I was recently laid off with 60% of my department. I got 3 months of severance pay by signing a General Release that basically said I won’t sue the company for any reason, and I can’t work there for 6 months. I’ve tried to find out why this “6-month rule” is part of the General Release. Two hiring managers want to hire me back, but are hitting the 6-month rule roadblock.
Before I signed my General Release, I was chosen as the top candidate for a position in another department, but there was a sudden hiring freeze in that department just before the hiring manager could offer me a position. The position may open back up (at about 3 months into my 6 months), and I probably can’t be hired now, because of this dumb 6-month rule. Not only does this hurt me, the manager can’t get the employee he wants, and has to go farther down his list of applicants and/or re-open the time-consuming interview process.
A second position opened up (due to someone leaving that job for another job) that was absolutely perfect for me, in my old re-organized department. I was an excellent match for skills, and I had great connections within the group. I actually found out that the hiring manager had already inquired about hiring me, but he was told by HR that I can’t be hired because of the 6-month rule. Instead of filling his position ASAP, he now has to spend time interviewing lots of people.
This is very frustrating. I’ve talked to several HR people who are uniformly adamant that the 6-month rule cannot be waived (yet I know exceptions ARE made), and nobody in HR can explain the purpose of the 6 month rule. The 6-month rule can’t be about “double dipping” because there’s already a clause in the General Release that anyone re-hired before the severance pay runs out has to give money back (e.g. if you had 9 months of severance pay and were rehired at 6 months, you give back 3 months pay).
If I could figure this out, it might aid me in circumventing what appears to be a dumb, arbitrary and harmful rule.
I would love, love, love to help you figure this rule out, but alas, I cannot. It's not because it's a secret HR rule, it's because I think it's about as stupid as they come.
Now, I can give you some insight into a few other things. When you layoff someone you want to make a couple of things clear. First, that they aren't entitled to the next vacant position that matches their skills. Two, that they can't come back as a contractor in a similar role. Three, no double dipping.
My guess is that the six month prohibition against returning is related to the first point. Companies don't want to get involved in a "failure to hire" lawsuit. These lawsuits are where the candidate argues that the only reason he/she wasn't hired was an illegal one--race, gender, age, pregnancy status, etc. These are hard to prove (normally numerous candidates), but still expensive for the company.
My lawyer friends can chime in, but I actually think prohibiting someone from coming back for 6 months actually increases your chance of a failure to hire lawsuit. Why? Because you imply that they are eligible for rehire after that 6 month time period expires. I prefer to see a clause that states that your relationship with the company is severed and that the company has no obligation to rehire you at all.
Now, this statement doesn't mean that the company can't rehire you, it just means that when you sign the release you acknowledge that they are under no obligation to rehire you. And furthermore, that you will not be treated differently than other candidates.
When you put time frame prohibitions in your releases you are asking for problems, in my opinion. The goal of a reduction in force should be related to making the business more effective. Not just cutting heads. (Lots of companies have bloat and sometimes a mass layoff can help with that--proceed with caution though. Lots of potential problems, but that's a topic for another post.) If you are just obsessed with getting your headcount down, you are doing it wrong.
Managers should be able to hire the best candidate. This is what is best for the company. Remember the company? The company that was supposed to be more effective after a reduction? Yeah, that. So, stop prohibitions against hiring any particular person and just train your managers on how to hire.
If someone else could explain to me why 6 month or a 1 year prohibitions exist in releases, I'd be happy to know. And yes, I know that some releases prohibit employees from ever applying again. I know why this is: We don't want you back. (Companies that do this to everyone are just plain dumb, by the way. These clauses should be added to your low performers or problem causers, not everyone.)
The second prohibition I listed above was to prevent you from coming back in a contractor role. While this may seem as silly as the 6 month delay, there are actually legal reasons behind it. If you come back as a contractor 3 months after I lay you off, you can argue that you really are an employee and your job never was eliminated because, look! you're still doing this. Employees have rights under federal and state laws that contractors do not. For instance, if you successfully argue in court that you are an employee not a contractor then I have to give you the same benefits all my employees get.
The third, which your contract has, is a prohibition against double dipping. This also makes sense. We should not be paying you severance while we are paying you a salary. Repayment clauses are fine, in my book.
I realize this didn't solve your problem at all, but it was fun for me to muse on and I really do want someone to explain the logic. (Of course, I left out the most likely answer--someone high up wants it in there, so there it is and HR thinks it's stupid, but we're stuck with it.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Confidential Email
I have a question I am hoping you can answer as I have been searching the Internet for about three hours now and have found nothing. I did what was probably a really stupid thing to do. I was very ill and so not using my best judgment I wrote an email to our (evil??) HR lady. In this email I expressed my gross intolerance for a coworker. I posed, in a not so nice way, the question of why someone as inefficient as them could be allowed to keep their job for so long. I then went on to make a few snide remarks about the company for letting this go on so long. I know, I know, I know..... never in writing, but like I said I was sick and my judgment (not to mention my patience) was a bit off.
Come to find out the email had been forwarded to the COO (small company...about 40 employees) of the company and then to my direct supervisor from the COO. Now I feel like a total idiot. What I want to know is if the company's HR rep violated any laws by doing this. I know it was completely immoral, but was it illegal?
Well, it's not illegal (she says in her non-lawyer, non legal advice way). HR people are not required to keep a confidence as a doctor, priest or lawyer is. In fact, part of our job is to blab. Which means that I'm also going to suggest that it wasn't necessarily immoral either.
Let the angry evil HR comments begin.
HR represents the company, not the employee. This sometimes requires following up on a complaint. Now, your company is small, so you probably actually have a relationship with your HR person. If I'd received such and e-mail and I knew it was out of character for you, I might have e-mailed it back and said, "Did you mean to hit send?"
But, having a productive workforce is part of HR's long list of responsibilities. I have to assume that if you tell me a co-worker is a complete slacker that you want something done about it. Not knowing your company culture or the organizational structure I can't comment on whether it was appropriate to forward the e-mail to the COO.
Actually, I can. I would think the proper thing to do would be to find out myself if there was a problem with your co-worker, or with you, and then decide who needs to know. But in a company that small, the COO very well could be the right person.
We understand that sometimes steam needs to be blown off. We also sometimes over-react. Some people would send off an e-mail like this and wonder why in the heck no one brought it to the COO's attention! You can't win in this HR business.
What should you do? Apologize for losing your temper. Get back to work. Hope your co-worker doesn't find out about it. Address it head on with your boss. And finally, read the comments here, as my readers will have better advice.
Come to find out the email had been forwarded to the COO (small company...about 40 employees) of the company and then to my direct supervisor from the COO. Now I feel like a total idiot. What I want to know is if the company's HR rep violated any laws by doing this. I know it was completely immoral, but was it illegal?
Well, it's not illegal (she says in her non-lawyer, non legal advice way). HR people are not required to keep a confidence as a doctor, priest or lawyer is. In fact, part of our job is to blab. Which means that I'm also going to suggest that it wasn't necessarily immoral either.
Let the angry evil HR comments begin.
HR represents the company, not the employee. This sometimes requires following up on a complaint. Now, your company is small, so you probably actually have a relationship with your HR person. If I'd received such and e-mail and I knew it was out of character for you, I might have e-mailed it back and said, "Did you mean to hit send?"
But, having a productive workforce is part of HR's long list of responsibilities. I have to assume that if you tell me a co-worker is a complete slacker that you want something done about it. Not knowing your company culture or the organizational structure I can't comment on whether it was appropriate to forward the e-mail to the COO.
Actually, I can. I would think the proper thing to do would be to find out myself if there was a problem with your co-worker, or with you, and then decide who needs to know. But in a company that small, the COO very well could be the right person.
We understand that sometimes steam needs to be blown off. We also sometimes over-react. Some people would send off an e-mail like this and wonder why in the heck no one brought it to the COO's attention! You can't win in this HR business.
What should you do? Apologize for losing your temper. Get back to work. Hope your co-worker doesn't find out about it. Address it head on with your boss. And finally, read the comments here, as my readers will have better advice.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Exempt Time Wrangling
Is it possible (i.e. legal) for an employer to define some exempt employees as 40-hour per week exempt employees, some as 35-hour per week employees, some as 32-hour employees, etc. when all were originally hired for 40-hour per week exempt positions? This particular employer routinely reduces a 40-hour employee’s hours (as well as salary) if the work load for that employee decreases either temporarily or permanently. The employer does this at will and then often drags their feet in restoring the 40-hour status when the work load increases. All these employees are doing the same type job, have the same credentials and qualifications. Workload for this position is regulated by state law.
First of all, it's time for my standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not profess to be a lawyer, and I do not give any legal advice.
It's perfectly legal to have exempt jobs at less than 40 hours a week. But, I think what your boss is doing is illegal. One of the criteria to be exempt is that the employee must be paid the same amount, regardless of the number of hours worked. If he were evaluating jobs and adjusting pay (note, not hours, because technically you don't pay exempt people by the hour, although you can require that they work specific hours), once a year I might buy it. What he's doing is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
There's nothing wrong with paying someone by the hour, even if their responsibilities would make them exempt. The key is, though, if you choose to pay them by the hour you give up the exempt status and if they work 41 hours, they get overtime pay. (There are some exceptions to this in IT, I believe, but we'll assume this is not that situation.) What you can't do is pay less when they work less than 40, but not more when they work more than 40.
So, my advice is to contact your state Department of Labor. I don't know what your job is that is regulated by the state anyway, but methinks it's time for an unpleasant audit.
Of course, if you are feeling compassionate, you could warn the boss that you believe his actions are illegal. I suspect he knows that already, and no telling the fall out you'd get.
It really bugs me when people attempt to treat their employees like dirt and then wonder why they have low morale and high turnover (which I bet you have!).
First of all, it's time for my standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not profess to be a lawyer, and I do not give any legal advice.
It's perfectly legal to have exempt jobs at less than 40 hours a week. But, I think what your boss is doing is illegal. One of the criteria to be exempt is that the employee must be paid the same amount, regardless of the number of hours worked. If he were evaluating jobs and adjusting pay (note, not hours, because technically you don't pay exempt people by the hour, although you can require that they work specific hours), once a year I might buy it. What he's doing is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
There's nothing wrong with paying someone by the hour, even if their responsibilities would make them exempt. The key is, though, if you choose to pay them by the hour you give up the exempt status and if they work 41 hours, they get overtime pay. (There are some exceptions to this in IT, I believe, but we'll assume this is not that situation.) What you can't do is pay less when they work less than 40, but not more when they work more than 40.
So, my advice is to contact your state Department of Labor. I don't know what your job is that is regulated by the state anyway, but methinks it's time for an unpleasant audit.
Of course, if you are feeling compassionate, you could warn the boss that you believe his actions are illegal. I suspect he knows that already, and no telling the fall out you'd get.
It really bugs me when people attempt to treat their employees like dirt and then wonder why they have low morale and high turnover (which I bet you have!).
Monday, January 19, 2009
Race Questions
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. day. In preparation for this, Offspring #1's kindergarten class read a story about Marin Luther King Jr. She came home and told me all about it. And then she had some questions.
"Mom, are we white?" This was a sincere question, by the way.
"Yes, we're white."
pause
"Is Katelyn white?" Katlyn is the blond haired, blue eyed, neighbor girl of Scandinavian descent who, frankly, could be the poster child for white folks.
"Yes," I said. She doesn't really know what it means to be white or black. We've never talked about the concept. I decide to explain.
"Steve is black," I said, referring to an adult family friend.
Ahh, the dawning of recognition. "Samuel is black!" she said, excitedly.
"Yes," I said, "Samuel has dark skin, but his dad is black and his mom is white." Oops, I've introduced another layer of confusion, because the next question was;
"Is Mr. Baby black?" Mr. Baby happens to also be known as offspring #2. He has the same skin tones as the rest of the family. I explained.
"Oh," she said. And she was done with the questions.
She's 5 and contrary to what you might think from this story very bright. (Not that I'm biased in any way.) We've never talked about race. She's had friends and teachers of all races. It was clear that she had never given one moment's thought to why some people's skin colors were different than others.
Which makes me wonder; By talking and teaching about people's differences, does it make it more difficult to see how they are all the same? Does it lump people into groups that they shouldn't be lumped into? If we divide people up by color and pat ourselves on the back for increasing our diversity, have we really diversified anything? Or have we just made everyone suddenly very conscious of their skin color and the skin color of those around us?
I'm pretty sure Offspring #1 considered skin color something similar to hair color. Lots of differences, but not a big deal. If we start focusing on how skin tones make us different, then don't we end up falling into stereotypes? Katelyn must be like this because she's white and Samuel must be like this because he's black.
Reality is, both friends Katelyn and Samuel are being raised in the same town by parents of very similar economic status. They attend the same public school system. These things are going to lead them to be more alike than different. The big differences between Katelyn and Samuel will be found in things that have nothing to do with skin color. For instance, Katelyn has one little sister. Samuel is the second youngest of 8. Katelyn attends one church; Samuel another. Katelyn takes dance. Samuel plays soccer. Katelyn is up at the crack of dawn. Samuel's mother has to drag him out of bed every morning.
Many businesses are required to report on race. We have Affirmative Action plans that we are required to present and show "improvement" on. Doesn't this just turn us from looking at who someone really is and push us towards making judgments based on skin color? In one breath we tell managers to hire the best person for the job. In the next we say, "minorities are underrepresented in your department." How can that not influence a hiring decision.
I'm glad Offspring #1 has learned about Martin Luther King Jr. And, in fact, we are heading to a day of service in his honor this morning. I'm glad things have changed over the years. I'm not sure, however, the emphasizing differences is the best way to go about it.
"Mom, are we white?" This was a sincere question, by the way.
"Yes, we're white."
pause
"Is Katelyn white?" Katlyn is the blond haired, blue eyed, neighbor girl of Scandinavian descent who, frankly, could be the poster child for white folks.
"Yes," I said. She doesn't really know what it means to be white or black. We've never talked about the concept. I decide to explain.
"Steve is black," I said, referring to an adult family friend.
Ahh, the dawning of recognition. "Samuel is black!" she said, excitedly.
"Yes," I said, "Samuel has dark skin, but his dad is black and his mom is white." Oops, I've introduced another layer of confusion, because the next question was;
"Is Mr. Baby black?" Mr. Baby happens to also be known as offspring #2. He has the same skin tones as the rest of the family. I explained.
"Oh," she said. And she was done with the questions.
She's 5 and contrary to what you might think from this story very bright. (Not that I'm biased in any way.) We've never talked about race. She's had friends and teachers of all races. It was clear that she had never given one moment's thought to why some people's skin colors were different than others.
Which makes me wonder; By talking and teaching about people's differences, does it make it more difficult to see how they are all the same? Does it lump people into groups that they shouldn't be lumped into? If we divide people up by color and pat ourselves on the back for increasing our diversity, have we really diversified anything? Or have we just made everyone suddenly very conscious of their skin color and the skin color of those around us?
I'm pretty sure Offspring #1 considered skin color something similar to hair color. Lots of differences, but not a big deal. If we start focusing on how skin tones make us different, then don't we end up falling into stereotypes? Katelyn must be like this because she's white and Samuel must be like this because he's black.
Reality is, both friends Katelyn and Samuel are being raised in the same town by parents of very similar economic status. They attend the same public school system. These things are going to lead them to be more alike than different. The big differences between Katelyn and Samuel will be found in things that have nothing to do with skin color. For instance, Katelyn has one little sister. Samuel is the second youngest of 8. Katelyn attends one church; Samuel another. Katelyn takes dance. Samuel plays soccer. Katelyn is up at the crack of dawn. Samuel's mother has to drag him out of bed every morning.
Many businesses are required to report on race. We have Affirmative Action plans that we are required to present and show "improvement" on. Doesn't this just turn us from looking at who someone really is and push us towards making judgments based on skin color? In one breath we tell managers to hire the best person for the job. In the next we say, "minorities are underrepresented in your department." How can that not influence a hiring decision.
I'm glad Offspring #1 has learned about Martin Luther King Jr. And, in fact, we are heading to a day of service in his honor this morning. I'm glad things have changed over the years. I'm not sure, however, the emphasizing differences is the best way to go about it.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Super Secret HR Stuff
I've gotten a few questions lately that ask about "secret" HR stuff. So, I've decided to spill the secret HR beans and blab about all our secret handshakes and stuff. Except if there are any, no one has given them to me. I suppose this is because I don't belong to SHRM. Why? My employer won't pay for it and I'm too cheap to join myself. So, there's a secret for you!
The first question deals with a woman who fought the HR director and lost and then was coincidentally laid off shortly thereafter. In the past she's had no problem finding new jobs, but now the interviews go well, but then no one ever calls back. She asks:
The real question - the HR recruiter from my last company is well connected with recruiters all over the Bay Area which I can tell from our connected LinkedIn accounts. Is there a protected website for HR professionals where references are available that are not the type that would be given on the phone? Negative references that could lead to lawsuits? I just have this feeling that something else is in play here that I have no control over.
No secret, password protected sites that I'm aware of. (Again, maybe I just am not evil enough to get the passwords.) But, what you can do is follow up with the companies you interviewed with. Don't be pushy, but inquire about the position. If you really believe it's because of a negative reference from this woman, have a friend call her up and ask her for a reference for you.
If the reference is negative, you can then deal with that. If it's positive or neutral (many companies have policies against giving references--managers don't follow that but HR does), that's not your problem.
But keep in mind--the economy isn't going well. There are tons of applicants on the market and companies are sometimes hesitant to hire if they are afraid they will have to fire later. Also, make sure you provide references. Not everyone will restrict themselves to just calling people on the list, but many will. Control as much of the process as you can.
The next secret HR dealt with tattling to the authorities:
I recently applied for a job and as par for the course was required to consent to a criminal background check, credit check, physical.... Everything, it seems, except my blood, which i might add.... They took. Anyway, I'm worried that I may have a bench warrant from over ten years ago for a traffic violations. My question to you is, if this is true, can my prospective employer notify the local authorities?
Sure they can! Your neighbor can too. I don't know anyone that would--for traffic violations. Sure, if it comes up that you are wanted for armed robbery, I'd make that phone call myself. (Although I don't know how our attorneys would feel about that, but frankly, I'm more afraid of armed robbers than attorneys.)
Your real concern is that you've got something in your past you don't want to come out. Why not deal with it head on? Hire an attorney and have him contact the state in question and see what can be done to clear up your little mess. Pay your fines, take your punishment and get on with life. I don't know how bad this is, but I imagine the state would rather get money from you than throw you in jail, so why not face it head on and get over it?
HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If you get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire you in the first place because you might come after us when we eventually fire you.
So, deal with it and then you can stop worrying. Unless you are applying for a driving job, people don't care about traffic tickets. We do care if warrant comes up for you in a background check because that scares us a little. If we could legally not hire you because of it, I honestly don't know. Probably not. But, still, take care of it.
So, now you have learned some super secret HR stuff. Hope it helps.
The first question deals with a woman who fought the HR director and lost and then was coincidentally laid off shortly thereafter. In the past she's had no problem finding new jobs, but now the interviews go well, but then no one ever calls back. She asks:
The real question - the HR recruiter from my last company is well connected with recruiters all over the Bay Area which I can tell from our connected LinkedIn accounts. Is there a protected website for HR professionals where references are available that are not the type that would be given on the phone? Negative references that could lead to lawsuits? I just have this feeling that something else is in play here that I have no control over.
No secret, password protected sites that I'm aware of. (Again, maybe I just am not evil enough to get the passwords.) But, what you can do is follow up with the companies you interviewed with. Don't be pushy, but inquire about the position. If you really believe it's because of a negative reference from this woman, have a friend call her up and ask her for a reference for you.
If the reference is negative, you can then deal with that. If it's positive or neutral (many companies have policies against giving references--managers don't follow that but HR does), that's not your problem.
But keep in mind--the economy isn't going well. There are tons of applicants on the market and companies are sometimes hesitant to hire if they are afraid they will have to fire later. Also, make sure you provide references. Not everyone will restrict themselves to just calling people on the list, but many will. Control as much of the process as you can.
The next secret HR dealt with tattling to the authorities:
I recently applied for a job and as par for the course was required to consent to a criminal background check, credit check, physical.... Everything, it seems, except my blood, which i might add.... They took. Anyway, I'm worried that I may have a bench warrant from over ten years ago for a traffic violations. My question to you is, if this is true, can my prospective employer notify the local authorities?
Sure they can! Your neighbor can too. I don't know anyone that would--for traffic violations. Sure, if it comes up that you are wanted for armed robbery, I'd make that phone call myself. (Although I don't know how our attorneys would feel about that, but frankly, I'm more afraid of armed robbers than attorneys.)
Your real concern is that you've got something in your past you don't want to come out. Why not deal with it head on? Hire an attorney and have him contact the state in question and see what can be done to clear up your little mess. Pay your fines, take your punishment and get on with life. I don't know how bad this is, but I imagine the state would rather get money from you than throw you in jail, so why not face it head on and get over it?
HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If you get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire you in the first place because you might come after us when we eventually fire you.
So, deal with it and then you can stop worrying. Unless you are applying for a driving job, people don't care about traffic tickets. We do care if warrant comes up for you in a background check because that scares us a little. If we could legally not hire you because of it, I honestly don't know. Probably not. But, still, take care of it.
So, now you have learned some super secret HR stuff. Hope it helps.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
You've Been Upgraded
The Workplace Professor Blog brought a fabulous new way to label a termination to my attention: To Upgrade. As you've been upgraded immediately so you can go get a new job.
Seriously. Come on, people, this is an embarrassment to a grim reaper like me.
Seriously. Come on, people, this is an embarrassment to a grim reaper like me.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
When HR Should Act To Save Money
Phillis Dewitt was fired from her job as a nurse. The hospital maintains it was due to insubordination. Dewitt claims it was because her husband was dying of prostate cancer and costing the hospital a boatload in insurance claims.
Obviously, I wasn't involved in any termination discussions, but I imagine HR was. And perhaps they were overridden in any objections, but this is a situation where HR needs to be assertive and lay out the problems with a termination in this situation.
1. Employment in most situations (and no union was mentioned in the article) is at-will. This means that you can quit or be fired whenever. No warning. No severance. No notice. In practice, this hardly ever happens. The hospital had a practice following a formal disciplinary protocol. This was ignored in Dewitt's case. HR should say, "We understand that she was insubordinate, but we have to treat everyone the same."
2. Managers, even ones with medical knowledge, should not be suggesting that someone's spouse enter hospice care. Hospice is end of life care. It is deciding that it is time to let go and not attempt to prolong life. The manager claims she was trying to be compassionate. I would buy this if she didn't turn around and fire Dewitt for not coming in for a meeting while she was on a scheduled vacation. HR should say, "We understand that you believe they are making the wrong choices and that those choices are costing the company money, but this is not an area which you should be involved. If her performance suffers, then we'll talk about how to handle this. But, you are not to attempt to influence medical decisions."
3. Except in extreme circumstances, employees can opt for COBRA to continue their health coverage. Which Dewitt did. Therefore, the company only saved the $900 a month that Dewitt paid in, to keep coverage that was costing over $100,000 a year. HR should say, "You realize that this termination is highly suspect and will not save the company any money due to COBRA anyway."
4. For the reasons above, this termination is a law suit waiting to happen. The reality is, whether the hospital was legally justified in terminating this employee, HR should have brought the following information to the attention of the decision makers:
Any HR person worth her paycheck should have been able to present the above. Sure, she could be overridden (and I hope HR did the above, because otherwise they don't deserve to be respected).
This is a situation where keeping the employee working is actually cheaper than the "cost-saving firing." This is true even if Dewitt deserved to be fired. I certainly can't speak to that, but there are costs to terminating people that HR should understand.
(Via The Happy Hospitalist.)
Obviously, I wasn't involved in any termination discussions, but I imagine HR was. And perhaps they were overridden in any objections, but this is a situation where HR needs to be assertive and lay out the problems with a termination in this situation.
1. Employment in most situations (and no union was mentioned in the article) is at-will. This means that you can quit or be fired whenever. No warning. No severance. No notice. In practice, this hardly ever happens. The hospital had a practice following a formal disciplinary protocol. This was ignored in Dewitt's case. HR should say, "We understand that she was insubordinate, but we have to treat everyone the same."
2. Managers, even ones with medical knowledge, should not be suggesting that someone's spouse enter hospice care. Hospice is end of life care. It is deciding that it is time to let go and not attempt to prolong life. The manager claims she was trying to be compassionate. I would buy this if she didn't turn around and fire Dewitt for not coming in for a meeting while she was on a scheduled vacation. HR should say, "We understand that you believe they are making the wrong choices and that those choices are costing the company money, but this is not an area which you should be involved. If her performance suffers, then we'll talk about how to handle this. But, you are not to attempt to influence medical decisions."
3. Except in extreme circumstances, employees can opt for COBRA to continue their health coverage. Which Dewitt did. Therefore, the company only saved the $900 a month that Dewitt paid in, to keep coverage that was costing over $100,000 a year. HR should say, "You realize that this termination is highly suspect and will not save the company any money due to COBRA anyway."
4. For the reasons above, this termination is a law suit waiting to happen. The reality is, whether the hospital was legally justified in terminating this employee, HR should have brought the following information to the attention of the decision makers:
The termination did not follow policy. The employee is highly likely to sue. Lawsuits, whether successful or not, are very expensive. Expect to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending a lawsuit of this nature. The employee is highly likely to opt for COBRA, therefore the savings you hope to achieve by termination will not happen. This termination is a knee-jerk reaction to a financial problem. Any proposed solution will end up costing more than allowing the employee to continue working. This is a public affairs nightmare. This is the type of story the media will pick up on. This will go public.
Any HR person worth her paycheck should have been able to present the above. Sure, she could be overridden (and I hope HR did the above, because otherwise they don't deserve to be respected).
This is a situation where keeping the employee working is actually cheaper than the "cost-saving firing." This is true even if Dewitt deserved to be fired. I certainly can't speak to that, but there are costs to terminating people that HR should understand.
(Via The Happy Hospitalist.)
Monday, January 05, 2009
Year End Crunch
I work as an administrator for an accounting firm. Each December we seem to be understaffed due to vacation time to handle year end and month end client responsibilities. We are working to create a restricted vacation policy for the period of 12/15 through year end. There is no motive behind this other than the fact that we're an accounting firm, and by the nature of our business year end and month end responsibilities must be met. Do you have any suggestions for a fair policy?
Yes, HR gets whatever they want off and the rest of you have to suffer! Ha! Ha! Oh dear, I've had a little too long on vacation. (In fact, I'm actually tired of having fun. Well, having fun and cleaning out the basement.)
Yes, you see, my company shuts down between Christmas and New Year's so coverage isn't a problem, because we're all out. But, we're not an accounting firm. So, let's talk about a good policy.
Wait, let's ask a question. Why aren't your employees meeting their month end responsibilities? Because that's what I really wonder. In my set of beliefs, it doesn't matter what days you take off, you schedule your vacation around your work responsibilities.
I think you need a culture shift. Not that I'm advocating people selling their souls to the company. Not at all. I'm advocating people recognizing that their clients--their responsibilities--are important. If all your clients are taken care of, take a vacation. If not, well, you get to work!
But, then you could argue, what about administrative and support staff? They can't control what the actual accountants do with their clients and if there is no one to make copies then you've got troubles.
I also understand that clients are procrastinators and you can plan and plan and plan and promise your mother-in-law you will be there (and perhaps your mother-in-law will call you to tell you that it might be a good idea to bring a blanket for the baby because you, of course, wouldn't think that snow=cold and that babies need to be kept warm, but I digress), but the client will still call on December 23 with new requests and when you say, "is this everything?" they will say yes, but on December 31, they send you new "updated documents" via courier. So, yes, it's always going to be a problem.
But, this is predictable, so again, I have to go back to the old "you work when there is work to do." Which stinks. So, don't work for an accounting firm.
But, I haven't given you any new and exciting vacation policies. I don't have great ones. You can always do it by seniority, but if you have low turnover it makes the new people feel unappreciated and bitter. You can do it first come-first serve, but then you have people requesting vacation time for December in January and it becomes a big mess.
You can also limit December vacation altogether. Or close down December 24-26 and say that's it. Then clients know as well that you won't be available.
If I had to make a policy I would do it on a rotating basis. I would figure out the bare minimum of staff needed during December 15-31, and then have the other spots available for vacation. If you got to take vacation this year, next year you are last in line for vacation spots. You also limit the number of days they can take during that time period--3 days, or 5, so that more people get the opportunity to take off.
It's not pleasant, but that's why they call it work. Any other suggestions are welcome.
Yes, HR gets whatever they want off and the rest of you have to suffer! Ha! Ha! Oh dear, I've had a little too long on vacation. (In fact, I'm actually tired of having fun. Well, having fun and cleaning out the basement.)
Yes, you see, my company shuts down between Christmas and New Year's so coverage isn't a problem, because we're all out. But, we're not an accounting firm. So, let's talk about a good policy.
Wait, let's ask a question. Why aren't your employees meeting their month end responsibilities? Because that's what I really wonder. In my set of beliefs, it doesn't matter what days you take off, you schedule your vacation around your work responsibilities.
I think you need a culture shift. Not that I'm advocating people selling their souls to the company. Not at all. I'm advocating people recognizing that their clients--their responsibilities--are important. If all your clients are taken care of, take a vacation. If not, well, you get to work!
But, then you could argue, what about administrative and support staff? They can't control what the actual accountants do with their clients and if there is no one to make copies then you've got troubles.
I also understand that clients are procrastinators and you can plan and plan and plan and promise your mother-in-law you will be there (and perhaps your mother-in-law will call you to tell you that it might be a good idea to bring a blanket for the baby because you, of course, wouldn't think that snow=cold and that babies need to be kept warm, but I digress), but the client will still call on December 23 with new requests and when you say, "is this everything?" they will say yes, but on December 31, they send you new "updated documents" via courier. So, yes, it's always going to be a problem.
But, this is predictable, so again, I have to go back to the old "you work when there is work to do." Which stinks. So, don't work for an accounting firm.
But, I haven't given you any new and exciting vacation policies. I don't have great ones. You can always do it by seniority, but if you have low turnover it makes the new people feel unappreciated and bitter. You can do it first come-first serve, but then you have people requesting vacation time for December in January and it becomes a big mess.
You can also limit December vacation altogether. Or close down December 24-26 and say that's it. Then clients know as well that you won't be available.
If I had to make a policy I would do it on a rotating basis. I would figure out the bare minimum of staff needed during December 15-31, and then have the other spots available for vacation. If you got to take vacation this year, next year you are last in line for vacation spots. You also limit the number of days they can take during that time period--3 days, or 5, so that more people get the opportunity to take off.
It's not pleasant, but that's why they call it work. Any other suggestions are welcome.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Under the Table Employment
I work at a small company that has been struggling for a long time now. A couple years ago the I was faced with a choice. Get paid under the table, accept a 25% pay cut, and lose health insurance or lose my job. I chose to become an "undocumented worker." So I not have paid or filed for taxes since 2006. I would like to be legitimate and pay my taxes but I live paycheck to paycheck and I really can't pay even this years taxes, much less taxes from previous years. Bankruptcy would offer one potential solution and is worth consideration. But my questions are not about bankruptcy but rather employment.
I have two questions:
1. I have to wonder how this will impact employment verification. When applying for a new job, will the potential employer know that I have not been paying taxes?
2. Assuming I am hired, and the new employer bringing me into their HR and tax systems, will they then learn that I was not paying taxes?
I presume you lost your health insurance anyway, as employees who don't technically exist can't really be added to your health insurance rolls. So, you've just chosen to be dishonest, working for someone who is dishonest and now you fear it might catch up to you.
Ahh, wickedness never was happiness. Sometimes it just takes a while for the unhappiness to catch up to you. Never mind, here are the answers to your questions.
1. For all intents and purposes you have not been employed. If your current company has been paying you under the table, you can't really list it on your resume as your current company. The best you can say is that you were an independent contractor who did work for this company. It's doubtful that they will ask to see your 1099s to verify. Your current employer can offer a reference, stating you are a contactor.
2. No, your new employer will not learn whether you have been paying taxes or not by simply hiring you and bringing you into their system. They will simply start reporting your income to the IRS.
Of course, when the IRS busts you (which they will), they can require your new employer to start garnishing your wages to make up for your lack of tax paying. Fun!
Now, as for the troubles you've created for yourself, I suggest you try to fix it as soon as possible. You say you have no extra money. Well, then, you have no extra money for IRS fines. I suggest you use what money you do have to hire a competent accountant (not a trained monkey at one of those fast food style tax offices) to help you figure out what you owe and what you need to do about it. It can only get worse. If you are a low income earner, it may not be as bad as you feared.
Now, I need the lawyers and accountants (of which I am neither) to weigh in and tell you how much trouble you are really in. It's best to get honest as soon as possible and be honest going forward. And while you are at it, let's get your finances in shape so you don't end up like this again.
I have two questions:
1. I have to wonder how this will impact employment verification. When applying for a new job, will the potential employer know that I have not been paying taxes?
2. Assuming I am hired, and the new employer bringing me into their HR and tax systems, will they then learn that I was not paying taxes?
I presume you lost your health insurance anyway, as employees who don't technically exist can't really be added to your health insurance rolls. So, you've just chosen to be dishonest, working for someone who is dishonest and now you fear it might catch up to you.
Ahh, wickedness never was happiness. Sometimes it just takes a while for the unhappiness to catch up to you. Never mind, here are the answers to your questions.
1. For all intents and purposes you have not been employed. If your current company has been paying you under the table, you can't really list it on your resume as your current company. The best you can say is that you were an independent contractor who did work for this company. It's doubtful that they will ask to see your 1099s to verify. Your current employer can offer a reference, stating you are a contactor.
2. No, your new employer will not learn whether you have been paying taxes or not by simply hiring you and bringing you into their system. They will simply start reporting your income to the IRS.
Of course, when the IRS busts you (which they will), they can require your new employer to start garnishing your wages to make up for your lack of tax paying. Fun!
Now, as for the troubles you've created for yourself, I suggest you try to fix it as soon as possible. You say you have no extra money. Well, then, you have no extra money for IRS fines. I suggest you use what money you do have to hire a competent accountant (not a trained monkey at one of those fast food style tax offices) to help you figure out what you owe and what you need to do about it. It can only get worse. If you are a low income earner, it may not be as bad as you feared.
Now, I need the lawyers and accountants (of which I am neither) to weigh in and tell you how much trouble you are really in. It's best to get honest as soon as possible and be honest going forward. And while you are at it, let's get your finances in shape so you don't end up like this again.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Holiday Parties
Two thoughts on Holiday Parties:
One from the lawyers and one from HR.
I hate work holiday parties. Unless they are during lunch and involve good food. (Good food can be pizza, as long as it's not ordered from the company cafeteria.)
One from the lawyers and one from HR.
I hate work holiday parties. Unless they are during lunch and involve good food. (Good food can be pizza, as long as it's not ordered from the company cafeteria.)
A Friendly Warning from the Grim Reaper
I may have hinted a few times that I know a thing or two about layoffs. This would be true. I do. In fact, if you see me coming, it's best to start packing up your things right now because it will save us all hassle later on. (This, actually, is not true. Your manager would be terminating you, not me, so feel free to chat with me and share your Christmas candy.)
So, here's the deal. You may get laid off. Yes, I know, you are a stellar performer and your boss loves you and blah, blah, blah. Humor me. You may get laid off. And here's the kicker: You will still have bills to pay.
My company offers severance. Yeah! Severance checks come in the mail, not direct deposit. (Yes, I've tried to change that. No, payroll wasn't interested. They said it was a systems thing. I like to get paid, so I said I believed them and now we're all happy together.)
Two pay days in a row I've gotten a tearful phone call from a woman. It seems that the US mail did not deliver her check on the day expected. How could she pay her bills? Her car was going to be repossessed if she did not have that check TODAY.
I can't control the US post office. (Wouldn't that be cool if I could, though? That would be some serious super powers if I could do that.) I also can't guarentee you'll have a job. I can't guarantee that your company will give you severance. (I can't even guarantee that my company will give you severance, largely because you don't work for my company.)
If a check being one day late will be the death of you financially, you need to get control over your financial life. Nobody should be living this close to the edge. I know now is not the best financial time, but please, think about the very real possibility that your check may be worse than one day late--it may not come at all if your job goes away.
I really feel for the woman who is having post office problems. I do. And that's why I'm writing this. Please, put aside some money. Stop spending as if you'll always have tons of cash. If you say, "But I can't put anything aside!" Stop and think about what you'll do if you do get laid off. You are better off now then you will be then, so do something to put a little aside. A little can grow into a lot if you just leave it alone and add a little each pay day.
It'll make it a lot easier on all of us when your manager calls you into his office.
So, here's the deal. You may get laid off. Yes, I know, you are a stellar performer and your boss loves you and blah, blah, blah. Humor me. You may get laid off. And here's the kicker: You will still have bills to pay.
My company offers severance. Yeah! Severance checks come in the mail, not direct deposit. (Yes, I've tried to change that. No, payroll wasn't interested. They said it was a systems thing. I like to get paid, so I said I believed them and now we're all happy together.)
Two pay days in a row I've gotten a tearful phone call from a woman. It seems that the US mail did not deliver her check on the day expected. How could she pay her bills? Her car was going to be repossessed if she did not have that check TODAY.
I can't control the US post office. (Wouldn't that be cool if I could, though? That would be some serious super powers if I could do that.) I also can't guarentee you'll have a job. I can't guarantee that your company will give you severance. (I can't even guarantee that my company will give you severance, largely because you don't work for my company.)
If a check being one day late will be the death of you financially, you need to get control over your financial life. Nobody should be living this close to the edge. I know now is not the best financial time, but please, think about the very real possibility that your check may be worse than one day late--it may not come at all if your job goes away.
I really feel for the woman who is having post office problems. I do. And that's why I'm writing this. Please, put aside some money. Stop spending as if you'll always have tons of cash. If you say, "But I can't put anything aside!" Stop and think about what you'll do if you do get laid off. You are better off now then you will be then, so do something to put a little aside. A little can grow into a lot if you just leave it alone and add a little each pay day.
It'll make it a lot easier on all of us when your manager calls you into his office.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Leave Policy Missing In Action
A long-time employee went out on sick leave a couple of months ago, and has recently expressed the intention of remaining on leave for the next six months. The person is genuinely unable to work and has indicated informally that a return to the workforce is unlikely even though the health condition involved does not reduce life-span. I have received mixed messages from HR about what options are available to this employee and/or to me as the supervisor. For example: Can this individual remain on the payroll collecting sick leave until the leave runs out? When the paid leave runs out, can unpaid leave be continued for another three months under FMLA? Under what circumstances can an employee with sick leave available but no intention of returning to work remain on the payroll?
I don't really have any answers for you, so I'll just use your question as a jumping off point for a good rant.
Mixed messages? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously people, this is HR 101. You must have a leave policy in place. It should contain, at minimum, the following information:
Number of days an employee can take as sick leave before going on short term disability
Number of company paid sick days (or if unlimited, then number of days before disability is required)
FMLA policy (make sure this is compliant with both Federal and State laws--some states are more generous)
At what point an employee is terminated (after FMLA expires? At 6 months? At one year?)
How all this fits with your disability (short and long term) policies
Under what conditions a manager is allowed to hire a temp or contractor to fill the duties
See, that's not so hard, right?
I mean, geesh, does HR think that no one is going to get sick? (Because that NEVER happens, right?) They should have a policy and every HR person in the company should be able to spout it out to you, consistently and clearly. (Okay, not every HR person. I don't think the HRIS people should have to know--strike that, of course they should, as they control the system that indicates whether someone is active or on leave. ALL HR PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Well, maybe compensation...)
If you don't have a policy, managers are left not knowing what to do. Then managers have to wing it. Then Manager A wings it differently than Manager B and Bob gets great leave at full pay and Maria gets terminated as soon as FMLA expires and she didn't get paid during that time frame either. What happens when Bob and Maria (I'm feeling reminiscent of Sesame Street right now) run into each other in the grocery store? (Oh Bob is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood!)
Bob: Oh, Maria, I heard you were sick. Me too. I've had these persistent migraines. I'm so thankful that I'm still getting paid.
Maria: What?!?!!??! (then a few chosen expletives, which I won't write because I don't say such words.)
Bob: What are you so upset about?
Maria: I haven't gotten a check in 4 months and they terminated me 4 weeks ago.
Bob: That's strange, I've been out longer than you have.
Maria: Excuse me, I have to go call my attorney.
Is this what you want happening? No. No, you don't.
Now, my real guess is that there is a policy, it's just that your HR department is unorganized and inconsistent. Escalate this issue. Get your boss involved. There should be clear guidance. This should not be an area for manager discretion.
I don't really have any answers for you, so I'll just use your question as a jumping off point for a good rant.
Mixed messages? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously people, this is HR 101. You must have a leave policy in place. It should contain, at minimum, the following information:
See, that's not so hard, right?
I mean, geesh, does HR think that no one is going to get sick? (Because that NEVER happens, right?) They should have a policy and every HR person in the company should be able to spout it out to you, consistently and clearly. (Okay, not every HR person. I don't think the HRIS people should have to know--strike that, of course they should, as they control the system that indicates whether someone is active or on leave. ALL HR PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Well, maybe compensation...)
If you don't have a policy, managers are left not knowing what to do. Then managers have to wing it. Then Manager A wings it differently than Manager B and Bob gets great leave at full pay and Maria gets terminated as soon as FMLA expires and she didn't get paid during that time frame either. What happens when Bob and Maria (I'm feeling reminiscent of Sesame Street right now) run into each other in the grocery store? (Oh Bob is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood!)
Bob: Oh, Maria, I heard you were sick. Me too. I've had these persistent migraines. I'm so thankful that I'm still getting paid.
Maria: What?!?!!??! (then a few chosen expletives, which I won't write because I don't say such words.)
Bob: What are you so upset about?
Maria: I haven't gotten a check in 4 months and they terminated me 4 weeks ago.
Bob: That's strange, I've been out longer than you have.
Maria: Excuse me, I have to go call my attorney.
Is this what you want happening? No. No, you don't.
Now, my real guess is that there is a policy, it's just that your HR department is unorganized and inconsistent. Escalate this issue. Get your boss involved. There should be clear guidance. This should not be an area for manager discretion.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Some Good E-mail Advice
There are somethings you should never put in an e-mail. Death by Email gives us a list. Some samples:
All of us HR types need to be aware of these things.
Is this actually legal?
We're going to do this differently than normal.
All of us HR types need to be aware of these things.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Relocated and Laid Off
I was recently relocated across the country for a position at a better company (leaving behind a good paying, secure job that my heart was no longer in). I was worried about the immediate future of the company (lots of merger/buyout talks) and said I didn't know if I could take the position because I was upside down on my house and would take a big hit selling. The HR person told me that my contract spelled out the severance package if the company was bought out and that there would be no layoffs for at least the next 6 months. I figured that 6 months would allow me to cover the hit on my house if I got laid off and give me enough time to prove my skill set. However, after 3 months, they announced layoffs and I was let go. Is there recourse that I can do other than accept the severance package (much smaller than if the company got bought) and be upset?
I would not have accepted the job had I known that layoffs would occur this soon and I was even promised that they would not. It was just not written in my contract, just expressed verbally. Also, they paid relocation, and if I left within the first year, I had to pay back a pro-rated amount. Does that impact my at-will status since if I chose to quit willingly I would take a financial hit? They told me it had nothing to do with performance, I just knew the least about the business model itself compared to my teammates, which makes sense, because I was told to expect a 3-6 month learning curve.
Once again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. And even if I was a lawyer (which I'm not), I don't know what state you are in. But, in my non-lawyerly way, I'd tell you to pick up the phone book (does anybody do that anymore? Okay, go to Google.) and find yourself an employment lawyer.
In some states a verbal promise is as good as a contract. (I believe, remember, not a lawyer!) Even if it's not, it would be worth it to get a lawyer's opinion on this.
I would ask for more severance. I would ask for, at minimum, what you were promised in case of a buy-out. In fact, I would ask for more because of false promises. Talk about a stupidly short-sighted company. (I know, I know, who could have predicted the sub prime mortgage market would collapse and spread into all areas of the economy? Oh, that's right, everyone with half a brain could have predicted it, except for the people who actually dealt in sub prime mortgages. Go figure.) Only in the rarest of circumstances should a company do a position elimination for someone who has only worked there for 3 months. I say, if a position needs to go, it should be the manager who was fool enough to hire someone he wouldn't have work for in 3 months.
Sorry, a bit ranty today. I don't often say this, but I honestly say you should contact a lawyer. Don't look to win the employment law lottery. It's not worth that. But a nicely worded letter or phone call from your attorney to the legal department of your company may be quite effective.
This is one of the times I say don't sign the release that is undoubtedly part of the severance offer until it's been reviewed by an attorney. Make sure that your full relocation costs are covered as well.
Good luck on the job hunt. Don't let this get you discouraged.
I would not have accepted the job had I known that layoffs would occur this soon and I was even promised that they would not. It was just not written in my contract, just expressed verbally. Also, they paid relocation, and if I left within the first year, I had to pay back a pro-rated amount. Does that impact my at-will status since if I chose to quit willingly I would take a financial hit? They told me it had nothing to do with performance, I just knew the least about the business model itself compared to my teammates, which makes sense, because I was told to expect a 3-6 month learning curve.
Once again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. And even if I was a lawyer (which I'm not), I don't know what state you are in. But, in my non-lawyerly way, I'd tell you to pick up the phone book (does anybody do that anymore? Okay, go to Google.) and find yourself an employment lawyer.
In some states a verbal promise is as good as a contract. (I believe, remember, not a lawyer!) Even if it's not, it would be worth it to get a lawyer's opinion on this.
I would ask for more severance. I would ask for, at minimum, what you were promised in case of a buy-out. In fact, I would ask for more because of false promises. Talk about a stupidly short-sighted company. (I know, I know, who could have predicted the sub prime mortgage market would collapse and spread into all areas of the economy? Oh, that's right, everyone with half a brain could have predicted it, except for the people who actually dealt in sub prime mortgages. Go figure.) Only in the rarest of circumstances should a company do a position elimination for someone who has only worked there for 3 months. I say, if a position needs to go, it should be the manager who was fool enough to hire someone he wouldn't have work for in 3 months.
Sorry, a bit ranty today. I don't often say this, but I honestly say you should contact a lawyer. Don't look to win the employment law lottery. It's not worth that. But a nicely worded letter or phone call from your attorney to the legal department of your company may be quite effective.
This is one of the times I say don't sign the release that is undoubtedly part of the severance offer until it's been reviewed by an attorney. Make sure that your full relocation costs are covered as well.
Good luck on the job hunt. Don't let this get you discouraged.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
You Make More Money???!?!?!?!?
Two managers were socializing outside of work. Yes, alcohol was involved. Manager one said to Manager Two: Hey, I know what you make. Manager one then quoted – to the penny – what Manager Two’s salary was. Manager One said that he had seen the information in an offer letter on the HR Manager’s desk (that’s me). Manager two then said: OK, so now that you know my salary, I want to know your salary. Manager One then disclosed his salary amount.
There are obviously a couple issues here, but the plot thickens. It turns out that Manager One makes quite a bit more than Manager Two, even though their positions are somewhat equal. (There are major wage equity issues here that I am battling). Manager Two is devastated, and has done an amazing job of turning his department around and building his team. This really took the wind out of his sales.
My issue is with Manager One. While I am at fault for leaving something confidential on my desk, I have a huge issue with Manager One disclosing this. Managers are exposed to confidential, sensitive information all the time, so the expectation is that he keeps his mouth shut. This is also covered very clearly in our policies. If he disclosed this after a couple drinks, what else is he saying?
When Manager Two disclosed this to me, he stated that he was asking for advice and simply wanted to vent. As an HR professional, I am well aware that there are some topics that employees CAN NOT ask me to keep confidential, and I believe this is potentially one of them. However, since it took place outside of work, are we in a position to talk with and potentially discipline Manager One?
I'll start my reprimanding with you--bad of you to keep confidential info in a place where others could see it. But, you know that.
Then I'll reprimand the company for having pay inequities. Now, I'm somewhat of a radical when it comes to pay. Hold on to your horses, but I don't think pay should be confidential.
Let the ranting begin. Let me state my case. I've been in HR a long time and in every HR position I've ever held--including when I was a temp admin--I've had access to everyone's salary. And I mean everyone's salary. CEOs and co-workers included. It's always been part of my job. At first it's fascinating. Now? Not so much.
And that's part of why I'm opposed to secrecy. None of this would have mattered if your company was open about such things. (I know of no companies (government jobs excepted) that are open about such things--I am, as I said, an HR extremist. I wonder if that's like extreme sports: Up Next, Evil HR Lady in the Extreme Compensation Policy competition!)
But the real reason I'm opposed to secrecy is because secrecy allows pay inequities like the one you are dealing with now. Just think--if everyone's salaries were open managers would never hire people at unfair levels or offer big bumps to people they *like* but who hadn't earned the increase.
I realize there are whining problems with this and it takes a lot of guts to have people know that their co-worker with the same title makes more money than they do, but that just means that the company truly needs to pay for performance. Rational people understand that. Irrational people, you don't want working for you.
But, now to your situation (clearly, I just hijacked my own blog!). Can you "punish" manager one for something he did outside of work? Sure! Do you want to go there? No. I don't. But, what I would recommend is this:
HR: So, Manager 1, I understand you had a talk with Manager 2 about salaries. Just couldn't keep quiet about how yours is so much better, right?
Manager 1: So what? (If he's defensive, that is. If he realizes he was a drunk idiot, he'll hang his head and apologize.)
HR: Yeah, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm not sure this company can trust people who make stupid decisions, inside or outside of work.
And then I'd end the conversation. If you are respected and valued enough it will freak him out just a little bit.
As for confidentiality, you're neither a priest nor a lawyer. Some things you are required by law to act on, but stupid managers who reveal salary information is not one of them. (In my non-lawyer, non-legal advice way. Entertainment, people, this blog is pure entertainment. In fact, did I tell you my favorite joke. It goes like this: There was a snake named Nate...)
I would also bust my buns to deal with the salary inequities, starting with Manager 2. You say he's turned his group around. You better make sure he's rewarded for it, or you are going to lose him. You may already lose him. I can guarantee if I was manager 2, I would have come home and started working on my resume. I've just been told that my company doesn't value me. I'd expect the burden is on the company to prove otherwise.
There are obviously a couple issues here, but the plot thickens. It turns out that Manager One makes quite a bit more than Manager Two, even though their positions are somewhat equal. (There are major wage equity issues here that I am battling). Manager Two is devastated, and has done an amazing job of turning his department around and building his team. This really took the wind out of his sales.
My issue is with Manager One. While I am at fault for leaving something confidential on my desk, I have a huge issue with Manager One disclosing this. Managers are exposed to confidential, sensitive information all the time, so the expectation is that he keeps his mouth shut. This is also covered very clearly in our policies. If he disclosed this after a couple drinks, what else is he saying?
When Manager Two disclosed this to me, he stated that he was asking for advice and simply wanted to vent. As an HR professional, I am well aware that there are some topics that employees CAN NOT ask me to keep confidential, and I believe this is potentially one of them. However, since it took place outside of work, are we in a position to talk with and potentially discipline Manager One?
I'll start my reprimanding with you--bad of you to keep confidential info in a place where others could see it. But, you know that.
Then I'll reprimand the company for having pay inequities. Now, I'm somewhat of a radical when it comes to pay. Hold on to your horses, but I don't think pay should be confidential.
Let the ranting begin. Let me state my case. I've been in HR a long time and in every HR position I've ever held--including when I was a temp admin--I've had access to everyone's salary. And I mean everyone's salary. CEOs and co-workers included. It's always been part of my job. At first it's fascinating. Now? Not so much.
And that's part of why I'm opposed to secrecy. None of this would have mattered if your company was open about such things. (I know of no companies (government jobs excepted) that are open about such things--I am, as I said, an HR extremist. I wonder if that's like extreme sports: Up Next, Evil HR Lady in the Extreme Compensation Policy competition!)
But the real reason I'm opposed to secrecy is because secrecy allows pay inequities like the one you are dealing with now. Just think--if everyone's salaries were open managers would never hire people at unfair levels or offer big bumps to people they *like* but who hadn't earned the increase.
I realize there are whining problems with this and it takes a lot of guts to have people know that their co-worker with the same title makes more money than they do, but that just means that the company truly needs to pay for performance. Rational people understand that. Irrational people, you don't want working for you.
But, now to your situation (clearly, I just hijacked my own blog!). Can you "punish" manager one for something he did outside of work? Sure! Do you want to go there? No. I don't. But, what I would recommend is this:
HR: So, Manager 1, I understand you had a talk with Manager 2 about salaries. Just couldn't keep quiet about how yours is so much better, right?
Manager 1: So what? (If he's defensive, that is. If he realizes he was a drunk idiot, he'll hang his head and apologize.)
HR: Yeah, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm not sure this company can trust people who make stupid decisions, inside or outside of work.
And then I'd end the conversation. If you are respected and valued enough it will freak him out just a little bit.
As for confidentiality, you're neither a priest nor a lawyer. Some things you are required by law to act on, but stupid managers who reveal salary information is not one of them. (In my non-lawyer, non-legal advice way. Entertainment, people, this blog is pure entertainment. In fact, did I tell you my favorite joke. It goes like this: There was a snake named Nate...)
I would also bust my buns to deal with the salary inequities, starting with Manager 2. You say he's turned his group around. You better make sure he's rewarded for it, or you are going to lose him. You may already lose him. I can guarantee if I was manager 2, I would have come home and started working on my resume. I've just been told that my company doesn't value me. I'd expect the burden is on the company to prove otherwise.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Random Thoughts
1. I realized I’ve been in HR too long when I was reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to my daughter and when Grandpa Joe tells about how Mr. Wonka just shut down his factory and fired all 10,000 workers and all I can think about is, “You can’t do that! You just violated the WARN act. Being mad at competitors is not a valid reason not to give 60 days notice.”
2. Why is it that if I can’t answer the phone when someone calls, but I call them back within five minutes, they are never at their desks? Ever. It’s like “I must call Evil HR Lady before I leave for that Mount Everest Expedition.” I find this even more bizarre when people call from their cell phones. I mean, did you call me and then accidentally flush your phone or something?
3. And speaking of phones, if you see a number come up on your caller ID and you don’t recognize it, don’t just call it back and say, “someone called this number.” If the person left a message, listen to it before calling back. If no message was left that means it wasn’t important, so don’t bother calling. Besides, you don’t know who it was! Leave it alone.
4. So, it’s 9:30 at night and I’m working. I send e-mails to three different people. All three respond within minutes. Shouldn’t we take at least some time off each day?
5. When I hear massive layoffs announced at companies, my immediate sympathies are with the HR people who have to figure out the whole mess and create the documents for everyone. I realize this is a sickness.
6. Pies for Thanksgiving this year will be: 2 Cherry, 2 Pumpkin, 1 Pecan and 1 Key Lime. The latter is not at all traditional. What can I say? We’re a wild and crazy kind of family.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Leading People. Leading Organizations
I'm a little bit tired and cranky. (Although not as cranky as Mr. Crabby pants who got 5 needles jabbed into his little thighs today. Sorry--just a bit of mommy blogging here.) So, when I read this I wanted to grab some HR VPs and bang their little heads together:
I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers (although for the record, I would never in a million years support such a thing and I believe they will lose the case). Let's talk about the people. Remember them? We're supposed to lead them. This is supposed to cause HR to lead organizations.
Apparently, we were leading them to self destruction. (Where are we and why are we in this handbasket? we might ask ourselves.) Sure, employees aren't "working" while their computers are booting up. They may even be, gasp! talking to their co-workers or drinking coffee. But, they are in the office. They can't be somewhere else. They have to be in the building. Therefore, they are at work and should be paid as such.
How do you even monitor such a thing? What if I come in, turn my computer on and get up to get a cup of coffee (which I wouldn't do because I don't drink coffee), but right then my phone rings. I answer it and it's my boss and I have a 30 minute discussion with him about work stuff. By this time, my computer is all booted up. Then I go get coffee (or rather water, which is what I drink at work). Do I have to clock out? What if I'm just going to the kitchen/cafeteria/water cooler and back? What if I run into Bob from Accounting in the kitchen and we discuss business stuff? Aargh! How would you even administer this?
Oh, I know, it's probably call center people, so everything is clocked on your computer. Still. If I'm required to be in the building, I should be getting paid.
But, let's say, for argument's sake, that AT&T et al are legally right. Computer booting time can be unpaid. Just how much do you hate your people? Do you want them to leave? Do you want to drain the lifeblood out of them? Do you not understand that your best employees will find new jobs and that as a result, the quality of your workforce will gradually decline?
United Healthcare received the lowest rating from hospital executives. This does not surprise me. You cannot run a good business without good employees. You cannot get and keep good employees without good policies. If HR is encouraging this type of policy (please let it be Finance who overrode the HR people on this, please?) then they should be ashamed of themselves.
Trying to save a few bucks will result in you destroying your company. Your people are your company. Stop being stingy.
Gah. Now I'm even more fired up and cranky. I'm going to bed.
During the past year, several companies, including AT&T Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp., have been hit with lawsuits in which employees claimed that they were not paid for the 15- to 30-minute task of booting their computers at the start of each day and logging out at the end.
I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers (although for the record, I would never in a million years support such a thing and I believe they will lose the case). Let's talk about the people. Remember them? We're supposed to lead them. This is supposed to cause HR to lead organizations.
Apparently, we were leading them to self destruction. (Where are we and why are we in this handbasket? we might ask ourselves.) Sure, employees aren't "working" while their computers are booting up. They may even be, gasp! talking to their co-workers or drinking coffee. But, they are in the office. They can't be somewhere else. They have to be in the building. Therefore, they are at work and should be paid as such.
How do you even monitor such a thing? What if I come in, turn my computer on and get up to get a cup of coffee (which I wouldn't do because I don't drink coffee), but right then my phone rings. I answer it and it's my boss and I have a 30 minute discussion with him about work stuff. By this time, my computer is all booted up. Then I go get coffee (or rather water, which is what I drink at work). Do I have to clock out? What if I'm just going to the kitchen/cafeteria/water cooler and back? What if I run into Bob from Accounting in the kitchen and we discuss business stuff? Aargh! How would you even administer this?
Oh, I know, it's probably call center people, so everything is clocked on your computer. Still. If I'm required to be in the building, I should be getting paid.
But, let's say, for argument's sake, that AT&T et al are legally right. Computer booting time can be unpaid. Just how much do you hate your people? Do you want them to leave? Do you want to drain the lifeblood out of them? Do you not understand that your best employees will find new jobs and that as a result, the quality of your workforce will gradually decline?
United Healthcare received the lowest rating from hospital executives. This does not surprise me. You cannot run a good business without good employees. You cannot get and keep good employees without good policies. If HR is encouraging this type of policy (please let it be Finance who overrode the HR people on this, please?) then they should be ashamed of themselves.
Trying to save a few bucks will result in you destroying your company. Your people are your company. Stop being stingy.
Gah. Now I'm even more fired up and cranky. I'm going to bed.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Happy Birthday Deb!
See, I remembered! Now you are in a protected class. The thing all of us HR types dream about.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Family Owned Business
My company is a family owned manufacturing business. The owner's son manages the place while the owner has moved to another state. The son hires a friend of his and promises to pay him more than the set amount that entry level employees make. This friend had no prior experience to warrant being paid more, nor has the company ever paid any employee in this position more than another in this same position (as a starting pay). In the past, this boss has also hired all 5 of his children and paid them more than anyone else. Is this legal? Is it ethical? I'm stuck in the HR/ payroll position and feel like I should advise the owner, which of course will bring about problems with this boss, who is not my direct boss. What to do?
I am not a lawyer. I do not offer legal advice. I do not pretend to offer legal advice. I don't even watch Law and Order any more, so I'm not even up on the nuances of NY criminal law. Not that this would matter in this situation.
Not being friends with the boss is not a protected class. This, in my way of thinking, means that you don't have any claim of discrimination if the boss pays his BFF more than he is paying you, or rather the other entry level workers. You may see it as stupid, he may see it as being generous to an old friend.
Hiring your children is not illegal either. Nor would paying them more than other employees be anything less than expected. Is it stupid? Probably. (Although, I wonder if it would be illegal to pay them extreme amounts of money in an attempt to transfer assets to them without IRS problems. Hmmmm, too bad I'm not an accountant either.)
As you are probably already aware, salary information like this gets around very fast although no one is willing to admit that they said the boss's friend/child is getting more money than everyone else. It ruins morale and if in addition to being overpaid, the boss's friends and children aren't stellar performers, it's going to increase turnover.
So, this is why it matters to you. It doesn't matter how much the boss pays someone or who he hires. (Does not matter. Does not matter. Repeat that.) It matters how the workplace is affected.
Should you go to the owner? Only if you regularly report to the owner. If not, then it's a phone call out of the blue to say that sonny-boy is a screw up. They either already know or they are in denial, so what good will it do? You don't even report to the boss, let alone his parents.
You should voice your concerns--to your boss. Your concerns are with employee morale, pay consistency and productivity. If the first and the last are not a concern--frequently people in family owned businesses expect the boss's children/friends to be given special privileges and while they may grumble about it, it doesn't really have an effect on performance--then don't bother. Now, if clueless friend gets promoted out of an entry level job without proper qualifications, then as an HR person it is your responsibility to lay out the problems with this approach.
If you have a regular working relationship with Sonny you may mention your concerns about morale to him. He may think he's a great guy who is helping people while you see him destroying the business. Now, if the owner happens to give you a call and ask what is going on, you can express your concerns, but don't call them up.
I am not a lawyer. I do not offer legal advice. I do not pretend to offer legal advice. I don't even watch Law and Order any more, so I'm not even up on the nuances of NY criminal law. Not that this would matter in this situation.
Not being friends with the boss is not a protected class. This, in my way of thinking, means that you don't have any claim of discrimination if the boss pays his BFF more than he is paying you, or rather the other entry level workers. You may see it as stupid, he may see it as being generous to an old friend.
Hiring your children is not illegal either. Nor would paying them more than other employees be anything less than expected. Is it stupid? Probably. (Although, I wonder if it would be illegal to pay them extreme amounts of money in an attempt to transfer assets to them without IRS problems. Hmmmm, too bad I'm not an accountant either.)
As you are probably already aware, salary information like this gets around very fast although no one is willing to admit that they said the boss's friend/child is getting more money than everyone else. It ruins morale and if in addition to being overpaid, the boss's friends and children aren't stellar performers, it's going to increase turnover.
So, this is why it matters to you. It doesn't matter how much the boss pays someone or who he hires. (Does not matter. Does not matter. Repeat that.) It matters how the workplace is affected.
Should you go to the owner? Only if you regularly report to the owner. If not, then it's a phone call out of the blue to say that sonny-boy is a screw up. They either already know or they are in denial, so what good will it do? You don't even report to the boss, let alone his parents.
You should voice your concerns--to your boss. Your concerns are with employee morale, pay consistency and productivity. If the first and the last are not a concern--frequently people in family owned businesses expect the boss's children/friends to be given special privileges and while they may grumble about it, it doesn't really have an effect on performance--then don't bother. Now, if clueless friend gets promoted out of an entry level job without proper qualifications, then as an HR person it is your responsibility to lay out the problems with this approach.
If you have a regular working relationship with Sonny you may mention your concerns about morale to him. He may think he's a great guy who is helping people while you see him destroying the business. Now, if the owner happens to give you a call and ask what is going on, you can express your concerns, but don't call them up.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Because We Like to Give Advice
I am interviewing for an HR/Information Assistant position this Thursday (October 30). I really really want to get this position, as I am very interested in working for Human Resources. However, I do not have any prior experience in HR, and have heard that it is difficult to get into the department without prior experience. Is there any advice you could provide for someone like me, who really wants to prove to the employer that I am serious about this job, and that I am the perfect candidate?
It is difficult to get a job without experience, but we all did it at some point. I'll ask my readers to give additional advice to you, but here's mine: Don't pretend you can do something when you can't.
I would far rather have someone say, "I have no idea how to do x, but I'm a fast learner and I'm willing to try anything. I'm sure I could learn to do it. In fact, in my last job I [learned x] and became the department expert." So much better than, "yeah, I can do that," and then you really can't.
Also, I'm not sure what an Information Assistant is (but can I have one?), but an HR assistant is an entry level job where you aren't expected to know everything, but you are expected to jump in and try and learn. Also, we expect that you will never make a mistake. (Ha! We know you will, but we will try to prevent you from making mistakes that will show up on the CEO's desk.)
What other advice do you have for this future HR person?
It is difficult to get a job without experience, but we all did it at some point. I'll ask my readers to give additional advice to you, but here's mine: Don't pretend you can do something when you can't.
I would far rather have someone say, "I have no idea how to do x, but I'm a fast learner and I'm willing to try anything. I'm sure I could learn to do it. In fact, in my last job I [learned x] and became the department expert." So much better than, "yeah, I can do that," and then you really can't.
Also, I'm not sure what an Information Assistant is (but can I have one?), but an HR assistant is an entry level job where you aren't expected to know everything, but you are expected to jump in and try and learn. Also, we expect that you will never make a mistake. (Ha! We know you will, but we will try to prevent you from making mistakes that will show up on the CEO's desk.)
What other advice do you have for this future HR person?
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Problem With HR
In the comments on Policy Problem Just Another HR Lady Wrote:
And with that she sums up a very real problem. Every employee at every level has contact with HR and sometimes with very low level HR people. Add to this that HR isn't the highest paid profession and sometimes you get some real problems.
Any mistake we make is magnified--because it involves people. Let me tell you about a memorable mistake in my past. Once upon a time, I was responsible for running the year end salary increase program--for the entire, very large company. This was in the dark ages, so at the end of the whole thing we sent every manager a piece of paper with a list of their employees and the employee's official increase. Attached to that were individual notification sheets for each employee with their names and new salaries. Did I mention this was a very large company? Did I also mention this was all done on PAPER? Oy.
So, we're handling tens of thousands of sheets of paper. Stuffing them into envelopes and sending them out. It was quite a process. And we made a mistake. No one really knows who--everyone in the department, from admin to VP helped out on this stuffing process, so it could have been anyone. But, we made a mistake and ONE Vice President (note how I said, one out of thousands) got an extra sheet stuck to his list. The extra sheet happened to be for one of his direct reports, so it wasn't as if he saw anything he didn't already have access to. It was just a mistake. And unfortunately, it happened at the top.
Of course, the world came to an end and there were meetings and process re-designs and it was a mess and if you ask me if I ever want to do that again the answer is a resounding no. It made us look terrible and no one recognized that our error rate was well below 0.0002%. You ask me if any other department would get reamed for that error level. Even worse all of HR looked bad, even though staffing, employee relations, benefits, etc. didn't even make the mistake. My group did.
My point is, of course, that we do have to be better. We need to know more than we do. We need to be more accurate than we are. We just need to be better employees.
Which makes sense. After all, if we're in the people business we should be the best people.
I would like to just comment that every profession (not just HR) has individuals who are low-performers or who are not the right fit for the job. Because HR deals with every single person in the organization at every level, HR low-performers or those who make mistakes/errors/missteps are much higher profile in the company than someone who only deals with one department.
And with that she sums up a very real problem. Every employee at every level has contact with HR and sometimes with very low level HR people. Add to this that HR isn't the highest paid profession and sometimes you get some real problems.
Any mistake we make is magnified--because it involves people. Let me tell you about a memorable mistake in my past. Once upon a time, I was responsible for running the year end salary increase program--for the entire, very large company. This was in the dark ages, so at the end of the whole thing we sent every manager a piece of paper with a list of their employees and the employee's official increase. Attached to that were individual notification sheets for each employee with their names and new salaries. Did I mention this was a very large company? Did I also mention this was all done on PAPER? Oy.
So, we're handling tens of thousands of sheets of paper. Stuffing them into envelopes and sending them out. It was quite a process. And we made a mistake. No one really knows who--everyone in the department, from admin to VP helped out on this stuffing process, so it could have been anyone. But, we made a mistake and ONE Vice President (note how I said, one out of thousands) got an extra sheet stuck to his list. The extra sheet happened to be for one of his direct reports, so it wasn't as if he saw anything he didn't already have access to. It was just a mistake. And unfortunately, it happened at the top.
Of course, the world came to an end and there were meetings and process re-designs and it was a mess and if you ask me if I ever want to do that again the answer is a resounding no. It made us look terrible and no one recognized that our error rate was well below 0.0002%. You ask me if any other department would get reamed for that error level. Even worse all of HR looked bad, even though staffing, employee relations, benefits, etc. didn't even make the mistake. My group did.
My point is, of course, that we do have to be better. We need to know more than we do. We need to be more accurate than we are. We just need to be better employees.
Which makes sense. After all, if we're in the people business we should be the best people.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Fail
This has nothing to do with HR, but it would be so phenomenally horrible if it happened to you. But it would also be really funny.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Policy Problem
I had asked one of our HR ladies via e-mail 3 different times to supply me with the tuition reimbursement policy our company has. After waiting over 6 months I went to our companies intranet site and searched "tuition reimbursement". I found the policy and sent her the link since she obliviously didn't know where to find it.
A few minutes after finding it I received an e-mail from our evil HR. Manager asking where I found it and that it because it was not to be available to the public. How is that right? How am I supposed to follow policies that I am not privy to? Is he being evil or are HR policies not for employees to view?
Of course he’s being evil. That’s what we HR types do.
You’ve got several different issues going on here. Let’s talk about issue number 1: HR not returning e-mails. You have a simple question—what is the tuition reimbursement policy? Now, depending on the size of your company the person you know as “HR” may not (and judging from the lack of response, does not) know what the policy is. So, she ignored your e-mail. Or she forwarded it and that person ignored it and she didn’t follow up. This is completely unprofessional and downright rude.
If she didn’t know the answer and didn’t know whom to ask, the proper response is to e-mail you back and apologetically tell you she doesn’t know the answer. Then the other proper response is for her boss to fire her because she should either know the answer to that question, know who to ask, or be willing to wade in and find out who knows.
The second issue is that your intranet security stinks. If there is a document that you shouldn’t have access to, you shouldn’t be able to get to it without some serious hacking skills. It sounds like you just surfed around and found it. Bad intranet security.
The third, and really most important point, is that your HR manager is paranoid and wrong. I've never understood the desire to "hide" information from employees. Do you have a tuition reimbursement policy or not? If you do, make it available to everyone. Do you have a vacation policy or not? If you make it available to everyone.
I know, the "little people" can't possibly understand big, complicated policies! Plus, the world will come to an end if we change one of them, so we should keep them secret. Well, we can let managers know because everyone knows managers can handle that information, whereas individual contributors cannot.
If you haven't guessed, I hate this attitude. In any organiztion that doesn't hire teenagers (and even in those that do, but I'll grant you this much), everyone should be able to handle policies and even handle the knowledge that not all policies apply to all people. Get this, people even understand that sometimes policies change.
I'm a big fan of openess. If you can't justify why you have a policy in place, you probably shouldn't have it. If a policy is so complicated that posting it would lead to confusion among the masses, perhaps you should revise your policy so that it makes sense.
I realize that initial posting of policies can cause phone calls. I get that. (I've also been the recipient of many dumb phone calls, including ones that went someone like this: "I'm looking at the tuition reimbursement policy and it says that in order to be reimbursed, I have to get at least a C in the class. So, if I get a D can I be reimubursed?") I also think that if someone's knickers get too twisted after reading a policy you've got a management issue.
And that is why HR is afraid of posting policies. We'd rather avoid the issues of having someone question. We'd rather avoid having managers manage their people. In short, we're wimps.
We shouldn't be. We won't be respected as an organization until we stop being wimps.
A few minutes after finding it I received an e-mail from our evil HR. Manager asking where I found it and that it because it was not to be available to the public. How is that right? How am I supposed to follow policies that I am not privy to? Is he being evil or are HR policies not for employees to view?
Of course he’s being evil. That’s what we HR types do.
You’ve got several different issues going on here. Let’s talk about issue number 1: HR not returning e-mails. You have a simple question—what is the tuition reimbursement policy? Now, depending on the size of your company the person you know as “HR” may not (and judging from the lack of response, does not) know what the policy is. So, she ignored your e-mail. Or she forwarded it and that person ignored it and she didn’t follow up. This is completely unprofessional and downright rude.
If she didn’t know the answer and didn’t know whom to ask, the proper response is to e-mail you back and apologetically tell you she doesn’t know the answer. Then the other proper response is for her boss to fire her because she should either know the answer to that question, know who to ask, or be willing to wade in and find out who knows.
The second issue is that your intranet security stinks. If there is a document that you shouldn’t have access to, you shouldn’t be able to get to it without some serious hacking skills. It sounds like you just surfed around and found it. Bad intranet security.
The third, and really most important point, is that your HR manager is paranoid and wrong. I've never understood the desire to "hide" information from employees. Do you have a tuition reimbursement policy or not? If you do, make it available to everyone. Do you have a vacation policy or not? If you make it available to everyone.
I know, the "little people" can't possibly understand big, complicated policies! Plus, the world will come to an end if we change one of them, so we should keep them secret. Well, we can let managers know because everyone knows managers can handle that information, whereas individual contributors cannot.
If you haven't guessed, I hate this attitude. In any organiztion that doesn't hire teenagers (and even in those that do, but I'll grant you this much), everyone should be able to handle policies and even handle the knowledge that not all policies apply to all people. Get this, people even understand that sometimes policies change.
I'm a big fan of openess. If you can't justify why you have a policy in place, you probably shouldn't have it. If a policy is so complicated that posting it would lead to confusion among the masses, perhaps you should revise your policy so that it makes sense.
I realize that initial posting of policies can cause phone calls. I get that. (I've also been the recipient of many dumb phone calls, including ones that went someone like this: "I'm looking at the tuition reimbursement policy and it says that in order to be reimbursed, I have to get at least a C in the class. So, if I get a D can I be reimubursed?") I also think that if someone's knickers get too twisted after reading a policy you've got a management issue.
And that is why HR is afraid of posting policies. We'd rather avoid the issues of having someone question. We'd rather avoid having managers manage their people. In short, we're wimps.
We shouldn't be. We won't be respected as an organization until we stop being wimps.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Unpaid, Uncompensated Overtime
I have a title, more than two employees, satisfy the salary requirement, and have weight given to my decisions to hire , fire, task assignment, etc... So I'm exempt right?
I am salaried for 40 hr. a week, about half of the work year I repeatedly put in 70 hrs. a week performing predictable,rotational, maintenance labor identical to that of my employees. I work unpaid in the field every Sunday and all summer holidays. My company does not have the budget to hire any staff to perform these tasks that are critical to the deliverables. The employees I supervise are assigned to single service areas and may not work on the broader assignment for which I am responsible. The rotational tasks are weather dependent so regardless of re-arrangements and behind the desk Monday quarterbacking, service must be delivered. The most critical of the tasks can only be performed on weekends when I have accessibility to the sites. HR said you have to work whatever hours it takes to get the job done.
We anticipated this at point of hire, and vague promises were forwarded to compensate with additional paid time off (PTO).
Nothing in writing. I took a vacation after serving these 70 hour weeks for 16 weeks straight. Then received an email upon return informing that I didn't have sufficient PTO, and will go unpaid for the vacation.
I reminded my supervisor of the vague promises, a date was set to draw up language, this has past with no follow up.
Any ideas?
Yes, but the best one is of no use to you. Never, and I mean never, accept a job offer contingent on vague verbal promises. Something like this should have been in writing as part of the offer letter or in the employee handbook as a matter of policy. Working 16 straight 70 hour weeks would send me over the edge and a vacation or 12 weeks of mental FMLA would be required.
So, where do we go from here? First, you need to take responsibility for getting this fixed. Your boss doesn't care. He should, but he doesn't. Nobody cares about your vacation like you do.
You need to make sure you get on his calendar. Go in prepared with what your expectations are. Do not pause for a second if he says, "what do you think is fair?" You know what you think is fair, so make sure you have something to say. Don't leave without a resolution. If he says, "Well, I need to check with HR and the big boss on this," say, "Great. Let's write up a proposal right now and e-mail it to both of them." Otherwise, he won't have gotten around to meeting with them and you'll be working another 16 straight weeks of weekends.
If the vague offer of additional PTO came from him, keep in mind he may not have gotten authorization and he may be getting in trouble. So, it may not be truly possible to give you what he promised you. (My lawyer friends can tell you that in some cases a verbal promise is equal to a written contract, but I don't know if this is such a case and I'm not a lawyer anyway. I did, however, hear a "pro-lawyer" advertisement on the radio the other day. Seriously. It was weird. Yeah lawyers!)
If you cannot get a meeting (people who are avoiding you can miss meetings like you wouldn't believe) then type up what your expectations are in an e-mail. This is a last resort, because many people see this as a passive aggressive move. I hate confrontation so I do as much as possible via e-mail (plus e-mail covers your rear end sometimes). Try, try, try to meet in person. But if not, try something like this:
John,
When you offered me [position x] part of the offer included comp time in exchange for the 70 hour weeks I would be expected to work. I would like to formalize this so there are no more misunderstandings.
For each 70 hour week I work, I will receive an additional [half day, quarter day, hour--whatever was discussed previously] in paid time off.
Please let me know if this is not to your understanding.
Thanks,
[your name]
For the first e-mail, don't copy his boss or HR. We want to stay out of it and it won't help your cause. If his offer was outside of company policy he'll get in trouble and you don't want him to get in trouble if you can help it. (A happy boss is more likely to give you the time off you deserve).
If he doesn't respond, send him a follow up e-mail saying that you understand this is now in place and you are acting accordingly.
Then ask yourself this question, "why am I working for such a place? Do the benefits outweigh all the negatives?" If the answer is no, get your resume updated and start looking. I certainly wouldn't want to work under the conditions you are describing. Of course, I've worked part time for 5 years now, so I've grown soft.
(And PS--before someone comments and says "maybe she's not really exempt!" we're assuming she is exempt. Hire/Fire and supervisory responsibilities tend to make one exempt. If she's doing a lot of the actual work and it's not professional level work, you may be right, but we are assuming this is an exempt position.)
I am salaried for 40 hr. a week, about half of the work year I repeatedly put in 70 hrs. a week performing predictable,rotational, maintenance labor identical to that of my employees. I work unpaid in the field every Sunday and all summer holidays. My company does not have the budget to hire any staff to perform these tasks that are critical to the deliverables. The employees I supervise are assigned to single service areas and may not work on the broader assignment for which I am responsible. The rotational tasks are weather dependent so regardless of re-arrangements and behind the desk Monday quarterbacking, service must be delivered. The most critical of the tasks can only be performed on weekends when I have accessibility to the sites. HR said you have to work whatever hours it takes to get the job done.
We anticipated this at point of hire, and vague promises were forwarded to compensate with additional paid time off (PTO).
Nothing in writing. I took a vacation after serving these 70 hour weeks for 16 weeks straight. Then received an email upon return informing that I didn't have sufficient PTO, and will go unpaid for the vacation.
I reminded my supervisor of the vague promises, a date was set to draw up language, this has past with no follow up.
Any ideas?
Yes, but the best one is of no use to you. Never, and I mean never, accept a job offer contingent on vague verbal promises. Something like this should have been in writing as part of the offer letter or in the employee handbook as a matter of policy. Working 16 straight 70 hour weeks would send me over the edge and a vacation or 12 weeks of mental FMLA would be required.
So, where do we go from here? First, you need to take responsibility for getting this fixed. Your boss doesn't care. He should, but he doesn't. Nobody cares about your vacation like you do.
You need to make sure you get on his calendar. Go in prepared with what your expectations are. Do not pause for a second if he says, "what do you think is fair?" You know what you think is fair, so make sure you have something to say. Don't leave without a resolution. If he says, "Well, I need to check with HR and the big boss on this," say, "Great. Let's write up a proposal right now and e-mail it to both of them." Otherwise, he won't have gotten around to meeting with them and you'll be working another 16 straight weeks of weekends.
If the vague offer of additional PTO came from him, keep in mind he may not have gotten authorization and he may be getting in trouble. So, it may not be truly possible to give you what he promised you. (My lawyer friends can tell you that in some cases a verbal promise is equal to a written contract, but I don't know if this is such a case and I'm not a lawyer anyway. I did, however, hear a "pro-lawyer" advertisement on the radio the other day. Seriously. It was weird. Yeah lawyers!)
If you cannot get a meeting (people who are avoiding you can miss meetings like you wouldn't believe) then type up what your expectations are in an e-mail. This is a last resort, because many people see this as a passive aggressive move. I hate confrontation so I do as much as possible via e-mail (plus e-mail covers your rear end sometimes). Try, try, try to meet in person. But if not, try something like this:
John,
When you offered me [position x] part of the offer included comp time in exchange for the 70 hour weeks I would be expected to work. I would like to formalize this so there are no more misunderstandings.
For each 70 hour week I work, I will receive an additional [half day, quarter day, hour--whatever was discussed previously] in paid time off.
Please let me know if this is not to your understanding.
Thanks,
[your name]
For the first e-mail, don't copy his boss or HR. We want to stay out of it and it won't help your cause. If his offer was outside of company policy he'll get in trouble and you don't want him to get in trouble if you can help it. (A happy boss is more likely to give you the time off you deserve).
If he doesn't respond, send him a follow up e-mail saying that you understand this is now in place and you are acting accordingly.
Then ask yourself this question, "why am I working for such a place? Do the benefits outweigh all the negatives?" If the answer is no, get your resume updated and start looking. I certainly wouldn't want to work under the conditions you are describing. Of course, I've worked part time for 5 years now, so I've grown soft.
(And PS--before someone comments and says "maybe she's not really exempt!" we're assuming she is exempt. Hire/Fire and supervisory responsibilities tend to make one exempt. If she's doing a lot of the actual work and it's not professional level work, you may be right, but we are assuming this is an exempt position.)
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Completely Random Overheard
18 year old Chuck E. Cheese employee to fellow employees: "I'm voting Obama and don't argue with me because no one beats me on politics. I study the stuff. And Joe Biden is hot."
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Would You Laugh or Write Up?
If one of your employees wrote a letter like this would you laugh or write the person up?
I laughed. (Not that I work for this law firm. I don't work for a law firm.)
Via lowering the bar.
I laughed. (Not that I work for this law firm. I don't work for a law firm.)
Via lowering the bar.
Fired and Hired
I've had interviews with a prospective employer and multiple discussions over the last month. The prospective employer said they would have an offer to me tomorrow (Thursday) 10/2. I was terminated today (Wednesday) from my current employer (entire career /work history is with this employer, over 10 years) Do I need to make the prospective employer aware of my termination or just sit tight? Do prospective employers ever do reference checks after they've hired to verify positions, or dates of employment? Please help as I am in a panic right now and don't know what to do.
Have they already done the reference check on you? If so, it probably doesn't matter. They are extremely unlikely to do a second check. If not, it might.
I wouldn't panic, though. Get the offer letter. If it says in it that it's contingent on a reference check then mention to the recruiter that today was your last day with your former company and you are eager to start at their company. If the termination was something other than a position elimination (performance or cause) and there is any chance of them calling your old company for a reference, explain. Usually a good explanation is one that doesn't make your previous company sound bad. "My boss was a jerk who couldn't see that I was a genius" is a bad explanation. "My boss wanted to take the department this way and I think we should go that way, which is in accordance with [new company] and so the timing couldn't be better" is a better explanation.
If you were fired for stealing copy paper and toner from the supply closet, well then you're on your own.
Getting fired is not the end of the world. It's extremely common. EXTREMELY common for someone to have a lost job in their past. Yours seemed to have hit at the perfect time. I hope everything goes through with your new job.
Have they already done the reference check on you? If so, it probably doesn't matter. They are extremely unlikely to do a second check. If not, it might.
I wouldn't panic, though. Get the offer letter. If it says in it that it's contingent on a reference check then mention to the recruiter that today was your last day with your former company and you are eager to start at their company. If the termination was something other than a position elimination (performance or cause) and there is any chance of them calling your old company for a reference, explain. Usually a good explanation is one that doesn't make your previous company sound bad. "My boss was a jerk who couldn't see that I was a genius" is a bad explanation. "My boss wanted to take the department this way and I think we should go that way, which is in accordance with [new company] and so the timing couldn't be better" is a better explanation.
If you were fired for stealing copy paper and toner from the supply closet, well then you're on your own.
Getting fired is not the end of the world. It's extremely common. EXTREMELY common for someone to have a lost job in their past. Yours seemed to have hit at the perfect time. I hope everything goes through with your new job.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Not at all Strange
I get a weekly e-mail from BLR called HR Strange But True. It's usually some fluff about resumes or such. Interesting, but nothing to blog about.
Until the last e-mail. They proclaim that "Sexists Get Paid More!" This, is a "strange" phenomenon. Bah. They have not thought it through.
First of all, let's get rid of the inflammatory language. Sexists connotes someone who thinks women aren't capable of competing with men. That's not what the study says at all. Why don't we say, "Traditional Men Get Paid More!" That, I think, is a bit less biased.
Anyway, BLR is in shock (shock, I tell you!) that men who want a wife that stays at home make more money then those with more "egalitarian views" do. It's all about choices, people.
If a man believes that the best situation is for him to be married and have a wife that does not work, then guess what? He's most likely to marry a woman who will stay at home. And what will that wife be doing? Taking care of the house, the kids, paying the bills, waiting for the plumber, arguing with the phone company, and generally taking responsibility for a million different things.
The man who believes the best situation is for him to be married to a woman who also works will most likely be married to a...drum roll please...a wife who also works. What does this mean? Well, he's got to either share in all those responsibilities listed above, or he is a real jerk who lets his wife, who works as much as he does, take care of all that stuff plus his marriage is shakier because she's angry at him for not helping. What about the woman who works with a working husband? Or the single person? All of these people have essentially two jobs--the one at home and the one at work.
The "traditional" man has someone else taking care of all the outside hassles of life. He, essentially, only works one job--the one he's paid for. Does it not make sense that he should be able to focus more on work? He never has to worry about having clean socks or missing an important meeting because one of the kids is puking.
It's all about choice. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are consequences with each choice.
Until the last e-mail. They proclaim that "Sexists Get Paid More!" This, is a "strange" phenomenon. Bah. They have not thought it through.
First of all, let's get rid of the inflammatory language. Sexists connotes someone who thinks women aren't capable of competing with men. That's not what the study says at all. Why don't we say, "Traditional Men Get Paid More!" That, I think, is a bit less biased.
Anyway, BLR is in shock (shock, I tell you!) that men who want a wife that stays at home make more money then those with more "egalitarian views" do. It's all about choices, people.
If a man believes that the best situation is for him to be married and have a wife that does not work, then guess what? He's most likely to marry a woman who will stay at home. And what will that wife be doing? Taking care of the house, the kids, paying the bills, waiting for the plumber, arguing with the phone company, and generally taking responsibility for a million different things.
The man who believes the best situation is for him to be married to a woman who also works will most likely be married to a...drum roll please...a wife who also works. What does this mean? Well, he's got to either share in all those responsibilities listed above, or he is a real jerk who lets his wife, who works as much as he does, take care of all that stuff plus his marriage is shakier because she's angry at him for not helping. What about the woman who works with a working husband? Or the single person? All of these people have essentially two jobs--the one at home and the one at work.
The "traditional" man has someone else taking care of all the outside hassles of life. He, essentially, only works one job--the one he's paid for. Does it not make sense that he should be able to focus more on work? He never has to worry about having clean socks or missing an important meeting because one of the kids is puking.
It's all about choice. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that there are consequences with each choice.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Important Carnival of HR Update!
The Carnival of HR has a new home! Yeah! All the updates and info you need is over there.
Ask A Manager has taken over the responsibility of tracking and guiding the carnival. She's awesome.
Party on!
Ask A Manager has taken over the responsibility of tracking and guiding the carnival. She's awesome.
Party on!
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Power of [Passive Aggressive] Suggestion
This week, I had an employee come to me and complain about other employees not washing their hands after using the bathroom. They wanted me to put up signs telling people they need to wash their hands before returning to work. Needless to say, I do NOT work at a McDonald's. My (rhetorical) question is this: does putting up a sign telling people to do something or not do something actually work?? If so, I need to rethink our whole office communication plan. It might save me a whole lot of time and trouble.
First question for the person who asked this question: How do you know that people aren't washing their hands? Are you hanging out in the bathroom? Really? Because I believe that studies show that even avowed non-washers wash their hands when someone else is in the bathroom.
My second question is why would anyone think that someone who is brazen enough to walk out of a public restroom, observed by a co-worker, and still not wash their hands would see a sign "reminding" them to wash their hands and go, "Oh! I'm supposed to wash my hands after piddling? I had no idea! Thank you place of work for telling me this. I shall now wash my hands."
Not gonna happen. Not even close.
I will say, though that there is a time and a place for passive aggressive notes. And that place is here, and nowhere else. Otherwise, if you won't say it to their faces, leaving notes won't help. (I was strongly tempted to leave a "If you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie, wipe the seatie" sign when someone in my office used to hover and then not wipe up after herself. I mean, honestly, are you that delicate that you can't clean up after yourself but expect the rest of the world to do it? Actually what I would have liked to do is put a sign saying, "I don't know who you are, but if we find out, you're going down." I didn't. You shouldn't either. But, geesh, people, have some consideration for others!)
I would be willing to bet (if I were a gambling woman, which I'm not), that the complainer has other problems that need to be addressed. People don't come to HR over this unless there is an underlying issue. Sure, they may say, "Sue in accounts payable doesn't wash her hands!" while they are chatting, with people giving furtive glances at Sue and wondering about the bacteria colonies on her keyboard, but they don't come to HR about it. This is someone who is frustrated over something else and needs a little control in her life. (I just switched from gender neutral into female, because I'll also bet this is a woman. I don't think men care about this and if they did and saw other men not washing their hands they'd say, "Dude, you didn't wash your hands" instead of coming to HR.)
So, no. I don't think a sign will solve any problems. I think the problem isn't handwashing. I think it's something else.
First question for the person who asked this question: How do you know that people aren't washing their hands? Are you hanging out in the bathroom? Really? Because I believe that studies show that even avowed non-washers wash their hands when someone else is in the bathroom.
My second question is why would anyone think that someone who is brazen enough to walk out of a public restroom, observed by a co-worker, and still not wash their hands would see a sign "reminding" them to wash their hands and go, "Oh! I'm supposed to wash my hands after piddling? I had no idea! Thank you place of work for telling me this. I shall now wash my hands."
Not gonna happen. Not even close.
I will say, though that there is a time and a place for passive aggressive notes. And that place is here, and nowhere else. Otherwise, if you won't say it to their faces, leaving notes won't help. (I was strongly tempted to leave a "If you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie, wipe the seatie" sign when someone in my office used to hover and then not wipe up after herself. I mean, honestly, are you that delicate that you can't clean up after yourself but expect the rest of the world to do it? Actually what I would have liked to do is put a sign saying, "I don't know who you are, but if we find out, you're going down." I didn't. You shouldn't either. But, geesh, people, have some consideration for others!)
I would be willing to bet (if I were a gambling woman, which I'm not), that the complainer has other problems that need to be addressed. People don't come to HR over this unless there is an underlying issue. Sure, they may say, "Sue in accounts payable doesn't wash her hands!" while they are chatting, with people giving furtive glances at Sue and wondering about the bacteria colonies on her keyboard, but they don't come to HR about it. This is someone who is frustrated over something else and needs a little control in her life. (I just switched from gender neutral into female, because I'll also bet this is a woman. I don't think men care about this and if they did and saw other men not washing their hands they'd say, "Dude, you didn't wash your hands" instead of coming to HR.)
So, no. I don't think a sign will solve any problems. I think the problem isn't handwashing. I think it's something else.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Carnival of HR Reminder
There has been some serious slacking in the Carnival world and we don't want to get bad performance reviews because of it.
If you hurry up and make a submission, you just might make today's carnival at Sharp Brains. Send an e-mail to alvaro at sharpbrains dot com.
If you hurry up and make a submission, you just might make today's carnival at Sharp Brains. Send an e-mail to alvaro at sharpbrains dot com.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuition and Quitting
I was reading your blog about Tuition Policies. I'm in a very unique situation and wondered your advice.
My previous company paid for my Tuition for 1 year, then they informed me that they were going to outsource my job, and I wouldn't have to pay this back.
However, they refused to give me a set time frame for my last day of work. Since I was a new home owner, and would only receive 4 weeks severance pay I felt I would be gambling on finding a new job with a small time frame, so I decided to leave once I was offered another job. Now, I put myself in the position to re-pay what they paid for my tuition. I noticed in your blog that you said . . ."it's next to impossible to get that money back if the person doesn't willingly cough up the check", I just wanted to know your thoughts on this topic? What can the company do, if I don't repay this money?
The company can take you to court and sue you and they would win. Yeah! Just what you want to do. You want a court judgment issued against you.
Now, the probably won't, but they might. You don't want it to come to that. You also signed a contract and legally you are obligated to repay, since your resignation was voluntary. Now, since you had already been told that your position was being outsourced, you might be able to argue that this was a version of a constructive discharge. Usually this is applied when your company makes it so miserable that you have to leave. I could argue that by telling you your job is eliminated and not giving you a time frame, the only rational decision was to quit and therefore you were forced into it.
I doubt you could win that argument in court. And as I said, you don't want to go to court anyway. Plus, you are an honest person and want to do the right thing. It's one year of tuition. Step up to the plate and approach the person responsible for such things. Present your case and say, "under the circumstances, I believe it's fair if I repay 1/3 of the tuition. After all, my job was scheduled for outsourcing and I saved you the cost of 4 weeks severance." They'll probably jump at it, given that they don't want to go to court either.
Keep in mind that the person who manages the tuition reimbursement program probably does not have the authority to approve such a thing. So, if she immediately says no, ask who would have the authority to approve a deal and go to them. Frankly, I think they'd be fools not to accept it. You may have to negotiate a little bit and pay a bit more, but I doubt they'll come after you for the whole amount.
Or, you could get someone who is a complete policy nut who will become apoplectic at the mere thought of granting an exception. If so, I'm sorry.
I feel your pain. And for the record, I think you made the right decision. No point staying on when you have an indefinite term date. Companies that do that type of thing to you should be offering stay bonuses, but even those are rarely worth turning down a real job for.
Good luck in your new job.
My previous company paid for my Tuition for 1 year, then they informed me that they were going to outsource my job, and I wouldn't have to pay this back.
However, they refused to give me a set time frame for my last day of work. Since I was a new home owner, and would only receive 4 weeks severance pay I felt I would be gambling on finding a new job with a small time frame, so I decided to leave once I was offered another job. Now, I put myself in the position to re-pay what they paid for my tuition. I noticed in your blog that you said . . ."it's next to impossible to get that money back if the person doesn't willingly cough up the check", I just wanted to know your thoughts on this topic? What can the company do, if I don't repay this money?
The company can take you to court and sue you and they would win. Yeah! Just what you want to do. You want a court judgment issued against you.
Now, the probably won't, but they might. You don't want it to come to that. You also signed a contract and legally you are obligated to repay, since your resignation was voluntary. Now, since you had already been told that your position was being outsourced, you might be able to argue that this was a version of a constructive discharge. Usually this is applied when your company makes it so miserable that you have to leave. I could argue that by telling you your job is eliminated and not giving you a time frame, the only rational decision was to quit and therefore you were forced into it.
I doubt you could win that argument in court. And as I said, you don't want to go to court anyway. Plus, you are an honest person and want to do the right thing. It's one year of tuition. Step up to the plate and approach the person responsible for such things. Present your case and say, "under the circumstances, I believe it's fair if I repay 1/3 of the tuition. After all, my job was scheduled for outsourcing and I saved you the cost of 4 weeks severance." They'll probably jump at it, given that they don't want to go to court either.
Keep in mind that the person who manages the tuition reimbursement program probably does not have the authority to approve such a thing. So, if she immediately says no, ask who would have the authority to approve a deal and go to them. Frankly, I think they'd be fools not to accept it. You may have to negotiate a little bit and pay a bit more, but I doubt they'll come after you for the whole amount.
Or, you could get someone who is a complete policy nut who will become apoplectic at the mere thought of granting an exception. If so, I'm sorry.
I feel your pain. And for the record, I think you made the right decision. No point staying on when you have an indefinite term date. Companies that do that type of thing to you should be offering stay bonuses, but even those are rarely worth turning down a real job for.
Good luck in your new job.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
On that School/Forms Theme
Check this out. It's a parody of a school form. I need to get more creative and make up a new hire form.
Advance Vacation Notice
I am currently looking for employment (I was laid off) and was wondering about how to ask for a few days off that I know I would like to take. I am completing my MBA in December, and the graduation is in a neighboring state, which would require a few days off for driving, plus the actual ceremony and celebration. Since I already know about this desire for time off, when would be the appropriate time to mention this, in the event that I am interviewed and/or offered a position? I am ok with being told it is not possible, if that is the employer's policy, but if I can take the time off (even without pay), I would prefer to do so. I don't want to offend the employer by them thinking I would always be asking for time off, but also feel the kind of employer I want to work for would be understanding for this special occasion.
First, good luck with the job hunt. It's a painful, but hopefully fruitful time. Second, congratulations on the MBA. (Almost! I probably shouldn't congratulate you until you actually receive it.)
Now, as for time off at the end of December, take a deep breath and don't worry about it. Everyone and their dog wants to take vacation at the end of December and no future employer is going to be shocked by the request. (And, FYI, if you came and worked for my company, we shut down between Christmas and New Year's Day anyway, so everybody gets time off!) This is something I wouldn't even bring up in an interview.
I would, however, bring it up in the negotiation phase. Once they've offered you the job, then you can mention, "I'm graduating from [MBA Program] in December and the graduation ceremony is on December 22. I'd really like to take December 21-23rd off. Would that be a problem?"
Chances are the answer will be no. If the answer is yes, then you get to decide if the new job is worth missing your graduation.
This would be a problem if what you wanted was 6 weeks off to tour Africa or something. Two-three days off to attend your own graduation is not an unreasonable request. And a manager would be a fool to not want you to work for them because you have something so reasonable scheduled. (Heck, I once hired someone who said she couldn't start for three weeks because she had a vacation planned between the offer and then and didn't want to request time off. I needed her on board for various reasons and said, "come on and you can take that vacation paid!" So she did and she went on her vacation and 7 years later she's my job share partner, so aren't I glad she came to work?)
You're almost done with your MBA and you've been laid off, so I presume you have work experience to go along with your degree. This means you probably aren't looking for entry level positions where you have to work six months before getting a single day off. Most companies will pro-rate your vacation time anyway. If you were hired in October in a company that offers 2 weeks of vacation per year, you'd have 2.5 days of vacation to use by year end anyway. (10 days/12 months=.833 days per month X 3 months=2.5 days of vacation.)
Good luck with the job hunt. May you land one quickly.
First, good luck with the job hunt. It's a painful, but hopefully fruitful time. Second, congratulations on the MBA. (Almost! I probably shouldn't congratulate you until you actually receive it.)
Now, as for time off at the end of December, take a deep breath and don't worry about it. Everyone and their dog wants to take vacation at the end of December and no future employer is going to be shocked by the request. (And, FYI, if you came and worked for my company, we shut down between Christmas and New Year's Day anyway, so everybody gets time off!) This is something I wouldn't even bring up in an interview.
I would, however, bring it up in the negotiation phase. Once they've offered you the job, then you can mention, "I'm graduating from [MBA Program] in December and the graduation ceremony is on December 22. I'd really like to take December 21-23rd off. Would that be a problem?"
Chances are the answer will be no. If the answer is yes, then you get to decide if the new job is worth missing your graduation.
This would be a problem if what you wanted was 6 weeks off to tour Africa or something. Two-three days off to attend your own graduation is not an unreasonable request. And a manager would be a fool to not want you to work for them because you have something so reasonable scheduled. (Heck, I once hired someone who said she couldn't start for three weeks because she had a vacation planned between the offer and then and didn't want to request time off. I needed her on board for various reasons and said, "come on and you can take that vacation paid!" So she did and she went on her vacation and 7 years later she's my job share partner, so aren't I glad she came to work?)
You're almost done with your MBA and you've been laid off, so I presume you have work experience to go along with your degree. This means you probably aren't looking for entry level positions where you have to work six months before getting a single day off. Most companies will pro-rate your vacation time anyway. If you were hired in October in a company that offers 2 weeks of vacation per year, you'd have 2.5 days of vacation to use by year end anyway. (10 days/12 months=.833 days per month X 3 months=2.5 days of vacation.)
Good luck with the job hunt. May you land one quickly.
Monday, September 08, 2008
An Ethical Question
I've been tapped to choose an important service provider for our small business. In taking bids, I've discovered that one of the bidders may have run afoul of the law in another state, but likely settled without any criminal charges (a white collar crime). I learned this from a competing bidder, but believe it to be true. I know this person, and have worked with them before in another business (the incident was a few years before that, evidently). Their work was always of an excellent quality. The person does NOT know that I'm aware of the incident, and the bid is in line with the others.
First, should I notify my boss of this, even if I believe it will not affect the providing of this critical service?
Next, should I use this person in the first place if the offense may be interpreted as having to do with a lack of character? I know frighteningly little about the facts of the case, I'm afraid.
Lastly, if we reject the bid for this reason, do I have an ethical responsibility to tell this person why, and how I found out?
I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask an ethical question to. Why? Because I spent a good part of Saturday trying to figure out how to cheat at Candyland. Not because I wanted to win, mind you. But because I wanted the game to end. As soon as one of us would get in striking distance of the blessed end of the game, that person would draw Mr. Mint or Grandma Nutt or some other blasted character that would send you backwards. Aaargh! Could somebody just win the darn thing?
But, for the record, I didn't cheat and fortunately, the offspring won, so there was no tears and (horrors) demand for a re-match. So, I guess I am an ethical sort.
So, you heard a rumor that someone who you have worked with in the past did something extra bad in their past--not that you are very clear on what--and you wonder what to do with that information. This is a horrible gut-wrenching situation to be in. You want to do what is right. You don't want to embarrass somebody needlessly. What if you tell your boss, the guy doesn't get the contract and it turns out that his competitor is lying? Aaargh!
Here is what I suggest: Talk to the vendor directly. Tell him you heard a rumor and you are very sorry, but you need to talk to him about it. This stops the gossip altogether and gets to the heart of things. If he says yes, that was him, then he gets an opportunity to explain and you take all the information to your boss and decide if you wish to continue working with him.
If he says no, that's not true, well then you've got a more difficult situation. You've got one vendor saying his direct competitor is a criminal and that vendor denying it. Oy. I still say your boss needs to know. I'm not a fan of gossip, but this situation speaks to the character of one of them, it's just hard to tell which one.
Since you don't believe this "problem" will affect his performance, you could just let it all go. But, the problem I see with that is that any criminal behavior reflects on the integrity of the person. (Incidentally, the rules around criminal CONVICTIONS and hiring don't apply--to the best of my knowledge--when you are seeking a vendor, rather than an employee. Since he wasn't convicted, this is moot anyway, but I thought I'd bring it up.) And telling you this information reflects on the integrity of the competitor. (Not saying he's a bad person, mind you, just saying "why is he telling me this? Is it to give himself an advantage? Or does he really think it's important.)
So, now that I've given a long winded answer, I'll summarize your three questions.
1. Yes, you should notify your boss. But, first speak to the vendor directly.
2. Depending on what you find out, it speaks to someone's character, and I think that's important to know. Keep in mind that lots of people have made mistakes in life and if it's been a while and he's done good work for you in the past, you probably don't care.
3. Yes, I believe if you are going to take this information into consideration, you need to talk to the person. I'm into being open and honest. If he did this, it's lurking in the back of his mind anyway and you bringing it up won't devastate him (I hope!). It will allow you to clear the air.
4. And no matter what, investigate this yourself. This means more than google.
I'm feeling a bit uneasy about my answer now. Someone else chime in and give a better one. I hate situations like this!
First, should I notify my boss of this, even if I believe it will not affect the providing of this critical service?
Next, should I use this person in the first place if the offense may be interpreted as having to do with a lack of character? I know frighteningly little about the facts of the case, I'm afraid.
Lastly, if we reject the bid for this reason, do I have an ethical responsibility to tell this person why, and how I found out?
I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask an ethical question to. Why? Because I spent a good part of Saturday trying to figure out how to cheat at Candyland. Not because I wanted to win, mind you. But because I wanted the game to end. As soon as one of us would get in striking distance of the blessed end of the game, that person would draw Mr. Mint or Grandma Nutt or some other blasted character that would send you backwards. Aaargh! Could somebody just win the darn thing?
But, for the record, I didn't cheat and fortunately, the offspring won, so there was no tears and (horrors) demand for a re-match. So, I guess I am an ethical sort.
So, you heard a rumor that someone who you have worked with in the past did something extra bad in their past--not that you are very clear on what--and you wonder what to do with that information. This is a horrible gut-wrenching situation to be in. You want to do what is right. You don't want to embarrass somebody needlessly. What if you tell your boss, the guy doesn't get the contract and it turns out that his competitor is lying? Aaargh!
Here is what I suggest: Talk to the vendor directly. Tell him you heard a rumor and you are very sorry, but you need to talk to him about it. This stops the gossip altogether and gets to the heart of things. If he says yes, that was him, then he gets an opportunity to explain and you take all the information to your boss and decide if you wish to continue working with him.
If he says no, that's not true, well then you've got a more difficult situation. You've got one vendor saying his direct competitor is a criminal and that vendor denying it. Oy. I still say your boss needs to know. I'm not a fan of gossip, but this situation speaks to the character of one of them, it's just hard to tell which one.
Since you don't believe this "problem" will affect his performance, you could just let it all go. But, the problem I see with that is that any criminal behavior reflects on the integrity of the person. (Incidentally, the rules around criminal CONVICTIONS and hiring don't apply--to the best of my knowledge--when you are seeking a vendor, rather than an employee. Since he wasn't convicted, this is moot anyway, but I thought I'd bring it up.) And telling you this information reflects on the integrity of the competitor. (Not saying he's a bad person, mind you, just saying "why is he telling me this? Is it to give himself an advantage? Or does he really think it's important.)
So, now that I've given a long winded answer, I'll summarize your three questions.
1. Yes, you should notify your boss. But, first speak to the vendor directly.
2. Depending on what you find out, it speaks to someone's character, and I think that's important to know. Keep in mind that lots of people have made mistakes in life and if it's been a while and he's done good work for you in the past, you probably don't care.
3. Yes, I believe if you are going to take this information into consideration, you need to talk to the person. I'm into being open and honest. If he did this, it's lurking in the back of his mind anyway and you bringing it up won't devastate him (I hope!). It will allow you to clear the air.
4. And no matter what, investigate this yourself. This means more than google.
I'm feeling a bit uneasy about my answer now. Someone else chime in and give a better one. I hate situations like this!
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I've Really Got a Headache
We have an employee that has had consistent attendance problems over the course of her employment (4 years). There are times where it is better and then she falls back down again. A two week stretch of good then a bad run for a week.
Recently she has been claiming that she can not work because she has migraine headaches. This is a new excuse for her. I am trying to determine the liability to the company if we write her up for excessive tardy’s and absenteeism. I have researched migraines and I can not anything conclusive.
My first question is why has this gone on for 4 years? That makes it harder to deal with. Remember, problems seldom heal themselves. 'Tis better to deal with the problems when they first rear their ugly little heads--or headaches in this case.
Now, do you have an attendance policy? If yes, have you been enforcing the policy across the board? I suspect not, because an oft absent employee would have been terminated a long time ago--before the migraines started. But, things are as they are and here we sit.
Two things (at least!) you need to keep in mind--the Americans with Disabilities Act and FMLA. Do migraines fall under ADA? Well, the best answer I can give you is maybe. (See, aren't I helpful?) The question is does, do her migraines "substantially limit" a major life activity? If yes, then you must make reasonable accommodations for her, provided she can do the job. If no, then it doesn't apply and you don't have to accommodate her.
Let's assume they are substantial and ADA does apply. What is a reasonable accommodation? Taking time off whenever she wants is not reasonable, in my book. Depending on the job, working flexible hours, dimmed lighting, reduced computer usage or something else can all be "reasonable accommodations." If migraines truly are her problem, perhaps one of these accommodations will solve the work problem.
It probably won't, though. I imagine a migraine strong enough to substantially limit a major life activity won't allow her to function through the day, even with all the reasonable accommodations in the world. Which brings us to FMLA.
In order to qualify for FMLA she needs a doctor involved. Once the paperwork is filled out and she's granted "intermittant" FMLA--which means she can take off when she needs to for her illness--she's limited to 60 days (12 weeks x 5 days a week) of time off due to her qualifying illness. After that, you can terminate her for absenteeism.
FMLA is tricky because while she is out on an FMLA approved absence you can't count any work she didn't do against her. It's easier to administer a traditional FMLA leave where multiple weeks are taken together.
If she doesn't qualify under FMLA and she's still absent fire her.
But acknowledge that you should have dealt with this years ago. You should have an attendance policy in place and if her multiple absences violated that, then she should have been terminated. Without an attendance policy it's difficult to be fair across the board. She should be an at will employee, which means you can terminate her at any time. But, if you are concerned that she will cause problems, offer her some severance in exchange for a general release. Make very sure that you don't ask her to waive her rights to FMLA, because from what I understand, that's not waivable.
Good luck!
Recently she has been claiming that she can not work because she has migraine headaches. This is a new excuse for her. I am trying to determine the liability to the company if we write her up for excessive tardy’s and absenteeism. I have researched migraines and I can not anything conclusive.
My first question is why has this gone on for 4 years? That makes it harder to deal with. Remember, problems seldom heal themselves. 'Tis better to deal with the problems when they first rear their ugly little heads--or headaches in this case.
Now, do you have an attendance policy? If yes, have you been enforcing the policy across the board? I suspect not, because an oft absent employee would have been terminated a long time ago--before the migraines started. But, things are as they are and here we sit.
Two things (at least!) you need to keep in mind--the Americans with Disabilities Act and FMLA. Do migraines fall under ADA? Well, the best answer I can give you is maybe. (See, aren't I helpful?) The question is does, do her migraines "substantially limit" a major life activity? If yes, then you must make reasonable accommodations for her, provided she can do the job. If no, then it doesn't apply and you don't have to accommodate her.
Let's assume they are substantial and ADA does apply. What is a reasonable accommodation? Taking time off whenever she wants is not reasonable, in my book. Depending on the job, working flexible hours, dimmed lighting, reduced computer usage or something else can all be "reasonable accommodations." If migraines truly are her problem, perhaps one of these accommodations will solve the work problem.
It probably won't, though. I imagine a migraine strong enough to substantially limit a major life activity won't allow her to function through the day, even with all the reasonable accommodations in the world. Which brings us to FMLA.
In order to qualify for FMLA she needs a doctor involved. Once the paperwork is filled out and she's granted "intermittant" FMLA--which means she can take off when she needs to for her illness--she's limited to 60 days (12 weeks x 5 days a week) of time off due to her qualifying illness. After that, you can terminate her for absenteeism.
FMLA is tricky because while she is out on an FMLA approved absence you can't count any work she didn't do against her. It's easier to administer a traditional FMLA leave where multiple weeks are taken together.
If she doesn't qualify under FMLA and she's still absent fire her.
But acknowledge that you should have dealt with this years ago. You should have an attendance policy in place and if her multiple absences violated that, then she should have been terminated. Without an attendance policy it's difficult to be fair across the board. She should be an at will employee, which means you can terminate her at any time. But, if you are concerned that she will cause problems, offer her some severance in exchange for a general release. Make very sure that you don't ask her to waive her rights to FMLA, because from what I understand, that's not waivable.
Good luck!
How Sending My Child to School Taught Me About Why People Hate HR
Me? I'm a fan of transparency, efficiency and as little paperwork as possible. It seems the school system tries to be opaque, mind-numbingly slow and filled with paper. As I navigated the system, I started to think "this is why people hate HR," because as much as I love letting people know what's going on, I know not all HR departments are like that.
In order to get Offspring #1 enrolled in school I had to make one trip to the district office, two trips to the doctor's office (one to get a copy of her vaccination record--which the school needed RIGHT NOW, right now being 6 months before school started), one trip to the dentist and 2 "required" trips to the school itself. (I put "required" in quotes becaused I refused to go to one of them. They wanted me to physically appear on a Thursday, between 9:30 and 11:00 to drop off a form. I said "this is why God gave us the post office" and mailed the form in.) All of these trips involved filling out forms.
Today, I picked the offspring up from her first day of school and received a whole new stack of paperwork--much of it with the same information I had already filled out on numerous other forms. And this must be returned no later than tomorrow.
Things like this drive me absolutely batty. Why do I need to fill out 3 (yes 3) different forms that list my emergency contact numbers? Can you please tell me? I understand the need to make sure about vaccinations and allergies, but what is the purpose for a dental form? When asked the school nurse said, "she can't go on any field trips without a dental form." Umm, okay, because you might stop for a couple of fillings and a good cleaning?
Now, let's talk HR. How often is an inquiry into why a form is needed is, "because it's policy"? Does everyone in HR even know why? Do we explain that HR needs to sign off on promotions, new hires, etc because we need to check that compensation guidelines aren't violated, as well as maintaining pay equity across the department? Or do we say, "Just fill out this form." Worse, are they filling out the form and you are just signing off on it without even reading it?
Do you ever have people fill out the same information more then once? (In case you are saying, "of course not," stop and think. Do new employees have to fill out an application and new hire paperwork that both ask for name, address, etc?) Are these things filled out on paper and then you pay someone to type it into your HRIS, or does the applicant type it into an online system? If so, does that system transfer the information to your HRIS and Payroll systems?
Here's another thing that bugged me about registering for school. We had to register no later than February 28. At that point we could request either morning or afternoon kindergarten, but they wouldn't guarantee either. When did they tell us what we were assigned to? August. Yes August. Why on earth did it take so long? I have no idea. And the explanation I was given was "we haven't decided how many classes to have." And when they did send out the assignments, the principal was on vacation, so there was no one to complain to if you got an assignment that you didn't agree with. The neighboring school principal did the same thing. Can we say hiding from responsibility?
Have you ever tried to get a hold of the actual PERSON who made a bad policy decision? Or does "run-around" come to your mind? If HR wants to make a policy, fine, but we better be willing to stand behind it, answer questions and deal with the fall out.
Have you ever tried to get a hold of the actual PERSON who made a bad policy decision? Or does "run-around" come to your mind? If HR wants to make a policy, fine, but we better be willing to stand behind it, answer questions and deal with the fall out.
Why does it take so long to get policies changed? Why does it take 3 weeks to get an exception granted? Why does it take an interminably long time to get a new hire on board? We may have darn good reasons for all of these things, but it's rarely transparent to the employee. What they see is delay and stalling and answers that are either lies or uninformed.
Note that none of this deals with the actual true responsibility of the schools (educating children) or HR (providing and developing and retaining the best people for the company). It's all the administrative stuff that must be dealt with. Screw this up and people begin to distrust you on the other things.
Note that none of this deals with the actual true responsibility of the schools (educating children) or HR (providing and developing and retaining the best people for the company). It's all the administrative stuff that must be dealt with. Screw this up and people begin to distrust you on the other things.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Should I Stay or Should I Go?
I'm in HR and currently have a job where I was responsible for creating a training program. I was the first person to do this for the company and everyone thinks I'm doing a fantastic job. Actually, I'm in 2nd gear. I came from a completely different industry and was in a generalist/manager position. In this capacity I worked like a dog and was generally miserable. But I felt I was doing a good job - I implemented some clear improvements, and saw real change happen. Here, I feel like I'm not doing that great of a job, I have too much free time, very little oversight and the people who need to attend training are not coming anyway.
I have an opportunity to apply for a competing organization, where the director seems more involved. I feel very loyal to my current boss, but need more oversight, guidance and structure than I am getting. My current organization would probably not be able to find a replacement given the location. The wild card in this is that I am currently trying to conceive. At which point, I'm not sure if I would want to stay home for awhile (12-18 months), come back in a part-time situation or come back to FT after 3 months. Since I've become so spoiled and lazy, what if I can no longer perform to higher expectations? I have shared with the potential director that starting a family is on the horizon, and this seems to be understood. I don't, however, think it's ethical to hop jobs and then either a) leave them in a lurch or b) feel like I cannot stay home if I want to because I changed jobs so recently (which also brings up FMLA).
Okey-dokey, let's slow down. First of all you have an "opportunity to apply" for a new job. No telling if you'll get it. This worrying may all be moot anyway. Second, you are "trying to conceive." Congratulations! May you be rapidly successful. But, you may not be. It make take a considerable amount of time to achieve pregnancy.
Now, from a practical advice standpoint, if you change jobs and get pregnant in less than 3 months you won't be eligible for FMLA. (Not that FMLA is the be-all-end-all of maternity leave, but it is what it is.) You have to have worked for a place for a year, and they must have at least 50 employees in order to even be required to grant you the 12 weeks leave. They may have a different maternity policy altogether.
Another thing to think about is that if you do get pregnant, you may have one heck of a pregnancy. Sure, you may be lucky to simply have an expanding waistline and a few delicate little kicks starting up around 20 weeks, or you may get the morning/afternoon/evening sickness that will send you to the emergency room to be rehydrated. You just don't know. So, would that be a good time to be in a brand new job? Hmmm, probably not.
If we pretend there was no TTC going on (and please, in casual conversation with co-workers, this is never something to bring up. It tells us way too much about what you are doing with your weekends.) what would I say? I'll tell you. With bullet points because it seems like a bullet point kind of an answer.
Apply for the new job. No harm in interviewing and finding out about the company.
You say you are not challenged at your training job, yet people aren't coming to their scheduled training classes. Well then, there's a challenge for you to dig into. Figure out how to get people to want to come to training. It can be done!
Don't worry that your current company won't be able to replace you. I know, it's flattering to think "the whole world will fall apart if I leave!" but reality is, you are expendable. Sorry, but you are. They will find someone new or they will realize the function isn't needed.
If you think you might possibly, in some strange universe, want to stay home after giving birth (longer than maternity leave, that is), or want a flexible schedule (from home, part time, longer leave) and your current boss would be amenable to that, I wouldn't leave. Finding that flexibility is hard and worth some cost. (For the record, I took a 16 week maternity leave--starting back on Thursday, sob!--and will be working from home now. Do I love my boss? Yes, she's fabulous and flexible. Is my job itself ideal? No. I'd rather, actually, be doing training, but I'm not giving up the fabulous deal I have now.)
You can perform to a higher expectation. Just because your current job is easy, it doesn't mean your brain cells have stopped functioning. Don't worry about that.
I have an opportunity to apply for a competing organization, where the director seems more involved. I feel very loyal to my current boss, but need more oversight, guidance and structure than I am getting. My current organization would probably not be able to find a replacement given the location. The wild card in this is that I am currently trying to conceive. At which point, I'm not sure if I would want to stay home for awhile (12-18 months), come back in a part-time situation or come back to FT after 3 months. Since I've become so spoiled and lazy, what if I can no longer perform to higher expectations? I have shared with the potential director that starting a family is on the horizon, and this seems to be understood. I don't, however, think it's ethical to hop jobs and then either a) leave them in a lurch or b) feel like I cannot stay home if I want to because I changed jobs so recently (which also brings up FMLA).
Okey-dokey, let's slow down. First of all you have an "opportunity to apply" for a new job. No telling if you'll get it. This worrying may all be moot anyway. Second, you are "trying to conceive." Congratulations! May you be rapidly successful. But, you may not be. It make take a considerable amount of time to achieve pregnancy.
Now, from a practical advice standpoint, if you change jobs and get pregnant in less than 3 months you won't be eligible for FMLA. (Not that FMLA is the be-all-end-all of maternity leave, but it is what it is.) You have to have worked for a place for a year, and they must have at least 50 employees in order to even be required to grant you the 12 weeks leave. They may have a different maternity policy altogether.
Another thing to think about is that if you do get pregnant, you may have one heck of a pregnancy. Sure, you may be lucky to simply have an expanding waistline and a few delicate little kicks starting up around 20 weeks, or you may get the morning/afternoon/evening sickness that will send you to the emergency room to be rehydrated. You just don't know. So, would that be a good time to be in a brand new job? Hmmm, probably not.
If we pretend there was no TTC going on (and please, in casual conversation with co-workers, this is never something to bring up. It tells us way too much about what you are doing with your weekends.) what would I say? I'll tell you. With bullet points because it seems like a bullet point kind of an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
