Does HR Add Value?

Thomas Otter tagged me regarding his comments on a Workforce Article: Business Leaders Don’t See HR as Key to People Strategies.

Thomas asks:

It is not the first time I’ve read this sort of study, but it concerns me a lot. Yes, the sample isn’t huge, but the numbers are similar to stuff I’ve read before. It doesn’t seem to be getting any better. A couple of years ago there was a big huff about the “why we hate HR article”, but has much changed? Should HR care?

My answer? Yes, HR should care, but what are we doing about it? My previous post was all about recruiters. Like it or not, this is the face of HR. It should not be, but it is. And whose fault is that? Ours.

Do we add value to the business? Some of us do, some of us do not. Are we caught up in paperwork and policies? Do we create employee handbooks that would rival War and Peace?

We say things like succession planning are critical to an organization's success, but do we know how to make the business case for it? Have we developed metrics to prove what works and what doesn't? Do we even speak the same language as the line?

Once upon a time I worked for corporate HR for a Fortune Top 100 Companies to Work For. While I hope not to give away too much info, suffice it to say, the business was retail oriented. Do you know what they required of every corporate HR person? A minimum of 3 weeks in the stores. I stocked shelves. I listened to customers. I worked in every department. I learned to speak the language of the line. I learned to understand the business, not just HR.

The reason I left? To be promoted I needed to work in the stores. And while I loved the company, retail requires hours I wasn't willing to work, so I left. Was that a bad policy on the part of the company? Absolutely not. Their business is retail and I wasn't willing to pay the price to learn it, so no promotion for me. (And for the record, I was not encouraged to leave, I got a new job and then resigned. I wanted career growth and I knew that wouldn't happen without working nights and weekends.)

Did HR show value there? Absolutely. HR realized what the needs of the business were and created policies accordingly.

For HR to add value we need to speak the language and be able to state our case. We often get in scuffles with finance because training, development and benefits all cost money. When we give in because the CFO says, "that's too expensive" we have cooked our own goose. Before we propose we need to have the figures that will show how it will save money in the long run--lower turnover, higher productivity, etc. If we can't show that, we have no business making the proposal in the first place.

We need to not sit by quietly while the "big boys" make the decisions and then carry them out. Are we conducting layoffs? Why? Before we sign on the dotted line we better be showing that his layoff will truly help the company financially. What is the cost of turnover? How come we don't know this off the top of our heads? (Or at least how to calculate it?) Are we increasing the employee portion of medical expenses? What will be the result of this in terms of turnover? We better be able to build models.

What are models? Crud people, hire yourself some statisticians.

Bad, Bad Recruiters

Oh dear, I am harsh on recruiters. (Although, incidentally, none has come by here to defend the profession...)

I stumbled upon an obstetrician's struggle with recruiters.

I started out with enthusiasm about recruiters, and with great hope. Here are these people that have "hundreds" or "thousands of jobs nationwide", that have "the best jobs", that "personalize a search for you", that routinely find "the perfect practice for you". Great! Call several recruiters, get a great job and start working!

It turned out quite different. I had graduated from one of the large Boston teaching hospitals and wanted to stay locally. And with "locally" I meant really Boston, specifically inside the I-95 ring. So I sent my CV to recruiter after recruiter, but strangely, such a job did not seem to exist. Even the recruiters that advertised jobs with "Enjoy all Boston has to offer" live and work in "the Boston suburbs" never had jobs within the I-95 ring. To my dismay, recruiters defined the "Boston suburbs" very creatively and differently than I did. The suburbs suddenly turned out to be Methuen, Lowell, Lawrence, Framingham, Worcester, Plymouth etc. Driving distances in ads were routinely understated; places advertised as "only 30 minutes from the city" always were an hour away.

Why oh why do this? To attract people who don't want the job you are offering? Hoping to get someone to "settle" for something? Because as a contract recruiter you are only interested in placement, not retention?

Outsourcing your recruiting seems to be growing in popularity, but I believe it has some unintended consequences--like looking only for placement. If I get paid based on a placement and then walk away, what is my incentive to find a good fit, not just a warm body?

Granted, the hiring manager makes the final hiring decision. But, in this case, the hiring manager's specialty is obstetrics, not hiring. The expert should be the recruiter.

The best job interview I ever had was done by a former boss. Why? She said, "I'm going to tell you all the problems about working here." And she did. And there were many, many, many problems. She also told me the perks and what she would do to protect me from the awful politics of the place. I took that job knowing full well what I was getting into.

If she had said everything was peaches and cream I still would have taken the job, I just would have been angry and sullen and prone to leaving as soon as possible.

Recruiters, please note: I took the job even knowing the bad things. In my situation, the good outweighed the bad (which it did and I still work for the same company 6 years later, although in a different department and the problems she spoke about went away after a time anyway).

Why You Shouldn't Lie

Lying--and why you shouldn't do it--has been somewhat of a theme of this blog. I get lots of hits from Google of people querying whether they can lie about salary, jobs or any other job related thing. The answer is no. You will be busted. And I have a story.

I teach the adult Sunday School class at church. Yesterday we had a bunch of visitors from two states away who were up in our neck of the woods for a Boy Scout camp out. The Scout leaders were in my class.

After Sunday School was done, one of these visitors came up and said, "you remind me so much of a Sunday School Teacher I had 20 years ago. I forget her name, but her husband was [my father's name]. So, it turns out that my mother was his Sunday School teacher 20 years ago, and I looked and acted enough like her that he felt compelled to tell me.

He had no idea who I was--not only was I a child back then, I now have a different last name and I go by my full first name rather than the nickname I used back then, and I was raised in the West and now live in the East. My point? It's a small world. You will run into people who know you or your relatives. You can't expect to keep things secret. As soon as you say, "I was making $120,000 a year at my previous job," your former boss will waltz down the hallway and see you.

So don't lie. You never know who that person in the back row is. I certainly didn't recognize him. It's a good thing I didn't say or do anything that would embarrass my mother.

I hope.

Sick

I am home from work today because I am sick. I even have a fever. (102.2, thank you very much.) I can't remember the last time I had a fever.

There isn't any valuable information in this post. Just a bunch of whining. Oh yeah and for the past month the mail has been coming between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. So, today at 12:30 I drag my sick self out to the mailbox to send back a Netflix movie (nothing will keep me from the next episode of House) only to find the mail has already arrived.

I think they do that to me just to annoy me.

Hmmm, I think I'm getting negative again. Let's hear it for paid sick leave! (Although, truth be told, I've been working all day and have a phone conference in 14 minutes.)

Frustrated

Evil HR Lady,

My husband was recently fired from a job - long story and not important. It has been 1 month since his firing and we just discovered that the HR dept at his former employer had not even received the paperwork stating he's been fired. He's still in the system as an employee. My husband is owed a payout of his PAL time that he is accumulated over the years. We cannot receive that check until HR receives his paperwork. We have spoken to the supervisor who is supposed to be sending the paperwork to HR. She says she has and that "they" have misplaced it twice. The HR Dept says they never received it and in fact have been badgering the supervisor for it.

What do we do? We can't seem to get this paperwork processed. My husband can also not begin collecting any unemployment benefits until this is done. Any suggestions?

Thank You for your time.

I'm not sure why your husband can't begin collecting unemployment--unless they haven't terminated him in their system yet. Generally, once you are terminated you are eligible to receive unemployment. (Generally people--let's not get into rules and exceptions.) But, if you can't you can't.

It's fully illegal to withold pay for time worked, but I understand that this is accumulated vacation or similar. It's probably still illegal to withold but not as urgent as salary.

Everybody may be telling the truth. When you say HR you tend to think of the HR person you know. In reality, that person may have no clue where to send paperwork for payout of vacation. So, your manager did send it but sent it to the wrong HR person and the HR person who is supposed to have it has not seen it. (For instance, once mail came for me but the mail room made a mistake and sent it to staffing--horrors! The person responsible for mail didn't know who I was, so rather then sending it back to the mail room or--gasp!--asking, she just set it in a stack. It turned out to be legal paperwork regarding severance. I had to call the former employee and she said she'd sent it in, but we couldn't find it and she had to re-do it and it was a huge mess--all because someone wouldn't take 30 seconds to ask around.)

Did your husband sign a general release in conjunction with his termination? There may be a contact person listed in that. Try that person. This person will be well versed in terminations and---here's the important part--understands the value of getting former employees to go away happy. Happy terminated employees don't sue. Unhappy ones start calling lawyers. They will expedite your PAL.

If that doesn't work, call payroll directly. They will be responsible for paying it out--and will say they need the form from the supervisor to do so--but if you are nice enough and explain how you know it's not payroll's fault, but could they please call your supervisor and have them send the form directly to payroll? Please? Pretty Please?

Don't give up but don't stop being nice. Nice helps. Nice with a lawyer helps even more. Of course, being unemployeed makes it difficult to obtain a lawyer. So, you write a letter, addressed to the CEO and head of HR and Person in the General Release. Then below your signature you write: cc your brother-in-law/neighbor/second cousin who is a lawyer, esq. Then send that person a copy of the letter with a note saying, "ignore this." Then you've been honest--you did send a copy to the lawyer--but it hasn't cost you anything. And you've just upped your ante.

People are Doing My Bidding

Yeah! I'm so excited, I can hardly stand it. Our friend at Ask a Manager has posted What Does a Good Cover Letter Look Like".

I have never been very good at cover letters (and frankly, I've never really seen a great one before today), so I've been begging. And she did it.

Go read it. Now--or at least before you send in your next resume.

Depression

I have a friend that is employed by a subsidiary of a large UK company, but here in the states there are only 38 employees.

The friend fell into some acute depression recently, and I suspect it will take at least a month before this person is able to work again.

In the meantime, the employer has given her one week to return to duty or she will be fired.

She lives in California, and the U.S. employer is in Texas.

Since she does not qualify for the Family Medical Leave act as the firm has less than 50 employees, does she have any other recourse?

BTW, I observed the advice in the BLOG of getting on with your life, but finding a new job whilst recovering from a major depression is ill advised, as this is a major stressor. I know, I tried when I had the experience many years ago.

Thanks,
K

California may provide some protection to your friend, as California has lots of laws that I am unaware of. You're right that she doesn't qualify for FMLA (not only would there need to be 50+ employees, but they would have to be in a 75 mile radius).

She may have protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as depression can be a qualifying condition. However, needing a month off may not be considered a reasonable accommodation--although it doesn't hurt to try.

Companies may seem cruel and heartless, but they are in business to make money and they can't do that when an employee is not working. Does she have short or long term disability insurance? If so, she could qualify for those payments, given that her doctor states that she is unable to work.

Has she spoken with HR--both in the US and the U.K.? Many times a manager makes harsh decisions like this without consulting with HR. It could be that this is fully against policy, but that he has deadlines and sales goals to reach. If the depression has been going on for a long time without a specific diagnosis, her work could have been suffering and the manager might see this as the last straw. Call HR--it's worth a shot.

I'm afraid, though, that beyond that, the advice may be to get on with your life. I know, I know, it's not helpful. Job hunting while healthy is no fun. Job hunting while recovering from a major depression doesn't even register on the pleasant things of life scale. Plus, being unemployed can really be detrimental to the recovery process.

Apply for unemployment, I believe she should be eligible.

I hope your friend is being treated by a competant therapist and a competant physician. The focus should be on getting healthy.

I'm sorry I'm not of more help. Perhaps some of my HR colleagues can weigh in on this one.

Why Do They Do That? or Recruiters--Again

Dear EvilHRLady,

I burned-out a couple of years ago in my first attempt at a management job and have struggled at work trying to do the best I could. I finally decided that I had to have a change and quit my job about a month ago.

I've been trying hard searching for a new job and I've got some calls but then things go badly. I've received two calls now saying that they want me in for an interview and that they will e-mail me the details but then I get no e-mail information and when I call to confirm the interview the time is changed (again and again until I finally give up).

I don't understand what is going on and if they don't want to interview me, why call in the first place? I don't think my former work place would sabotage me but I'm starting to feel that way. I haven't lied on my resume (although I leave off the six months as a manager since I really don't want a management position anyhow).

Am I doing something wrong? Why would HR do this? The second time it happened the job offer came through a trusted friend and the HR person was very nice.

Thank you.

Regular readers know that I'm not fond of recruiters. Because of that I'm dying to blame this all on the recruiters. (Note, I am not using the term HR because HR does so much more than recruit. For instance, we also fire people and make bad vacation policies.)

But first, we must deal with our question writer.

Your first mistake was quitting without having another job lined up. It is always easier to find a job when you have a job.

Second, put your management job back on your resume. Otherwise, you have 7 months of unemployment to explain away. And if the question comes up, "what have you been doing for the past 7 months" you either have to lie (you'll get caught) or confess that you purposely left off a job. This makes us HR types very curious and more likely to probe into that job.

A better idea? Be upfront. "I had a management position at Company X and it turns out that I'm a fabulous individual contributor, but only a mediocre manager. My strengths lie in doing the work, rather than managing others. Let me tell you about some of the things I can do for your company."

Companies really are starting to realize that a non-management track is a fabulous idea, so you may find things look up for you when you start admitting that is what you want--to be an individual contributor.

And now to blame the recruiters. They are desperate to fill the position, so yes, they notice that you fit the qualifications and so they call you to schedule without consulting the hiring manager. Or, they didn't notice the 7 month gap on your resume. After they called you, they realized they didn't want to interview you. Rather than having the guts to say so, they just lead you on until you stop calling back.

Or, your prior company is sabotaging you--which is unlikely, since you don't have it on your resume.

Or, you've just been hit by bad luck. Positions frequently get put on hold after candidates have been contacted. It may open up again so they don't want to tell you no only to have the position open again.

See, it's not all the fault of the recruiter. There are a ton of players in the hiring game and anyone of them can mess it up for you.

Go and re-write your resume and then hop on over to Ask a Manager and read about cover letters. Write a fabulous one for each job you are applying to. If you don't know how to write one, harrass our friendly manager and maybe (please!) he'll give us a sample one.

Carnival of HR #9

Is now up at Gautam Ghosh's place.

There is all sorts of fascinating info out there, so run over and read it.

The next carnival will be held June 27 at The HR Capitalist.

On the Same Page

 

The Offspring's dance recital was this Saturday. I love this picture because it is an example of many companies--everyone is supposed to be doing the same thing, but no one is. Sure, they are all wearing the same costume and on the same stage, but none of them are doing precisely what their manager--umm, dance instructor--is telling them to do.

How is your business functioning? Is the instruction from your leadership clear? Are you all on the same page?

They are 3 and 4. What is your excuse?

I bet it is a lack of communication. HR tends to be the ones responsible for making policies and procedures known to the employees. Are your stated procedures the "real" way things happen or do the rules state one thing and in practice it's another?

If they differ, why? Is it because official channels require a ton of paperwork and signatures and so people do things without asking. Is it easier to obtain forgiveness than permission? Why is that?

It should not be that way. Get your management in line and get them to either enforce a policy or eliminate it. It's cute to have everyone doing something different when you are 3. It's not so cute for your shareholders.

Speaking of Carnivals

The Carnival of the Insanities is up over at Dr. Sanity's place.

Carnival Reminder

Get your submissions in to Gautam Ghosh as soon as possible for this week's fabulous carnival. Send them to gautam dot ghosh at gmail dot com
.
The June 27th Carnival will be hosted by Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist.

The July 11th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts.

The July 25th Carnival will be hosted by the Manager at Ask a Manager.

The August 8th Carnival will by hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force.

The August 22nd Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.

The September 5th Carnival will be hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.

The September 19th Carnival will be hosted by Evil HR Lady at, well, Evil HR Lady.

The October 3rd Carnival will be hosted by Deb Owens at 8 Hours & a Lunch.

The October 17th Carnival will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at Gautam Ghosh--Management Consultant.

Let me know if any of the rest of you wish to host. We're starting to recycle through previous hosts, so if you want to host again, let me know as well. The carnival is a huge success. Let's keep it going!

Crazy Employees

You mean the problem isn't just with crazy executives and there might be some problem with regular employees? I'm shocked.

Stanely Bing, who wrote Crazy Bosses, wrote this article on crazy employees.

Because we are nuts, you know, we who work for those who go insane above us. We're crazy and incompetent and lazy and churlish and occasionally stupid and cowardly and disloyal. And it's time we all sucked it up and stopped blaming our bosses for everything.

Those of us in HR know the truth. The employees are whacked. The managers are whacked. The cafeteria workers (who are a managed service and not employees) are strange too. The only rational people are one guy in finance, the woman at the company store, and 3 people in HR.

You know it's true.

I'm late, I'm late!

The New York Times published an article on being chronically late--on Sunday. It's now Friday and I'm getting around to blogging about it. Hmmmm...

Anyway, they say those who are chronically late don't do so to control or offend, they just are late--for everything. If you are one of the late ones, consider this:

Q. Can being late all the time hurt a career?

A. Yes. At a place like a manufacturing plant or a call center, it can be grounds for dismissal if it occurs often enough. But it can damage a career even in jobs where schedules are more flexible. Tardy people tend to think that they can make up for their lateness by working extra hours, Ms. DeLonzor said, “but they can never overcome the fact that it makes a very bad impression.” Managers, she found in her research, “are less likely to promote tardy employees.”

In my experience, this is true. For some reason being there before the boss brings big points, while staying after she leaves is not given nearly as much credit.

You're a star employee if you're early and a huge slacker if you are late, regardless of how much work you churn out. I rather dislike this philosophy, even though I tend to be an on time person. I was an early person prior to juggling a husband and daycare and it bothers me that I'm not early any more.

I'm in favor of a Results Oriented Work Environment myself. But, being on time will count for something even in that place. It's being where you said you'd be when you said you'd be--not just being at work at 7:30 because the boss comes in at 7:45

Inappropriate?

This was sent out by one of our sales reps to his entire sales team, to his boss, his boss' boss, and a member of my staff.

How's that for totally inappropriate for the work place. My favorite lines:

"The beach itself is really nice, and the night-life is....um....very, very colorful (insert winky face)"

"Any weekend you make the extremely wise decision to join us, I will personally guarantee your happiness :)"

So the question for Evil HR Lady: how in the sam-h*ll do you react to something like this?

chuckle.

Well, yes, first you chuckle. Then you delete the e-mail because 14 other people have already forwarded it to employee relations and his boss has already called him into his office and chewed him out.

At least I hope that is what happened. Some people have no sense. Like, for instance, I got an e-mail from an employee I laid off in January. It's not unusual to get e-mails from such people (I encourage them to contact me if they need help with anything). What was unsual was this was an invitation to join a dating site.

People, think before you send! And never send anything that is not 100% business related to your boss. And if you want to send this horrible e-mail to your friends at work, you should be good enough friends to send it to their home e-mail.

Sheesh.

Violence in the Workplace

My husbands boss physically and verbally attacked him on Saturday because he was unable to work on Saturday, but requested his check for the weeks work. At that point he had already worked 62 hours from Monday – Friday, which he only receives his straight pay for all hours worked. (No overtime is ever paid).

After approaching me in my vehicle at the job sight, his boss got angry with me because I would not agree with him and make my husband stay at work, verbally (profanity +) abused me and fired my husband. When my husband bent over to pick up his tool belt he physically attacked him and it took 3 people to pull him off. My husband did not fight back and let it get broke up knowing the boss was totally in the wrong.

What do we do now?

First, you call the police and file charges. Yes, you do. People who just jerks should be ignored and avoided. People who physically attack other people should be arrested and locked up.

Second, you go to the Department of Labor and file a complaint about the overtime. I am presuming, based on the comment about a tool belt and getting paid by the hour, that your husband is legally eligible for overtime. (There are some IT people who are paid by the hour but not eligible for overtime. In this case, even if your husband is IT, let his boss prove he's not eligible for overtime.)

Third, no matter how bitter and angry you and your husband are at the situation (with good cause, I might add), don't let it ruin your life. Start pounding the pavement and look for a new job. Apply for unemployment. If it's denied--because his boss claims he was fired for cause--present a copy of the police report and appeal the decision.

I hope your husband can find a new job quickly and that his boss gets locked up.

Carnival Reminder!

Just a friendly reminder to submit your carnival entries to gautam dot ghosh at gmail dot com. Next Wednesday the Carnival will be posted over at Gautam's place.

Why I Hate Recruiters, 3

Dear Evil HR Lady,

I'm a recent graduate of an MBA program. I was recently interviewed by a firm after spending 3 weeks getting documentation from companies I had worked with in the past. I was told the documentation was required just to start the interview process. This came as a surprise to other people who had knowledge of this company's application process as no one had heard of this requirement before. Finally, I got all the documentation together and had a brief informational interview, at the end of which a second interview was scheduled. The next day I was informed that my undergraduate gpa was too low to be considered for this position (I had reported my gpa to them almost a month earlier, so this was not news to anyone) and the second interview was unceremoniously canceled. Naturally, I feel the firm was not being truthful with me, especially since I was an experienced candidate with a graduate degree and not an entry-level kid. I feel that road blocks were constantly being thrown at me for the purpose of disqualifying me as quickly as possible. I don't mind being rejected for a job, but I do mind not being told the real reason.

This has grown very frustrating to me because this has happened before with other companies. Usually the company will just not contact me after an interview and not respond to any follow up e-mail or phone call. And I've recently heard that some firms claim to have a policy to not give any feedback on candidates. We need to know why we are rejected so that we can address these issues in the future. Why the secrecy? We put our heart and souls into these interviews. It seems the least a company can do is give us a good reason why we didn't get the job. I hope you can shed some light on this subject.

Regards,
Frustrated Job Seeker

This is wrong on so many levels. Now, for the record, there are darn good reasons why companies don't like to tell you why you aren't hired. "You weren't a good fit for our culture" is a perfectly legitimate reason not to hire you, but if you happen to be in a protected class, you might think the real reason is your protected class status.

But, companies should not make any candidate jump through hoops that all candidates don't have to go through. If your GPA was of concern (who does that? I mean, sure, for entry level jobs, but your undergraduate GPA when you're finishing up an MBA?), they shouldn't have interviewed you in the first place.

I really can't tell you what is going on at that particular company, but I do think recruiters should (at minimum) do the following:

1. Tell candidates all relevant information. For instance, if the job is going to require lots of overtime, that should be laid out prior to the interview. That way, you don't waste your time interviewing when you aren't willing/able to work overtime.

2. Require consistent information from candidates. All candidates coming in for an interview should be required to fill out an application. This application should be the same for everyone applying for similar jobs. (Yes, you can have different ones for your sales force or your manufacturing team, but all sales people get the same form, all manufacturing people get the same form.) If you don't--and you happen to require something different of someone in a protected class, you are in big trouble, Ms. Recruiter.

3. Have the decency to keep every candidate who comes in to interview informed. I know, I know, you're busy. But, it does not take long to send an e-mail saying, "Dear Jim, Thank yo so much for coming in. The [insert position] has been filled. We appreciate your time and interest and will keep your resume on file for one year. Sincerely, Recruiter." It took me less than 30 seconds to type that and you recruiters can keep it on file and just copy and paste and change the name and the position.

4. If a decision is going to be post-poned, let the candidate know that as well. "Dear Jim, We wanted to let you know that no decision has been made yet on the [insert position]. We still consider you an active candidate and will let you know when a decision has ben made.

Candidates want to know why they weren't hired--and I think it can be valuable info to have--but I don't advise handing that information out wholesale. Something as stupid as GPA should have caused an elimination long before the interview process began. But, candidates, listen up--I would be shocked if you ever get this info from a recruiter. But, you may get it from the hiring manager.

It's worth a shot.

Red Flags

Dear Evil HR Lady,

Why is a gap in work history such a big deal? Why do applicants have to list volunteering, education, commercial attempts to account for what they were doing? So long as they weren't in jail, having mental therapy, or engaged in some illegal activity, what's wrong with taking off a couple of years (after a quarter-century of working 110%) and sitting by the beach contemplating life? When I was working, my co-workers and myself had to feign a "laid-back" attitude. Everyone had a driving sense of urgency; that was a given. We worked hard to do the job and (sometimes) harder to hide the sense of urgency. Yet I have always heard from HR that gaps in employment are a "red flag."

Hammock-Jocky

Dear Hammock-Jocky,

A red flag is not a brick wall. It's just something that jumps out to say, "ask more questions about this." In my experience, periods of unemployment ususally have good explanations--I got laid off, had a baby, moved with my spouse, my mother was ill and I needed to take care of her. It's that the ones with bad explanations can be really bad--I was in jail, repeatedly got fired so I just gave up for a while, I was too busy stalking someone to work.

I don't know why you had to feign a "laid back" attitude in your previous job. But, I don't see your explanation of "after giving it 110% for 25 years, I decided to spend 6 months relaxing" as a bad thing. Just something that needs explaining.

An Inspiring Bonus Story

Would you believe that the California Government did something not right? They offered a bonus for early completion on repair of the collapsed bridge in Oakland. The result? Bridge repair complete in 17 days. It takes longer than that for pot holes to be filled around here. Here's the New York Times discussion:

But the company owned by C. C. Myers, a 6-foot-5 contractor who favors peacock cowboy boots, fixed the mangled freeway so fast that some residents have recalibrated their respect for the California Department of Transportation, which hired him.

The state estimated that repairs to the 165-foot-long ramp between Interstates 80 and 580 would take 50 days and cost $5.2 million. For every day short of the June 26 deadline, it promised a $200,000 bonus, not to exceed a total of $5 million. The highest bid came in at $6.4 million. Mr. Myers’s company, C. C. Myers Inc., won with the lowest bid — $867,075 — and completed the project in 17 days, winning the full $5 million.

“This ain’t no $800,000 project,” Mr. Myers said in an interview, adding that he hoped to realize a $2.5 million profit.

Boy, C. C. Myers is my new hero. Way to work smart. And see, HR, performance bonuses can really work! (Just think what I could accomplish with a $200,000 per day bonus for early completion.)

Public Service Announcement

You know what your name is. I realize that. Your friends recognize your voice when you call them. However, when you are an employee, or former employee, and you call some HR lady (an Evil one at at that) with a question and you get her voicemail, don't say:

HithisisSharonJehosephatandmyphonenumberis5554983234 in one breath and then proceed to talk painstakingly slow about how you don't know how much vacation you have left. (Hint, me neither! Don't you keep track of these things?)

I get annoyed when I have to listen to a voicemail 3 times in order to try to figure out what either your name or your phone number is. If I can't figure it out, I can't call you back. If I can't call you back, I can't tell you that HR doesn't track vacation, but you should and your manager should.

So, really, it's generally pointless for me to return your call anyway.

But my point is, because I've never talked to you before I don't have context to place your call in to help me figure out who you are. When you leave your name and phone number on voicemail speak s-l-o-w-l-y and clearly.

Really, it will make my life easier and you're more likely to get called back.

More Blogging Thoughts

Or, rather, thoughts on blogging. I posted here about blogging anonymously. I mentioned that one of my favoritebloggers, Dr. Flea, pulled his blog down.

Well, he should have done it earlier:

It was a Perry Mason moment updated for the Internet age.

As Ivy League-educated pediatrician Robert P. Lindeman sat on the stand in Suffolk Superior Court this month, defending himself in a malpractice suit involving the death of a 12-year-old patient, the opposing counsel startled him with a question.

Was Lindeman Flea?

Flea, jurors in the case didn't know, was the screen name for a blogger who had written often and at length about a trial remarkably similar to the one that was going on in the courtroom that day.

In his blog, Flea had ridiculed the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff's lawyer. He had revealed the defense strategy. He had accused members of the jury of dozing.

With the jury looking on in puzzlement, Lindeman admitted that he was, in fact, Flea.

The next morning, on May 15, he agreed to pay what members of Boston's tight-knit legal community describe as a substantial settlement -- case closed.

Let this be a lesson to all us anonymous bloggers--whatever you say may show up on the front page of the New York Times--or in Lindeman's case, the Boston Globe.

Lindeman shouldn't have blogged in real time. Of course, I don't know how the rest of the trial was going, so I don't know how much of an impact his lawyers felt the blog exposure was having--and the decision to settle after being exposed may have been just timing.

But, probably not.

Let that be a lesson to you--well, to me really. I was chatting with our in house labor and employment counsel today and I said, "my goal is to make it out of here without ever having to testify." She actually laughed at me. "Good luck with that one," she said.

And for the record, in case I'm exposed, she's a fabulous lawyer and I'm thrilled to work with her. And with everyone else at my company. Except for the people I'm going to blog about in my next post.

Carnival of HR # 8

Is now up over at 8 Hours & a Lunch. Hop on over and find the big top.

The June 13th Carnvial will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at A Management Consultant's Blog.

The June 27th Carnival will be hosted by Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist.

The July 11th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts.

The July 25th Carnival will be hosted by the Manager at Ask a Manager.

The August 8th Carnival will by hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force.

The August 22nd Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.

The September 5th Carnival will be hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.

The September 19th Carnival will be hosted by Evil HR Lady at, well, Evil HR Lady.

Let me know if any of the rest of you wish to host. Think of the fame and glory that will come your way! You can even put it on your resume: Hosted Carnival of Human Resources. Think of the number of job offers you can get with that!

Religion in the Workplace

Hello Evil HR Lady,

There has been some conflict lately around religious expression during break time at work. We have a small staff, <10 people. We have a small area where staff can allegedly take private breaks, change clothes, eat lunch etc. Because our staff is small, we usually only have one person taking a break at a time - if we really work at it, 2 of us can be in there at the same time.

Recently, the owner 'caught' two of us 'praying' quietly together in the break room, during a break (one worker was having a lot of difficulties that day and her grandmother was in the process of dying). Different staff members have done this sort of thing several times in the past (quiet, consensual, spiritual sustenance/healing, during break) - in times of great stress, and the owner has never noticed. But this particular time, the owner found reason to put a nose into the break room a few times to discern what was going on, then rudely forced us to stop, scolded us and told us never to do it again. This was a shock to many of us who work there.

Now, the owner is finding it necessary to add a "no promotion of religion" policy which restricts religious expression at the workplace. The parts of the new policy that I am most concerned about include:

"does not restrict a staff member from reading religious materials on a break or from quietly and individually (not in groups of two or more) praying or meditating on a break"

"It restricts groups of two or more from engaging in religious practice"

I don't believe the owner means for this to be the case, but this feels mean, unjust, inappropriate, and probably illegal. We have been asked to sign an updated employment agreement that includes the language above, and let’s just say - I don’t feel good about. If you could help us with resources to provide to the owner to help our business remain fair and legal, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks so much for your assistance! You provide a great service.

First, the standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I don't even watch Law & Order any more. I'm in protest since Jerry Orbach died (he played Lenny Briscoe, for you weirdos who don't love Jerry), and they brought Detective Fontana on board. (Yes, I know, Orbach left to do a spin off and then died. Fontana would be around even if he was still alive.) Hmmm, I think I'm digressing.

Here's a statement from the EEOC:

Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

Now, before you print this out and take it to your boss, please note the following:

Your workplace has less than 10 employees. This generally means it's not subject to many of the rules larger workplaces are.

Even if it does apply, is it having an effect on workplace efficiency? Perhaps. You stated that in normal circumstances breaks are one at a time. Two at a time can affect workpalce efficiency.

If you were in there discussing the stock market, would your boss be equally upset?

I think your boss is unwise to have the policy he has. Rules designed to solve specific problems generally create new problems--as this one has. A better rule would have been, "one person at a time in the break/changing room." It would have solved the boss's perceived problem of his staff getting too religious and none of the employees would have felt singled out.

So should you sign the agreement? Well, I honestly don't know whether it's legal or not. If it's not, and you sign, it's not enforceable in court anyway.

What would happen if you didn't sign? Would you be fired? You could try talking to your boss. Ask him to explain his feelings. You may find out that he's concerned because breaks are taking longer and there is weeping going on, which makes him uncomfortable. You may find out that he thinks you are going to Hell for your crazy belief. You may find out that he's scared to death that the ACLU is going to show up at his doorstep if he allows this kind of behavior although he wishes he could join you. He may have had other employees come to him, complaining about how some of their co-workers are always involved in exclusionary religious discussions.

Having less than 10 employees gives your boss more flexibilty than a larger employer, although I doubt he knows this. Try presenting him with the above quote from the EEOC and ask to have the language removed. Just say you are uncomfortable with it and that you understand the importance of hard work and want to do what is best for the business. Give him a reason why he should remove it--one that will be positive for the business.

And, be careful that you aren't trying to convert your co-workers. It's okay to talk about your beliefs and your religion, but if others aren't interested, let it drop. You don't like feeling uncomfortable and neither do they.

Explain This to Me

I got a phone call from a former employee. She had secured a job offer at another company. Their standard package for an employee at her level included two weeks of vacation and no stock options. However, if she could prove that her previous job offered her three weeks of vacation and stock, she could have them there as well.

She wanted a letter that stated she had stock options and three weeks vacation. Since she did have those things, I wrote her a letter on company letter-head, signed it, and sent it to her. (Please note, I did not send it to her new company. That would be in violation of our policy to not disclose anything other than title and dates of service. But, I can send that information to the employee.)

I honestly don't understand the logic this company is using. Yes, if they were trying to lure her away from us, I can see trying to compensate for lost stock options. But, this person no longer worked for us. She had already lost her non-vested stock options.

How does that work out as fair? If we are in the same job, with the same experience and you get stock and an extra week of vacation--not because you wisely negotiated it, but because you'd had it previously--doesn't that open the company up to morale problems, not to mention discrimination charges if the races/genders happen to be different?

Someone explain to me why this is a good policy.

Exempt vs Nonexempt

Hello, Evil HR Lady!

I was wondering if you could explain something to me. My job was recently reclassified from exempt to non-exempt. I understand the technicalities of it. What I don't understand is the real implication.

I've never been classified as non-exempt, not even years ago when I was entry level (well, as a kid in summer jobs, but you know what I mean). My perception was that it was essentially for non-professional positions. If it was a positive classification, I have no doubt management would include themselves. I've hunted online, but everything I'm finding discusses the issue from the employer's point of view. I want the big picture. What are the pros and cons of this from the employee's perspective?

Thanks,
Reluctantly Reclassified

First of all, whether or are exempt or non-exempt is based on the Fair Labor Standards Act. For whatever reasons, your company feels like your job doesn't meet the requirements to be classified as exempt.

You didn't mention what you do, so I'm going to assume that your classification is correctly identified as non-exempt. For jobs that are on the border between the two classifications (which yours probably is, since it went from exempt to non-exempt), the company is wise to classify the job as non-exempt. There are no punishments for incorrectly labeling a job non-exempt, but you can get yourself in big trouble for incorrectly classifying a job as exempt.

I'm just going to list one pro and one con of being non-exempt.

Pro:

Overtime. Any work more than 40 hours a week and they have to pay you overtime. You take your laptop on vacation and spend an hour working? They have to compensate you for that time. Your boss calls you at home and asks you work questions? They have to pay you. If you are exempt, forget it.

Con:

Mobility. In my experience, it is much harder to get promoted from a non-exempt position into an exempt position than it is to get promoted from a low level exempt job into a higher level exempt job. There is a perception that you lack higher level skills.

What does this mean for you? Hard to say, since I don't know anything about your job. I do recommend sitting down with your boss and asking to see the criteria that were used to classify your job. If you want to be considered exempt, ask what responsibilities you can take on to be re-classified. It's doubtful your boss will have a clue, at which time you might want to make an appointment with HR. Keep in mind that your employee relations person might not have a clue either. In that case, you need to find out the person in compensation who made the decision.

Of course, if you work for a small company, that may well be the same person.

Carnival Reminder!

Just a reminder to get your submissions to Deb at 8 Hours and a lunch.

Send them to debra(dot)owen(at)insightbb(dot)com and put Carnival in the subject line!

I'm going to send my submission right now!

Negotiating an Increase

Hello!

I'm writing with a quick question regarding "the offer." I'm currently working in a position where when one crazy employee was fired, I was told I'd be promoted to cover both her position and mine...in February. It is now May and despite periodic check-ins, I've been told there are no updates and that decision makers usually move slowly. (It's true that this involves bringing someone else into our department in a different position/payscale, so this may be the hold-up). In the meantime, I interviewed with a different company and was offered a position. After some deep soul searching, I've decided new position is not for me...despite the fact that they are offering to pay me $10,000 more per year than my current job. If I could receive my promotion in a timely manner and possibly half of that additional $10,000, I'd happily stay. But I've heard horror stories where people say that they received an offer and simply get a "pat on the back and good luck." It's my notion that you shouldn't attempt to negotiate in that fashion if you aren't prepared to leave.

Can you offer any advice on this subject?

Thanks!

The new position is not for you, so you are stuck. Why? You never make a threat you are not willing to follow through on. (This is why you see stressed out parents at the park screaming, "If you don't come back here right now, I'm going to kill you!", while the kid runs around giggling. The kid knows this is not a valid threat. A better threat is, "if you don't come back here right now, you will not get dessert." You can follow through on that one.)

Sorry, I got distracted by parenting woes. You don't want the new job, so what if they take you up on your threat? Then you have to take the job you don't want.

Promotions can take a very long time to wind through the system, so it doesn't surprise me that it's been a few months. You can certainly ask for a time table and for an explanation of what is taking so long. If you are feeling brave you can say, "XYZ offered me a position at $10,000 more than here. I turned it down because I feel like this is where I want to be. But, I can't stay here indefinitely, hoping for the promotion."

There is risk in that--now they know you are looking (or have looked for a new job). If loyalty is important to your boss, you may be in trouble. And keep something in mind--something like 80% of people who accept counter offers from their current employer end up quitting within a year anyway.* That's why I almost never advise managers to do anything other than congratulate the employee on their new job and throw a nice going away party. They've checked out anyway.

*I totally pulled this number out of the air. I swear I remember reading it somewhere and I believe it is true, but this is a blog, not true journalism and I'm too lazy to fact check. If I wasn't lazy I'd be out shoveling mulch, so I still wouldn't be fact checking.

What Happens When You Don't Take Care of Problems

Dear E.H.R. Lady,

I love your blog! I'm hoping you'll share your opinion on this issue. My workplace is a large non-profit organization where staff are unionized. We have an admin assistant -- I'll call her "Tina" -- who is incompetent, insubordinate, and lazy. She has been this way since she was hired 10 years ago. The two managers and three directors we've had over the years have each been unable to help her improve her performance. She is chronically late, makes costly errors, finds any excuse to be away from the office/desk. She is inefficient and disorganized. She blames all her mistakes on other people. Not surprisingly, this has taken a toll on other staff who have to live with the consequences but are powerless to change the situation.

Each manager/director has been aware of the situation. Each has collected "documentation." There must be a file drawer full of this stuff. A few years ago, "Tina" filed a grievance against one manager for placing a warning letter on file without asking Tina to sign it first. (The manager had received incorrect procedural advice from HR.) Tina won her grievance and the letter was removed.

Manaement seems to go through phases where they're actively "documenting" her. They've had countless talks and arguments. They've hired assistants to do the work Tina has failed to do, paid a lot of money to fix her mistakes, brought in coaches of various kinds to try to improve her performance. There are temporary improvements and then we're right back where we were.

The managers are all terrified of another grievance. They claim it's impossible to fire someone because of the collective agreement. This bugs me. I like unions and what they stand for (benefits, raises, safety, vacations), and I don't really think management has tried hard enough to get rid of this person. There's nothing in the collective agreement that says you can't fire someone, but you have to follow certain procedures and be very direct with the employee about what is happening. Instead, management would rather blame the union and wait for someone else to deal with the problem.

In your experience, how hard is it to fire someone in a union? What do managers do wrong in these situations and what could they do better?

Please help us! The work we're doing is important and I think we're at serious risk of losing good people if we can't get rid of the bad.

Throughout the above letter, I've put several phrases in bold. I did this, not just to be aesthetically interesting, but to call attention to your real problem (which you already know).

The problem is not Tina. The problem is the managers.

The first clue is that Tina has been there 10 years. Each passing day makes it harder to fire someone. I presume this is even more so in a union environment, where seniority plays a key role. My argument, (if I were Tina or the Union) would be, "If I'm such a bad employee, why didn't you fire me 10 years ago? I haven't changed and the work hasn't changed. Therefore, this is an unjust termination."

It's a valid question. Why didn't they fire her or begin filing grievances on her first mistake? I know that seems harsh, but it's the only way to make sure you don't end up here--10 years down the road. The right thing to do is still to send her out the door. If what you've said is true--about costly mistakes and hiring coaches--then what is management scared of? If the union workers (not union leadership) is just as annoyed with Tina as you are, they aren't going to see Tina's termination as a rallying point.

There are procedures for firing a union person. They need to be followed. Your managers won't do it. Why? They've checked out. They know they won't be in the position forever, so they ignore it and push it onto the next person to take the job. It's less difficult to ignore and compensate for Tina then it is to get up the guts to do something about it.

Managers, presumably, make more money than staff because they have to make the hard decisions. This means dealing with the union. Somehow, I can't imagine the union being completely irrational. Yes, Tina filed a grievance and won. But management didn't follow proper procedure. They need to follow proper procedure.

This does not help you in anyway, however. You (as you know) won't win any points by documenting Tina's behavior yourself. So, what can you do?

Find a new job and quit. I know, I know, you don't want to. Which brings us to our next point.

Refuse to accommodate Tina any more. If she's late, she's late. Don't mention it, don't deal with it, just ignore it. Don't help her on things she is late with. Let management feel the pain--rather than her co-workers.

Be nice to everyone. This is always good advice, but in this situation it is especially important. No "Tina is such a jerk" conversations. Just, "It's too bad Tina is going to have to stay late and miss Happy Hour tonight," said in as sympathetic manner as possible.

Ignore it yourself. Management is ignoring her. You try it. Right now, Tina is the proverbial little sister sitting next to you in the family station wagon. She has her fingers three milimeters from your face and when you complain she shouts, "Mom, I'm not touching her!" Ignore her. Like your little sister, she won't go away, but she won't be in control any more either.

Find a new job and quit. Hmm, that sounds familiar. Managers aren't going to solve this problem, so take yourself out. Really. It's not the only job out there.

I know this has been supremely unhelpful. That's because the solution to Tina is not within your grasp. Be nice to Tina. Be nice to your managers. And learn to either breathe through it or leave.

But, let this be a lesson to all you wimpy managers out there. Your other employees know who the bad apples are. It's costing your more than the bad person's salary. It may cost you your best workers.

Buy or Build?

Frequently, when we talk about the leadership pipeline, the question comes up, buy or build? This means, do we train and develop the people we have (build), or do we go out and seek new people (buy). It's almost always cheaper to build than to buy. Not just in saving you recruiting fees, relocation costs and sign on bonuses. It also helps retain the talent you have, improves employee morale and makes you, all other things being equal, an employer of choice.

ER Nursey writes this about her profession:

Hospitals spend a lot of time and money on recruiting nurses. A lot of the nurses they recruit are inexperienced new grads.

At the same time they do nothing to keep their experienced staff happy so they often leave seeking greener pastures.

Why not spend a little time and effort keeping your experienced nursing staff which is your best resource? If your staff didn't keep leaving you wouldn't have to spend so much money on recruitment.

Duh.

Yes, you have to pay experienced nurses more than new nurses. Experienced nurses also know what they are doing, understand policies and procedures and have developed relationships with the other staff. Even treating them right, it is cheaper to build than to buy.

The problem is, managers see recruitment costs as "unavoidable" while they see anything done to improve retention as "extra costs." Boy are they wrong.

I have no idea what it takes to get a new nurse up to speed. I know that, in my department, we feel like it takes 3 to 6 months to get HR people up to speed. That's 3 to 6 months of salary you are paying, plus recruitment, plus sign on bonus. Hello, it would be cheaper to give your existing nurse a 10% increase.

Sometimes you don't have the talent available in house. That's fine. Sometimes you have your best talent leave you through no fault of your own. That's a cost of doing business. But, if you consistently look to buy new talent and reject the talent you already have, that's just plain dumb.

A Policy We Will Not Be Implementing

This proposal is to allow men and women to work together without worrying about illicit behaviors occurring.

I realize I've just posted about how I don't speak for my company. However, I feel fairly secure in saying that we won't be implementing this, regardless of whether we operate in Islamic countries or not.

UPDATE: It appears that the suggestion has been retracted. Just as well.

Blogging Policy

Recently, several of my favorite bloggers have quit--or disappeared completely--from the blogosphere. Dr. Flea, Fat Doctor, Miss Snark, among others. (No point in giving you links to the first two. Dr. Flea's blog has completely disappeared and Fat Doctor's is by invitation only.)

Miss Snark said she is quitting because she is "done." She's answered all the questions she wants to answer and she's just done. That, I understand. (Speaking of which, I have about 10 questions in my queue and I swear I will get to them. I swear! First I have to finish shoveling mulch. I hate mulching.)

Dr. Flea was in the midst (apparently) of a malpractice suit and I bet his lawyer found out about his blog and said, "you better take that darn thing down right now!"

But, Fat Doctor (and several other medical bloggers) were "outed" by co-workers. Dr. J makes a comment on Dr. Couz's blog about Dr. Flea:

It's an interesting situation, and in some ways makes me glad that my blog has always been non-anonymous. I don't think there's anything wrong with anon. blogs, but having my picture at the top of my blog for all to see has certainly curtailed any prediliction I might have to rant, and has forced my blog in other (I hope interesting) directions.

From time to time I do see things in the medical blogs that make me wonder about maintainance of confidentiality, but overall I think that most people's blogs are thoughtful and sensitive. It's troubling that they seem to be an endangered species....

This is something I think about. I blog anonymously--theoretically. If you suspected Evil HR Lady was actually, well, me, it would be pretty easy to confirm. I've left enough clues, as well as pictures of the backs (and casts) of various family members. So, why am I anonymous?

I work for a large company. They don't have a clear blogging policy. They do have a policy that the only people that can speak for the company are the Public Relations people. I agree with this policy, by the way. I don't speak for my company. I am not their representative and I certainly don't know the ins and outs of what is going on in the business as a whole. I understand my role very well, but I know my limits.

But, should I keep my real name out of the fray? I could certainly blog under my name without mentioning the company I work for. That would keep me from breaking the Public Relations only rule. But, I don't.

Does this inhibit me or make me more free? I don't know. Most of my fellow HR bloggers do so under their (presumably) real names. They talk about stories from work. Does it keep them more honest, knowing that the person they are talking about could easily find them? For instance, Lisa writes about interactions with her union leaders. She speaks very positively in this post. Does her knowledge that he could find this post make her think about every word she writes?

I admit, when I wrote this post about an interaction with my boss, I thought, "good thing I'm anonymous!"

But, like my friends, the med bloggers, I could be exposed. A couple of people at work know about my blog. So, I've thought about this post and decided, even if I had my name on it, I'd say the same thing. I believe in what I wrote. I even had a disclaimer about making myself sound better than I did in the actual meeting.

But, I'm still anonymous and intend to stay that way for the time being. If I'm outed, though, I won't stop blogging. I'll just blog about the jerks who outed me. (Just kidding! I love everyone who takes the time to read this blog. Big hugs all around!)

Thank You, Susan B. Anthony

Anything about Women's issues, I like to give credit to my good friend, Susan B. Anthony. After all, without her work (and the work of others) we wouldn't have this New York Times article:After Baby, Boss Comes Calling.

And it's not just Susan B. that cleared the way. People like my former boss (whose name I won't mention because we just had a conversation on Friday about Googling yourself and if she chose to do that, I'd be busted). The reality is, she was one of the women who sacrificed a great deal to prove that women could do it. And do it, she did--she's a VP in a Fortune 500 company.

But, she didn't get to do this:

flexible work schedules, telecommuting, job sharing. Women in particular, but also a substantial percentage of men, have made it clear that is what it will take to keep them loyal. A study by the Families and Work Institute shows that 24 percent of women and 13 percent of men who work full-time would like to work part-time. And among the youngest workers, those now having children and most actively juggling family and career, Fortune magazine found that 61 percent would leave their job if they could find another that allows them to telecommute.

I work part time. If my child is sick, I telecommute. (I want to telecommute 100%, but that hasn't flown yet.) I've had a flexible schedule (within reason) from the moment I started at this company, 6 years ago.

We've come a long way. Now, if I can just figure out how to get paid without doing anything other than blog...

One Post, Two Questions

Question 1:

Hi, over the last year, I have seen many of my peers- managers fail in their roles, taken out of that job, reassigned to something different, only to land in their "dream" job with in the company. It's sending out signals that in order to get what you want, you need to fail- so you will get "re-assigned."

So why are the rest of us, busting our butts in the same roles trying to make the next leap, when it seems the rewards are going to those who are "struggling" and unsuccessful" in their previous roles?

Question 2:

My manager accidentially sent salary information for all of my co-workers, including the VP of sales, directors, managers and all sales reps throughout the country. After reviewing all this information I am one of the lowest paid in the whole country, even less than a co-worker with no prior sales experience. what should or can I do to get paid more? also, of all 6 reps a few have got promoted, 1 left,1 got fired and now I'm the only one left and they really can't afford to lose me. what can I do?

Even those these questions are quite different, the answer is (drum role please): Ask.

In the first case, what appears to be happening may or may not be happening. It may be that management is just looking to use the people they have effectively. So, if they spot skills that would work better in another department, they move you. Management may not recognize this as a reward for failure.

Go to your manager and say, "I would really like to end up in department X. What can I do to work towards that goal?" Don't be surprised if they are shocked by your request. "But you're doing such a good job here, don't you want to stay here?"

Sometimes our success can hold us back--you're good at what you do so we don't want to lose you.

Now, for the second question--first your boss goofed up by distributing salaries. (For the record, I'm in favor of more open compensation system, but that's a topic for another post.) The good thing is you now know the information and your boss knows you know.

It would be helpful to you if you could also gather some market data to support a pay increase. Then, make an appointment and go in to your boss and say, "I believe I am underpaid. This (market data) and this (internal salary data) indicate that my salary should be 6% higher than it is now." Then shut up and let your boss respond.

Keep in mind, that as above, if you've been doing the job well at the current salary your boss may be shocked that you are not happy. No telling what his response will be. It could range from, "absolutely not" to "Oh my word, we didn't realize how off kilter your salary was. How about an 8% raise?"

Be willing to negotiate. But make sure you ask. They know they can't afford to lose you, so you can be bold. You aren't going to be fired for asking. You may come out ahead. You may not. (And, by the way, you may find out unpleasant things about your performance. Managers rarely like to say negative things--like why your pay is low--unless they have to.)

And as a side note, when you were hired, did you negotiate the original salary? If you didn't, that may be the cause of your low salary, compared to everyone else.

Carnival of HR #7

Is up over at Race in the Workplace. Carmen even has carnival pictures!

Think First

Dean Dad over at Confessions of a Community College Dean has two posts that I believe are very relevant to the listening and problem solving portion of we Evil HR types. Here's a quote from the first post:

When Night Dean said it was possible, what he meant was “maybe.” When Psych Prof heard that it was possible, she took it to mean “yes.” So when ND came back the following week and said no, Psych Prof took it as betrayal and reacted accordingly; ND took her anger as inexplicable and therefore unprofessional. Psych Prof called ND a liar, which she believed to be true and he believed to be false. A single ambiguous word led to a major clash of narratives and egos.

Once I figured that out, I explained the sequence to each separately, then arranged for the two to meet to bury the hatchet. The course sub didn't stand, but we were able to work out other ways for the students to get what they needed.

The entire episode unfolded over a short span and was quickly resolved, but it has stuck with me. I think what made it so emblematic of administration is that the two conflicting stories were both internally correct. Both Psych Prof and Night Dean acted in good faith, and both believed that they were looking out for the students. Neither was lying. Each took personal umbrage at the way the other acted, and each believed that higher principles and personal honor were at stake. And both were very emotional.

And here is a the second quote:

Last week I saw another iteration of one of the little games that drives me crazy. At a meeting at which all of the academic deans were present, the director of a center said something to the effect of “I don't want to name any names, but some of your faculty aren't following through on their (task x). You should really stay on top of that.”

What, exactly, do people hope to achieve with statements like that?

If the statement contained some sort of verifiable fact claim -- “Dave didn't do task x last semester” -- I could do something about that. I could check, and either dismiss the claim or have a discussion with Dave.

In both situations, or friend the Dean had to listen and ask questions before coming to a conclusion. Just because an employee comes in blustering that someone is mean or harrassing or just plain impossible to work with doesn't mean that they are.

One of the things that annoys me the most is the second example. We deal with this all the time in employee relations. A manager will come to us, saying, "John does not provide good follow up to clients." Of course, John will not have been told this before, but the manager wants ER to deal with it. So, we, of course, ask for a concrete example and we can't get one.

We also see it where people are trying to step over their colleagues or superiors to accomplish their career aspirations, complaining about other's incompetence, but unable--or unwilling--to provide details.

And don't even get me started on dealing with the misunderstandings demonstrated in the first post.

I think if Dean Dad ever wants to leave academia he can come on over to HR.

Carnival of HR--New E-mail

Hi all. Carmen and I made a small mistake and gave the wrong e-mail address out for submissions to the upcoming carnival.

The correct e-mail is team at raceintheworkplace dot com.

The deadline for submissions has been extended to Noon (Eastern Time!) tomorrow (May 16). The Carnival will then be posted on Thursday.

If you got a bounce back on your submission, make sure to re-submit.

What Can HR Divulge?

Hi, what information can HR give out when they get a call from the future employer (in California)? Can they give out the current salary and the information why somebody was fired?

Having never lived in California (and truthfully, hoping to never live in California), I have little knowledge of California laws. So, these are general principles, which will, hopefully, be helpful.

To my knowledge, there is no law that dictates what a company can and cannot say about a former employee. Theoretically, they could give details about your termination. In practice, one too many employee has sued because of a bad reference and few companies divulge that information. Most HR departments, when asked, will confirm dates of service and last title.

Note that I said confirm. This means that if I call up and say, "When did John Doe work for you and what was his title?" they won't answer. But, if I say, "I'm doing a reference check on John Doe. I have that he worked for you from June of 1998 to August 2006 and that his last job title was Sr. Director, New Products. Is that correct?" They'll either say, "yes" or "no."

But, the real answer to your question is, if you want to know what a former company will say about you, then call them up and ask. You can say, "This is John Doe and I want to know what you would say about me in a reference check." Or, you can just say you are checking references for John Doe. Go ahead and ask, "why did he leave?" They'll either answer or say, "we don't release that information."

But, I get the sense that you are hoping to be able to lie about why your employment was unceremoniously terminated. Don't. It will come back to bite you. I promise. The business world is surprisingly small. Any lie you make will be exposed. Do not risk it. Just, don't.

As for dollar amounts, most companies won't reveal salary information (see above). However, as a warning, some companies require W2s from your previous job. I guess it saves them the phone calls.

So, call and ask, but don't lie.

We're Back!

 

We survived our trip to Disney World with only one trip to the emergency room. (Middle of the night ear infection.)

Hopefully this means I shall return to regular blogging. I must write something soon so I can get it to Carmen (team at raceintheworkplace dot com)for this week's Carnival of Human Resources.

Bully Boss

Hello Evil.

I have been the target of my bully boss for about a year and a half now, and am at my wits end. She and I worked as peers for a year and a half, at which time we both applied for a supervisory position. She got the job, I didn't. No hard feelings on my end, as I knew this would most likely be the case because she had been at the
company far longer than I, and had delveloped close relationships with management. My application was a career move. Since then, she has been my superior, and has done everything she can to make my work life a living hell. She has confronted me in front of my peers and privately, attacked me personally via e-mail and verbally (about things that have nothing to do with my performance), she meets with my clients (I am in sales) privately without inviting me or telling me about it, reprimands me for helping my peers, etc.

I have brought my complaints to her supervisors, and to HR, to no avail. The perception has been that I am "sour grapes" because I didn't get the job. Never mind that my complaints were not personal, and that I had well documented evidence of her behavior. I also have a spotless performance record. My last meeting with the VP of the company lasted all of three minutes, in which he didn't ask me anything about my complaints or the problems I was having - but merely told me I needed to find a way to resolve my "personal issues", and to ask me if I felt I
was unable to work with her (translation: did I need to be fired).

I have been in my career field for almost eight years, and have been very successful up to this point. A non-compete is standard practice in my industry, and I would either have to wait out my non-compete or move over 500 miles away to get a job in the same career field. I am not able to do either. I requested to be released from my non-compete, and my request was denied without any inquiry into why I wanted to be
released.

I need advise as to what to do. I have begun having stress related health issues, and my family life is suffering due to the problems I am having at work. My performance (and therefore income, as I am a commissioned employee) is suffering as well. I cannot remain in this position much longer. I am considering violating my non-compete, and challenging any legal action they bring citing a hostile work
environment. I appreciate any advice you can give.

It sounds as if you are in a pickle. Undoubtedly they do think you have sour grapes. Especially your direct supervisor--she probably believes that you are trying to undermine her so she perceives your neutral actions as hostile.

You can attempt to negotiate with the manager--could you be transferred to a different manager or territory? Of course, from what you've written, it sounds like you've already tried that option. If HR is asking if you want to be fired, the answer may be yes.

Do you have a copy of your non-compete agreement? Hopefully you do. The first thing you want to find out is if the non-compete applies in an involuntary termination. Some of them do. (Although as a side note, you can negotiate non-competes and you should never sign one that is enforceable in the case of an involuntary termination.)

If yours does not have that restriction you may want to sit down with a labor and employment lawyer and explain that you believe your company is trying to force a constructive Discharge.

This is where companies make it so intolerable to work there, that you have no choice but to quit. If so, then you can effectively argue that your termination was involuntary and therefore your non-compete is not in effect.

Just so you know, a hostile work environment has a specific definition that pertains to sexual, racial or other protected group harrassment. This doesn't fall into that category. But, constructive discharge should be your magic words.

Good luck and I hope you can get out of your non-compete.

Sincerely,

Evil HR Lady

Carnival of Human Resources Reminder!

Carmen at Race in the Workplace" is hosting the next Carnival of HR, which will be next Wednesday Because Carmen is not a procrastinator like I am, she would like submissions sooner rather than later--preferrably by Monday night.

Send your submissions to team at raceintheworkplace dot com. Make sure you put Carnival in the subject line.

Rehire

Hello,

I came across your website and would love to get some information from you. From what I read, you seem to be extremely knowledgable about the HR field. I was terminated from a job approximately 6 years ago. This company has a no rehire policy, but Id like to apply again anyways. From what I was told, this company has a 6 year retention policy for employee files/records. Im not sure how that process works. My question is, would it be possible for me to get back in without them knowing I was a previous employee since it has been six years since I was last employed there? Id like to know the odds of this happening. Any suggestions?

Thanks for your advice...

Dear Job Seeker,

I hope your day isn't ruined by my answer. My day should be fine, by the way, as I am blogging from Disney World (well, from my hotel--although, blogging would be a useful way to pass the time while standing in lines).

I doubt your company has a true "we don't rehire anyone" policy. Most likely they have a "we won't rehire a select group" policy.

First of all, if they have told you that you are not eligible for rehire, you aren't, even if it's been six years. We run a search on the social security number of everyone we hire so even if your name has changed since you left, we know who you are.

Second, I've never yet seen a job application that doesn't ask if you've worked for this company previously. If you check "no" and get hired and they find out about it later (which they will--6 years is a very short time) you'll be fired.

Now, if you want to apply and be honest and go ahead. It can't hurt. But, don't try to skirt the policy.

Good luck on the job hunt. There are a zillion companies out there. Better ones than the one you left.

Evil HR Lady

I Heart HR

Yesterday at Epcot Center I walked past a woman wearing a large button that said "I 'Heart' HR." I thought that was quite bizarre.

I mean, I love HR too. (Except when we do really silly things like require 14 signatures to allow someone to telecommute.) But, I don't think I'd go around with a button that proclaimed my affection.

Vacation

We are almost ready to head out the door for our trip to Disney World. The Offspring woke up at 5:30 this morning, ready to go. Our flight leaves at 6:00 p.m., so she was a bit over prepared.

What this means to the rest of you is that there will undoubtedly be light blogging the next week.

On Call

I switched jobs within my company about a year and a half ago. With my last job I was considered exempt and was expected to be on call 7 days a week. The company furnished me with a cell phone to use for business purposes. When I switched jobs I was also switched to nonexempt and I was no longer required to be "on call". My phone was taken away from me because I would no longer need it anymore according to my boss.

I got a phone of my own and my boss told me he needed to have that phone number in case anyone needed to get a hold of me. Occasionally I would get late night phone calls from people that work asking me questions that I thought could have waited until the next day. Not only that but most of the time I would be sleeping and didn't even hear my phone. I changed my phone number because of other circumstances and did not give them my new number. I was told that they needed to have the new number. I refused. I told them I did not want the silly late night phone calls and I since they did not pay for my phone I shouldn't have to give it to them. My boss though he was not happy let it go. The subject has come up again and my question is, can my employer make me give them my cell phone number? I was on call for this company for 4 straight years and I just really do not want to be bothered anymore. I work Mon-Fri form 8-5 and when I go home I don't want to think about that place. I think if they want me to be on call they can pay for my cell phone and put me back on exempt status, but I know this will not happen.

Thank you,

Sleeping

Dear Sleeping,

Any co-worker that calls you while you are asleep for anything short of a life-threatening emergency should be forced to watch 24 consecutive hours of Barney--and poked with a stick every time they start to nod off. That should cure 'em!

You're currently non-exempt. This means you are paid by the amount of time you work, and not by the job you do. This also means that they have to pay you if they call you. They don't, however, have to pay you for being available. The Department of Labor gives this information about being on call, as a non-exempt employee:

On-Call Time: An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises is working while "on call." An employee who is required to remain on call at home, or who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, is not working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee's freedom could require this time to be compensated.

So, yes, they can require you to be on call, but they do have to pay you if they call you. (Of course, if it's a 30 second question, how are you going to charge that?)

Should they? No. Generally, employers pay people a premium for being on call, although according to the DOL they do not have to.

I understand not wanting to be available, but if it's part of the job, it's part of the job. I do think, however, the next time your boss asks you state, "You know I'm a non-exempt employee and legally you have to pay me every time you call me. I'll put down 15 minutes for each phone call."

I bet that will either solve the problem or he'll agree--but at least you'll be paid for being annoyed.

Sincerely,

Evil HR Lady

Attracts Chickadees, Grossbeaks and Juncos

We have a bird feeder on our back porch. I just noticed that the bird seed I buy says it attracts the above birds.

I don't have any idea what a Grossbeak or Junco is. (I know, I know, Google is my friend, but I don't feel like it.) So, my question is, do I really want to attract these birds. That is, apparently, what I am attracting based on my decision to purchase this type of birdseed.

Yesterday I went to a seminar that included a section on Corporate Branding. Not a "Hey, Sprite is good to drink" type of branding, but "Coca-cola is a great company to work for" type of branding. (That wasn't the example in the seminar, by the way. I have no idea if Coca-Cola is a good company to work for. I just know I don't need all that available sugar in all my meetings.)

Anyway, are you branding your company to attract the kinds of birds--um, applicants--you want, or did you just buy the cheapest bag? Do you keep stamping your foot and saying, "Why do I always get resumes from Juncos? I don't want more Juncos. I want Peacocks!" (You don't, by the way, they are noisy.) Well, what birdseed are you using?

And just because I couldn't stand it any more, here is a Junco.

Carnival of HR #6

Is up at About Human Resources. Hop on over and visit the big top!

The Next Carnival will be May 16 at Race in the Workplace.

The Truth About Being Fired

Dear HR Lady,

Recently I was fired from my job for violation of code of conduct. I work for an outsourcing company with operations in India. Before my coworker left the company, he gave me a cartoon of an american child angry at her father b/c he declined her request to outsource her homework to India.

While my coworker was with firm for couple years, it was never an issue. When I was not present at my desk due to surgery, supposedly, an employee from India saw the cartoon and felt threatened by it. I am not looking for sympathy but I believe that I was targeted because of my vocal criticism of the poor management--in hindsight, that was the stupid thing to do--I feel that I was targeted specifically.

After I was dismissed during my recovery from surgery, I decided to pursue my CPA. I am currently interviewing for jobs and they ask me the reason for my departure from my previous firm in late November.

I tell them about my pursuit of CPA and change in management, both which are true. However, I cannot bring up to tell them that I was fired. I feel that if I bring that up, it will automatically disqualify me from the competitive jobs that I am seeking. I want to be honest but it really bothers me that I was fired. I am only 25 years old and have 1.5 years of full time experience. What should I do? I know lying is wrong but how much can HR find out by calling the old firm which I worked for? I don't know what to do. Thanks in advance.

J

Dear J,

First, you can find out what your former HR department will say by calling up and asking them. Most large companies only allow their HR department to confirm dates of employment and titles.

Second, it is always good to be honest. Honesty is the best policy. But, you don't have to tell everyone everything about everyone. If they ask why you left, you don't need to mention the cartoon, you can mention you were terminated. Explain how you've learned a great deal from the experience and you took it as an opportunity to gain your CPA. Then go directly into a discussion of the new qualification you gained since then.

Be positive, not bitter. Focus on your skills. Don't keep thinking that this one blip on you resume will ruin your life. I know many people who have been fired (and by fired, I mean terminated for poor performance and cause, not just laid off) and they've all come away better for it. You can learn and grow from it.

I understand how devastating it is to be fired. Heck, when I was working as a temp I cried when I was told a temp assignment was over. But, trust me, you are not the only person who has ever been fired. Most likely at least one of the people you will be interviewing with has been fired themselves.

I'm sorry you had to go through this. Hopefully, with your new CPA certification on your resume and your past work experience, you'll get over this bump. And by the way, can I ask you a tax question?

Good luck!

Evil HR Lady

Depressing Depression

Hi EvilHRLady,
I was fired after missing 3 weeks of work due to major depression and a bad reaction to the medication I was placed on.

When I was diagnosed, I let my manager and HR Manager know approximately a month and a half prior to getting terminated as I was having problems with insomnia and coming in late.

I supplied them with a doctor's note, but unfortunately my doctor just wrote the dsm-iv diagnosis code and I had to explain it to them in plain english.

A friend has urged me to try to use the ADA to arrange back pay/benefits or perhaps reinstatement with the company. I'm not sure if this is a very good idea (not practical/plausible, perhaps internal talk of it could ruin any future recommendation) since someone else has been hired to replace me.

I also worry about getting re-employed and don't know how to explain the situation to perspective employers.

I am thinking of speaking to my ex-supervisor to see if we can agree upon a more palatable explanation.

I don't think he was apprised of my condition(my manager and supervisor were separate people).

I'm not sure what to do and feel like my career (Software Engineer) and even the possibility of future employment is ruined.

thanks,
sad

Dear Sad,

First of all, your career is not ruined. Depression happens. I don't know if you have a valid ADA claim or not. There are specific rules around it and while depression can qualify under ADA, you may or may not be successful.

I suggest that you look towards moving forward rather than backwards. You can't undo what has been done. Battling will probably not help your depression. (Please keep in mind I'm not a psychologist or therapist or any such thing.) Here is some additional information about finding a job while dealing with a mental illness.

If, prior to your difficulties, you were performing well at work, it may well be worth your time to schedule an appointment with your prior managers. Talk about the probability of coming back and, if that's not possible, what kind of reference they will give you. They may be able to help you find a job and help you network.

I'm sure my fellow HR professionals will have additional advice for you.

Good luck!

Evil HR Lady