I drive past a school on my way to work. The school zone lights flash and the speed limit is 15. This is good. I prefer not to have any small children run over. However, during spring break, the school was not open. Still, the lights flashed and we drivers dutifully tooled along at 15 mph.
I started to think about why we were doing that. But, that was the wrong question. We drivers were going 15 mph because it was the law. We had to. The real question was why the sign was still flashing?
Well, because it's programmed for Monday-Friday during the school year. That's why. No one changed it, just because school wasn't in session.
The next week at work we (meaning my department) spent 2 full days (9 people at a time) stuffing envelopes that contained individualized information for each manager. Back in the dark ages, this was the only way the managers could get this particular tidbit of information. But now, thanks to the wonders of the Internet, this exact same information is available to each manager who bothers to log on and enter their password.
Why were we stuffing envelopes? Because we do every year at this time. Like the flashing school lights, they should have been turned off when the situation changed. But they weren't. We've always done it, so dang it, we're going to keep doing it!
And we tool along at 15 mph rather than saying, "Hey, circumstances have changed. No one is going to get run over! My car is capable of going 45 mph, let's do it!"
What is your company still doing that they really should give up?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sick and Tired
Dear Evil HR Lady,
We have a problem with staff taking their sick time as soon as they earn it. This leaves us with reduced staff coverage in several departments and problems. What suggestions do you have to reward a team or staff for not taking their sick time as soon as they earn it.
Thank you
Sick of Sick Time
Dear Sick,
Well, this is a problem. What happens when they really do get sick? Do they come in to work and spread germs or do they get "extra" sick time to compensate?
I think the answer to this question is highly dependent on the type of work your employees do. I, technically, have unlimited sick time. (3 days requires a doctor's note and on day 4 you have to be on short term disability.) However, I still have to get the work done. This means, that even if I feel terrible, I'm working on my laptop at home. Everyone with a laptop does the same thing. Sick, healthy, it doesn't matter. Work has to get done. Therefore, while we may have some abuse of sick time, there isn't much.
However, if your workers are factory workers, the line won't wait for them to get back. Therefore, taking a sick day has no "work" consequences for your employees. It may hurt overall productivity, but you're going to be hard pressed to convince people that their one "extra" day is going to affect things overall. And that person's extra day won't--it's everybody doing it that is the problem.
You need to change worker's motivation. You can do this in positive or negative ways. A positive way: Reward workers for unused sick time. Can you pay out unused sick days at the end of the year? Government employees frequently have this perk.
Another positive way: Instead of a straight payout for unused sick days, give a bonus to the whole workforce that is based on productivity. As part of your calculation, sick time would be used. If the bonus is good enough and sick time is a big enough chunk, you'll get peer pressure to only stay home when you are really sick. (I have yet to see anyone want their co-worker around when said co-worker is puking.)
A negative way: Reduce vacation time and lump sick and vacation time together into one "Paid Time Off" lump. Then, it won't matter to you whether they are taking time off to go skiing or because they are puking.
Another negative way: Require a doctor's note for any sick time. This adds an undue burden on your employees, though. Even with health insurance, doctor visits cost the employee (and the company) money. Plus, most illnesses (even the ones where you feel terrible) don't require a doctor visit.
As much as I hate to say it, you may be offering too many sick days. If people feel they can take them as extra vacation, then they either like gambling with the flu or know they will be given time off anyway when they are really sick.
Is morale at the office so low people can't stand to be there? That's another cause of absenteeism. Work on making your employees happier and they won't be looking for as many excuses to stay away.
Good luck and I hope you feel better soon.
Evil HR Lady
We have a problem with staff taking their sick time as soon as they earn it. This leaves us with reduced staff coverage in several departments and problems. What suggestions do you have to reward a team or staff for not taking their sick time as soon as they earn it.
Thank you
Sick of Sick Time
Dear Sick,
Well, this is a problem. What happens when they really do get sick? Do they come in to work and spread germs or do they get "extra" sick time to compensate?
I think the answer to this question is highly dependent on the type of work your employees do. I, technically, have unlimited sick time. (3 days requires a doctor's note and on day 4 you have to be on short term disability.) However, I still have to get the work done. This means, that even if I feel terrible, I'm working on my laptop at home. Everyone with a laptop does the same thing. Sick, healthy, it doesn't matter. Work has to get done. Therefore, while we may have some abuse of sick time, there isn't much.
However, if your workers are factory workers, the line won't wait for them to get back. Therefore, taking a sick day has no "work" consequences for your employees. It may hurt overall productivity, but you're going to be hard pressed to convince people that their one "extra" day is going to affect things overall. And that person's extra day won't--it's everybody doing it that is the problem.
You need to change worker's motivation. You can do this in positive or negative ways. A positive way: Reward workers for unused sick time. Can you pay out unused sick days at the end of the year? Government employees frequently have this perk.
Another positive way: Instead of a straight payout for unused sick days, give a bonus to the whole workforce that is based on productivity. As part of your calculation, sick time would be used. If the bonus is good enough and sick time is a big enough chunk, you'll get peer pressure to only stay home when you are really sick. (I have yet to see anyone want their co-worker around when said co-worker is puking.)
A negative way: Reduce vacation time and lump sick and vacation time together into one "Paid Time Off" lump. Then, it won't matter to you whether they are taking time off to go skiing or because they are puking.
Another negative way: Require a doctor's note for any sick time. This adds an undue burden on your employees, though. Even with health insurance, doctor visits cost the employee (and the company) money. Plus, most illnesses (even the ones where you feel terrible) don't require a doctor visit.
As much as I hate to say it, you may be offering too many sick days. If people feel they can take them as extra vacation, then they either like gambling with the flu or know they will be given time off anyway when they are really sick.
Is morale at the office so low people can't stand to be there? That's another cause of absenteeism. Work on making your employees happier and they won't be looking for as many excuses to stay away.
Good luck and I hope you feel better soon.
Evil HR Lady
Carnival of the Insanities
Carnival of the Insanities is up over at Dr. Sanity's blog. Go read it and see that there are insane things outside of HR as well.
Friday, April 20, 2007
I've Got a Bad Feeling About This
Washington Post Headline today:
IRS Commissioner Named to Lead Red Cross
I know nothing about Mark W. Everson, but since the Red Cross is supposed to help people and the IRS is, well, not supposed to help people, it definitely is a career change for him.
Of course, both organizations are quite skilled at drawing blood. I just hope the Red Cross doesn't start requiring 6 page forms in order to make a donation.
IRS Commissioner Named to Lead Red Cross
I know nothing about Mark W. Everson, but since the Red Cross is supposed to help people and the IRS is, well, not supposed to help people, it definitely is a career change for him.
Of course, both organizations are quite skilled at drawing blood. I just hope the Red Cross doesn't start requiring 6 page forms in order to make a donation.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Carnival of Human Resources #5
Welcome to the 5th Carnival of Human Resources. Word has gotten out about our thrilling rides and freak show! We welcome all HR, Business, Training and related blog posts. The next Carnival will be May 2 and will be hosted by Susan Heathfield at About Human Resources.
Send your submissions directly to her (humanresources dot guide at about dot com) and put “Carnival” in the subject so she doesn’t miss it. One submission per blogger please.
First up is The New Business World with Tips for Preventing Workplace Violence. Unfortunately, this is something we all need.
Deb Owens at 8 Hours & a Lunch writes about the importance of knowing your business in Being There. It’s amazing how things change when you understand what is going on.
Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis tells us about a Corporate Creed/Mission Statement/Value Statement and in so doing humorously warns us about misplaced creed priorities.
Life Coach Hueina Su at Intensive Care for the Nuturer’s Soul gives us 7 Keys to Avoid Burnout. Our jobs are just one part of our—and our employees—lives.
Charles H. Green at Trusted Advisor takes us over to the animal pavilion with The Sacred Cow of Retention. “Lets take on a sacred cow. Or at least a venerated goat.” Heh.
Jack Yoest at Reasoned Audacity talks about Looking for a Job With Tattoos. That is, he does not have a tattoo, nor does a job he’s offering have one, but you may not get one (a job, that is) if you do (have a tattoo). Or at least the job you want.
Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership talks (surprisingly!) about Leadership Can be Learned—but Not in the Classroom. Well, that is not great news for those of us who aspire to teach leadership with a power point presentation.
And on the leadership theme, Susan M. Heathfield at About: Human Resources, tells us about Delegation as a Leadership Style. An excellent approach to leadership, which is why I have delegated the next Carnival to her.
Wayne Turmel at Management Issues confesses that after taking every personality known to mankind that he is an ENFP-Lion-Otter-Hybrid. At least he is secure in knowing that he at least has a personality. I’ve met a few people without them.
Gautam Ghosh at A Management Consultant’s Blog tells us that SHRM Has Come Calling in India. Cool.
Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace writes about a conversation that was just wrong in As All American as Apple Pie. Mmm, pie.
Apu at Cubically Challenged reminds us about the Cost of Order Servicing. Everything seems to have its costs and we would be wise to remember that.
Finally, the Evil HR Lady speaks about severance costs at Why Severance. Some days, I’d really like to take a package.
I hope you enjoyed this installment of the HR Carnival. See you next time at Susan's!
Send your submissions directly to her (humanresources dot guide at about dot com) and put “Carnival” in the subject so she doesn’t miss it. One submission per blogger please.
First up is The New Business World with Tips for Preventing Workplace Violence. Unfortunately, this is something we all need.
Deb Owens at 8 Hours & a Lunch writes about the importance of knowing your business in Being There. It’s amazing how things change when you understand what is going on.
Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis tells us about a Corporate Creed/Mission Statement/Value Statement and in so doing humorously warns us about misplaced creed priorities.
Life Coach Hueina Su at Intensive Care for the Nuturer’s Soul gives us 7 Keys to Avoid Burnout. Our jobs are just one part of our—and our employees—lives.
Charles H. Green at Trusted Advisor takes us over to the animal pavilion with The Sacred Cow of Retention. “Lets take on a sacred cow. Or at least a venerated goat.” Heh.
Jack Yoest at Reasoned Audacity talks about Looking for a Job With Tattoos. That is, he does not have a tattoo, nor does a job he’s offering have one, but you may not get one (a job, that is) if you do (have a tattoo). Or at least the job you want.
Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership talks (surprisingly!) about Leadership Can be Learned—but Not in the Classroom. Well, that is not great news for those of us who aspire to teach leadership with a power point presentation.
And on the leadership theme, Susan M. Heathfield at About: Human Resources, tells us about Delegation as a Leadership Style. An excellent approach to leadership, which is why I have delegated the next Carnival to her.
Wayne Turmel at Management Issues confesses that after taking every personality known to mankind that he is an ENFP-Lion-Otter-Hybrid. At least he is secure in knowing that he at least has a personality. I’ve met a few people without them.
Gautam Ghosh at A Management Consultant’s Blog tells us that SHRM Has Come Calling in India. Cool.
Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace writes about a conversation that was just wrong in As All American as Apple Pie. Mmm, pie.
Apu at Cubically Challenged reminds us about the Cost of Order Servicing. Everything seems to have its costs and we would be wise to remember that.
Finally, the Evil HR Lady speaks about severance costs at Why Severance. Some days, I’d really like to take a package.
I hope you enjoyed this installment of the HR Carnival. See you next time at Susan's!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
When Making it Confidential Defeats the Purpose
I got a call. An employee was to be laid off and given a severance package. She was within a few months of reaching retirement, so instead of giving her severance pay the plan was to "bridge" her until she reached retirement. This means we continue to pay her as if she is an active employee, but she doesn't come into work.
Fine. This is standard and happens all the time. No big deal. Understand that part? This is within policy and happens all the time. In fact, it's so common that no one cares one wit.
Except, her manager was hyper paranoid and wanted this term to be kept confidential. We assured her that all terminations were confidential.
That was not good enough. Because she would still be on payroll, she would still hit headcount. The person in her department who handled headcount would be aware that this person wasn't a "voluntary" retirement. This was unacceptable.
We assured her that the headcount guy wouldn't care. He's seen it before and will see it again. He doesn't care.
Not good enough. We had to move her to a different cost center so no one would know this person's situation.
Now, remember, the whole idea was to keep this confidential, right? In a normal term, the following people would have known: The HR person responsible, the data entry person, legal and department headcount coordinator. That's it.
Because it was "super confidential" the following people had to know in order to keep it hidden:
HR
Data entry supervisor--because we couldn't send the term through normal channels
Data entry--because someone has to do the work
Organizational Management manager--because she had to be moved to a new cost center
Finance person 1--because we needed a new cost center for her
Finance person 2--the above's manager because he had to approve the exception
HR's headcount coordinator--because she had to know why someone was showing up on a previously unused cost center
Multiple people in legal--because of the exception on costs, approval had to be obtained from the higher ups
Payroll--because the system couldn't automatically pay her because of her new cost center wasn't designed for payroll costs
Finance persons 3, 4, and 5--to explain the cost center change. (They called us asking why.)
Oh, and the department heacount coordinator? Found out anyway--because of all the questions generated by handling this outside of normal process.
It could have been a normal term and no one would have discussed a single thing about it. But, by making it confidential, twice as many people needed to be involved. Everyone had to hear a long explanation and the term became a topic of discussion, rather than routine business. Why is this term so special? (It wasn't) Did she do something really wrong? (No. She volunteered for the package) Her term code says job elimination? Was it really a job elimination? (Yes, again she volunteered) It must not have been because it was so special. (It was, just a hyper paranoid manager.) Aargh!
How's that for Confidential?
Fine. This is standard and happens all the time. No big deal. Understand that part? This is within policy and happens all the time. In fact, it's so common that no one cares one wit.
Except, her manager was hyper paranoid and wanted this term to be kept confidential. We assured her that all terminations were confidential.
That was not good enough. Because she would still be on payroll, she would still hit headcount. The person in her department who handled headcount would be aware that this person wasn't a "voluntary" retirement. This was unacceptable.
We assured her that the headcount guy wouldn't care. He's seen it before and will see it again. He doesn't care.
Not good enough. We had to move her to a different cost center so no one would know this person's situation.
Now, remember, the whole idea was to keep this confidential, right? In a normal term, the following people would have known: The HR person responsible, the data entry person, legal and department headcount coordinator. That's it.
Because it was "super confidential" the following people had to know in order to keep it hidden:
Oh, and the department heacount coordinator? Found out anyway--because of all the questions generated by handling this outside of normal process.
It could have been a normal term and no one would have discussed a single thing about it. But, by making it confidential, twice as many people needed to be involved. Everyone had to hear a long explanation and the term became a topic of discussion, rather than routine business. Why is this term so special? (It wasn't) Did she do something really wrong? (No. She volunteered for the package) Her term code says job elimination? Was it really a job elimination? (Yes, again she volunteered) It must not have been because it was so special. (It was, just a hyper paranoid manager.) Aargh!
How's that for Confidential?
Carnival Reminder!
Submissions are due April 18 (that's tomorrow!)by noon Eastern time. Send them to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com!
Happy Ferris Wheel Riding!
Happy Ferris Wheel Riding!
Is Your Work Place Prepared?
Thirty-two people were killed, along with a gunman, and at least 15 injured in two shooting attacks at Virginia Polytechnic Institute on Monday during three hours of horror and chaos on this sprawling campus.
I know it's technically the responsibility of Security, but HR is expected to deal with people who are "troubled." Is your work place prepared to handle a deranged employee or customer? Are you?
I hope our security department is prepared. I know I'm not.
When to Quit
Note: I wrote a brilliant answer to this yesterday and then accidentally deleted it. So, if this answer isn't quite up to brilliant, know that it should have been.
Dear Evil HR Lady,
Love the name, but that's not the reason i'm writing.
The writing is on the wall and it's time to leave my company. I've worked for a small real estate office for almost a year now. When I started out, I was their marketing person and a [great] one at that. I was praised for setting a new standard of the job.
Six months into it I took a new position with the company and started assisting the agents by procuring new sales. This was some what of a difficult transition b/c there was NO training for my new job. When I say no training, i mean no training. I was given a phone and a list of people to call. No one EVER sat down with me and went over how to talk to people and close the deal.
I had my 90 day review and they set goals for me. This was great, but I received little to no direction on how to achieve these new goals. In the review I said it would be helpful to have weekly meetings with the agents and to have one of them sit down with me and make some phone calls so I could get some feedback. This never happened.
A month ago, I had another "review" in which I was flat out yelled at and given even more "goals." These new goals were unrealistic, even according to some of the other agents in the office.
Getting reviewed all the time and being told you suck at your job isn't alot of fun, especially when you've always had good reviews in every job and have never been fired. So, I started looking for a new job and am waiting to hear back from some people.
Today, I was presented with a "final written notice" (I never received a first written notice) saying I have two weeks to produce two appointments for my agent. I asked why I never received any training for this position and why management never stepped in and help set up meetings with my agent. I was told this was my responsibility.
This was all kind of a shock to me, the office manager didn't even know about it. The owner totally went behind her back and contacted ADP total source, our outsourced HR company.
I spoke with the agent I work under and he was very supportive and admitted he hadn't been giving my leads the attention he should have because he has been busy with some big deals. The agent says he'll help me get my two appointments and start sitting down with me more to go over things.
This is all great, but getting a final written notice is pretty serious. I already met my goal for the two weeks so I'm not worried about that. BUT, I don't think this is ever going to stop. I think he's just going to keep adding more and more goals until he can fire me.
I don't have my new job lined up yet and it could take a month or so. I have money saved up so I'm not really worried about that part.
So my questions.... Do I just leave on my own before I have my new job lined up? So that I don't have a termination or have to explain a termination to a prospective employer. When do I leave, do I do it before my 2 week probationary period is up? Do I give a two week notice? Or do I just peace out?
I feel pretty comfortable that they wouldn't can me within my two week notice if I gave one. And it would buy me some time without having to dive into my savings.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
Dear Chris,
To answer the question you did ask, there are only rare instances where you should quit a job before you have a new one lined up. They are
your current job is causing you such physical, mental or emotional distress that your health is in danger
you don't need a job and you are just working for the thrill of staff meetings. (Hey, sometimes you get free donuts) .
Other than that, you should wait until you have a new job offer before quitting the old one. First of all, it frequently takes longer than you assume it will to find a new job. Hiring processes are slow and painful. It takes time.
Second, it is easier to find a job when you have a job. Think about it. If you come in to interview with me, I'm going to ask, "Why did you leave your last job without a new one lined up?"
What are you going to say to that? There's no good answer. "My boss didn't give me the training that I needed"? I'm not hiring you then, because it's your responsibility to follow up to get the training you need. "I wanted to branch out into other areas of real estate"? I suspect this is a lie because you quit without having a new job. I know there were problems at the last job.
The problem with having problems is that since I don't know you and I don't know your former boss I can't easily identify if your boss truly was the problem or if you were the problem. (This is also why I don't care for references. Unless I know the people I'm talking to, why should I believe them?)
Now, this does not mean you are not hireable if you've quit without a new job. It just means you are going to have to be much more convincing. Getting a job is difficult enough without additional burdens.
And now, on to the questions you didn't ask. Getting training should be part of your manager's responsibility. But, it's not. It's yours. Managers are busy working and not developing employees. They hired you because they wanted you to do the job. In your next job, make sure you jump in and ask questions and say, quite clearly, "I do not know how to do this task. Who would you recommend I work with on this?"
Managers truly do want you to succeed. You are so much easier to deal with if you are productive. But, you have to show that you want to succeed. Note what happened when you went to the salesperson you were supposed to be working with. He jumped in to help you. He was probably so busy he didn't realize you needed the help.
Your management does sound fairly wimpy when it comes to dealing with employees. Going around the office manager and calling in HR is not my first choice. (Of course, my first choice is that HR should be sent large baskets of pastries and exotic hot chocolates, but I might have a bias there.)
Good luck on your job search. Stick this job out until you have a new one. Then jump into the new one with both feet, ask questions, get training (but don't be obnoxious about it--there is a fine line here), and do a great job.
Evil HR Lady
Dear Evil HR Lady,
Love the name, but that's not the reason i'm writing.
The writing is on the wall and it's time to leave my company. I've worked for a small real estate office for almost a year now. When I started out, I was their marketing person and a [great] one at that. I was praised for setting a new standard of the job.
Six months into it I took a new position with the company and started assisting the agents by procuring new sales. This was some what of a difficult transition b/c there was NO training for my new job. When I say no training, i mean no training. I was given a phone and a list of people to call. No one EVER sat down with me and went over how to talk to people and close the deal.
I had my 90 day review and they set goals for me. This was great, but I received little to no direction on how to achieve these new goals. In the review I said it would be helpful to have weekly meetings with the agents and to have one of them sit down with me and make some phone calls so I could get some feedback. This never happened.
A month ago, I had another "review" in which I was flat out yelled at and given even more "goals." These new goals were unrealistic, even according to some of the other agents in the office.
Getting reviewed all the time and being told you suck at your job isn't alot of fun, especially when you've always had good reviews in every job and have never been fired. So, I started looking for a new job and am waiting to hear back from some people.
Today, I was presented with a "final written notice" (I never received a first written notice) saying I have two weeks to produce two appointments for my agent. I asked why I never received any training for this position and why management never stepped in and help set up meetings with my agent. I was told this was my responsibility.
This was all kind of a shock to me, the office manager didn't even know about it. The owner totally went behind her back and contacted ADP total source, our outsourced HR company.
I spoke with the agent I work under and he was very supportive and admitted he hadn't been giving my leads the attention he should have because he has been busy with some big deals. The agent says he'll help me get my two appointments and start sitting down with me more to go over things.
This is all great, but getting a final written notice is pretty serious. I already met my goal for the two weeks so I'm not worried about that. BUT, I don't think this is ever going to stop. I think he's just going to keep adding more and more goals until he can fire me.
I don't have my new job lined up yet and it could take a month or so. I have money saved up so I'm not really worried about that part.
So my questions.... Do I just leave on my own before I have my new job lined up? So that I don't have a termination or have to explain a termination to a prospective employer. When do I leave, do I do it before my 2 week probationary period is up? Do I give a two week notice? Or do I just peace out?
I feel pretty comfortable that they wouldn't can me within my two week notice if I gave one. And it would buy me some time without having to dive into my savings.
Thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
Dear Chris,
To answer the question you did ask, there are only rare instances where you should quit a job before you have a new one lined up. They are
Other than that, you should wait until you have a new job offer before quitting the old one. First of all, it frequently takes longer than you assume it will to find a new job. Hiring processes are slow and painful. It takes time.
Second, it is easier to find a job when you have a job. Think about it. If you come in to interview with me, I'm going to ask, "Why did you leave your last job without a new one lined up?"
What are you going to say to that? There's no good answer. "My boss didn't give me the training that I needed"? I'm not hiring you then, because it's your responsibility to follow up to get the training you need. "I wanted to branch out into other areas of real estate"? I suspect this is a lie because you quit without having a new job. I know there were problems at the last job.
The problem with having problems is that since I don't know you and I don't know your former boss I can't easily identify if your boss truly was the problem or if you were the problem. (This is also why I don't care for references. Unless I know the people I'm talking to, why should I believe them?)
Now, this does not mean you are not hireable if you've quit without a new job. It just means you are going to have to be much more convincing. Getting a job is difficult enough without additional burdens.
And now, on to the questions you didn't ask. Getting training should be part of your manager's responsibility. But, it's not. It's yours. Managers are busy working and not developing employees. They hired you because they wanted you to do the job. In your next job, make sure you jump in and ask questions and say, quite clearly, "I do not know how to do this task. Who would you recommend I work with on this?"
Managers truly do want you to succeed. You are so much easier to deal with if you are productive. But, you have to show that you want to succeed. Note what happened when you went to the salesperson you were supposed to be working with. He jumped in to help you. He was probably so busy he didn't realize you needed the help.
Your management does sound fairly wimpy when it comes to dealing with employees. Going around the office manager and calling in HR is not my first choice. (Of course, my first choice is that HR should be sent large baskets of pastries and exotic hot chocolates, but I might have a bias there.)
Good luck on your job search. Stick this job out until you have a new one. Then jump into the new one with both feet, ask questions, get training (but don't be obnoxious about it--there is a fine line here), and do a great job.
Evil HR Lady
Friday, April 13, 2007
Why Severance?
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I just read a snippet in one of our trade publications about a company where "total 2006 revenues slipped 7.7% to $73 million and severance expenses from 43 people hit the "cost" line" and I got to wondering about why companies pay severance. Do they have to? Is it a courtesy gesture? And the same goes for pensions... why do some people get them and some people not? How come I don't get a pension if I work for my company for 30 years?
Signed,
Can I get a package, please?
Dear Package Seeker,
Companies pay severance because it's cheaper than being sued for wrongful termination. In almost all cases (in the United States) employees are "at will," which means you can be fired--or you can quit--at any time for cause or no cause.
Predictably, people do not like to be fired, even if it's a "layoff" and they are assured that they did "nothing wrong." Giving them severance helps keep down the desire to sue. Most companies require you to sign a "General Release" in exchange for this money. This is a document where you agree that the company doesn't owe you anything else and that you won't sue them.
Companies would prefer not to have to give out this money, but even one lawsuit can be very expensive as well as being a public relations nightmare. If you are in any protected class (minority, female, over 40, etc) getting you to go away happily is their biggest concern.
Another reason for severance is to compensate for non-compete clauses. If I require you to sign a non-compete clause that keeps you from working for a year, I may offer you severance in exchange. This gets you to sign, and again, not sue.
So, should you sue when you are laid off? The answer is almost overwhelmingly no. If you are offered a package, take it. The chances of you winning more than you were originally offered, after taking out your lawyer's fees, is surprisingly small, in my experience. But, if you really feel you were discriminated against, contact a reputable labor and employment lawyer (hint: they never advertise on daytime t.v.).
As for pension, it depends on your company's pension plan. I would imagine that after a certain period of time you will be "vested" in your company's plan. For my company, it's 5 years. After I've logged 5 years, I'm guarenteed a pension. I can't access it until I'm 55 and if I've only been here 5 years, it will be pathetically small, but it will be there. (Given that the pension plan doesn't go bankrupt in the meantime.)
Not all companies have pensions and maybe your company's plan is limited to people above a certain salary level, although I would find that strange. (Doesn't mean it isn't true, just strange.)
Hopefully, this answers everything.
Evil HR Lady
I just read a snippet in one of our trade publications about a company where "total 2006 revenues slipped 7.7% to $73 million and severance expenses from 43 people hit the "cost" line" and I got to wondering about why companies pay severance. Do they have to? Is it a courtesy gesture? And the same goes for pensions... why do some people get them and some people not? How come I don't get a pension if I work for my company for 30 years?
Signed,
Can I get a package, please?
Dear Package Seeker,
Companies pay severance because it's cheaper than being sued for wrongful termination. In almost all cases (in the United States) employees are "at will," which means you can be fired--or you can quit--at any time for cause or no cause.
Predictably, people do not like to be fired, even if it's a "layoff" and they are assured that they did "nothing wrong." Giving them severance helps keep down the desire to sue. Most companies require you to sign a "General Release" in exchange for this money. This is a document where you agree that the company doesn't owe you anything else and that you won't sue them.
Companies would prefer not to have to give out this money, but even one lawsuit can be very expensive as well as being a public relations nightmare. If you are in any protected class (minority, female, over 40, etc) getting you to go away happily is their biggest concern.
Another reason for severance is to compensate for non-compete clauses. If I require you to sign a non-compete clause that keeps you from working for a year, I may offer you severance in exchange. This gets you to sign, and again, not sue.
So, should you sue when you are laid off? The answer is almost overwhelmingly no. If you are offered a package, take it. The chances of you winning more than you were originally offered, after taking out your lawyer's fees, is surprisingly small, in my experience. But, if you really feel you were discriminated against, contact a reputable labor and employment lawyer (hint: they never advertise on daytime t.v.).
As for pension, it depends on your company's pension plan. I would imagine that after a certain period of time you will be "vested" in your company's plan. For my company, it's 5 years. After I've logged 5 years, I'm guarenteed a pension. I can't access it until I'm 55 and if I've only been here 5 years, it will be pathetically small, but it will be there. (Given that the pension plan doesn't go bankrupt in the meantime.)
Not all companies have pensions and maybe your company's plan is limited to people above a certain salary level, although I would find that strange. (Doesn't mean it isn't true, just strange.)
Hopefully, this answers everything.
Evil HR Lady
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Carnival of HR--Update
First of all, a friendly reminder. The next Carnival of Human Resources will be held Wednesday, April 18. Send your HR, business, training or similar post to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com.
And our little carnival is branching out! I've gotten seven volunteers to host and, of course, I've said absolutely.
The May 2nd Carnival will be hosted by Susan Heathfield at About: Human Resources.
The May 16th Carnival will be hosted by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace.
The May 30th Carnival will be hosted by Deb Owens at 8 Hours & a Lunch.
The June 13th Carnvial will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at A Management Consultant's Blog.
The June 27th Carnival will be hosted by Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist.
The July 11th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts.
The August 22nd Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
Let me know if any of the rest of you wish to host. Think of the fame and glory that will come your way! You can even put it on your resume: Hosted Carnival of Human Resources. Think of the number of job offers you can get with that!
And our little carnival is branching out! I've gotten seven volunteers to host and, of course, I've said absolutely.
The May 2nd Carnival will be hosted by Susan Heathfield at About: Human Resources.
The May 16th Carnival will be hosted by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace.
The May 30th Carnival will be hosted by Deb Owens at 8 Hours & a Lunch.
The June 13th Carnvial will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at A Management Consultant's Blog.
The June 27th Carnival will be hosted by Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist.
The July 11th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts.
The August 22nd Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
Let me know if any of the rest of you wish to host. Think of the fame and glory that will come your way! You can even put it on your resume: Hosted Carnival of Human Resources. Think of the number of job offers you can get with that!
Do You Want a New Job?
| Your Job Satisfaction Level: 73% |
 Your job is pretty good, even if it always doesn't seem like it. You have a lot less stress than most people, and your work environment is definitely above average. So if you love what you're doing, keep doing it. It doesn't get a lot better than this. But if you're in a dead end job, you may want to move on. Because if you're not advancing, it's just not worth it. |
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Too Much Information
I am glad I don't work for the Civil Service in India.
I think "expressed shock" is putting it mildly.
And you thought navigating US employment rules was tough!
Women civil servants in India have expressed shock at new appraisal rules which require them to reveal details of their menstrual cycles.
I think "expressed shock" is putting it mildly.
And you thought navigating US employment rules was tough!
Circuit City's Mistake
By now, I'm sure you've all heard Circuit City's plan to layoff highly paid workers and replace them with lower paid people. They are getting a great deal of bad press for this--as they should.
But their reason for getting bad press is all wrong. Layoffs are rarely nice to the employee. (I did have one lady jump up and down for joy when told she was getting a package. She had to be stopped from running gleefully down the hall, as others were not as excited as she.) Nevertheless, they are part of a free market economy and can ultimately make sense for business.
But, this isn't about cutting a bloated workforce. It's about cutting an overpaid workforce.
Eve Tahmincioglu at MSN writes:
I'm going to make an educated guess here. (For the record, I worked in retail HR for a while. Part of my job was to analyze the pay and benefits of our competitors to make sure we were paying more.) I bet they give standard raises on a schedule. Starting wage is X, at six months you get X+$0.50, at a year you get another raise. A lot of retail stores run increases on their hourly workforce like this.
Why? Because turnover is high and they are trying to lower turnover by giving you a reason to stay. Managers are probably dinged by high turnover and the employees know that if they slog through for another 6 months they'll get another raise. If they defect to the competitor, they'll have to start back at the bottom of the pay scale.
It works, to some extent. But here is where the problem lies; longevity is being rewarded, not increased value to the company.
If you know you will get an increase just by showing up for the next 180 days, why should you gain any additional knowledge? Likewise, a store manager knows that everyone gets the same raise, so why should he devote his time to training and developing?
This is Evil HR Lady's rule for retail: If your "highly paid" hourly workers do not bring more value to your company than your "lowly paid" hourly workers, the problem is with management, training, and compensation structures.
Okay, it's not the type of rule you'll seen done up in counted cross stitch in someone's office. But the problem isn't with the workers. Why does your compensation structure allow for increases for someone who has not provided increased value? What motivation does the employee have when they are not paid or promoted based on their results, only their longevity? Why have you not trained and educated your workforce so that the longer they are there, the more knowledge they have? The average salesperson with 5 years of experience should be able to far outsell the newbie.
Every time I've been in Circuit City, the sales person has been young and geeky. Those young and geeky types are there to gain experience and to help pay for college. The pay structure doesn't induce them to stay--they know they'll make more money elsewhere. The people who do stay are the ones who know they won't make more money elsewhere. Therefore, the perverse problem of paying for longevity is that it promotes the Peter Principle.
I'm a fan of Paying for Performance. Yes, I know that requires more work on management's part. But, shouldn't management's responsibility be to the company and not to their own laziness? The truth is, if you paid for performance, you'd have a better performing work force and managers could have time to develop and evaluate rather than solving customer complaints.
But their reason for getting bad press is all wrong. Layoffs are rarely nice to the employee. (I did have one lady jump up and down for joy when told she was getting a package. She had to be stopped from running gleefully down the hall, as others were not as excited as she.) Nevertheless, they are part of a free market economy and can ultimately make sense for business.
But, this isn't about cutting a bloated workforce. It's about cutting an overpaid workforce.
Eve Tahmincioglu at MSN writes:
How they ended up earning the above-market wages is a puzzler, because Circuit City’s managers presumably approved the pay levels.
I asked Babb if store managers were just too generous in compensating their workers, and after a long pause he said: “I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.”
I'm going to make an educated guess here. (For the record, I worked in retail HR for a while. Part of my job was to analyze the pay and benefits of our competitors to make sure we were paying more.) I bet they give standard raises on a schedule. Starting wage is X, at six months you get X+$0.50, at a year you get another raise. A lot of retail stores run increases on their hourly workforce like this.
Why? Because turnover is high and they are trying to lower turnover by giving you a reason to stay. Managers are probably dinged by high turnover and the employees know that if they slog through for another 6 months they'll get another raise. If they defect to the competitor, they'll have to start back at the bottom of the pay scale.
It works, to some extent. But here is where the problem lies; longevity is being rewarded, not increased value to the company.
If you know you will get an increase just by showing up for the next 180 days, why should you gain any additional knowledge? Likewise, a store manager knows that everyone gets the same raise, so why should he devote his time to training and developing?
This is Evil HR Lady's rule for retail: If your "highly paid" hourly workers do not bring more value to your company than your "lowly paid" hourly workers, the problem is with management, training, and compensation structures.
Okay, it's not the type of rule you'll seen done up in counted cross stitch in someone's office. But the problem isn't with the workers. Why does your compensation structure allow for increases for someone who has not provided increased value? What motivation does the employee have when they are not paid or promoted based on their results, only their longevity? Why have you not trained and educated your workforce so that the longer they are there, the more knowledge they have? The average salesperson with 5 years of experience should be able to far outsell the newbie.
Every time I've been in Circuit City, the sales person has been young and geeky. Those young and geeky types are there to gain experience and to help pay for college. The pay structure doesn't induce them to stay--they know they'll make more money elsewhere. The people who do stay are the ones who know they won't make more money elsewhere. Therefore, the perverse problem of paying for longevity is that it promotes the Peter Principle.
I'm a fan of Paying for Performance. Yes, I know that requires more work on management's part. But, shouldn't management's responsibility be to the company and not to their own laziness? The truth is, if you paid for performance, you'd have a better performing work force and managers could have time to develop and evaluate rather than solving customer complaints.
Monday, April 09, 2007
A Really Great and Terrible Question
Dear Evil HR Lady,
At my college, we've been using a standard interview question for several years now: "Is there anything in your past that would be embarrassing to the college if it became public after you were hired here?" I mentioned that on my blog, and got verbally pistol-whipped in the comments by people suggesting that this is way too broad, probably illegal, and presumably Orwellian.
Admittedly, it's broader than "have you ever been convicted of a felony?," but that's because I'd also want to know about certain misdemeanors, sexual harassment charges, etc.
Is this question too broad? If it is, is there another version that would pass muster in court but still tell us what we'd need to know?
Thanks!
Dean Dad
Dear Dean Dad,
What an absolutely lovely question. (As a reminder to all my readers, I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.) I think it's brilliant, but I'm afraid, professionally, I'd have to advise against it. (Although I'm tempted to use it myself.)
Why? Not because the question itself would be illegal, it's that what do you do with the information they give you? What if I answered, "I was arrested for indecent exposure when I ran naked through the 2004 Democratic Convention. I was protesting boring candidates!" Now, you can guess that I not only have a clothing problem (of legitimate concern to your college) and that I didn't support the Democratic candidate. Now, I don't get the job because having seen me in my interview suit, you have no desire to see me streak across campus. (I'm fine from the neck up and knees down, but everything else should be covered at all times.) But, I say you didn't hire me because we all know colleges are run by liberals and I clearly don't have those views. You are in the awkward position of having to defend why you didn't consider information you obviously knew.
Of course, it's very easy to end up with information you don't want to know. A candidate's list of publications? Christianity Today, Working Mother, Guns and Ammo, or The Open Closet? Now you know or have reason to know additional things about my political views, sexual orientation, parental status, religion and views on the 2nd amendment. The burden of proof is going to end up falling on you to prove that you DIDN'T discriminate.
You mentioned you wanted to know about "certain misdemeanors, sexual harrassment charges" etc. Misdemeanors you can ask about--I would have that and felonies--on your application that everyone fills out. (Don't make the common mistake of not having your professional candidates fill out an application. Everyone gets an application--the same one--whether they are applying for a job in the cafeteria or as a professor.)
Charges, however, can be problematic. You cannot consider an arrest someone had--only a conviction. Harrassment doesn't usually fall under criminal law, though, so there would rarely be a "conviction," so to speak. Instead? "Why did you leave [previous job]?" Or "if I called your previous boss for a reference, what would she say?"
Like I said, I think it's a brilliant question. It elicits answers you couldn't get otherwise. And while I don't think it's patently illegal (remember--I'm not a lawyer, and my lawyer brother comes to me for HR advice, so he's worthless in this category), it has the potential to cause you problems. An EEO complaint (as one of your commentors threatened he would do) can cause headaches you don't want or need.
Of course, I think everybody should just grow up and not go crying to the government when they are offended. But, then again, I blog anonymously so that no one goes crying to my boss.
I'd love to hear some of the responses.
Note: For some reason the comments have disappeared from this post. I apologize for that, but I don't know how to get them back.
Note 2: It looks like I fixed it!
At my college, we've been using a standard interview question for several years now: "Is there anything in your past that would be embarrassing to the college if it became public after you were hired here?" I mentioned that on my blog, and got verbally pistol-whipped in the comments by people suggesting that this is way too broad, probably illegal, and presumably Orwellian.
Admittedly, it's broader than "have you ever been convicted of a felony?," but that's because I'd also want to know about certain misdemeanors, sexual harassment charges, etc.
Is this question too broad? If it is, is there another version that would pass muster in court but still tell us what we'd need to know?
Thanks!
Dean Dad
Dear Dean Dad,
What an absolutely lovely question. (As a reminder to all my readers, I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.) I think it's brilliant, but I'm afraid, professionally, I'd have to advise against it. (Although I'm tempted to use it myself.)
Why? Not because the question itself would be illegal, it's that what do you do with the information they give you? What if I answered, "I was arrested for indecent exposure when I ran naked through the 2004 Democratic Convention. I was protesting boring candidates!" Now, you can guess that I not only have a clothing problem (of legitimate concern to your college) and that I didn't support the Democratic candidate. Now, I don't get the job because having seen me in my interview suit, you have no desire to see me streak across campus. (I'm fine from the neck up and knees down, but everything else should be covered at all times.) But, I say you didn't hire me because we all know colleges are run by liberals and I clearly don't have those views. You are in the awkward position of having to defend why you didn't consider information you obviously knew.
Of course, it's very easy to end up with information you don't want to know. A candidate's list of publications? Christianity Today, Working Mother, Guns and Ammo, or The Open Closet? Now you know or have reason to know additional things about my political views, sexual orientation, parental status, religion and views on the 2nd amendment. The burden of proof is going to end up falling on you to prove that you DIDN'T discriminate.
You mentioned you wanted to know about "certain misdemeanors, sexual harrassment charges" etc. Misdemeanors you can ask about--I would have that and felonies--on your application that everyone fills out. (Don't make the common mistake of not having your professional candidates fill out an application. Everyone gets an application--the same one--whether they are applying for a job in the cafeteria or as a professor.)
Charges, however, can be problematic. You cannot consider an arrest someone had--only a conviction. Harrassment doesn't usually fall under criminal law, though, so there would rarely be a "conviction," so to speak. Instead? "Why did you leave [previous job]?" Or "if I called your previous boss for a reference, what would she say?"
Like I said, I think it's a brilliant question. It elicits answers you couldn't get otherwise. And while I don't think it's patently illegal (remember--I'm not a lawyer, and my lawyer brother comes to me for HR advice, so he's worthless in this category), it has the potential to cause you problems. An EEO complaint (as one of your commentors threatened he would do) can cause headaches you don't want or need.
Of course, I think everybody should just grow up and not go crying to the government when they are offended. But, then again, I blog anonymously so that no one goes crying to my boss.
I'd love to hear some of the responses.
Note: For some reason the comments have disappeared from this post. I apologize for that, but I don't know how to get them back.
Note 2: It looks like I fixed it!
Friday, April 06, 2007
You Want A Raise?
Well, don't come crying to me because I can see everyone's salaries and I know you make waaay more money than you are actually worth. Oh wait, did I just write that? Sorry, the employee relations side of me just slipped out.
Okay, it's not true for everyone (just the people who are most annoying). But, if you really want a raise, Penelope Trunk gives you 5 suggestions.
She of course, gives lots of detail and my favorite piece of advice: "A hallmark of a superstar is they know how to toot their horn with out being annoying."
Now, get out of my office and go get yourself a raise!
Okay, it's not true for everyone (just the people who are most annoying). But, if you really want a raise, Penelope Trunk gives you 5 suggestions.
1. Understand your boss's perspective.
2. Expand your job duties.
3. Consistently over-deliver.
4. Get a mentor.
5. Think in non-financial terms.
She of course, gives lots of detail and my favorite piece of advice: "A hallmark of a superstar is they know how to toot their horn with out being annoying."
Now, get out of my office and go get yourself a raise!
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Carnival of Human Resources
Welcome to the 4th Carnival of HR! We're traveling far and wide this time around, with all sorts of exotic,HR advice and insight.
First up, Ishita Bardhan talks about emotions in the workplace.
Rowan Manahan identifies insanity in the workplace:
Deb Owen disagrees and argues:
Fortunately, Abhilasha Krishnan can help resolve this conflict (which doesn't really exist, I just made it up):
And if counseling doesn't work, Wally Bock is here to identify another problem.
And to keep your costs down, and keep your best people Kris Dunn writes about a novel paying for performance approach:
And just what type of employee do you want to put into this pay for performance scene? Anna Farmery tells us about the ideal employee:
Ummm, she's got high expections. And speaking of high, let's go to Tibet, with Mabel and Harry's 10 Lessons from Tibetan Monks:
Gautam Ghosh reminds us that even as we're trying to help others manage, we need to manage HR--especially our own career ladders.
And finally, to round out the carnival, a bit of satire from well, me:
I hope everyone has a blast at this week's carnival. Next one is in 2 weeks, April 18. Send your submissions to EvilHRLady at hotmail dot com! Any HR, business, training or similar submission is welcome! Remember, we're a family friendly carnival (lots of kids rides, after all), so no bad words!
First up, Ishita Bardhan talks about emotions in the workplace.
Then my manager told me to be professional in whatever you do. "Don’t bring emotions into the workplace”. I asked .. How? He told me: “When you are angry and want to respond to the nasty emails, write back a note with all the feelings you want but don’t send it. Save it in your draft and go have a cup of coffee. Come back, reopen the draft item, re read the mail and then send it”
Rowan Manahan identifies insanity in the workplace:
“And you keep doing this?”
“Yes.”
“Even though it’s, let's see, what's the word? ... Moronic? Cretinous? ... and ultimately may hamper your future success and security?”
(very small voice) “Yes”
“I’m sorry - I couldn’t hear you there …”
“YES!”
“Well then you’re crazy, aren’t you?”
Deb Owen disagrees and argues:
people aren't stupid.
let's stop assuming they are and begin with the assumption that they can see more clearly than we think they can. that's one of the first mistakes i see management make. it's much better to admit problems and start attacking them, than to try to tell people something is blue when they can see very well that it is red.
Fortunately, Abhilasha Krishnan can help resolve this conflict (which doesn't really exist, I just made it up):
HR can be seen as playing much the same role as a psychologist/ counselor in a society. As society evolves and becomes more complex, the human issues involved also become more convoluted and individuals find it harder to deal with these complexities on their own.
And if counseling doesn't work, Wally Bock is here to identify another problem.
This kind of "sell the idiot on our company" approach is doomed to frustrating and expensive failure. A third of the candidates polled said they were looking for a new job within six months of landing the last one. That could be because they were "sold" on joining the company.
If your "selling" generates that kind of turnover, it's going to cost you big time. Various estimates put the cost of replacing a person at two to three times annual salary.
And to keep your costs down, and keep your best people Kris Dunn writes about a novel paying for performance approach:
If you are in a Fortune 500 company or simply have standardized your comp plan, you likely have a Merit Matrix to reinforce this type of reward system. If so, does your plan include taking money away from those who don't meet the performance goals you have outlined? I didn't think so - but Publix (yes, the service-oriented supermarket) has.
And just what type of employee do you want to put into this pay for performance scene? Anna Farmery tells us about the ideal employee:
One brain that is beautifully balanced between logic, futuristic, empathy and rational. Even more it chooses automatically the right part of the brain to use. A small mouth and 27 ears to listen to customers without butting in. One soul that lives and breaths the values in everything it does. Telescopic eyes that sees right into the future
Ummm, she's got high expections. And speaking of high, let's go to Tibet, with Mabel and Harry's 10 Lessons from Tibetan Monks:
1. When you lose, don't lose the lesson
2. Follow the 3 R's: Respect for self, respect for others, responsibility for all your actions.
3. Spend some time alone each day.
Gautam Ghosh reminds us that even as we're trying to help others manage, we need to manage HR--especially our own career ladders.
A career ladder for HR professionals that zig and zag through the various functions would also go a long way in sensiting them that there are no "more important" and "less important" functions within HR. In fact there should be two or three mandatory stints for HR professionals out of HR too, in functions that are client facing (like marketing and sales), vendor facing (like procurement and supply chain) and operations.
And finally, to round out the carnival, a bit of satire from well, me:
[Mexican Restaurant] admits that they do not monitor the gender of everyone who walks in their door. This is unacceptable. How do we know if we are not discriminating if we don't count and categorize everyone who walks in?
I hope everyone has a blast at this week's carnival. Next one is in 2 weeks, April 18. Send your submissions to EvilHRLady at hotmail dot com! Any HR, business, training or similar submission is welcome! Remember, we're a family friendly carnival (lots of kids rides, after all), so no bad words!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
One Size Fits All
The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating article on Respirators. (Subscripton required, sorry). These are the respirators you and I might refer to as "gas masks."
Seems the average American face has changed a great deal over the past 50 or so years. Our faces are fatter (no surprise, she writes while eating Smoothie Flavored Skittles), and longer then they used to be. Additionally, people who wear these respirators vary greatly--age, gender, race, etc. So, new masks need to be designed and tested and approved.
No problem, right?
Wrong.
It's the one-size-fits-all requirement. Why on earth would we have that? (Ahh, government at work.) If Bob and Carol and Jose and Xian and Fiona all have to wear a respirator day in and day out, why should Bob (a 6'4" 300 pound Jamaican) have a mask that also fits Fiona (a 5'2" female of Irish descent)? Who would think that even makes sense? Bob should get a mask that fits him and Fiona, Carol, Jose and Xian should all get ones that fit them.
Except they'd be out of compliance.
Granted, one that fits most people is a real advantage in an emergency situation. But, a mask that is worn regularly as part of a job should come in a variety of sizes. Right? Right.
So, let me ask you--how are your pay and benefits plans structured? One size fits all? Are Bob, Carol, Jose, Xian and Fiona all given the same options? Xian has small children and would prefer the option to work at home if they are sick. Jose has no problem working 60 hours a week (he's exempt, so no overtime costs), but when he wants to vacation, he wants to vacation. Can he have 3 weeks instead of 2? Bob is a very healthy single guy with no children. He would prefer a Health Savings Account to an expensive PPO.
I know, I know, these are a pain to manage. And a bigger pain to explain to all employees. But, doesn't it make sense to at least try?
Seems the average American face has changed a great deal over the past 50 or so years. Our faces are fatter (no surprise, she writes while eating Smoothie Flavored Skittles), and longer then they used to be. Additionally, people who wear these respirators vary greatly--age, gender, race, etc. So, new masks need to be designed and tested and approved.
No problem, right?
Wrong.
By law, all employer-supplied respirators, as these products are known, must be certified by NIOSH that they create an airtight fit on a broad range of faces.
It's the one-size-fits-all requirement. Why on earth would we have that? (Ahh, government at work.) If Bob and Carol and Jose and Xian and Fiona all have to wear a respirator day in and day out, why should Bob (a 6'4" 300 pound Jamaican) have a mask that also fits Fiona (a 5'2" female of Irish descent)? Who would think that even makes sense? Bob should get a mask that fits him and Fiona, Carol, Jose and Xian should all get ones that fit them.
Except they'd be out of compliance.
Granted, one that fits most people is a real advantage in an emergency situation. But, a mask that is worn regularly as part of a job should come in a variety of sizes. Right? Right.
So, let me ask you--how are your pay and benefits plans structured? One size fits all? Are Bob, Carol, Jose, Xian and Fiona all given the same options? Xian has small children and would prefer the option to work at home if they are sick. Jose has no problem working 60 hours a week (he's exempt, so no overtime costs), but when he wants to vacation, he wants to vacation. Can he have 3 weeks instead of 2? Bob is a very healthy single guy with no children. He would prefer a Health Savings Account to an expensive PPO.
I know, I know, these are a pain to manage. And a bigger pain to explain to all employees. But, doesn't it make sense to at least try?
Monday, April 02, 2007
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
Let's say you're conducting an interview--perhaps just a phone screen at this point--for someone for a senior position. A very senior position. Let's just say the conversation goes something like this:
Recruiter: Tell me about how you make decisions.
Candidate: Well, I gather the facts and then I go home and talk it over with my wife. She's my top advisor.
Recruiter: Excuse me, but can you elaborate on that?
Candidate: I also invite her to my executive team meetings.
Recruiter: Is your wife also a [insert profession]?
Candidate: No, she's [something irrelevant]. But I trust her judgment.
Recruiter: Thank you so much for your time, we'll be in touch. Click.
Right? Wouldn't you immediately label such a candidate as "whacky"? Who does that? I mean, really.
A good spouse can help you in your career--no doubt about that. But, even the most supportive and brilliant spouses shouldn't be brought into your executive team meetings unless it's a family owned business.
So, why do we put up with the "bringing in the spouse" in politics? Rudy Giuliani said he'd do it.
We wouldn't put up with that in business, why do we put up with it in politics? Would Giuliani have been slammed if he'd said, "My wife is a wonderful person, but I'm running for office and I will be the one responsible to the people, not my wife."
I'll grant you that a good spouse can do wonders for you career. You want to move up in the company? You'll do better if your spouse is willing to relocate with you. What about late nights? If your spouse is the primary caregiver for the children, you'll have more options. But, invite your spouse to an executive team meeting? Not unless that is where you met--and most companies have rules against such behavior.
(Hat Tip Ann Althouse.)
Recruiter: Tell me about how you make decisions.
Candidate: Well, I gather the facts and then I go home and talk it over with my wife. She's my top advisor.
Recruiter: Excuse me, but can you elaborate on that?
Candidate: I also invite her to my executive team meetings.
Recruiter: Is your wife also a [insert profession]?
Candidate: No, she's [something irrelevant]. But I trust her judgment.
Recruiter: Thank you so much for your time, we'll be in touch. Click.
Right? Wouldn't you immediately label such a candidate as "whacky"? Who does that? I mean, really.
A good spouse can help you in your career--no doubt about that. But, even the most supportive and brilliant spouses shouldn't be brought into your executive team meetings unless it's a family owned business.
So, why do we put up with the "bringing in the spouse" in politics? Rudy Giuliani said he'd do it.
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani told ABC News's Barbara Walters that he would welcome his wife, Judith, at White House Cabinet meetings and other policy discussions if he were elected president next year.
"If she wanted to," Giuliani said in the "20/20" interview to be broadcast tonight. "If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with."
We wouldn't put up with that in business, why do we put up with it in politics? Would Giuliani have been slammed if he'd said, "My wife is a wonderful person, but I'm running for office and I will be the one responsible to the people, not my wife."
I'll grant you that a good spouse can do wonders for you career. You want to move up in the company? You'll do better if your spouse is willing to relocate with you. What about late nights? If your spouse is the primary caregiver for the children, you'll have more options. But, invite your spouse to an executive team meeting? Not unless that is where you met--and most companies have rules against such behavior.
(Hat Tip Ann Althouse.)
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Carnival Reminder
The next Carnival of Human Resources is goin to be posted on Wednesday, April 4. Please submit your posts to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com.
Any HR, Training, Business or similar post is welcome. Please, no bad words! This is polite business.
Any HR, Training, Business or similar post is welcome. Please, no bad words! This is polite business.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Health Spending Account Help
Good morning,
I work for a large company. During the annual benefits sign up period I opted for an HSA insurance account. Some of my co workers opted for a FSA. ( I'm assuming you know what I am referring to.)
Any how, the company has not funded these accounts properly. The company pledged to fund my HSA evenly though out the year and has failed to do so. I try to contact the home office and get stonewalled, any reply is achieved by getting my supervisors to send e-mails to them. They put random amounts in the account when you complain and send you an e-mail saying the fund is correct.
Actually, I've got it good, because my co workers with the FSA have funds deducted from their paycheck and not posted to their account.
I have contacted the Federal Wage board and other than one message on my answering machine,( telling me to contact her, and all other follow up calls have met voice mail purgatory).My question is, what means of redress do I have?
Thanks, I do enjoy your blog.
Oh dear, you are in a pickle. First, let's define a few things. HSAs are Health Savings Accounts. They are designed to allow you to pay for medical costs tax free. Individuals or employees can contribute to them. I'm a big fan (although I've never personally used one, but I think I'd be a fan.) An FSA is a Flexible Spending Account. These have a big difference from the HSA in that they are use it or lose it accounts. If you put $1000 in and then only have $500 worth of eligible costs, you lose that $500.
Now, on to your question. Your employer is about to get themselves in a whole heap of trouble. The IRS regulates Flexible Spending Accounts. They are definitely known for their warm fuzziness and understanding of mistakes, right?
The way to get things fixed internally is to get the right person upset about it. Your e-mails go unnoticed, but your supervisor's e-mails get responses. Can you get your supervisor to get her boss to complain? The higher up the complainer is the more likely you are to get a response. You might want to throw in the words, "you know, the IRS regulates this." It might help.
Unfortunately, I'm not a benefits expert, but B. Janell Grenier is. Hop on over to her blog and see if she can give you a better answer.
Good luck!
Evil HR Lady
I work for a large company. During the annual benefits sign up period I opted for an HSA insurance account. Some of my co workers opted for a FSA. ( I'm assuming you know what I am referring to.)
Any how, the company has not funded these accounts properly. The company pledged to fund my HSA evenly though out the year and has failed to do so. I try to contact the home office and get stonewalled, any reply is achieved by getting my supervisors to send e-mails to them. They put random amounts in the account when you complain and send you an e-mail saying the fund is correct.
Actually, I've got it good, because my co workers with the FSA have funds deducted from their paycheck and not posted to their account.
I have contacted the Federal Wage board and other than one message on my answering machine,( telling me to contact her, and all other follow up calls have met voice mail purgatory).My question is, what means of redress do I have?
Thanks, I do enjoy your blog.
Oh dear, you are in a pickle. First, let's define a few things. HSAs are Health Savings Accounts. They are designed to allow you to pay for medical costs tax free. Individuals or employees can contribute to them. I'm a big fan (although I've never personally used one, but I think I'd be a fan.) An FSA is a Flexible Spending Account. These have a big difference from the HSA in that they are use it or lose it accounts. If you put $1000 in and then only have $500 worth of eligible costs, you lose that $500.
Now, on to your question. Your employer is about to get themselves in a whole heap of trouble. The IRS regulates Flexible Spending Accounts. They are definitely known for their warm fuzziness and understanding of mistakes, right?
The way to get things fixed internally is to get the right person upset about it. Your e-mails go unnoticed, but your supervisor's e-mails get responses. Can you get your supervisor to get her boss to complain? The higher up the complainer is the more likely you are to get a response. You might want to throw in the words, "you know, the IRS regulates this." It might help.
Unfortunately, I'm not a benefits expert, but B. Janell Grenier is. Hop on over to her blog and see if she can give you a better answer.
Good luck!
Evil HR Lady
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Affirmative Action
A few days ago, the Offspring and I went to [Mexican Restaurant]. Being an HR professional who has dealt with the OFCCP far too often, I immediately noticed a problem: 75% of the people eating there were adult males.*
Now, this must not be due to any free will among the patrons, so I did what any good citizen would do: I contacted the OFCCP. Here is their response:
*Everything past here is made up. And the food was great, by they way.
Now, this must not be due to any free will among the patrons, so I did what any good citizen would do: I contacted the OFCCP. Here is their response:
Dear Evil HR Lady,
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We immediately launched an investigation and this is what we determined regarding .[Mexican Restaurant] admits that they do not monitor the gender of everyone who walks in their door. This is unacceptable. How do we know if we are not discriminating if we don't count and categorize everyone who walks in? [Mexican Restaurant] admits that their children's menu does not include macaroni and cheese or chicken nuggets. They claim that it is their choice to serve "Mexican" food only. We say this causes a disparate impact, as noted by the lack of toddlers in the restaurant. We also questioned them as to why they thought that it was sufficient to only serve "Mexican" food. What about the rest of Latin America? The investigation over whether Guatamalens are harmed by this is still underway. [Mexican Restaurant] acknowledges that the person working the counter was female. This clearly attracts males--and not only males, but heterosexual males. While at the present, we don't monitor the sexual orientation of people (but we are thinking about it), this is a concern to us. [Mexican Restaurant] admits to serving "spicy" foods. They also acknowledge that men tend to prefer spicy foods more than women do. They also admit that pregnant or nursing women may have to stay away from spicy food due to heartburn and upset babies. Again, they claim this is an untintentional slight, but we are still concerned.
We thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will be working with [Mexican Restaurant] to bring them into compliance on this very important issue.
Sincerely,
OFCCP
*Everything past here is made up. And the food was great, by they way.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Responsibility vs Authority
Some of my responsibilities are being outsourced. (No worries--my employment status will not change as a result of this outsourcing.) Nevertheless, it's a high stress thing to turn responsibilities over to an outside firm. At the same time, we are setting our annual performance goals, especially as they relate to the outsourcing. My boss and I had the following conversation (well, paraphrased to make me sound more articulate and clever than I really am):
Boss: The outsourcing needs to be seamless in order for you to meet your goal.
EHL: Define seamless.
Boss: The client will not experience any change in service. They will not know that this task has been outsourced.
EHL: No.
Boss: No?
EHL: No, that is not a goal I'll accept.
Boss: Why?
EHL: Because the outsourcers have different requirements. For instance, they require a 5 day turn around. We currently give a one hour turn around in an emergency. Additionally, no matter what information I give the outsources, I cannot guarentee that they will do it correctly. (I then listed examples from a previous outsourcing that has caused all of us HR types endless woes.)
Boss: Well, you need to make it happen.
EHL: I have no authority over the outsource company. They don't report to me. I don't have hire/fire authority over the person they assign to the task. You want me to be responsible for something I have no authority over.
Boss: How about your goal is to "provide the outsourcer with all necessary information to complete the task."
EHL: Much better
Ahh, the responsibility vs. authority problem. It's a big one we face in HR. We're responsible to make good hires, reduce turnover, fill the leadership pipeline, make the EEO and OFCCP happy and solve every problem under the sun. But, do we have the authority to do so?
Some HR people might. But, who makes the final decision on who to hire? The Staffing Rep? Not likely. Staffing can send a variety of candidates, but it's the manager who makes the hiring decision. What about managers? Internal promotion decisions are made by current management. Sure, HR can have input, but the final decision? Line management. We can offer management training classes out the wazoo, but we are dependent upon line management to get their employees in the classes.
But, who is held responsible for all these things? HR.
It really annoys me. If you are going to make me responsible, give me authority.
Kris at the HR Capitalist has the subitle : Get to the table, stay at the table. He's a wise man. Being at the table helps give you authority to accomplish the things you are already responsible for.
Boss: The outsourcing needs to be seamless in order for you to meet your goal.
EHL: Define seamless.
Boss: The client will not experience any change in service. They will not know that this task has been outsourced.
EHL: No.
Boss: No?
EHL: No, that is not a goal I'll accept.
Boss: Why?
EHL: Because the outsourcers have different requirements. For instance, they require a 5 day turn around. We currently give a one hour turn around in an emergency. Additionally, no matter what information I give the outsources, I cannot guarentee that they will do it correctly. (I then listed examples from a previous outsourcing that has caused all of us HR types endless woes.)
Boss: Well, you need to make it happen.
EHL: I have no authority over the outsource company. They don't report to me. I don't have hire/fire authority over the person they assign to the task. You want me to be responsible for something I have no authority over.
Boss: How about your goal is to "provide the outsourcer with all necessary information to complete the task."
EHL: Much better
Ahh, the responsibility vs. authority problem. It's a big one we face in HR. We're responsible to make good hires, reduce turnover, fill the leadership pipeline, make the EEO and OFCCP happy and solve every problem under the sun. But, do we have the authority to do so?
Some HR people might. But, who makes the final decision on who to hire? The Staffing Rep? Not likely. Staffing can send a variety of candidates, but it's the manager who makes the hiring decision. What about managers? Internal promotion decisions are made by current management. Sure, HR can have input, but the final decision? Line management. We can offer management training classes out the wazoo, but we are dependent upon line management to get their employees in the classes.
But, who is held responsible for all these things? HR.
It really annoys me. If you are going to make me responsible, give me authority.
Kris at the HR Capitalist has the subitle : Get to the table, stay at the table. He's a wise man. Being at the table helps give you authority to accomplish the things you are already responsible for.
Business Decisions
I stumbled upon This piece of wisdom:
Makes sense, right? The unknown author continues:
How sad is it that I not only laughed, but nodded my head with almost every one of these?
Tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians (so legend has it), passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."
Makes sense, right? The unknown author continues:
However, in government, education and the corporate world, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Giving horse and rider a good bollocking.
4. Re-structuring the dead horse's reward scale to contain a performance-related element.
5. Suspending the horse's access to the executive grassy meadow until performance targets are met.
6. Making the horse work late shifts and weekends.
7. Scrutising and clawing back a percentage of the horse's past 12 months expenses payments.
8. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
9. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride horses.
10. Convening a dead horse productivity improvement workshop.
11. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
12. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
13. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
14. Outsourcing the management of the dead horse.
15. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
16. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance.
17. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
18. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
19. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses. And the highly effective...
20. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
How sad is it that I not only laughed, but nodded my head with almost every one of these?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Insanity Time
The Carnival of the Insanities is up over at Dr. Sanity's place. You'll learn about Iran, Piano playing, political ads, mad kittens and flying children. What more could you ask for!
Hiring Outside the Box
We always hear about "thinking outside the box." But what if that thinking leads us to hiring outside the box?
With the scandal at Walter Reed Medical Center the Army Surgeon General Resigned. The interim Surgeon General? Major General Gale S. Pollock. What is so outside the box on this hire?
She's not a doctor. She's a nurse.
Granted, she's an interim Surgeon General, but I still think it's got great potential. The Army definitely has problems with it's medical centers. Maybe the best way to fix it is to think differently--bring in a nurse who has different experiences and view points than doctors do.
The nursing blogosphere is, of course, ecstatic over this. Universal Health writes:
Have there been "out of the box" hires that you've seen? Did they work out wonderfully or fail miserably, or somewhere in the middle?
With the scandal at Walter Reed Medical Center the Army Surgeon General Resigned. The interim Surgeon General? Major General Gale S. Pollock. What is so outside the box on this hire?
She's not a doctor. She's a nurse.
Granted, she's an interim Surgeon General, but I still think it's got great potential. The Army definitely has problems with it's medical centers. Maybe the best way to fix it is to think differently--bring in a nurse who has different experiences and view points than doctors do.
The nursing blogosphere is, of course, ecstatic over this. Universal Health writes:
[N]urses are notorious for creativeness under fire, frugality, patient advocacy and stepping up to the plate when the odds are enormous. Nurses have brains, intestinal fortitude and can-do attitudes. General Pollock is an able leader, and she is now quite possibly the most publicly visible nurse in the U.S.
Have there been "out of the box" hires that you've seen? Did they work out wonderfully or fail miserably, or somewhere in the middle?
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Toddling in Manhattan
Toddlers are taking over Manhattan, apparently. And not just any toddlers--the rich, white kind.
I could live on $284,208 per year, couldn't you? I even have a toddler (although she will insist she is not a toddler, she is a pre-school girl).
If stumbled upon this article right after chatting with two of my colleagues about our children. While none of us have salaries that push us into that $284,208 bracket (although no telling what their husband's make--so maybe they do), we all have young children and are much older than our mothers were when they had young children.
It's expensive to live in Manhattan. And unless you just completed your Supreme Court Clerkship, you're not going to be making that kind of money by the time you are 25. You're going to be an older parent. So, these parents are older, and have devoted time to their careers first.
Is this good for business? Would it be better for a business to hire people who had their children in their early 20s, so time off for stomach viruses and school plays was taken by the low level staff instead of the executive group? In requiring extra hours that make people feel unable to produce their own offspring at young ages causing companies to lose money in the long run?
After all, it costs you less to have a $30,000 a year employee take FMLA than it does to have a $150,000 employee. (Not saying that you have to pay them their salary--you don't, but somebody has to do the work while they are gone and it's much easier to find a $15 an hour temp than it is to find someone who is used to $150,000 a year to work for you for 12 weeks.)
Maybe the old way of getting married young, having children young, and getting them out of the house while you are still young was better for business. Thoughts?
Since 2000, according to census figures released last year, the number of children under age 5 living in Manhattan mushroomed by more than 32 percent. And though their ranks have been growing for several years, a new analysis for The New York Times makes clear for the first time who has been driving that growth: wealthy white families.
At least half of the growth was generated by children who are white and non-Hispanic. Their ranks expanded by more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2005. For the first time since at least the 1960s, white children now outnumber either black or Hispanic youngsters in that age group in Manhattan.
The analysis shows that Manhattan’s 35,000 or so white non-Hispanic toddlers are being raised by parents whose median income was $284,208 a year in 2005, which means they are growing up in wealthier households than similar youngsters in any other large county in the country.
I could live on $284,208 per year, couldn't you? I even have a toddler (although she will insist she is not a toddler, she is a pre-school girl).
If stumbled upon this article right after chatting with two of my colleagues about our children. While none of us have salaries that push us into that $284,208 bracket (although no telling what their husband's make--so maybe they do), we all have young children and are much older than our mothers were when they had young children.
It's expensive to live in Manhattan. And unless you just completed your Supreme Court Clerkship, you're not going to be making that kind of money by the time you are 25. You're going to be an older parent. So, these parents are older, and have devoted time to their careers first.
Is this good for business? Would it be better for a business to hire people who had their children in their early 20s, so time off for stomach viruses and school plays was taken by the low level staff instead of the executive group? In requiring extra hours that make people feel unable to produce their own offspring at young ages causing companies to lose money in the long run?
After all, it costs you less to have a $30,000 a year employee take FMLA than it does to have a $150,000 employee. (Not saying that you have to pay them their salary--you don't, but somebody has to do the work while they are gone and it's much easier to find a $15 an hour temp than it is to find someone who is used to $150,000 a year to work for you for 12 weeks.)
Maybe the old way of getting married young, having children young, and getting them out of the house while you are still young was better for business. Thoughts?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Carnival of HR--Really
I'm a day late, but part of the fun of a carnival is the anticipation, right? Right.
We didn't have a planned theme, but it turns out one developed all on its own: Managers need help.
First up is Lisa asking us "Why is your staff morale so low?" Here are some of her questions:
And just what are those managers getting paid? Wally discusses CEO pay, and it's audiences. It's not just the CEO's spouse that cares about the paycheck:
But if you wanted to fire a bad manager or an overpaid CEO--or hire a new one, we'd turn to Deb who discusses "hiring & firing speeds."
And just how many managers does it take to overthrow the Persians? Definitely some firing--or rather swording (ha!) going on with our resident Cranky Middle Manager, Wayne. He writes:
Anna at The Engaging Brand tells us about a manager that had a Homer Simpson experience and his new employee played Bart.
And to round us out, Evil HR Lady answers a question about a manager that just won't let his old employee go--much to the detriment of the new employee.
So, now we know--managers need help. If they would just read our blogs, businesses would have no problems.
Wonderful submissions! Fabulous posts. Next Carnival in two weeks--April 4. Any HR or Business related posts are welcome. Submit to evilhrlady at hotmail.com.
We didn't have a planned theme, but it turns out one developed all on its own: Managers need help.
First up is Lisa asking us "Why is your staff morale so low?" Here are some of her questions:
Do you expect your support people to "read your mind" in regards to work expectations?
Do you play favorites?
Do you see or measure each action or non-action as a sign of disrespect or disloyalty?
And just what are those managers getting paid? Wally discusses CEO pay, and it's audiences. It's not just the CEO's spouse that cares about the paycheck:
The amount of CEO compensation was not an issue when I was starting out in business. You knew that the CEO would make good money, but that was part of the game. And, besides, the CEO didn't make all that much more than anybody else. That's changed.
But if you wanted to fire a bad manager or an overpaid CEO--or hire a new one, we'd turn to Deb who discusses "hiring & firing speeds."
then again, hiring slow and not letting managers get away with firing 'that day' without doing their homework first, can suddenly turn into an "HR is not supportive or responsive" riot. this means we have to communicate a lot with our managers, and often need to take the time to train/coach managers through the process.
And just how many managers does it take to overthrow the Persians? Definitely some firing--or rather swording (ha!) going on with our resident Cranky Middle Manager, Wayne. He writes:
But she sounded completely inspired when she started on the new blockbuster movie "300", about how 300 Spartans held out against impossible odds – citing it as proof of what a few dedicated people could do when they really tried.
This, I suppose, was to let us know that they didn't really need their "bloated" staff and if properly motivated, their teams would perform just like those Spartans.
What she actually managed to do was to get me to clean out my sinus cavities with coffee as I choked and spat it out my nose.
Anna at The Engaging Brand tells us about a manager that had a Homer Simpson experience and his new employee played Bart.
Today a friend of mine started at a new company, he was delighted the interview process had ignited his passion. He turned up and guess what.....his new manager had forgotten he was starting today. He was asked to wait in reception, and to occupy himself for the next 2 hours 10 minutes (!) he watched and suddenly felt like Bart Simpson
And to round us out, Evil HR Lady answers a question about a manager that just won't let his old employee go--much to the detriment of the new employee.
You shouldn't date mama's boys, and, in this case, you shouldn't work for them.
So, now we know--managers need help. If they would just read our blogs, businesses would have no problems.
Wonderful submissions! Fabulous posts. Next Carnival in two weeks--April 4. Any HR or Business related posts are welcome. Submit to evilhrlady at hotmail.com.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Slacker
Okay, this post is about being a slacker. Or, more specifically, I am a slacker.
I didn't get the Carnival of HR posted yesterday. And I'm off to work in a few minutes and I don't blog from work. (No use getting fired!)
So, think of this as your opportunity to submit more posts. Anything business/HR related is acceptable--as long as there are no bad words. My daughter's mother reads this blog and we don't want to offend her.
Send your hr/business related posts to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com and they will be posted in the late Carnival. I promise I will do it when I get home.
I'm conducting a training session today and in my class is the new training manager, so I'm a bit nervous. Never met him, but my job share partner says he's a nice guy.
I didn't get the Carnival of HR posted yesterday. And I'm off to work in a few minutes and I don't blog from work. (No use getting fired!)
So, think of this as your opportunity to submit more posts. Anything business/HR related is acceptable--as long as there are no bad words. My daughter's mother reads this blog and we don't want to offend her.
Send your hr/business related posts to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com and they will be posted in the late Carnival. I promise I will do it when I get home.
I'm conducting a training session today and in my class is the new training manager, so I'm a bit nervous. Never met him, but my job share partner says he's a nice guy.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Boom! take 2
I don't know what happened to my picture yesterday. I'm trying again---because it really is a funny picture. Poor Offspring.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Retire, Please?
Hi –
I have a question. I was called in to interview for a position as Office Manager and offered the job. (I had previously worked at this office years ago and they contacted me.) The office manager at the time was going to semi retire for a year (work one day a week) and then retired. She is still here 3 years later. The office is her “place to go and talk” each week. The managing partners defer to her on all personal and personnel matters. She is a very nice person, but she consistently talks, disrupts the office and must be taught how to do a job that she was doing for 16 years. Today was her work day. She talked all day. I tried to ignore her and be polite. The tension showed on my face. My boss asked me what was wrong. I mentioned that it was difficult to get work done sometimes when this particular person is around. I was told to get over it. How do I deal with this? I’m clearly not being taken seriously or given the same respect. Please help.
Thanks,
The NEW Office Manager
Dear New Office Manager,
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're going to either have to "deal" with it or find a new job. My guess is that the old (ha!) office manager took on a mother-type role and that your boss is a mama's boy.
You shouldn't date mama's boys, and, in this case, you shouldn't work for them.
Now, if the other 4 days a week everything is fine, then you can probably endure her once a week visit. Plan for a day when you will not be productive at all, and try to just let it slide off you.
If the 4 days she's not there involve people saying, "let's wait until Marge comes in before we make that decision" then your life is much more difficult.
Since the managing partners defer to her on important decisions, I think your life is very difficult. You've expressed your feelings and been told to get over it. Unfortunately, you're going to have to do this. I think your best option is to get over it by getting a new job.
Ironically, that may be the only thing that wakes everyone up to the negative impact the retired office manager is having.
I'm sorry I don't have a set of magic words for you. If you decide the job is worth the pain, have a sit down talk with your problem. Explain that you find it difficult to do your job, since everyone defers to her. If she's truly nice, she may back off.
Good luck, and of course, if any of my readers have suggestions, please let this new office manager know.
Sincerely,
Evil HR Lady
I have a question. I was called in to interview for a position as Office Manager and offered the job. (I had previously worked at this office years ago and they contacted me.) The office manager at the time was going to semi retire for a year (work one day a week) and then retired. She is still here 3 years later. The office is her “place to go and talk” each week. The managing partners defer to her on all personal and personnel matters. She is a very nice person, but she consistently talks, disrupts the office and must be taught how to do a job that she was doing for 16 years. Today was her work day. She talked all day. I tried to ignore her and be polite. The tension showed on my face. My boss asked me what was wrong. I mentioned that it was difficult to get work done sometimes when this particular person is around. I was told to get over it. How do I deal with this? I’m clearly not being taken seriously or given the same respect. Please help.
Thanks,
The NEW Office Manager
Dear New Office Manager,
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're going to either have to "deal" with it or find a new job. My guess is that the old (ha!) office manager took on a mother-type role and that your boss is a mama's boy.
You shouldn't date mama's boys, and, in this case, you shouldn't work for them.
Now, if the other 4 days a week everything is fine, then you can probably endure her once a week visit. Plan for a day when you will not be productive at all, and try to just let it slide off you.
If the 4 days she's not there involve people saying, "let's wait until Marge comes in before we make that decision" then your life is much more difficult.
Since the managing partners defer to her on important decisions, I think your life is very difficult. You've expressed your feelings and been told to get over it. Unfortunately, you're going to have to do this. I think your best option is to get over it by getting a new job.
Ironically, that may be the only thing that wakes everyone up to the negative impact the retired office manager is having.
I'm sorry I don't have a set of magic words for you. If you decide the job is worth the pain, have a sit down talk with your problem. Explain that you find it difficult to do your job, since everyone defers to her. If she's truly nice, she may back off.
Good luck, and of course, if any of my readers have suggestions, please let this new office manager know.
Sincerely,
Evil HR Lady
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Disparity Between the Rich and the Poor
Slate.com gives this headline:
Ummm, let's see. Because, perhaps, maybe, there is a cause and effect relationship going on here. If I spend more time working then I make more money. Hmmm, is that possible? Let's try the reverse. If I spend more time goofing off, then I make less money.
I fail to see the mystery part of this.
Perhaps if I used the time I spend blogging doing work, I'd be rich!
The Theory of the Leisure Class
An economic mystery: Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich?
Ummm, let's see. Because, perhaps, maybe, there is a cause and effect relationship going on here. If I spend more time working then I make more money. Hmmm, is that possible? Let's try the reverse. If I spend more time goofing off, then I make less money.
I fail to see the mystery part of this.
Perhaps if I used the time I spend blogging doing work, I'd be rich!
Friday, March 16, 2007
Responding to an Applicant
Hello, I am new to this board but love your site. My question is:
An applicant applied for a job that we had posted and we did not screen her in for an interview because we know that she was fired from her previous position for lack of attendance due to a drinking and drug problem. (I am from a very small town and news travels fast) I sent her a letter stating that we did not screen her in for an interview but thank you for your interest with the organization. (Policy rules to inform everyone) She has now called me and wants to know why she didn’t get screened in for an interview. I have never had this happen in all my years of working in HR. Weird.
Normally this is way easier to respond as they were clearly not qualified for the job.
What do I say and how do I say it.
Thanks!
HR Manager
Dear HR Manager,
Is there a reason you have to respond? Yes, I admit, that is my wimpy side coming through. (As a child I assumed that adults were never scared or nervous and they never did anything they didn't want to. I thought my mom liked doing dishes. Boy, life has been a rude awakening!) Sorry, I tend to be too stream-of-conscious.
I don't have a good answer for you. But I'm going to bump this to my online HR pals and see if we can get them to come over and give you a great answer. Kris, Deb, Lisa, Patrick or anybody else?
My desire would be to say, "We know you were fired for x,y, and z at your last job. This is why we didn't interview you," but I suspect that is not a good answer. I hope everyone responds. And I hope you still like my blog, even after I gave you a non-answer.
An applicant applied for a job that we had posted and we did not screen her in for an interview because we know that she was fired from her previous position for lack of attendance due to a drinking and drug problem. (I am from a very small town and news travels fast) I sent her a letter stating that we did not screen her in for an interview but thank you for your interest with the organization. (Policy rules to inform everyone) She has now called me and wants to know why she didn’t get screened in for an interview. I have never had this happen in all my years of working in HR. Weird.
Normally this is way easier to respond as they were clearly not qualified for the job.
What do I say and how do I say it.
Thanks!
HR Manager
Dear HR Manager,
Is there a reason you have to respond? Yes, I admit, that is my wimpy side coming through. (As a child I assumed that adults were never scared or nervous and they never did anything they didn't want to. I thought my mom liked doing dishes. Boy, life has been a rude awakening!) Sorry, I tend to be too stream-of-conscious.
I don't have a good answer for you. But I'm going to bump this to my online HR pals and see if we can get them to come over and give you a great answer. Kris, Deb, Lisa, Patrick or anybody else?
My desire would be to say, "We know you were fired for x,y, and z at your last job. This is why we didn't interview you," but I suspect that is not a good answer. I hope everyone responds. And I hope you still like my blog, even after I gave you a non-answer.
Finding Out What Makes Your Employees Truly Happy
For me, it's food.
Just kidding, although food is nice. Penelope Trunk at the Brazen Careerist, posted a video blog by Bruce Tulgan regarding employee requests.
He tells a fabulous story about an absurd request for different cubicle furniture.
Why is that our first reaction when someone asks for something extraordinary is "no"? Because it's never been done before? Because I'm the manager, dang it, and I'll decide what goes on here? Because I don't want something like that, therefore, this person can't possibly want something like that, therefore they are just pushing my buttons?
Practice saying this instead, "I don't see any reason why not. Let me think on it over night just in case there are unseen problems and we'll see what we can do." Of course, if the request is illegal or cause department strife, you, as the manager, do have to say no. But if it's cost neutral and won't bother anybody else, why not?
There, is that so hard?
Just kidding, although food is nice. Penelope Trunk at the Brazen Careerist, posted a video blog by Bruce Tulgan regarding employee requests.
He tells a fabulous story about an absurd request for different cubicle furniture.
Why is that our first reaction when someone asks for something extraordinary is "no"? Because it's never been done before? Because I'm the manager, dang it, and I'll decide what goes on here? Because I don't want something like that, therefore, this person can't possibly want something like that, therefore they are just pushing my buttons?
Practice saying this instead, "I don't see any reason why not. Let me think on it over night just in case there are unseen problems and we'll see what we can do." Of course, if the request is illegal or cause department strife, you, as the manager, do have to say no. But if it's cost neutral and won't bother anybody else, why not?
There, is that so hard?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Carnival Reminder!
Only one week until our next fabulous HR Carnival. Send your submissions to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Profession or Life?
Another blogger posted his thoughts about people who consider their employment a profession verses those who think of it as a job. He got pretty seriously blasted and ended up deleting the post (just when I was planning to link to it, curse him!). To respect his decision, I won't link to his blog, but I do have some things to say about it.
I do see myself as having a profession. However, at this point in my life, I'm not willing to work full time. I'm not willing to stay until 2:00 a.m. to solve a problem. I'm in HR people, it's not brain surgery and no one is going to die if headcount isn't done until the next day. That being said, I'm also an efficient worker who tends to be able to use my computer skills to automate tasks that previous people have spent hours and hours per performing.
Some people in my department have differing views. They are willing to stay until 2:00 a.m. and are unwilling to say no to senior management, regardless of the absurdity of the request. That would seem to shout "this person is dedicated to the profession!" They aren't necessarily willing to find a faster way to do the job.
But there are perception problems all around this concept. Does someone who has to work from home when their child is sick, or takes two hours off to attend the 5th grade talent show lack dedication? (Of course, I think I would go out and get a job in order to avoid attending a 5th grade talent show. Yeesh, I am such a bad mother, but tell me, does anyone enjoy any part of such things other than their own child's performance? I thought so.)
HR is female heavy and my department is no exception. There are 23 people in my department, 20 of whom are women. Of those 20 women, 16 have young children, and one of the childless ones is pregnant with her first. For all 16 of those, the mom is primarily responsible for childcare.
Every single one. If the kid is sick, mom stays home. Now, keep in mind that this group has those people described above who are willing to stay until the middle of the night working on a project that will not save the world. They are dedicated. Some feel this is their calling. Yet, even among those who make substantially more money than their husbands (I know way too much about my co-workers lives), they are still the primary care givers.
So, at which point do we judge someone's dedication to their job? By the number of times they can't come into the office because family responsibilities take precedence? By the number of times they stay late at the office? By the number of times they work from home after the children are asleep?
I advocate for throwing all of those criteria out the window. We should look at the end product: What are they producing?
We give credit for face time. Why? 90% of my work is done via e-mail and phone calls. My function supports all of our US and Puerto Rico sites. I couldn't have face time at each of those sites even if I wanted to. So, why does it matter if I show my face every day at the office?
It shouldn't. Should it matter if it takes me 8 hours or 6 hours to accomplish a task? I'm an exempt employee (no over time), so theoretically I'm hired to do a job, not punch a clock.
And to give credit where credit is due, my female heavy department is fabulously flexible. They do still reward face time (especially face time where you are in your manager's office rather than your own accomplishing something--which I don't understand at all), but understand that while this is a profession, it's not a life.
I do see myself as having a profession. However, at this point in my life, I'm not willing to work full time. I'm not willing to stay until 2:00 a.m. to solve a problem. I'm in HR people, it's not brain surgery and no one is going to die if headcount isn't done until the next day. That being said, I'm also an efficient worker who tends to be able to use my computer skills to automate tasks that previous people have spent hours and hours per performing.
Some people in my department have differing views. They are willing to stay until 2:00 a.m. and are unwilling to say no to senior management, regardless of the absurdity of the request. That would seem to shout "this person is dedicated to the profession!" They aren't necessarily willing to find a faster way to do the job.
But there are perception problems all around this concept. Does someone who has to work from home when their child is sick, or takes two hours off to attend the 5th grade talent show lack dedication? (Of course, I think I would go out and get a job in order to avoid attending a 5th grade talent show. Yeesh, I am such a bad mother, but tell me, does anyone enjoy any part of such things other than their own child's performance? I thought so.)
HR is female heavy and my department is no exception. There are 23 people in my department, 20 of whom are women. Of those 20 women, 16 have young children, and one of the childless ones is pregnant with her first. For all 16 of those, the mom is primarily responsible for childcare.
Every single one. If the kid is sick, mom stays home. Now, keep in mind that this group has those people described above who are willing to stay until the middle of the night working on a project that will not save the world. They are dedicated. Some feel this is their calling. Yet, even among those who make substantially more money than their husbands (I know way too much about my co-workers lives), they are still the primary care givers.
So, at which point do we judge someone's dedication to their job? By the number of times they can't come into the office because family responsibilities take precedence? By the number of times they stay late at the office? By the number of times they work from home after the children are asleep?
I advocate for throwing all of those criteria out the window. We should look at the end product: What are they producing?
We give credit for face time. Why? 90% of my work is done via e-mail and phone calls. My function supports all of our US and Puerto Rico sites. I couldn't have face time at each of those sites even if I wanted to. So, why does it matter if I show my face every day at the office?
It shouldn't. Should it matter if it takes me 8 hours or 6 hours to accomplish a task? I'm an exempt employee (no over time), so theoretically I'm hired to do a job, not punch a clock.
And to give credit where credit is due, my female heavy department is fabulously flexible. They do still reward face time (especially face time where you are in your manager's office rather than your own accomplishing something--which I don't understand at all), but understand that while this is a profession, it's not a life.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Speaking of Salaries
Harvard is doubling the available money to pay doctors who teach. I would have thought they were making enough money as is, but it turns out that even for doctors, teaching is not terribly lucrative.
Some doctors are only getting $30 an hour for teaching. Now, if you are currently making $8 an hour, you aren't going to have much sympathy. But, $30 an hour is around $60,000 a year. (Handy bit of knowledge, there are 2080 hours in a year, assuming a 40 hour work week. When presented with an hourly rate, double it and add three 0s to the end and you have an approximate annual salary.)
For someone not only with a medical degree, but qualified to teach at a Harvard affliated hospital, that's nothing. You are going to attract very few people with that amount of money.
Apparently, doctors who teach aren't the only prestigious group to be underpaid. Federal judges are as well. Granted, I'm not crying buckets tears for the Supreme Court Justices, who make around $200,000 year, but I would be crying if I were them. Their former clerks are getting that much in sign on bonuses.
It's not really the Supremes I worry about--after all, as the Volkh Conspiracy points out:
But, lower court judges don't have all the power and prestige that a Supreme Court Justice has. This means that the available pool of talent for such jobs necessarily excludes very qualified people who have mortgages and kids in college.
I'm very much in favor of smaller government and think most programs should be gutted. However, I also believe that good judges are necessary for a strong country. By not paying enough, we're not getting the best. I hope that Congress takes some advice from the folks over at Harvard and doubles the salaries of our federal judges.
But, I couldn't trust them to do so without doubling their own salaries. And lets face it, that's a bunch of people who do not deserve a raise of any sort.
(Okay, I know there is an argument for that, which I might make later.)
Some doctors are only getting $30 an hour for teaching. Now, if you are currently making $8 an hour, you aren't going to have much sympathy. But, $30 an hour is around $60,000 a year. (Handy bit of knowledge, there are 2080 hours in a year, assuming a 40 hour work week. When presented with an hourly rate, double it and add three 0s to the end and you have an approximate annual salary.)
For someone not only with a medical degree, but qualified to teach at a Harvard affliated hospital, that's nothing. You are going to attract very few people with that amount of money.
Apparently, doctors who teach aren't the only prestigious group to be underpaid. Federal judges are as well. Granted, I'm not crying buckets tears for the Supreme Court Justices, who make around $200,000 year, but I would be crying if I were them. Their former clerks are getting that much in sign on bonuses.
It's not really the Supremes I worry about--after all, as the Volkh Conspiracy points out:
Well, Justice Kennedy, here's an option for you: resign! I'm sure you can make a lot more than some young associate working for a firm specializing in Supreme Court litigation, or, for that matter, as an arbitrator. Indeed, I'd speculate that you could easily make 3 or 4 million dollars a year! What, you don't want to give up the power and prestige that comes with being a Supreme Court Justice? Than maybe there is NOTHING wrong with current salaries, at least at the Supreme Court level. Indeed, I'd guess that none of the the Justices would resign even if they had to take, say, a (n unconstitutional) 25% percent pay cut.
But, lower court judges don't have all the power and prestige that a Supreme Court Justice has. This means that the available pool of talent for such jobs necessarily excludes very qualified people who have mortgages and kids in college.
I'm very much in favor of smaller government and think most programs should be gutted. However, I also believe that good judges are necessary for a strong country. By not paying enough, we're not getting the best. I hope that Congress takes some advice from the folks over at Harvard and doubles the salaries of our federal judges.
But, I couldn't trust them to do so without doubling their own salaries. And lets face it, that's a bunch of people who do not deserve a raise of any sort.
(Okay, I know there is an argument for that, which I might make later.)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
If I Ever Want to Change Jobs
Your Career Personality: Idealistic, Service-Oriented, and Future-Oriented |
 Your Ideal Careers: Alternative health practitioner Architect Environmental lawyer Librarian Magazine editor Museum curator Novelist Nutritionist Photo journalist Playwright |
Insane, I tell you, Insane
The Carnival of the Insanities is up over at Dr. Sanity's place. Hop on over and take a look.
How Empowering Your Employees Helps Everybody
The Evil Family went out for dinner tonight at a chain restaurant. We don't frequent chains because the food tends to be mediocre and the service bad, but we were on our way home from skiing and we needed to eat before the Offspring fell asleep. So, a chain it was.
The diners on either side of us had problems with their meals. Diner A's steak was not cooked right. Diner B ordered a chicken burrito and received a bean burrito. Neither was the end of the world and both diners were very polite as they explained this to their (different) waitresses.
Here is what happened with Diner B.
Diner B (very pleasantly): Excuse me, I ordered the chicken burrito and there is no chicken in it. It's just beans.
Waitress: Oh. Let me get the manager.
Waitress runs off and finds manager. This takes several minutes. Manager comes over and is looking completely frazzled (although her hair is still perfect--I should ask her what she uses in it).
Diner B (slight edge to her voice): This is a bean burrito. It's supposed to be chicken.
Manager: (Leans over table and peers into half eaten burrito.) Oh, okay. We'll get you another one.
Diner B: Thanks. (Customer leaves talking about how they always mess up here.)
Now, this ended just fine, although the customer was more annoyed than she would have been had the waitress been empowered to fix the problem herself.
Wally in last week's carnival, gave us some ideas of why we have problem managers. And as a sneak preview for the upcoming carnival, Lisa tells us more about the problems of poor management. I personally hate the "empowered" word, but that was what needed to happen. Here is what should have happened.
Diner B (very pleasantly): Excuse me, I ordered the chicken burrito and there is no chicken in it. It's just beans.
Waitress: I'm so sorry. I'll get a chicken one made for you immediately. I do apologize.
Customer: Thanks, I appreciate it. (Customer leaves feeling all warm and fuzzy about the restaurant.)
Now, because it was a chain restaurant, I don't know if the manager was empowered to delegate the ability to fix kitchen errors to the wait staff. She should have been. She was running around like crazy, fixing things that could have been fixed by others.
We don't train our managers correctly. We don't teach them what they, as the manager, should fix and what their employees should fix. Managers are scared to let employees have any power--for fear they'll make the wrong decision. If your employees are poor decision makers, you should not have hired them in the first place. Hire good employees and let them do their work.
And get that poor lady a chicken burrito. She's been waiting for it.
The diners on either side of us had problems with their meals. Diner A's steak was not cooked right. Diner B ordered a chicken burrito and received a bean burrito. Neither was the end of the world and both diners were very polite as they explained this to their (different) waitresses.
Here is what happened with Diner B.
Diner B (very pleasantly): Excuse me, I ordered the chicken burrito and there is no chicken in it. It's just beans.
Waitress: Oh. Let me get the manager.
Waitress runs off and finds manager. This takes several minutes. Manager comes over and is looking completely frazzled (although her hair is still perfect--I should ask her what she uses in it).
Diner B (slight edge to her voice): This is a bean burrito. It's supposed to be chicken.
Manager: (Leans over table and peers into half eaten burrito.) Oh, okay. We'll get you another one.
Diner B: Thanks. (Customer leaves talking about how they always mess up here.)
Now, this ended just fine, although the customer was more annoyed than she would have been had the waitress been empowered to fix the problem herself.
Wally in last week's carnival, gave us some ideas of why we have problem managers. And as a sneak preview for the upcoming carnival, Lisa tells us more about the problems of poor management. I personally hate the "empowered" word, but that was what needed to happen. Here is what should have happened.
Diner B (very pleasantly): Excuse me, I ordered the chicken burrito and there is no chicken in it. It's just beans.
Waitress: I'm so sorry. I'll get a chicken one made for you immediately. I do apologize.
Customer: Thanks, I appreciate it. (Customer leaves feeling all warm and fuzzy about the restaurant.)
Now, because it was a chain restaurant, I don't know if the manager was empowered to delegate the ability to fix kitchen errors to the wait staff. She should have been. She was running around like crazy, fixing things that could have been fixed by others.
We don't train our managers correctly. We don't teach them what they, as the manager, should fix and what their employees should fix. Managers are scared to let employees have any power--for fear they'll make the wrong decision. If your employees are poor decision makers, you should not have hired them in the first place. Hire good employees and let them do their work.
And get that poor lady a chicken burrito. She's been waiting for it.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Reply to All
Help me out here, I think I may be missing something. When I send an e-mail asking Steve a question and I cc Bob and Jane, it's because Bob and Jane need to know the answer as well. So, when Steve replies just to me, I have to forward the answer to Bob and Jane. Then Jane will reply, just to me, and I have to forward to Steve and Bob.
I understand that some people cc the entire world on every e-mail, but I don't. If someone's name is on there, they need to know the information. Am I the only person who does this?
Yesterday, I spent all day playing messenger girl between Steve and Jane. Technically, I didn't need to be in the conversation--I just needed to know the consensus at the end. But neither one would e-mail the other. Just me.
Someone explain this to me. Oh, and I believe this little bit of information makes a difference: Steve, Bob and Jane are all lawyers.
I understand that some people cc the entire world on every e-mail, but I don't. If someone's name is on there, they need to know the information. Am I the only person who does this?
Yesterday, I spent all day playing messenger girl between Steve and Jane. Technically, I didn't need to be in the conversation--I just needed to know the consensus at the end. But neither one would e-mail the other. Just me.
Someone explain this to me. Oh, and I believe this little bit of information makes a difference: Steve, Bob and Jane are all lawyers.
Friday, March 09, 2007
This Will Not Help Your Career
Daniel Radcliff, better known as the boy who plays Harry Potter, is proving to the world that he is a "serious actor."
How? By taking off his clothes while blinding horses. (Just a word of caution, the article is from the New York Times, but you don't want to read it aloud at the dinner table.)
Ahh, yes, I now take him much more seriously. Don't you?
I really don't understand why taking off your clothes is supposed to be this big career helping move in the acting world. Why? Is it difficult? I don't think so. I take off my clothes every day--sometimes twice. And if I'm shopping for new clothes, I even take on and off several outfits in a matter of minutes. I should be on Broadway!
Will it help Daniel Radcliff's career? I have no idea. It won't help yours, though. That whole line about "no such thing as bad publicity" is not true. Really. Make a fool of yourself in public and your current or future employer is bound to find out about it. They will not be pleased. Especially if the article says: "Jane Doe, who works as a Sr. Financial Analyst for Big Company, is currently staring in the Naked Wizard of Oz. 'You have to worry about sitting on the straw that falls out of the Scarcrow's costume' Jane said, laughingly."
Uggh. Don't do it.
How? By taking off his clothes while blinding horses. (Just a word of caution, the article is from the New York Times, but you don't want to read it aloud at the dinner table.)
Ahh, yes, I now take him much more seriously. Don't you?
I really don't understand why taking off your clothes is supposed to be this big career helping move in the acting world. Why? Is it difficult? I don't think so. I take off my clothes every day--sometimes twice. And if I'm shopping for new clothes, I even take on and off several outfits in a matter of minutes. I should be on Broadway!
Will it help Daniel Radcliff's career? I have no idea. It won't help yours, though. That whole line about "no such thing as bad publicity" is not true. Really. Make a fool of yourself in public and your current or future employer is bound to find out about it. They will not be pleased. Especially if the article says: "Jane Doe, who works as a Sr. Financial Analyst for Big Company, is currently staring in the Naked Wizard of Oz. 'You have to worry about sitting on the straw that falls out of the Scarcrow's costume' Jane said, laughingly."
Uggh. Don't do it.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Carnival of Human Resources #2
You go to carnivals at night, right? So, it's acceptable that I'm not posting this until 8:00 at night. Don't say otherwise or I won't host another carnival for two weeks. Or say otherwise and I won't host another carnival for two weeks. Next carnival is Wednesday, March 21--the first day of Spring!
And so welcome to the festivities!
First up is Deb at 8 Hours & a Lunch tells us about the importance of putting people first, not just process. She uses Toyota as an example and writes:
Next is Wally at Three Star Leadership. He asks "why so many managers do such an awful job of management." It's a problem we HR types are always trying to fix. He gives three reasons:
It sounds like if Deb and Wally got together they could take over the world. I'll just take a finders fee for suggesting it.
Patrick at Guerilla HR reminds us that it's not blogging that gets people fired. It's the content:
And speaking of French Fries, they are not healthy. And unhealthy employees are bad for your business. Kris at HR Capitalist tells us about the future of business provided healthcare.
Ha! Now I have you interested and you'll have to go check Kris out.
Finally, since we've talked about employees, managers, blogging and healthcare, we'll focus on something really important: Money. Especially how I am underpaid. Or overpaid. It's hard to tell:
Now, go forth and develope your employees and write great posts for the next carnival! And send those posts to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com. And if any of you HR blogging types are interested in hosting, let me know! I'm always willing to spread the joy around.
And so welcome to the festivities!
First up is Deb at 8 Hours & a Lunch tells us about the importance of putting people first, not just process. She uses Toyota as an example and writes:
we tend to be great at the continuous improvement part. start a new program, start problem solving with a vengence, and make grand strides. but toyota spends a lot of time and effort on people. they don't just talk about people being their greatest asset. they invest in training programs for all of their employees, extensively developing their skills, building teams, developing future leaders, and even provide training and support to their suppliers.
Next is Wally at Three Star Leadership. He asks "why so many managers do such an awful job of management." It's a problem we HR types are always trying to fix. He gives three reasons:
Reason number one. We promote the wrong people.
Reason number two that we have so many managers doing lousy management work is that managers get little to no training in how to be good managers.
Reason number three that we have so many managers doing lousy management work is that we think you learn leadership and supervisory skills from a book or a class.
It sounds like if Deb and Wally got together they could take over the world. I'll just take a finders fee for suggesting it.
Patrick at Guerilla HR reminds us that it's not blogging that gets people fired. It's the content:
While a quick Google of the web will bring up lots of examples of people claiming they got fired for blogging, the truth is that people dont get fired for blogging; they get fired for what they blog! Now, let me put my HR Wizard hat on - If your company has a policy about blogging, follow it! I know that sounds terribly HRish of me, but believe me - even if the blogging policy is a rag and infringes on your first ammendment rights, you are better off to swallow hard and live with it, because while the ACLU might defend you if you get canned, they won't pay your rent while you are between jobs! In fact, I'll stake my HR secret decoder ring that you won't be fired for blogging about your hobbies (PG-13 or better), your cat, or even something as potentially tricky as management IF you leave out questionable, objectionable, or confidential information. But if you go off on a blog-rant about what an idiot your boss is, the ingredients for your company's new "secret sauce", or how you and the VP of Sales are shaggging..... you will end up on the bad end of the situation - start practicing this pharse in prep for your next job - "Would you like fries with that?"
And speaking of French Fries, they are not healthy. And unhealthy employees are bad for your business. Kris at HR Capitalist tells us about the future of business provided healthcare.
Ever fired anyone for smoking? Scotts Miracle-Gro has. In an effort to push a progressive Wellness Program to the limit, Scotts recently termed its first employee for failing a nicotine test during his probationary period. It's all just a part of the Scotts mentality pushing a Wellness Program to the max to push employees to live healthier lives, and of course, to control the rising costs of providing medical coverage. To be fair, the program cuts both ways - the pressure on employees to live healthier lives has resulted in terminations, but has also saved lives like Joe Pellegrini:
Ha! Now I have you interested and you'll have to go check Kris out.
Finally, since we've talked about employees, managers, blogging and healthcare, we'll focus on something really important: Money. Especially how I am underpaid. Or overpaid. It's hard to tell:
I went to Payscale.com and had my salary evaluated.
You put in your title and it asks questions about your company size, what titles are comparable, your benefits and education, along with your current salary. Then it comes back with a salary range for your job along with where you sit.
Now, go forth and develope your employees and write great posts for the next carnival! And send those posts to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com. And if any of you HR blogging types are interested in hosting, let me know! I'm always willing to spread the joy around.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
How Accomplished Are You?
How is your resume looking? Have you achieved a great deal by this time in your life, or are you 45 and still running a cash register at the grocery store? (Not that there is anything wrong with that...)
I found a site to ruin what self esteem you have. Things Other People Accomplished When They Were Your Age.
Here's my list:
Go in and put your age in. I dare you.
I found a site to ruin what self esteem you have. Things Other People Accomplished When They Were Your Age.
Here's my list:
Francis Scott Key, after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry, publishes "The Star Spangled Banner."
Judith Guest began writing her first novel, Ordinary People.
After defeating Antony and Cleopatra's forces in a naval battle, Augustus became the master of the Roman world.
Matthias Jakob Schleiden, a German botanist, formulated the cell theory of physiology.
Go in and put your age in. I dare you.
Monday, March 05, 2007
I Am So Underpaid
See, that little dot on the bottom at the left? That's my salary compared to what I should be making. I need a raise!
I went to Payscale.com and had my salary evaluated.
You put in your title and it asks questions about your company size, what titles are comparable, your benefits and education, along with your current salary. Then it comes back with a salary range for your job along with where you sit.
It works by taking information from you and then putting it all together to spit back out to someone else. The more people that use it, the better off you are.
The one flaw was that while it asked how many hours you work (I work 20), it didn't calculate my full time equivalent salary (which would have been easy--salary*2). So, on my final chart, it showed me way at the bottom. If you truly do calculate the total salary of my job share partner and me, we're making more than anybody else who has written in. How on earth can I whine about my salary now?
Truth be told, I'm not sure how good a fit the job title I have listed is with what I really do. I've never met anyone else in all of HR that does what we do. And we have skills that are difficult to find and super-de-duper critical to our responsibilities. Hmmm, maybe I am underpaid after all.
Friday, March 02, 2007
A Rose by Any Other Name
This post is just for the ladies, and it's a little ranty, so bear with me.
When you get married, I don't care if you decide to take your husband's name, or keep your maiden name, or hyphenate. I don't even care if you decide to come up with something new altogether. I also don't care what you do with that name when you get divorced.
See, I don't care if your name is Jane Doe or Jane Smith or Jane Smith-Doe or Jane Doe-Smith or Jane Smithdoe. I just don't care.
But please, pick one and stick with it.
I am tired of getting screamed at by women who take their husband's last name legally and keep their maiden name professionally and want their tax forms to show up in their legal name (Hubby's!) but their interoffice mail to their maiden names.
We are a Fortune 500 Company. This means there are more than 12 people in this company. I don't know all of you. Names are spit out of the system. If you were going to have such an issue with this, you should have stood up to your husband and kept your maiden name. Now, if you are nice about it, I'll be understanding, but the name that spits out of the system and shows up in reports is still going to be your legal name.
Yes, I heard your suggestion to add another field to accommodate you. Ain't gonna happen.
Now, I feel better.
When you get married, I don't care if you decide to take your husband's name, or keep your maiden name, or hyphenate. I don't even care if you decide to come up with something new altogether. I also don't care what you do with that name when you get divorced.
See, I don't care if your name is Jane Doe or Jane Smith or Jane Smith-Doe or Jane Doe-Smith or Jane Smithdoe. I just don't care.
But please, pick one and stick with it.
I am tired of getting screamed at by women who take their husband's last name legally and keep their maiden name professionally and want their tax forms to show up in their legal name (Hubby's!) but their interoffice mail to their maiden names.
We are a Fortune 500 Company. This means there are more than 12 people in this company. I don't know all of you. Names are spit out of the system. If you were going to have such an issue with this, you should have stood up to your husband and kept your maiden name. Now, if you are nice about it, I'll be understanding, but the name that spits out of the system and shows up in reports is still going to be your legal name.
Yes, I heard your suggestion to add another field to accommodate you. Ain't gonna happen.
Now, I feel better.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Real Reason My Kitchen Floor Needs Mopping
So, it's winter. Winter means dirty snow on your shoes. This turns into dirty water on my kitchen floor. I've been blaming my dirty floor on the snow.
Then I decided I better update my blogroll with the blogs that I read. (Look to the right!) So, I did. And I had to stop because I was starting to realize that the real reason my kitchen floor needs mopping is that I spend far too much time reading blogs.
I love the blogosphere.
Of course, what I really should have put is disneyworld.com because we're going there in a few weeks and we're still making decisions about where to stay and what to do. Suggestions are welcome. Two adults, one 3 year old princess loving offspring.
Then I decided I better update my blogroll with the blogs that I read. (Look to the right!) So, I did. And I had to stop because I was starting to realize that the real reason my kitchen floor needs mopping is that I spend far too much time reading blogs.
I love the blogosphere.
Of course, what I really should have put is disneyworld.com because we're going there in a few weeks and we're still making decisions about where to stay and what to do. Suggestions are welcome. Two adults, one 3 year old princess loving offspring.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Delta, Delta, Delta, Can I Help Ya, Help Ya, Help Ya?
You would think that with my naturally sunny disposition and tendency towards fashion perfection that I would have been in a sorority in college. Alas, you would be wrong. I actually attended a university that did not allow them, but even if they were allowed, I would never have joined one. Not my thing.
First, let me say that I believe in freedom of association and that you should be able to choose your own friends--and therefore choose who to exclude. I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that sororities (and fraternities) are technically social organization and can make there own rules. Discriminating on the basis of race is still probably illegal, but I don't know. I'm not, after all, a lawyer. (Perhaps my lawyer brother would like to comment.)
However, blatant and stupid discrimination and forcing out people is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Delta Zeta should be ashamed of themselves.
I love the six that were "allowed" to stay that quit. I would probably not be friends anymore with the six who stayed.
In business, when we hire people we want people with the necessary skills but who also "fit" into the department. Companies have "personalities" and cultures and some people don't fit. For instance, someone who is very laid back would not "fit" on the trading floor at the New York Stock Exchange. The poor person, regardless of how smart he was, would not survive. Better not to hire him in the first place.
The problem the Delta Zeta sorority made was determining "fit" based on race and body size. See Evil HR Lady bang her head against the wall.
The scary thing is, I'm afraid this will "work" and the Sorority will attract the skinny, mean, drunken bimbos that are stereotypes of what a Sorority should be.
I've I was a Deta Zeta alumnae, I'd probably be taking that off my resume right about now.
First, let me say that I believe in freedom of association and that you should be able to choose your own friends--and therefore choose who to exclude. I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that sororities (and fraternities) are technically social organization and can make there own rules. Discriminating on the basis of race is still probably illegal, but I don't know. I'm not, after all, a lawyer. (Perhaps my lawyer brother would like to comment.)
However, blatant and stupid discrimination and forcing out people is wrong, wrong, and wrong. Delta Zeta should be ashamed of themselves.
Worried that a negative stereotype of the sorority was contributing to a decline in membership that had left its Greek-columned house here half empty, Delta Zeta’s national officers interviewed 35 DePauw members in November, quizzing them about their dedication to recruitment. They judged 23 of the women insufficiently committed and later told them to vacate the sorority house.
The 23 members included every woman who was overweight. They also included the only black, Korean and Vietnamese members. The dozen students allowed to stay were slender and popular with fraternity men — conventionally pretty women the sorority hoped could attract new recruits. Six of the 12 were so infuriated they quit.
I love the six that were "allowed" to stay that quit. I would probably not be friends anymore with the six who stayed.
In business, when we hire people we want people with the necessary skills but who also "fit" into the department. Companies have "personalities" and cultures and some people don't fit. For instance, someone who is very laid back would not "fit" on the trading floor at the New York Stock Exchange. The poor person, regardless of how smart he was, would not survive. Better not to hire him in the first place.
The problem the Delta Zeta sorority made was determining "fit" based on race and body size. See Evil HR Lady bang her head against the wall.
The scary thing is, I'm afraid this will "work" and the Sorority will attract the skinny, mean, drunken bimbos that are stereotypes of what a Sorority should be.
I've I was a Deta Zeta alumnae, I'd probably be taking that off my resume right about now.
Carnival Reminder
Hey, you HR Types, remember, in one week our 2nd Carnival of Human Resources will be occurring! This is a great way to spread the news about the wonderful world of HR and get yourself some hits.
Submit your favorite post to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com and you will be able to join in the party!
Submit your favorite post to evilhrlady at hotmail dot com and you will be able to join in the party!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
