to prohibit union activity through the company's e-mail system while at the same time permitting office chitchat and personal messages.

The decision, released Friday, upheld the management of the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper in a case involving e-mail messages sent by Suzi Prozanski, a copy editor and Newspaper Guild leader, during contract negotiations in 2000 and the warnings the company gave her.

The board said two of the messages were "solicitations to support the union," and the company was justified in enforcing a policy that forbade the use of e-mail for "non-job-related solicitations." It ruled against the paper on a third message, saying it was "simply a clarification of facts surrounding a recent union event."

I hate saying no to the sale of girl scout cookies, school sales, etc.  I'm usually a "no-harm, no-foul" type of person, but every time I see one of these cases it always perks up my sensitivity to solicitation in the workplace.

I won't come out against girl scout cookies, lest I get blown out in the workplace version of the Iowa caucus.  I prefer to say yes to informal bumps in the parking lot between employees with business that gets done verbally, and no to posted flyers, the use of email to solicit, etc.      

You have to say no to some organizations you like (credit union, formal girl scout cookie marketing?) to keep the ones you don't want around your organization at bay.  That kind of stinks.... 

Stop me when you've heard one of these scenarios before:

-HR Team huddles to determine what to do about Mary, who has posted a flyer in the break room touting the fact she's now selling Amway on the side, and her prices are great...

-HR Managers debates how to handle the request by a local credit union to come in and do a workshop on the benefits of Credit Unions....

-HR Team gets a complaint from the floor about Fred, who is selling Girl Scout Cookies out of a suitcase located in his cube and actively approaching employees and asking for their patronage.

Why are we forced to think long and hard about these situations?  Everyone say it with me - NON-SOLICITATION POLICY!!  Everyone has one in their handbooks, and I'm always surprised that a lot of HR people don't fully comprehend why those policies are there.

Still, the execution of the non-solicitation policy is more art than science.

First up, of course we don't want employees to face a daily barrage of closet entrepreneurs selling stuff in the workplace.  More importantly, the non-solicitation policy is grounded in a desire to remain union-free.  If you have a non-solicitation policy in place and enforce it, the NLRB will generally uphold your ability to prevent unions from being on your property to solicit support from employees.

If you don't have that policy, or more common, don't enforce it, the NLRB will likely allow unions to come on your property to solicit employees, since you are allowing others to solicit your employees on site as well.

The scope of the non-solicitation policy has been expanded to include email based on a recent court decision. From CBS4.com in Miami:

"Employers can prohibit workers from using the office e-mail system for union activities, so long as they prohibit solicitations from any outside organization, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.

The board said its 3-2 decision sets a new labor relations standard that allows employers to prohibit union activity through the company's e-mail system while at the same time permitting office chitchat and personal messages.

The decision, released Friday, upheld the management of the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper in a case involving e-mail messages sent by Suzi Prozanski, a copy editor and Newspaper Guild leader, during contract negotiations in 2000 and the warnings the company gave her.

The board said two of the messages were "solicitations to support the union," and the company was justified in enforcing a policy that forbade the use of e-mail for "non-job-related solicitations." It ruled against the paper on a third message, saying it was "simply a clarification of facts surrounding a recent union event."

I hate saying no to the sale of girl scout cookies, school sales, etc.  I'm usually a "no-harm, no-foul" type of person, but every time I see one of these cases it always perks up my sensitivity to solicitation in the workplace.

I won't come out against girl scout cookies, lest I get blown out in the workplace version of the Iowa caucus.  I prefer to say yes to informal bumps in the parking lot between employees with business that gets done verbally, and no to posted flyers, the use of email to solicit, etc.      

You have to say no to some organizations you like (credit union, formal girl scout cookie marketing?) to keep the ones you don't want around your organization at bay.  That kind of stinks.... 

George Bush is no Scrooge - Federal Employees off on Christmas Eve...

George Bush can't be called Scrooge this year.  He just gave all non-essential Federal employees Christmas Eve off...

From the Washington Post coverage:

"President Bush Thursday issued an executive order closing the federal government on 2007 Christmas Eve, a Monday.

Federal employees are "excused from duty" that day, except for those employees who agencies determine should be at work "for reasons of national security or defense or other public need," the order says.

E-mails have whizzed across the government in recent days as employees tried to figure out whether Bush would grant them a day off on Christmas Eve, as he did in 2001, when Dec. 24 also fell on a Monday. The topic even popped up Wednesday on Federal Diary Live, a discussion session on http://washingtonpost.com.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter also gave employees the entire day off when Christmas Eve landed on a Monday. Ronald Reagan approved three hours of excused absence, and George Bush the Elder gave employees a half-day holiday in 1990."

Good for Bush and the Federal employees.  Is there a day on the calendar where less gets done in the workplace than Christmas Eve?

I wonder how they handle this at CTU?  Is Jack Bauer off or does he have to work?  If he has to work, does he get a comp day off when his workload slows down a bit?

George Bush can't be called Scrooge this year.  He just gave all non-essential Federal employees Christmas Eve off...

From the Washington Post coverage:

"President Bush Thursday issued an executive order closing the federal government on 2007 Christmas Eve, a Monday.

Federal employees are "excused from duty" that day, except for those employees who agencies determine should be at work "for reasons of national security or defense or other public need," the order says.

E-mails have whizzed across the government in recent days as employees tried to figure out whether Bush would grant them a day off on Christmas Eve, as he did in 2001, when Dec. 24 also fell on a Monday. The topic even popped up Wednesday on Federal Diary Live, a discussion session on http://washingtonpost.com.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter also gave employees the entire day off when Christmas Eve landed on a Monday. Ronald Reagan approved three hours of excused absence, and George Bush the Elder gave employees a half-day holiday in 1990."

Good for Bush and the Federal employees.  Is there a day on the calendar where less gets done in the workplace than Christmas Eve?

I wonder how they handle this at CTU?  Is Jack Bauer off or does he have to work?  If he has to work, does he get a comp day off when his workload slows down a bit?

Approve My Headcount Budget Or Everyone Is Fired...

You think your budget process is tough?  Really?  Does it involve you posting layoff notices to large numbers of employees unless your budget is approved?

No?  Then your budget hardball is nothing compared to what goes on this time of year in Washington.   

From the Washington Post:

"200,000 Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department's Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.

The warning came a day after Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) released a letter, signed by seven other Washington area House members, calling on the Pentagon to shift money around in the department's many budget accounts to stave off furloughs.

"This is an old budget showdown tactic -- and they're using federal employees' livelihoods as leverage in a turf battle with Congress," Moran said."

Maybe that 21-inch monitor that got denied in my budget isn't such a big deal. 

You think your budget process is tough?  Really?  Does it involve you posting layoff notices to large numbers of employees unless your budget is approved?

No?  Then your budget hardball is nothing compared to what goes on this time of year in Washington.   

From the Washington Post:

"200,000 Federal employees who work for the Army may get layoff notices before Christmas if Congress and the White House do not reach an accord on funding for the Iraq war, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The warning, posted near the top of the Defense Department's Web site, was the latest in a series from Pentagon officials in recent weeks.

The warning came a day after Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) released a letter, signed by seven other Washington area House members, calling on the Pentagon to shift money around in the department's many budget accounts to stave off furloughs.

"This is an old budget showdown tactic -- and they're using federal employees' livelihoods as leverage in a turf battle with Congress," Moran said."

Maybe that 21-inch monitor that got denied in my budget isn't such a big deal. 

Smoking Discrimination - Truth or Fiction for HR Departments?

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....

If you're like me, one of the things that keeps you up at night is the cost of healthcare.  So much so, I've followed the recent news that companies have begun to penalize smokers and employees with other risk factors (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) with great interest.  It seems like an eventual fact that those who display voluntary risk factors will pay via higher employee contributions/premiums than employees who don't engage in the same risky behavior.

Of course, smoking's the easy one, since it's safely classified as voluntary.  The other health metrics (blood  pressure, etc) are more problematic, since heredity and other factors are at play.

So, Open Enrollment season is upon us.  I didn't take the leap and consider raising employee contributions for those that smoke, and certainly didn't raise them for poor scores in the health metrics.

The biggest issue for me?  I'm at a startup, and I know all the people who work at our company.  It's one thing to mandate increased premiums for smokers when you are sitting in the Death Star of a Fortune 500, it's another thing all together when you see those that smoke every day.  Much tougher to make the business decision that probably will ultimately be necessary or routine as an early adapter when you are at a place where everybody knows your name...

So, it's no to increased premiums for smokers this year, and yes to finding a toehold for a cessation program sometime soon. 

Then I see the following information - Health Populi puts the true cost of smoking at $222 per pack over a lifetime...

Maybe I'm doing no one a favor by waiting another year to be more aggressive.....