SHRMingham

Firearms in the office - Help or hindrance

In light of the recent shooting at the University of Alabama Huntsville campus, the gun bill at the Alabama Senate seems to be getting attention.

If you’ve been hiding under a rock, or stranded in London for the past week, a professor at UAH opened fire on campus; three individuals lost their lives.

This bill, according to the local CBS affiliate, “would eliminate an employers right to ban firearms on company grounds.”  Many HR Professionals, self included, have written and preached the anti-gun policies in our companies.  However, many believe this is a violation of their second amendment rights; those of us in HR fail to see how having guns on the premises can help any situation.

BSHRM’s own Kimberly Pruitt spoke with the CBS affiliate:

Kimberly Pruitt with the Birmingham Society of Human Resources Management says her organization is opposed to legislation.

Pruitt believes that employers should retain the right to decide policy within the workplace and adds that anti-gun policies are designed to to decrease the opportunity for violence in the workplace.

I personally tend to agree with Pruitt; these policies are put in place to protect the employees.  That said, one commenter on the article says:

“What good does a firearm do me if I'm walking to my car in a bad part of town & I'm accosted? No good at all. Firearms in the correct hands could actually save an employee's life, not to mention the employer's life.”

What are your thoughts on this bill?

Editors note: April Dowling, SPHR is an HR Generalist in  Birmingham, AL.  She writes her own blog over at www.pseudohr.com where she likes to talk about leadership, HR, recruiting and anything else that comes to mind.  In her spare time, whatever that is,  April likes to read, write, and did we mention read? 

January Meeting Recap - The Mental Health Parity Act...

If you missed the January meeting, you missed a great rundown of the Mental Health Parity Act, which goes into effect on 1/1/10 and will have many companies scrambling to ensure their mental health and substance abuse benefits are equal to coverage in other areas of healthcare.  Our speaker at the January meeting, Maureen Gleason, VP of Operations for American Behavioral, gives you the one minute version below: 

(Email subscribers - click through to website for video if you don't see it below)

Special thanks to American Behavioral for sponsoring our January meeting.  Meanwhile, if you are wondering who American Behavioral is, here's a rundown from Bobby Harris, AB's Director of Sales....

Coffeehouse Case Study - Does Fighting Unions Really Hurt the Starbucks Image and Culture?

As you may be aware, Starbucks (still love you SB, signed - KD) is in a bit of trouble these days. Let's count the ways.  First, people are generally less willing to pay $3 to $5 for a cup of coffee in this economy.  Even the people who can still afford it are questioning the legitimacy of their caffeine jones being satisfied by the green team at Starbucks. 

Next, the Seattle retailer seems to have hit a growth plateau.  For years, their year over year growth targets were satisfied by the fact they opened hundreds (if not thousands) of stores per year.  The Seattle retailer seems to have hit its store saturation point, as evidenced by the fact they closed hundreds of under-performing stores in 2008.  I'm still disappointed a Starbucks hasn't opened at the top of my cul-de-sac, but hey, maybe it will happen after we are out of the recession.

Finally, there are a lot of folks who claim the store environment and the service provided has become average, as Starbucks went from 2 to 50 locations in your town.  Additionally, like any other big retailer, Starbucks has developed some labor relations issues, having to react to small union organizing attempts at specific locations.

More on Starbucks' union organizing blues from BusinessWeek:

"Starbucks (SBUX), once the undisputed leader in premium-price caffeine fixes, has long cultivated a corporate image for social responsibility, environmental awareness, and sensitivity to workers' rights. Now that carefully crafted reputation is under assault, thanks to a messy legal dispute with a group called the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) (part of the Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW), which started recruiting employees in 2004 and now claims 300 members.

The National Labor Relations Board found on Dec. 23 that Starbucks had illegally fired three New York City baristas as it tried to squelch the union organizing effort. The 88-page ruling also says the company broke the law by giving negative job evaluations to other union supporters and prohibiting employees from discussing union issues at work. The judge ordered that the three baristas be reinstated and receive back wages. The judge also called on Starbucks to end discriminatory treatment of other pro-union workers at four Manhattan locations named in the case. The decision marks the end of an 18-month trial in New York City that pitted the ubiquitous multinational corporation against a group of twentysomething baristas who are part of the Industrial Workers of the World.

Starbucks intends to appeal the decision. The company maintained during the trial that the baristas were fired for perfectly legal reasons, such as disrupting business in its stores or threatening a manager. "This is an issue with particular employees," says Tara Darrow, a Starbucks spokeswoman. "We felt we handled it consistently and fairly. In this particular situation the NLRB disagreed. We're disappointed with that."

Before you envision picket lines at your local coffee shop, let's keep things in perspective.  It appears by the article that no store has been organized or certified via a "yes" vote in an election.  Here's the scope of what we are talking about.  Starbucks has 70,000 employees, the labor union in question has been working for 4 years and counts 300 Starbucks employees who claim to be members.  That's less than half a percentage point.  It's something, but not necessarily impressive or staggering.

Now, let's mix the expectations of a Starbucks customer with the charges the company is appealing, and the normal M.O. of a union.  You know what I like when I walk into a well-managed Starbucks?  Hustle and cheerful service.  Be nice to me and hustle to get me in and out.  Starbucks claims they took action on the employees because they were disrupting business.  Here's how that works with a union - a union contract RESTRICTS the work each employee can perform.  I'm guessing the employees in question were disrupting business by refusing to multli-task behind the counter or other refusals that hurt the customer.  What would you do with that if you were Starbucks?  Is the customer the most important thing to the culture or not?

Finally, a note on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  If the EFCA passes in 2009 as written (with card check front and center), the employees who disrupted the business flow of Starbucks are the ones who get together and approach co-workers as a team and ask them to sign a card authorizing a union.  Guess what happens with that version of the EFCA?  The employees who most typify the culture of Starbucks (service and hustle) lose the right to a confidential vote regarding whether they want to be unionized or not.  If they give in to the peer pressure or intimidation, they can't vote in private.  Their vote is gone.

So Starbucks, if you're out there and reading, count this frequent customer as one who believes that remaining union-free is in the best interest of the customer and consistent with the brand, culture and image of Starbucks.  

Now can I get that Venti Mild, stat?

BSHRM Speaks - Poll Results on the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)...

As you may remember, BSHRM recently asked our membership if BSHRM should show support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in an upcoming Capitol Hill visit... 

The ENDA’s purpose is to provide a comprehensive federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. The act mentions several areas in which discrimination is banned, including labor organizations, employment policies and procedures, training programs, and employment agencies essentially mirroring existing Title VII language on those issues. Furthermore, the act does reject quotas, disparate impact claims, and provides an exemption for religious organizations.

While national SHRM supported the bill, several of our members expressed concern regarding the way the bill was written, including issues related to problems defining sexual orientation, the broadness of the bill that included "associational discrimination", conflict with current laws surrounding free exercise of religion, as well as the general vagueness of the bill.

With that in mind, we asked our members to give us their views via a BSHRM Flash Poll.  Here's what we heard:

Total Members Voting (127)

1. Do you advocate BSHRM supporting the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) as currently written?

-Yes - 34 Votes (33.0%)
-No -  93 Votes (73.2%)

2.  If you voted "no", could modifications be made to the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would allow you to support the bill?

-Yes - 36 Votes (26.8%)
-No - 57 Votes (52.3%)
-N/A - 16 Votes (14.7)

3.  What modifications could be made to the ENDA that would allow you to support the bill? (Check all that apply)

-A. I don't need modifications, I support the bill as currently written - 19 Votes (24.1%)
-B. More Precise Definition of "Perceived Sexual Orientation" - 41 Votes (51.9%)
-C. Elimination of "Associational Discrimination" Language in Bill - 39 Votes (49.4%)
-D. Resolution of Conflicts on ENDA with Free Exercise of Religion - 34 Votes (43.0%)
-E. Other (List in Comments)- 15 Votes (19%.0)

Hit me in the comments of this post with any questions or concerns about the poll.  The Hill visit team, led by VP of Government Affairs Kimberly Pruitt, used the poll results to share the collective thoughts of our membership with members of congress, which feels kind of progressive.  We'll try to do more flash polls in the future and use the results accordingly!

Vetting the Candidate's Spouse For Fun and Profit...

So, you're a seasoned pro and know what you can and can't ask in an interview.  Good for you - you're a legal eagle.

Ever drift into a conversation about spouses with a candidate?  Happens all the time, especially with candidiates you've developed a good conversation flow with who are...well...married.

Let's hope you didn't hear the following:

"Yeah, life with Sheryl has been great, except for":

1. "She's got a life threatening disease that may cause me to miss a year in the near future.  So obviously I like the quality of your medical plan."

2. "That episode where her expense reports were misinterpreted by the authorities.  We had to move to get a fresh start."

3. "The booze. And at times, the pills. It tends to make our family a bit of a roller coaster."

To be fair to HR pros who recruit and hiring managers everywhere, I've heard versions of all of these from candidates during my time as a HR player.  To be fair to me (like you), I didn't ask - I guess I made the candidate comfortable enough where they just told me all this stuff.

What's a HR pro to do?  Be thankful for most of your positions, vetting the stability and skills of the spouse isn't a requirement, because the higher you go in corporate America, the more it matters. 

More on vetting the spouse from the New York Times:

"IMAGINE the plight of the modern corporate director: you want to find the perfect chief executive to lead your organization, someone with top credentials and impeccable character. You know there is a heavy social component to the job — dinners, fund-raisers, travel — and so there is just one last thing you want to know.

What is the candidate’s spouse like?  It is an all-too-common situation that pits Miss Manners against decades of labor and anti-discrimination law. No, in states like New York, a board of directors cannot even legally ask job candidates if they are married.

But yes, this sort of vetting goes on regularly.

The spouse has always been a silent part of the executive package, with committed partners doing everything from packing overnight bags to throwing client-entertaining dinner parties. Sitcom spouses of the 1950s and 1960s were assumed to be job appendages for their husbands: Lucy cooked and ran the home when she was not trying to horn in on important business meetings, while Samantha on “Bewitched” tried not to cast too many spells on Darrin’s advertising clients.

Today, it is still widely understood that a charming and organized spouse can be a boon to an executive who must rub elbows and raise money. The demands may differ from field to field — in academia, for instance, the spouse may play a different role than in politics, corporate America or the nonprofit world — but in each case it is a big help if the spouse fits in."

Can you imagine having to go to dinner with the spouse of every candidate you hired?  WOW, or as they say in the Hindenburg business, "oh the humanity". 

It's hard enough to get sign-off on one person as the primary recruiter, so I'm glad the spouse doesn't have to be approved in most circumstances.  Still, if you're a player and bound for that Fortune 500 EVP of HR role, brace yourself - there will be some candidate with spouse dinners in your future. 

Let's just hope he or she doesn't have 3 Kojaks down before you're halfway done with your tea.

The Government - Here To Help and To Determine How Much Your Employees Are Worth...

A few months ago, I riffed on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  Under the act, the right to a confidential election/ballot for employees to vote for/against union representation is eliminated.  That’s a shocking right to take away from employees. It’s also a very, very big deal for HR pros and business at large. 

More great ideas from Washington are on the way.  Ann Bares and Mike Haberman have been active in speaking up against the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA).  Like the EFCA, it's got a great title.  Who can argue against fairness? 

The main thrust of the act is to address issues like gender pay equity, which is something all of us should look to impact on a daily basis in the offer and performance management process. 

The problem with the Paycheck Fairness Act is simple.  The bill overreaches by getting the DOL involved in telling you how you should value talent in your organization.  With that in mind, the question is pretty simple - who do you want valuing the 1,001 factors that go into decisions on how to compensate your talent?  The government, or your management team led by you, the gritty human capital pro?

You're kidding me on that question right?  Be sure to see the cuts originally riffed by HR Observations here and here.  Meanwhile, here's some fodder to think about from Compensation Force on the PFA:

"The Paycheck Fairness Act’s Section 7, like Section 3 discussed above, would directly involve the Department of Labor in the wage-setting process of employers, and, just as problematic, inject the widely-rejected theory of “comparable worth” into that process. And in deciding what jobs are worth to individual employers, the Government would apparently exclude consideration of some of the factors most relevant to that highly individualized determination, such as: marketplace value and supply and demand; the nature of a position vis-à-vis whether it involves physical labor; a company’s position in the marketplace; employers’ varying business needs and priorities; employees’ educational backgrounds; employees’ experience, both qualitatively and quantitatively; and regional differences.

There is more than enough here that ought to concern HR professionals, beginning with an unprecedented ability of government and the courts to insert themselves into all practices related to pay decisions, from performance management to job evaluation.  I'd like, however, to focus on a particular element of the Act: the requirement that a government mandated approach be used to, in effect, override market influences on compensation.  Like previous attempts at comparable worth legislation, this is based upon the argument that the market is biased against female dominated jobs, necessitating that its influence be nullified in setting employee pay.

I don't deny that gender pay differences exists; in fact I've posted on this topic before.  I do believe, however, that the influences behind gender based pay differences are varied and nuanced.  And my 20+ years of experience in compensation convinces me that aiming an instrument as blunt and misguided as the Paycheck Fairness Act at U.S. pay administration practices will have consequences that are more harmful than good - particularly in its aim to negate the impact of the market."

Again - pay equity GOOD (and many of you work towards this in your practice daily), government as a replacement for markets BAD.  Be a critical thinker, no matter how cushy the title of a bill sounds. 

What else would you expect from a site with "capitalist" in the name?  Be a business minded HR pro and follow the lead of Ann Bares and Mike Haberman on this one.  Write a letter, let your C-level folks know what's up and think about how much government you want running your business.

A few months ago, I riffed on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  Under the act, the right to a confidential election/ballot for employees to vote for/against union representation is eliminated.  That’s a shocking right to take away from employees. It’s also a very, very big deal for HR pros and business at large. 

More great ideas from Washington are on the way.  Ann Bares and Mike Haberman have been active in speaking up against the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA).  Like the EFCA, it's got a great title.  Who can argue against fairness? 

The main thrust of the act is to address issues like gender pay equity, which is something all of us should look to impact on a daily basis in the offer and performance management process. 

The problem with the Paycheck Fairness Act is simple.  The bill overreaches by getting the DOL involved in telling you how you should value talent in your organization.  With that in mind, the question is pretty simple - who do you want valuing the 1,001 factors that go into decisions on how to compensate your talent?  The government, or your management team led by you, the gritty human capital pro?

You're kidding me on that question right?  Be sure to see the cuts originally riffed by HR Observations here and here.  Meanwhile, here's some fodder to think about from Compensation Force on the PFA:

"The Paycheck Fairness Act’s Section 7, like Section 3 discussed above, would directly involve the Department of Labor in the wage-setting process of employers, and, just as problematic, inject the widely-rejected theory of “comparable worth” into that process. And in deciding what jobs are worth to individual employers, the Government would apparently exclude consideration of some of the factors most relevant to that highly individualized determination, such as: marketplace value and supply and demand; the nature of a position vis-à-vis whether it involves physical labor; a company’s position in the marketplace; employers’ varying business needs and priorities; employees’ educational backgrounds; employees’ experience, both qualitatively and quantitatively; and regional differences.

There is more than enough here that ought to concern HR professionals, beginning with an unprecedented ability of government and the courts to insert themselves into all practices related to pay decisions, from performance management to job evaluation.  I'd like, however, to focus on a particular element of the Act: the requirement that a government mandated approach be used to, in effect, override market influences on compensation.  Like previous attempts at comparable worth legislation, this is based upon the argument that the market is biased against female dominated jobs, necessitating that its influence be nullified in setting employee pay.

I don't deny that gender pay differences exists; in fact I've posted on this topic before.  I do believe, however, that the influences behind gender based pay differences are varied and nuanced.  And my 20+ years of experience in compensation convinces me that aiming an instrument as blunt and misguided as the Paycheck Fairness Act at U.S. pay administration practices will have consequences that are more harmful than good - particularly in its aim to negate the impact of the market."

Again - pay equity GOOD (and many of you work towards this in your practice daily), government as a replacement for markets BAD.  Be a critical thinker, no matter how cushy the title of a bill sounds. 

What else would you expect from a site with "capitalist" in the name?  Be a business minded HR pro and follow the lead of Ann Bares and Mike Haberman on this one.  Write a letter, let your C-level folks know what's up and think about how much government you want running your business.

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. 

Candidate Profile on MySpace - "Smoke #@$@ All Day"....

By now, we know there's a lot of information, some of it very damaging, about candidates on social networks like Facebook and MySpace.  If you want to see a decent legal rundown, check out this recent article from The Alabama Lawyer.  The article does a pretty good job of establishing some talking points about all the legal issues (candidate selection - and how you can use it - to reject candidates being the biggie) and what's still to be resolved legally.

Didn't click through, did you?  That's OK, it's tough to muster the energy to read the legal eagle's take.

Still, two legal friends referred me to the article (one being my wife), so I thought I would share.

If you didn't click through, then check out this story from another friend of the Capitalist, regarding research he did on a youngster who rear-ended him on a vacation trip:

"Here is an example. I got rear-ended on the way to my daughter's sports competition in Florida. I was hit in FL by a 21 year old girl who had insurance. She did not report it to her insurance company like she was supposed to, so I had to do it. She was very nice and apologetic last Friday, so I was a bit surprised that she failed to do what she was supposed to do.

As a result, I thought that I would check her out on the Internet by running a google search on her full name, <Name Redacted> all in quotes. What I got was her younger, 16 year old sister's myspace page that is titled "Smoke Weed All Day." According to the myspace page, all the family kids do is drink and smoke all day. My driver is listed as her sister's "hero" on the page..."

Quick - the 21 year old sister is a great candidate who you're getting ready to hire, and you googled her as part of your reference check.  What do you do?

OK - maybe throwing the article in a folder is not such a bad idea....

By now, we know there's a lot of information, some of it very damaging, about candidates on social networks like Facebook and MySpace.  If you want to see a decent legal rundown, check out this recent article from The Alabama Lawyer.  The article does a pretty good job of establishing some talking points about all the legal issues (candidate selection - and how you can use it - to reject candidates being the biggie) and what's still to be resolved legally.

Didn't click through, did you?  That's OK, it's tough to muster the energy to read the legal eagle's take.

Still, two legal friends referred me to the article (one being my wife), so I thought I would share.

If you didn't click through, then check out this story from another friend of the Capitalist, regarding research he did on a youngster who rear-ended him on a vacation trip:

"Here is an example. I got rear-ended on the way to my daughter's sports competition in Florida. I was hit in FL by a 21 year old girl who had insurance. She did not report it to her insurance company like she was supposed to, so I had to do it. She was very nice and apologetic last Friday, so I was a bit surprised that she failed to do what she was supposed to do.

As a result, I thought that I would check her out on the Internet by running a google search on her full name, <Name Redacted> all in quotes. What I got was her younger, 16 year old sister's myspace page that is titled "Smoke Weed All Day." According to the myspace page, all the family kids do is drink and smoke all day. My driver is listed as her sister's "hero" on the page..."

Quick - the 21 year old sister is a great candidate who you're getting ready to hire, and you googled her as part of your reference check.  What do you do?

OK - maybe throwing the article in a folder is not such a bad idea....

Can You Trust HR in Tough Times?

It's the age old question - can you trust HR?  With anything?

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen thinks you probably shouldn't; check out this post at Work in Progress, her blog at Time.com:

"Over the past few years, my employer has imposed a few rounds of layoffs. During the run-up, we were encouraged to visit with our human resources department if we wanted to inquire about taking a package. We were assured absolute, air-tight, witness-protection-program secrecy if we chose to do so. Who needs our bosses knowing we're entertaining an exit?

Quite a few of my colleagues did visit with HR. Then a funny thing happened. A few of them found that some management types dropped by to nonchalantly express their appreciation of the staffer's work.

Now, you have to understand my workplace culture to truly comprehend how completely weird that is. Where I work, bosses do not randomly drop in to tell you you're fab. My colleagues suspected an HR leak to management. I don't think they were being paranoid.

In these times of trouble, is HR your friend? Or can you ever trust a department that, after all, reports to the same master?"

The perception is sad but real, and at times, accurate.   After all, HR people are just that - people.  We have strong ones, weak ones, political ones, etc.   I think whether you can trust HR in any circumstance depends on the track record of the HR Pro you are dealing with.  What have you witnessed from them to that point?  As behavioral interviewers, we'll tell you straight up that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance.  It applies here...

For what it's worth, here's my approach with confidential information.  An employee comes to me and wants to have a confidential discussion about anything - a prospective job, their manager, etc., I let them know I'm happy to do it, but my ability to keep the information purely confidential is dependent on the topic.  I then give them an idea of the topics I couldn't keep confidential (harassment, etc.)

If they're still in, we have the conversation.  I try and help out any way I can.  We'll talk and I'll try to give them options, and tell them how I can help with their approval.

Then I lock the info down post-conversation.  It's what you have to do if you want to have credibility with a workforce.

Can you trust HR in tough times?  It's an individual question based on your HR Pro.  Just remember, past behavior is the best predictor of future performance...

It's the age old question - can you trust HR?  With anything?

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen thinks you probably shouldn't; check out this post at Work in Progress, her blog at Time.com:

"Over the past few years, my employer has imposed a few rounds of layoffs. During the run-up, we were encouraged to visit with our human resources department if we wanted to inquire about taking a package. We were assured absolute, air-tight, witness-protection-program secrecy if we chose to do so. Who needs our bosses knowing we're entertaining an exit?

Quite a few of my colleagues did visit with HR. Then a funny thing happened. A few of them found that some management types dropped by to nonchalantly express their appreciation of the staffer's work.

Now, you have to understand my workplace culture to truly comprehend how completely weird that is. Where I work, bosses do not randomly drop in to tell you you're fab. My colleagues suspected an HR leak to management. I don't think they were being paranoid.

In these times of trouble, is HR your friend? Or can you ever trust a department that, after all, reports to the same master?"

The perception is sad but real, and at times, accurate.   After all, HR people are just that - people.  We have strong ones, weak ones, political ones, etc.   I think whether you can trust HR in any circumstance depends on the track record of the HR Pro you are dealing with.  What have you witnessed from them to that point?  As behavioral interviewers, we'll tell you straight up that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance.  It applies here...

For what it's worth, here's my approach with confidential information.  An employee comes to me and wants to have a confidential discussion about anything - a prospective job, their manager, etc., I let them know I'm happy to do it, but my ability to keep the information purely confidential is dependent on the topic.  I then give them an idea of the topics I couldn't keep confidential (harassment, etc.)

If they're still in, we have the conversation.  I try and help out any way I can.  We'll talk and I'll try to give them options, and tell them how I can help with their approval.

Then I lock the info down post-conversation.  It's what you have to do if you want to have credibility with a workforce.

Can you trust HR in tough times?  It's an individual question based on your HR Pro.  Just remember, past behavior is the best predictor of future performance...

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!!

Skycaps - Now earning 60K at an Airport Near You....

A couple of weeks ago, Starbucks was in the news, ordered by a California judge to cough up a bunch of cash related to practices surrounding tips.  The hits keep on coming for companies who compensate a portion of their workforce related to tips.

Today's jury verdict related to tips?  American Airlines was ordered to pay 9 skycaps in Boston 325K for lost tips when the airline imposed a $2 per bag surcharge for curbside check-in.  From the Boston Globe:

"A federal jury yesterday ordered American AirlinesBusiness-Travel-Looks-Ahead-to-2008 to pay nine skycaps at Logan International Airport a total of more than $325,000 for tips they lost when the airline began charging passengers $2 a bag for curbside check-inLuggage-Shipping-Guide service in late 2005.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of baggage fees imposed by several airlines in recent years, the jury in US District Court in Boston found that American Airlines violated the state's tips law by keeping the $2 fees. The jury also found that the airline had made it harder for skycaps to earn a living.

"We're very pleased that the jury saw what American Airlines is doing here, which is digging into the pockets of some of its lowest-paid workers to boost its own profits," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented the skycaps, several of whom hugged one another and brushed away tears after the verdict.

Since the fee went into effect in September 2005, skycaps testified, daily tips have plunged because many customers mistakenly thought the workers keep the $2 fee charged for handling bags at the curb and were reluctant to tip on top of it. One of the skycaps testified that his daily tips fell from about $200 to about $70 or $80."

Interesting verdict.  Solid comp professionals keep an eye out for the impact of business decisionsNeuroeconomics-How-Executives-Think on total comp, but this is the first decision I can recall that questions a company's ability to establish prices for services.

Also - by my math a skycap earning $200 a day in tips with a $5.15 hourly rate is earning about 60K a year.  WOW - I didn't expect that.   Shout out to all my peeps with multiple degrees who aren't earning that... Once you cut it to $80 a day, I come up with total comp in the 34-35K range, which still seems OK... But $60K?

My standard for the skycap tip was always a buck a bag, minimum of $5.  That's how I roll.  Of course, I never saw the surcharge....

Who's next?  Doormen?  The Valet? 

A couple of weeks ago, Starbucks was in the news, ordered by a California judge to cough up a bunch of cash related to practices surrounding tips.  The hits keep on coming for companies who compensate a portion of their workforce related to tips.

Today's jury verdict related to tips?  American Airlines was ordered to pay 9 skycaps in Boston 325K for lost tips when the airline imposed a $2 per bag surcharge for curbside check-in.  From the Boston Globe:

"A federal jury yesterday ordered American AirlinesBusiness-Travel-Looks-Ahead-to-2008 to pay nine skycaps at Logan International Airport a total of more than $325,000 for tips they lost when the airline began charging passengers $2 a bag for curbside check-inLuggage-Shipping-Guide service in late 2005.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of baggage fees imposed by several airlines in recent years, the jury in US District Court in Boston found that American Airlines violated the state's tips law by keeping the $2 fees. The jury also found that the airline had made it harder for skycaps to earn a living.

"We're very pleased that the jury saw what American Airlines is doing here, which is digging into the pockets of some of its lowest-paid workers to boost its own profits," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented the skycaps, several of whom hugged one another and brushed away tears after the verdict.

Since the fee went into effect in September 2005, skycaps testified, daily tips have plunged because many customers mistakenly thought the workers keep the $2 fee charged for handling bags at the curb and were reluctant to tip on top of it. One of the skycaps testified that his daily tips fell from about $200 to about $70 or $80."

Interesting verdict.  Solid comp professionals keep an eye out for the impact of business decisionsNeuroeconomics-How-Executives-Think on total comp, but this is the first decision I can recall that questions a company's ability to establish prices for services.

Also - by my math a skycap earning $200 a day in tips with a $5.15 hourly rate is earning about 60K a year.  WOW - I didn't expect that.   Shout out to all my peeps with multiple degrees who aren't earning that... Once you cut it to $80 a day, I come up with total comp in the 34-35K range, which still seems OK... But $60K?

My standard for the skycap tip was always a buck a bag, minimum of $5.  That's how I roll.  Of course, I never saw the surcharge....

Who's next?  Doormen?  The Valet? 

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...

Candidate Attractiveness - So Important That You'll Outsource Interviews?

One thing we all talk about from time to time on the recruiting side is the presentation of the candidate.  If you have recruited for a living, you've been there.  Sourcing for the position in question is tough, but you work through the bumps and hit the phones.  After aggressive phone work, you locate a candidate that has all the knowledge, skills and abilities to do the job.   Nice work, but the hard part's still to come...

Your time to fill is creeping up and your candidate pool is a little thin, so you make your move - on to live interviews.  Brave soul that you are, you arrange for the candidate to come in to interview with yourself and the hiring manager in back-to-back sessions.  The candidate shows up...and....

Let's just say they have some presentation issues... Could be a coffee stain, could be cosmetic abnormalities.  Regardless of the issue, you are immediately fearful - the candidate may be discounted and dismissed in the process due to the physical drawbacks...

Welcome to the real world - make sure you snap the chinstrap to your helmet.

What got me thinking about this?  I got a solicitation from a recruiting firm last week attempting to differentiate themselves by pitching video interviews they conduct and make available to clients - BEFORE the client has to spend even a minute on the phone with the prospect.

Here's the email from the headhunting firm.

"Greetings, and I hope your 2008 is off to a great start!

For over four years, <Firm Name Removed> search process (honed for the healthcare software vendor industry) has included a Video Conference (VC) interview between our Principals and “seemingly” strong candidates.  For those candidates that are deemed to be “above the hiring line”, <Firm Name Removed> digitizes the video of the VC, uploads it to a secure web site and then sends the web link to our client’s hiring executives.

Our clients have been delighted with this first interview “outsourcing approach”.  No longer is it necessary to conduct relatively unsuccessful telephone interviews to screen candidates sourced by job boards, internal recruiters or outside search firms.  Since <Firm Name Removed> uses these VC interviews to screen out candidates, we only send our clients the best few!

Thus, the net results are fewer but better candidates, much less executive time wasted in the early-to-mid-stages of the interview process, and a vastly improved “time to hire”.  Plus, our VC’d candidates are impressed with our clients’ “state-of the-art” interviewing process which helps in the allure of joining our clients’ team.

If you are interested in learning more, here are two suggestions:  1) view the VC Interview Web demo link at the very bottom of this email for a two minute experience with this great approach; 2) let’s schedule a quick call to discuss your 2008 goals, objectives and related hiring needs to see if partnering with <Firm Name Removed>  would make a big difference in achieving your critical staffing needs!"

In the imperfect world where attractiveness and physical presentation matter, this marketing angle is a pretty good one.  Rather than spending an hour with the candidate out of courtesy, the "selective" hiring manager can now just stop the tape 30 seconds in...  With no worries about the candidate's feelings...

Of course, the downside is that when hiring managers spend time with candidates, what they hear often gets them past their initial objections on the physical presentation side.  Not always, but often enough that it's worth their time to do it.

And that's one of the downsides to living in this digital world...

One thing we all talk about from time to time on the recruiting side is the presentation of the candidate.  If you have recruited for a living, you've been there.  Sourcing for the position in question is tough, but you work through the bumps and hit the phones.  After aggressive phone work, you locate a candidate that has all the knowledge, skills and abilities to do the job.   Nice work, but the hard part's still to come...

Your time to fill is creeping up and your candidate pool is a little thin, so you make your move - on to live interviews.  Brave soul that you are, you arrange for the candidate to come in to interview with yourself and the hiring manager in back-to-back sessions.  The candidate shows up...and....

Let's just say they have some presentation issues... Could be a coffee stain, could be cosmetic abnormalities.  Regardless of the issue, you are immediately fearful - the candidate may be discounted and dismissed in the process due to the physical drawbacks...

Welcome to the real world - make sure you snap the chinstrap to your helmet.

What got me thinking about this?  I got a solicitation from a recruiting firm last week attempting to differentiate themselves by pitching video interviews they conduct and make available to clients - BEFORE the client has to spend even a minute on the phone with the prospect.

Here's the email from the headhunting firm.

"Greetings, and I hope your 2008 is off to a great start!

For over four years, <Firm Name Removed> search process (honed for the healthcare software vendor industry) has included a Video Conference (VC) interview between our Principals and “seemingly” strong candidates.  For those candidates that are deemed to be “above the hiring line”, <Firm Name Removed> digitizes the video of the VC, uploads it to a secure web site and then sends the web link to our client’s hiring executives.

Our clients have been delighted with this first interview “outsourcing approach”.  No longer is it necessary to conduct relatively unsuccessful telephone interviews to screen candidates sourced by job boards, internal recruiters or outside search firms.  Since <Firm Name Removed> uses these VC interviews to screen out candidates, we only send our clients the best few!

Thus, the net results are fewer but better candidates, much less executive time wasted in the early-to-mid-stages of the interview process, and a vastly improved “time to hire”.  Plus, our VC’d candidates are impressed with our clients’ “state-of the-art” interviewing process which helps in the allure of joining our clients’ team.

If you are interested in learning more, here are two suggestions:  1) view the VC Interview Web demo link at the very bottom of this email for a two minute experience with this great approach; 2) let’s schedule a quick call to discuss your 2008 goals, objectives and related hiring needs to see if partnering with <Firm Name Removed>  would make a big difference in achieving your critical staffing needs!"

In the imperfect world where attractiveness and physical presentation matter, this marketing angle is a pretty good one.  Rather than spending an hour with the candidate out of courtesy, the "selective" hiring manager can now just stop the tape 30 seconds in...  With no worries about the candidate's feelings...

Of course, the downside is that when hiring managers spend time with candidates, what they hear often gets them past their initial objections on the physical presentation side.  Not always, but often enough that it's worth their time to do it.

And that's one of the downsides to living in this digital world...

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.... 

Circuit City - We Fired You, Please Present This Coupon to Get Your Old Job Back for Less Pay...

OK, I realize I have beat this Circuit City thing to death, but the hits just keep on coming... To recap for you newbies, here's the HR/Talent related news of note on Circuit City, reported by this site and others in the last 10 months:

-March 2007 - Circuit City announces layoffs of thousands of employees along with plans to backfill the positions with lower-paid talent. 

-November 2007 - Circuit City reported by the Wall Street Journal to have mailed letters to the ex-employees inviting them back to their old redesigned jobs, at a lower rate of pay.

Most of the commentary I have seen (as well as what I have written) has focused on all the drawbacks of  this plan.  They're pretty obvious, since it's a bad idea for ex-employees and Circuit City alike.  Returning employees would be going back into an environment that seemingly didn't value them, and Circuit City would be putting employees, who are likely disgruntled with the company, back on the floor.  How does that work for the employees or customers, and subsequently, Circuit City?

Over the last week, I started getting notes from ex-Circuit City employees, many of whom have received the letter from Circuit City.  Read the comments to the last post here, which include the feelings of a couple of the ex-employees impacted by the layoff and who are now in receipt of said letter. 

A couple of the ex-employees were nice enough to share the letter with me.  The letters matched, so I am sharing the text of the letter below with the names changed to protect the innocent.  Here's what it looks like the letter to all laid-off employees said:

Dear [redacted],

This letter is a special invitation to rejoin the Circuit City team. We're a new Circuit City with a lot to offer our customers...and you. If you're interested - and I hope you are - we have a position waiting for you at any Circuit City superstore.

Over the past eight months, we have improved our customer service model, created new positions, and defined career paths for every store role. This means that at each stage of your career, you'll know the steps that can get you to the next level. The new Circuit City delivers a superior experience for customers and associates, and that's why we're reaching out to former associates like you. You have the skills, talent, and experience required for this level of service, and we want you back.

Be a part of the new Circuit City, and join us just in time for the holidays - the most exciting time of the year. Because of your skills and experience, we're excited to offer you a position comparable to your previous role at the most competitive rate possible. Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore. We will quickly complete the process and establish you as a regular - that is, not seasonal - associate.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon.

Sincerely, [signature] [redacted]- RVP

Is this the letter that went out to all employees?  While I can't be sure, the two letters matched and also matched another report on the Consumerist, so it looks probable that this is the letter.

Now for the analysis.  I think the whole idea of bringing employees back, at a lower rate of pay is a bad idea, so I'm not sure there is a good way to do this.  With that said, I would have included some type of acknowledgment about the economic/business conditions that lead them to make the decision they did.  After all, if things are so great, why was I gone in early 2007?  Did you improve your customer service model by walking me out the door?

Above and beyond all else, I'm blown away by the text that I bolded in the letter above.  "Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore..."?   That sounds like a coupon I can present for 10% off any iPod Zune (Apple doesn't discount their stuff), not the concierge treatment I would expect as a candidate from a company that really wanted me to be an associate in one of their stores...

What can I say besides....wow...

OK, I realize I have beat this Circuit City thing to death, but the hits just keep on coming... To recap for you newbies, here's the HR/Talent related news of note on Circuit City, reported by this site and others in the last 10 months:

-March 2007 - Circuit City announces layoffs of thousands of employees along with plans to backfill the positions with lower-paid talent. 

-November 2007 - Circuit City reported by the Wall Street Journal to have mailed letters to the ex-employees inviting them back to their old redesigned jobs, at a lower rate of pay.

Most of the commentary I have seen (as well as what I have written) has focused on all the drawbacks of  this plan.  They're pretty obvious, since it's a bad idea for ex-employees and Circuit City alike.  Returning employees would be going back into an environment that seemingly didn't value them, and Circuit City would be putting employees, who are likely disgruntled with the company, back on the floor.  How does that work for the employees or customers, and subsequently, Circuit City?

Over the last week, I started getting notes from ex-Circuit City employees, many of whom have received the letter from Circuit City.  Read the comments to the last post here, which include the feelings of a couple of the ex-employees impacted by the layoff and who are now in receipt of said letter. 

A couple of the ex-employees were nice enough to share the letter with me.  The letters matched, so I am sharing the text of the letter below with the names changed to protect the innocent.  Here's what it looks like the letter to all laid-off employees said:

Dear [redacted],

This letter is a special invitation to rejoin the Circuit City team. We're a new Circuit City with a lot to offer our customers...and you. If you're interested - and I hope you are - we have a position waiting for you at any Circuit City superstore.

Over the past eight months, we have improved our customer service model, created new positions, and defined career paths for every store role. This means that at each stage of your career, you'll know the steps that can get you to the next level. The new Circuit City delivers a superior experience for customers and associates, and that's why we're reaching out to former associates like you. You have the skills, talent, and experience required for this level of service, and we want you back.

Be a part of the new Circuit City, and join us just in time for the holidays - the most exciting time of the year. Because of your skills and experience, we're excited to offer you a position comparable to your previous role at the most competitive rate possible. Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore. We will quickly complete the process and establish you as a regular - that is, not seasonal - associate.

Thank you and we hope to see you soon.

Sincerely, [signature] [redacted]- RVP

Is this the letter that went out to all employees?  While I can't be sure, the two letters matched and also matched another report on the Consumerist, so it looks probable that this is the letter.

Now for the analysis.  I think the whole idea of bringing employees back, at a lower rate of pay is a bad idea, so I'm not sure there is a good way to do this.  With that said, I would have included some type of acknowledgment about the economic/business conditions that lead them to make the decision they did.  After all, if things are so great, why was I gone in early 2007?  Did you improve your customer service model by walking me out the door?

Above and beyond all else, I'm blown away by the text that I bolded in the letter above.  "Simply present this letter to any manager at any Circuit City superstore..."?   That sounds like a coupon I can present for 10% off any iPod Zune (Apple doesn't discount their stuff), not the concierge treatment I would expect as a candidate from a company that really wanted me to be an associate in one of their stores...

What can I say besides....wow...

Why You May Add 7 Sick Days to Your PTO Policy in 2009...

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass. 

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass. 

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.....