Isn’t there a law or best practice on how to approach employees who prefer to speak their foreign tongue in the workplace in front of other employees who do not understand what they are saying? Grant it, the majority of our investors are foreign, however, the company is based in the US and majority of the employees are Americans. It’s frustrating to be around people who may be talking about you in their native tongue. Furthermore, they prefer that you learn to speak their language by offering classes during the work week. Please advise. Thanks.
A law is very different from a best practice. I am not a lawyer and I don't like to give legal advice, so let's just stick to the best practice aspect of things. (Although here and here are things to consider on the legal side.)
So, a best practice. Why do you want an English only policy? I think this sentence sums it up: It’s frustrating to be around people who may be talking about you in their native tongue.
First: No one is talking about you because you just aren't that interesting. (Unless, of course, you are wearing one blue shoe and one brown shoe, which I did once. Remember not to buy the same style of shoes in different colors and then get dressed in the dark so as to not disturb your sleeping spouse. Your office is an hour away and you can't go home and change, so you will be forced to wear mismatched shoes all day.)
Second: English is the easiest language for you to communicate in because it's your native language. Therefore, [whatever language] is the easiest for your co-workers to communicate in because it is their native language.
Third: You really need a solid business or safety reason for the language rule and there doesn't appear (from the minimal information given) that there is one.
Fourth: This sentence: Furthermore, they prefer that you learn to speak their language by offering classes during the work week. This is the answer to your problem. Take the darn classes. It will help your career. And people couldn't be talking about you behind your back (they aren't anyway) if you took the classes.
The majority of your investors are foreign. They have made it clear that they want you to speak their language by offering you classes (free, I suppose) and not requiring all business to be conducted in English. This is what we say is a "big clue." Do you want to advance in this company? Take the classes. Do you want to be rated highly? Take the classes.
Each business has things that they value. I used to work for a grocery store chain. I was in corporate HR. I wanted to be promoted. The only way for me to get promoted was to get out of my comfortable cube and work in store management. I think grocery store management would be fascinating, but it's not a 9 to 5, Monday to Friday job. It's every Saturday and every Sunday. It's late nights and early mornings. I had to make a choice. Do I want to do what I need to do to move up in this company or do I leave? I chose to leave.
I would still highly recommend them as an employer to anybody else (great company), but their determination of what worked for their business didn't work for my schedule.
You want an English only workplace with nobody pushing you to learn another language. Go find it. (Just a word of caution, if you mention in an interview that you are looking for an English only workplace, I won't hire you and I would advise others not to as well. Why? Because that just screams to me a huge potential discrimination law suit when you won't hire someone whose native language isn't English.) Most professional jobs around these parts are English. Something involving safety will be English only. Go be an air traffic controller.
But, stop worrying about your co-workers. They are doing their jobs. You do yours. Take the language class. Learn what they are saying and jump into the conversation. If you feel like you are missing out on business information (for instance, side conversations during a meeting), just say cheerily, "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that?" or "Could you share that idea in English so I could understand as well?" But, keep in mind the response may be, "sorry, it wasn't about the issue at hand."
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Hours Worked
I work for an organization that runs two professional minor sports teams and so I have a question about exempt vs non-exempt. I have searched for information, but sports entertainment doesn't pop up in the discussions. Most of our staff is labeled exempt by the organization including our inside sales "account executives."
We normally work 40 hour weeks, but during the season it can stretch into longer hours. During the season, the majority of the staff work 9 to 5 during the week day and then weekends or evenings if there are games.
While overtime is not paid for the extra hours, staff is allowed to take an equal amount of time off within a week of the extra hours worked.
Please advise.
From the information you've given me, I have no way to judge whether you should be an exempt or non-exempt employee.
But, if you are given compensatory time within the same week then you are not going over 40 hours a week. The (general) rule for overtime eligible jobs is that overtime must be paid for more than 40 hours in a set work week. For exempt jobs, they can work you until you drop--or quit.
It sounds as if they have labeled you exempt, but are treating you like non-exempt employees in terms of monitoring hours. They appear to be covering all their bases. (Ha!--Little sports joke there!)
This has given you precisely no new information. I hope your teams win this year.
We normally work 40 hour weeks, but during the season it can stretch into longer hours. During the season, the majority of the staff work 9 to 5 during the week day and then weekends or evenings if there are games.
While overtime is not paid for the extra hours, staff is allowed to take an equal amount of time off within a week of the extra hours worked.
Please advise.
From the information you've given me, I have no way to judge whether you should be an exempt or non-exempt employee.
But, if you are given compensatory time within the same week then you are not going over 40 hours a week. The (general) rule for overtime eligible jobs is that overtime must be paid for more than 40 hours in a set work week. For exempt jobs, they can work you until you drop--or quit.
It sounds as if they have labeled you exempt, but are treating you like non-exempt employees in terms of monitoring hours. They appear to be covering all their bases. (Ha!--Little sports joke there!)
This has given you precisely no new information. I hope your teams win this year.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Oh Be Wise, What Can I Say More?
My question is two fold...
Can someone get fired for dating a coworker?
If an employer has GPS technology on company vehicles and the company policy is that company vehicles are for business use only, to what extent can the employer go if someone used the vehicle for "personal use?" Can they ask the employee where he/she was and/or what he/she was doing? Or, can the employer only state the policy and repremand said employee for breaking it. Do they have a right to know what the employee was doing when they were in the vehicle outside of business hours? Is the employee obligated to tell them if they are allowed to ask? It seems to me that even though they are in a company vehicle there is still the issue of privacy considering it was outside of business hours.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Answer to question 1: Yes. You can be fired for dating a co-worker. You can be fired for picking your nose. You can be fired because your boss decided that he doesn't like what you eat for lunch. You can be fired for cause or no cause at any time. (Provided you are an at-will employee, which I assume you are.) The only reasons you cannot be fired are those protected by law--race, gender, pregnancy, taking approved FMLA, retaliation for whistle blowing, etc. (This is not an exhaustive list, by the way. Your state may vary.)
Now, would I want to have a policy in place that forbids dating co-workers? No. But I'm guessing this isn't a generalized "I'm a new HR manager and I'm trying to determine a policy question." I'm guessing someone is dating a co-worker.
I, personally, would have a policy against managers dating subordinates, but leave people on equal footing or in non-related departments alone. That's just me. I don't know what your company policy is.
The reason I wouldn't have a strict no-dating policy is that it's impossible to enforce, so when you do enforce it you end up doing so selectively--albeit inadvertently selectively. Then if you happen to enforce it with someone who is a different race, gender or age than someone else who got away with it, you're in trouble.
Question 2: Privacy. You do not work for the government, therefore the Bill of Rights does not apply to your bosses. (And for the record, I know that privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I would argue that no such Constitutional right exists outside the rights to no unreasonable search or seizure and your right not to house soldiers. Several Supreme Court Justices disagree with me and argue that it is part of the "penumbra" of rights. This, however, is not a Constitutional law blog--and for good reason, as I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer. I could be, though, if I just went to law school.) Privacy has it's limits and I'm not a privacy expert. Employers can ask what you were doing in their property, and they have every right to restrict activity in their property.
If one is foolish enough to drive a GPS enabled vehicle that is expressly reserved for business use to a non-business function, one gets what one deserves. Now, the Evil HR Lady is not so hard hearted that if you used it to whisk your dying mother to the emergency room that I would fire you. If, on the other hand, you used it to take yourself and your workplace honey to a bar, that's another story.
If your company has a specific policy against dating co-workers don't date your co-worker. (And another reason this is a bad policy, how do you define dating? Is going to a movie with a co-worker always a date? Does dating require some sort of physical relationship? These are questions I don't want to make a policy on--Bob, we saw you and Jill holding hands. That's okay under the rules, but if you so much as give her a peck on the check, you are both fired!)
If your company has a specific policy against using company vehicles for personal use, don't do it. Ride the bus. Buy a scooter. Stay home. Don't whine about intrusions into your personal life when you've broken the rules.
Can someone get fired for dating a coworker?
If an employer has GPS technology on company vehicles and the company policy is that company vehicles are for business use only, to what extent can the employer go if someone used the vehicle for "personal use?" Can they ask the employee where he/she was and/or what he/she was doing? Or, can the employer only state the policy and repremand said employee for breaking it. Do they have a right to know what the employee was doing when they were in the vehicle outside of business hours? Is the employee obligated to tell them if they are allowed to ask? It seems to me that even though they are in a company vehicle there is still the issue of privacy considering it was outside of business hours.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Answer to question 1: Yes. You can be fired for dating a co-worker. You can be fired for picking your nose. You can be fired because your boss decided that he doesn't like what you eat for lunch. You can be fired for cause or no cause at any time. (Provided you are an at-will employee, which I assume you are.) The only reasons you cannot be fired are those protected by law--race, gender, pregnancy, taking approved FMLA, retaliation for whistle blowing, etc. (This is not an exhaustive list, by the way. Your state may vary.)
Now, would I want to have a policy in place that forbids dating co-workers? No. But I'm guessing this isn't a generalized "I'm a new HR manager and I'm trying to determine a policy question." I'm guessing someone is dating a co-worker.
I, personally, would have a policy against managers dating subordinates, but leave people on equal footing or in non-related departments alone. That's just me. I don't know what your company policy is.
The reason I wouldn't have a strict no-dating policy is that it's impossible to enforce, so when you do enforce it you end up doing so selectively--albeit inadvertently selectively. Then if you happen to enforce it with someone who is a different race, gender or age than someone else who got away with it, you're in trouble.
Question 2: Privacy. You do not work for the government, therefore the Bill of Rights does not apply to your bosses. (And for the record, I know that privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution. I would argue that no such Constitutional right exists outside the rights to no unreasonable search or seizure and your right not to house soldiers. Several Supreme Court Justices disagree with me and argue that it is part of the "penumbra" of rights. This, however, is not a Constitutional law blog--and for good reason, as I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer. I could be, though, if I just went to law school.) Privacy has it's limits and I'm not a privacy expert. Employers can ask what you were doing in their property, and they have every right to restrict activity in their property.
If one is foolish enough to drive a GPS enabled vehicle that is expressly reserved for business use to a non-business function, one gets what one deserves. Now, the Evil HR Lady is not so hard hearted that if you used it to whisk your dying mother to the emergency room that I would fire you. If, on the other hand, you used it to take yourself and your workplace honey to a bar, that's another story.
If your company has a specific policy against dating co-workers don't date your co-worker. (And another reason this is a bad policy, how do you define dating? Is going to a movie with a co-worker always a date? Does dating require some sort of physical relationship? These are questions I don't want to make a policy on--Bob, we saw you and Jill holding hands. That's okay under the rules, but if you so much as give her a peck on the check, you are both fired!)
If your company has a specific policy against using company vehicles for personal use, don't do it. Ride the bus. Buy a scooter. Stay home. Don't whine about intrusions into your personal life when you've broken the rules.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What Do You Do All Day?
One of the jobs of HR is to understand the business. This means we need to understand what people do all day. Here some videos to help you understand.
Anesthetists
Moms
Teachers
Anesthetists
Moms
Teachers
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Turnover (Not Apple or Cherry, Unfortunately)
Dear Evil HR lady,
I've been reading your blog for a few months, and feel like you give honest, straightforward answers, so hopefully you can help me understand my HR department's strategy.
I have learned that our HR department has been looking at company turnover. I realize that turnover is a hot topic in the business world, but from what I've been told it's a bad thing. The cost to recruit and train new employees is expensive, and we need to try to keep the employees we have. But recently our HR department is looking at departments with a low turnover rate and plan to increase turnover by decreasing annual raises within these departments.
Is this practical? Here’s were I’m confused. If you have a long term employee that has many years of experience and a wealth of knowledge that isn’t planning on quitting anytime soon, why would you want to get rid of them and hire someone that doesn’t know the job, train them, and risk having them leave after a year? I’m sure the motive is money, but bottom line I don’t see the big savings with this strategy.
Maybe I’m naïve, and you can shed some light on the subject from an HR prospective.
This is a subject close to my little HR heart. One cannot make a blanket statement that turnover is good or bad. Some turnover is good. Some turnover is bad.
Why would a company want a long term employee to leave? Well, let's pick an example. You have a long term employee in accounts receivable. She's been there 20 years. Never taken a class to update her skills. Complains about the new system that has been put into place. She knows a great deal, but refuses to share her information with others on the team, for fear that if they know how to do it, she won't be as valuable. Makes a ton more money than the current market rate for the job. If she leaves, that's good turnover.
For bad turnover, you have a long term employee in accounts receivable. She's been there 20 years. She takes frequent classes to upgrade her skills. She was the department lead on the new system implementation. She knows everything inside and out and actively teaches others. Makes a ton more money than the current market rate for the job, but because of all her additional skills and knowledge, management thinks it's totally worth it. If she leaves, that's bad turnover.
Now, granted, some companies get bees in their little bonnets and want to have the cheapest labor possible. That's when they start firing long time employees (or encouraging them to leave) and either bringing in new, cheap labor or outsourcing. Sometimes this is an effective business tool. If you look at the first lady above, she does nothing to justify her high salary. I've seen the second type get laid off as well, because someone from corporate doesn't understand her true value.
Sometimes, managers just want new blood in a department. Old and stable companies sometimes need a shake-up. Without that, they can easily be destroyed from within. Someone who is frequently heard to say, "but we've always done it that way," is probably someone who needs a boot out the door.
But, sometimes managers just want new blood because they want new blood--not that the people in the department have stale ideas. You frequently see this at the top of an organization. If a new VP is hired, the AVPs start freshening up their resumes. Why? The new VP may love you and she may not. If not, you are out the door. Managers at lower levels often don't have the flexibility to remove staff they dislike.
Recruiting and training is expensive. More expensive is having the wrong players on board. I fully admit, some managers absolutely refuse to see the talent of the people they have. They just want new. Some managers are lousy hirers as well. That's life.
Some companies have made bad compensation policies and can only correct them by eliminating current staff. Circut City, for example.
Some companies were protective of their staff and ended up suffering for it later. Kodak for instance. Here's a quote about their pay and benefits:
Well, that's just swell, you say. Then read the next line in the article:
If you go to Rochester, NY (Kodak's HQ) go see old Kodak Park to see what happens when you keep the wrong people on board. (Here is a preview.)
So, turnover. Good? Yes. Bad? Yes. Companies sometimes encourage it when they shouldn't and discourage it when they should be encouraging it. It's a tough game. A good HR department will help avoid those situations. Which is why HR needs to understand the business, not just have warm fuzzy feelings towards the employees.
I've been reading your blog for a few months, and feel like you give honest, straightforward answers, so hopefully you can help me understand my HR department's strategy.
I have learned that our HR department has been looking at company turnover. I realize that turnover is a hot topic in the business world, but from what I've been told it's a bad thing. The cost to recruit and train new employees is expensive, and we need to try to keep the employees we have. But recently our HR department is looking at departments with a low turnover rate and plan to increase turnover by decreasing annual raises within these departments.
Is this practical? Here’s were I’m confused. If you have a long term employee that has many years of experience and a wealth of knowledge that isn’t planning on quitting anytime soon, why would you want to get rid of them and hire someone that doesn’t know the job, train them, and risk having them leave after a year? I’m sure the motive is money, but bottom line I don’t see the big savings with this strategy.
Maybe I’m naïve, and you can shed some light on the subject from an HR prospective.
This is a subject close to my little HR heart. One cannot make a blanket statement that turnover is good or bad. Some turnover is good. Some turnover is bad.
Why would a company want a long term employee to leave? Well, let's pick an example. You have a long term employee in accounts receivable. She's been there 20 years. Never taken a class to update her skills. Complains about the new system that has been put into place. She knows a great deal, but refuses to share her information with others on the team, for fear that if they know how to do it, she won't be as valuable. Makes a ton more money than the current market rate for the job. If she leaves, that's good turnover.
For bad turnover, you have a long term employee in accounts receivable. She's been there 20 years. She takes frequent classes to upgrade her skills. She was the department lead on the new system implementation. She knows everything inside and out and actively teaches others. Makes a ton more money than the current market rate for the job, but because of all her additional skills and knowledge, management thinks it's totally worth it. If she leaves, that's bad turnover.
Now, granted, some companies get bees in their little bonnets and want to have the cheapest labor possible. That's when they start firing long time employees (or encouraging them to leave) and either bringing in new, cheap labor or outsourcing. Sometimes this is an effective business tool. If you look at the first lady above, she does nothing to justify her high salary. I've seen the second type get laid off as well, because someone from corporate doesn't understand her true value.
Sometimes, managers just want new blood in a department. Old and stable companies sometimes need a shake-up. Without that, they can easily be destroyed from within. Someone who is frequently heard to say, "but we've always done it that way," is probably someone who needs a boot out the door.
But, sometimes managers just want new blood because they want new blood--not that the people in the department have stale ideas. You frequently see this at the top of an organization. If a new VP is hired, the AVPs start freshening up their resumes. Why? The new VP may love you and she may not. If not, you are out the door. Managers at lower levels often don't have the flexibility to remove staff they dislike.
Recruiting and training is expensive. More expensive is having the wrong players on board. I fully admit, some managers absolutely refuse to see the talent of the people they have. They just want new. Some managers are lousy hirers as well. That's life.
Some companies have made bad compensation policies and can only correct them by eliminating current staff. Circut City, for example.
Some companies were protective of their staff and ended up suffering for it later. Kodak for instance. Here's a quote about their pay and benefits:
Since the company's founding, Kodak had maintained a policy of treating its employees fairly and with respect, earning the nickname of the 'Great Yellow Father.' It was George Eastman's belief that an organization's prosperity was not necessarily due to its technological achievements, but more to its workers' goodwill and loyalty. As a result, company benefits were well above average, morale had always remained high, and employees never felt the need to unionize.
Well, that's just swell, you say. Then read the next line in the article:
This protective culture came to an end in 1983, however, when the company was forced to reduce its workforce by five percent to cut costs.
If you go to Rochester, NY (Kodak's HQ) go see old Kodak Park to see what happens when you keep the wrong people on board. (Here is a preview.)
So, turnover. Good? Yes. Bad? Yes. Companies sometimes encourage it when they shouldn't and discourage it when they should be encouraging it. It's a tough game. A good HR department will help avoid those situations. Which is why HR needs to understand the business, not just have warm fuzzy feelings towards the employees.
Why I Have No Friends
I am the HR Specialist in an office of about 50. Most of us have been here for years.
In March a new company took over our office however, the only thing that changed was the boss. He is an expert in our line of work but has horrendous management skills.
A friend and colleague is having an extra hard time with him. Communication is non-existent. He will change policy on a whim and show up to her department meetings and contradict what she is saying. She does not know what's going on even in things that will directly affect her and her department yet another supervisor and another employee (not a supervisor or in my friends department) know every decision before he announces it. He schedules long meetings for no reason, and she resents taking time away from critical work for useless meetings.
Years of working with friends has forced me to set up friend time versus work time. I allow my friends to gripe to me "off the record" especially because it helps most of them work things out by having a neutral sounding board. I secretly use my HR mind tricks to help them see the other side.
This friend has made clear that her gripes are off the record however, her attitude is starting to affect my work. Also, I see this leading up to her quitting and I am torn between her wanting to be happy (if it means quitting) and knowing that she is the best at her job and it would hurt our company if she quits.
I think this may be more personal than HR but I need help figuring out what to do. Do I put her request aside and seriously talk with the boss about this? Do I talk to the corp. HR manager about morale in our overall office? I see the issues with his management style but everyone else seams to be adjusting and I have never heard of an HR policy on crappy managers.
Thanks!
See, this is why I have no friends at work. (Okay, to be honest, I do have friends at work--it's just that they are all fellow HR people.)
This is what I would do if I were you. The next time she complains you say, "Cheryl," given that her name is Cheryl, "We've been friends for a long time, but I am also the Human Resources person here and I represent the company. My job is to make sure that the people and the company are on the same page.
"From what you've told me, there seems to be a very serious disconnect between your boss and the company's health. In the past I've promised you that I would keep everything off the record, but it's reached the point that I can no longer do that. From now on, work related discussions are going to have to be on the record. I'm not doing my job if I allow this type of thing to go on, unchecked."
She may, actually, be relieved. She may be furious. It's hard to guess that sort of thing in advance. (Impossible, actually. Anyone who spends any amount of time in an employee relations capacity will tell you that you can be absolutely sure of the reaction that will come out of someone's mouth and then the person will have a very different reaction.)
The problem is in being nice. Nice is good. I like nice. But you have a duty to the company. So, if you have to choose between being nice and doing your job, you have to do your job.
Think of it this way--you actually labeled your e-mail to me "hostile work environment" and then noted that that wasn't actually the case. You knew that I would know that the phrase "hostile work environment" doesn't refer to angry bosses, but to an environment that violates Title VII protections (race, gender, etc). But, what if it was a "hostile work environment"? What if this boss was sexually harassing your friend? Legally you'd have "duty to act" or your company's liability would shoot through the roof. What would you do then?
Of course, you'd act. You'd be a fool not to.
This stinks. It really does. It's definitely what makes the perception of "evilness" in HR. But Human Resources people are there for the company. Refer your friend to your Employee Assistance Program if she needs someone to vent to. But remind her that all future work related conversations are "on the record."
In March a new company took over our office however, the only thing that changed was the boss. He is an expert in our line of work but has horrendous management skills.
A friend and colleague is having an extra hard time with him. Communication is non-existent. He will change policy on a whim and show up to her department meetings and contradict what she is saying. She does not know what's going on even in things that will directly affect her and her department yet another supervisor and another employee (not a supervisor or in my friends department) know every decision before he announces it. He schedules long meetings for no reason, and she resents taking time away from critical work for useless meetings.
Years of working with friends has forced me to set up friend time versus work time. I allow my friends to gripe to me "off the record" especially because it helps most of them work things out by having a neutral sounding board. I secretly use my HR mind tricks to help them see the other side.
This friend has made clear that her gripes are off the record however, her attitude is starting to affect my work. Also, I see this leading up to her quitting and I am torn between her wanting to be happy (if it means quitting) and knowing that she is the best at her job and it would hurt our company if she quits.
I think this may be more personal than HR but I need help figuring out what to do. Do I put her request aside and seriously talk with the boss about this? Do I talk to the corp. HR manager about morale in our overall office? I see the issues with his management style but everyone else seams to be adjusting and I have never heard of an HR policy on crappy managers.
Thanks!
See, this is why I have no friends at work. (Okay, to be honest, I do have friends at work--it's just that they are all fellow HR people.)
This is what I would do if I were you. The next time she complains you say, "Cheryl," given that her name is Cheryl, "We've been friends for a long time, but I am also the Human Resources person here and I represent the company. My job is to make sure that the people and the company are on the same page.
"From what you've told me, there seems to be a very serious disconnect between your boss and the company's health. In the past I've promised you that I would keep everything off the record, but it's reached the point that I can no longer do that. From now on, work related discussions are going to have to be on the record. I'm not doing my job if I allow this type of thing to go on, unchecked."
She may, actually, be relieved. She may be furious. It's hard to guess that sort of thing in advance. (Impossible, actually. Anyone who spends any amount of time in an employee relations capacity will tell you that you can be absolutely sure of the reaction that will come out of someone's mouth and then the person will have a very different reaction.)
The problem is in being nice. Nice is good. I like nice. But you have a duty to the company. So, if you have to choose between being nice and doing your job, you have to do your job.
Think of it this way--you actually labeled your e-mail to me "hostile work environment" and then noted that that wasn't actually the case. You knew that I would know that the phrase "hostile work environment" doesn't refer to angry bosses, but to an environment that violates Title VII protections (race, gender, etc). But, what if it was a "hostile work environment"? What if this boss was sexually harassing your friend? Legally you'd have "duty to act" or your company's liability would shoot through the roof. What would you do then?
Of course, you'd act. You'd be a fool not to.
This stinks. It really does. It's definitely what makes the perception of "evilness" in HR. But Human Resources people are there for the company. Refer your friend to your Employee Assistance Program if she needs someone to vent to. But remind her that all future work related conversations are "on the record."
Monday, October 08, 2007
Diversity--of Personality and Styles
In my experience, the biggest conflicts I've seen in departments are due to a diverse set of personalities, not differences in race, gender and age.
For example, Bob is a 8 to 5 type of a guy. You could set your watch by his comings and goings. He believes that the only work that counts is the work done between those hours. If you are not at your desk you are not working.
Steve takes calls in the car. (Hands free, of course, we wouldn't want Steve to be violating any laws.) He comes in when he comes in and goes home when he's ready. Steve generally works from home for 3-4 hours a night, after the kids are asleep.
Jenny requires absolute silence to work. She can't concentrate around other people and noise. She's started to come in earlier and earlier to get things done when it's quiet, but it's no use--once others show up and start yacking away, her cube becomes unbearable and her productivity drops.
Tom is a music man. He needs to be listening to something in order to work. He loves to have his radio on and keeps it as loud as he possibly can.
Jose is a political junky. He reads all the political blogs and listens to talk radio all day. If you stop by his cube you are likely to get a lecture of some sort.
Candice is also a political junky, but on the opposite side of the spectrum from Jose. If they should happen upon each other, well, the rest of the department runs and hides.
Do you see where the problems come in? Bob complains about Steve--how can he possibly be working if he's not in the office? Tom and Jenny are constantly at each other's throats. "Your radio is too loud!" vs "I can barely hear it!" And well, Jose and Candice drive the rest of the office nuts and constantly complain about each other.
Other personality conflicts come into play as well. Does the boss like independent workers or needy workers? Given my personality, I would say, "duh, doesn't every boss prefer independent workers?" But, I've seen bosses that don't think you are doing anything productive if you aren't constantly asking for help.
Sometimes people assign race or gender reasons to why they aren't getting along with a co-worker. (She just complains about my music because I'm X and he's Y.) Reality is, she'd still complain even if you were both X.
This is not to say that cases of racial or gender discrimination and prejudice do not exist. Of course they do. It's just to say that other problems exist as well.
So, what's a manager to do? Well, for one thing, get Jenny an office and Tom some ear phones. Or vice versa. Tell Jose and Candice to knock it off and leave politics for lunch and after work. Tell Bob to chill and Steve to get in earlier. Right?
But, then Jenny's office makes everyone else envious. "Why does she get an office? We're the same grade!"
And Jose and Candice both loudly proclaim that they are being oppressed because of their points of view. (Neither one recognizing that they have opposite points of view and are being given the exact same treatment.)
Bob and Steve? Both work best in their own environments. Why should Steve get in earlier? He's working until midnight almost every night. Bob's desire for strict schedules and guidelines also makes him an excellent quality assurance guy, which is what he is.
You still want to manage people?
For example, Bob is a 8 to 5 type of a guy. You could set your watch by his comings and goings. He believes that the only work that counts is the work done between those hours. If you are not at your desk you are not working.
Steve takes calls in the car. (Hands free, of course, we wouldn't want Steve to be violating any laws.) He comes in when he comes in and goes home when he's ready. Steve generally works from home for 3-4 hours a night, after the kids are asleep.
Jenny requires absolute silence to work. She can't concentrate around other people and noise. She's started to come in earlier and earlier to get things done when it's quiet, but it's no use--once others show up and start yacking away, her cube becomes unbearable and her productivity drops.
Tom is a music man. He needs to be listening to something in order to work. He loves to have his radio on and keeps it as loud as he possibly can.
Jose is a political junky. He reads all the political blogs and listens to talk radio all day. If you stop by his cube you are likely to get a lecture of some sort.
Candice is also a political junky, but on the opposite side of the spectrum from Jose. If they should happen upon each other, well, the rest of the department runs and hides.
Do you see where the problems come in? Bob complains about Steve--how can he possibly be working if he's not in the office? Tom and Jenny are constantly at each other's throats. "Your radio is too loud!" vs "I can barely hear it!" And well, Jose and Candice drive the rest of the office nuts and constantly complain about each other.
Other personality conflicts come into play as well. Does the boss like independent workers or needy workers? Given my personality, I would say, "duh, doesn't every boss prefer independent workers?" But, I've seen bosses that don't think you are doing anything productive if you aren't constantly asking for help.
Sometimes people assign race or gender reasons to why they aren't getting along with a co-worker. (She just complains about my music because I'm X and he's Y.) Reality is, she'd still complain even if you were both X.
This is not to say that cases of racial or gender discrimination and prejudice do not exist. Of course they do. It's just to say that other problems exist as well.
So, what's a manager to do? Well, for one thing, get Jenny an office and Tom some ear phones. Or vice versa. Tell Jose and Candice to knock it off and leave politics for lunch and after work. Tell Bob to chill and Steve to get in earlier. Right?
But, then Jenny's office makes everyone else envious. "Why does she get an office? We're the same grade!"
And Jose and Candice both loudly proclaim that they are being oppressed because of their points of view. (Neither one recognizing that they have opposite points of view and are being given the exact same treatment.)
Bob and Steve? Both work best in their own environments. Why should Steve get in earlier? He's working until midnight almost every night. Bob's desire for strict schedules and guidelines also makes him an excellent quality assurance guy, which is what he is.
You still want to manage people?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
I'm From HR and I'm Here to Help
Hi Evil HR Lady,
I just found your blog, and it's great. I'm writing because I am considering a career switch into HR. I'd love to focus on employee relations and helping to create work environments that are supportive, intellectually stimulating, and high achieving. The negative-nancy part of me is worried this isn't possible--can people in HR actually help employees? Or, in your experience, are you more likely to be put in the middle between employees and leadership to the point where you don't feel like you are helping the employees at all?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Ahhh, the negative-Nancy. A woman after my own heart.
Can HR really help? Or are we just a bunch of back room bimbos more concerned with issuing policy statements? (Just a reminder to our male employees. Golf shirts are NEVER appropriate attire, unless they have the company logo on them. We'd like to eliminate them as well, but the Chief Marketing Officer handed them out at his all hands meeting WITHOUT asking us (never do anything without asking us) and while we're really ticked off at him, we can't say anything because he actually could get our little rear ends fired. So, just remember, no golf shirts!)
Well, here's my answer based on my experience. With the proper HR leadership, an employee relations specialist can achieve miracles. You can resolve problems, set up flexible solutions, facilitate communication between arguing parties and make the world a better place. You can also terminate poor performers in a way which shows respect from them as people. You can make a huge difference.
With the wrong HR leadership you are rather worthless. Sorry.
HR in general has the opportunity to be a tremendous force for good in any business. However, they also have the opportunity to be a drag.
Your goal, as someone just breaking into HR, is to find an HR department that can do good. (As you get more senior, you can look for positions in challenging departments where you will change HR for the good).
Here is what I would look for:
1. An HR department that understands the business. What kind of training do HR people receive as it relates to the business? Do they ever rotate their employees through line management jobs?
2. An HR department that has respect for people as one of its mottoes. It doesn't have to be expressly done up in a poster, but what does this company do to show it respects employees?
3. An HR department that encourages flexibility among employees. This varies from industry to industry, but ask the question: "Joe's daughter really wants to take dance. For this to happen, Joe needs to leave every Wednesday at 4:00 in order to get her to dance. He is willing to come in early on Wednesday. He also regularly works 50 or so hours a week as an accountant and is a strong performer. Can Joe leave at 4:00 on Wednesdays?" If the answer to that is "NO!" then walk away. The end result can be no (depending on the situation), but if they refuse to look at an individual case, you don't want to be there. (And I would argue that HR shouldn't be involved in that decision anyway--they should have trained their managers to handle that stuff, but it will show up at HR's door.)
4. In contrast to the above, you do want an HR department that follows guidelines. Randomly enforcing rules is a killer for employee morale.
5. An HR department that is gutsy enough to fire poor performers. Nothing makes HR departments seem more useless to the average employee than their inability to get rid of problem workers.
6. An HR department with minimal bureaucracy. There is always paperwork in HR. (Some of it mandated by your friends, the federal government.) But how many forms need to be filled out and how many signatures gathered to authorize Joe (above) to leave at 4:00 on Wednesdays? How about to change Joe's title or cost center? If it's excessive, run like the wind.
There are definitely other things to look for if you want to be in an HR department that can make a difference. I'm sure (I hope!) that my colleagues will join in with their ideas.
We can help. We do help. We need the right people. So, if you're the right person, jump on in!
I just found your blog, and it's great. I'm writing because I am considering a career switch into HR. I'd love to focus on employee relations and helping to create work environments that are supportive, intellectually stimulating, and high achieving. The negative-nancy part of me is worried this isn't possible--can people in HR actually help employees? Or, in your experience, are you more likely to be put in the middle between employees and leadership to the point where you don't feel like you are helping the employees at all?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Ahhh, the negative-Nancy. A woman after my own heart.
Can HR really help? Or are we just a bunch of back room bimbos more concerned with issuing policy statements? (Just a reminder to our male employees. Golf shirts are NEVER appropriate attire, unless they have the company logo on them. We'd like to eliminate them as well, but the Chief Marketing Officer handed them out at his all hands meeting WITHOUT asking us (never do anything without asking us) and while we're really ticked off at him, we can't say anything because he actually could get our little rear ends fired. So, just remember, no golf shirts!)
Well, here's my answer based on my experience. With the proper HR leadership, an employee relations specialist can achieve miracles. You can resolve problems, set up flexible solutions, facilitate communication between arguing parties and make the world a better place. You can also terminate poor performers in a way which shows respect from them as people. You can make a huge difference.
With the wrong HR leadership you are rather worthless. Sorry.
HR in general has the opportunity to be a tremendous force for good in any business. However, they also have the opportunity to be a drag.
Your goal, as someone just breaking into HR, is to find an HR department that can do good. (As you get more senior, you can look for positions in challenging departments where you will change HR for the good).
Here is what I would look for:
1. An HR department that understands the business. What kind of training do HR people receive as it relates to the business? Do they ever rotate their employees through line management jobs?
2. An HR department that has respect for people as one of its mottoes. It doesn't have to be expressly done up in a poster, but what does this company do to show it respects employees?
3. An HR department that encourages flexibility among employees. This varies from industry to industry, but ask the question: "Joe's daughter really wants to take dance. For this to happen, Joe needs to leave every Wednesday at 4:00 in order to get her to dance. He is willing to come in early on Wednesday. He also regularly works 50 or so hours a week as an accountant and is a strong performer. Can Joe leave at 4:00 on Wednesdays?" If the answer to that is "NO!" then walk away. The end result can be no (depending on the situation), but if they refuse to look at an individual case, you don't want to be there. (And I would argue that HR shouldn't be involved in that decision anyway--they should have trained their managers to handle that stuff, but it will show up at HR's door.)
4. In contrast to the above, you do want an HR department that follows guidelines. Randomly enforcing rules is a killer for employee morale.
5. An HR department that is gutsy enough to fire poor performers. Nothing makes HR departments seem more useless to the average employee than their inability to get rid of problem workers.
6. An HR department with minimal bureaucracy. There is always paperwork in HR. (Some of it mandated by your friends, the federal government.) But how many forms need to be filled out and how many signatures gathered to authorize Joe (above) to leave at 4:00 on Wednesdays? How about to change Joe's title or cost center? If it's excessive, run like the wind.
There are definitely other things to look for if you want to be in an HR department that can make a difference. I'm sure (I hope!) that my colleagues will join in with their ideas.
We can help. We do help. We need the right people. So, if you're the right person, jump on in!
The Old Boss Switcharoo
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I started my current job in April. When I accepted the job, I had a hard time deciding between it and another offer from a similar company. The deciding factor was that I really liked the manager of the group I was interviewing with (let's call him Bob). He was a proponent of work-life balance, very easy-going and had a good reputation. I had had several conversations with him on the phone about some concerns I had about the type of work I'd be doing, and he alleviated my concerns. My offer letter stated that I would be reporting directly to Bob. However, on my first day, I was told I would be reporting to someone else under Bob, let's call him John. I had never been given any indication that I might be reporting to John. John was a new manager and had only two people below him. I was assured I was "on the same level" as the rest of the group, but would be managed by John. In my first week I spoke to Bob about how I was surprised about the change and he said that the offer letter went out with him mistakenly listed as my manager, and asked if there was a problem. I said no (what was I supposed to say?) but have since had a bad working relationship with John. He is a micro-manager, very political in the organization and not supportive of work-life balance. He's everything I didn't want in a manager, and I absolutely would not have taken the job had I known I was going to report to him.
At this point I'm actively seeking employment elsewhere. I have tried to accept with working for John - I have talked to him about my concerns and have also expressed to Bob that I'm not happy with the arrangement. It's pretty clear nothing is going to change. So my question is: When I quit, do you think I will have any right to not pay back the sign-on bonus I received, since the terms of my offer were not met? I received my offer letter almost 3 weeks before I started the job, so they had plenty of time to alert me of the mistake but never did.
Your direct question (do you have to pay back the sign on bonus) would be best handled by a lawyer who read your actual offer letter. You may have a case, but I would bet not. (Companies definitely have the right to change your supervisor--if not, they could end up in violations every time a manager quit or was transferred or promoted.) I do think you would have more of a case if you had stated, when you first found out, that you would not have taken the job had you known.
For the record, I think you are wise to realize that this situation is not going to work out. So many people stay in jobs that they hate, hoping that things will get better. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. However, you have no legal or moral obligation to stick around.
I have a sneaking suspicion that John wouldn't be unhappy to see you go either. Managers dislike managing people who hate them as much as you hate being managed by them. You may be able to negotiate a deal where you go quietly without having to repay, or only repaying a portion.
And make sure payroll calculates your repayment. Sign on bonuses have taxes withheld at a supplementary rate, which means a good chunk is taken out. You only have to repay the amount you actually received. So, your sign on bonus was $10,000. Your net check was $6500. You repay the $6500. Payroll will adjust your W2 to take care of all the tax implications.
And let this be a lesson to you sign on bonus people--don't go spending until you are sure you are happy.
Just be glad it wasn't a relocation deal. Relocation for a home owner can run over $100,000 in my neck of the woods. In that case I'd tell you to suffer.
I started my current job in April. When I accepted the job, I had a hard time deciding between it and another offer from a similar company. The deciding factor was that I really liked the manager of the group I was interviewing with (let's call him Bob). He was a proponent of work-life balance, very easy-going and had a good reputation. I had had several conversations with him on the phone about some concerns I had about the type of work I'd be doing, and he alleviated my concerns. My offer letter stated that I would be reporting directly to Bob. However, on my first day, I was told I would be reporting to someone else under Bob, let's call him John. I had never been given any indication that I might be reporting to John. John was a new manager and had only two people below him. I was assured I was "on the same level" as the rest of the group, but would be managed by John. In my first week I spoke to Bob about how I was surprised about the change and he said that the offer letter went out with him mistakenly listed as my manager, and asked if there was a problem. I said no (what was I supposed to say?) but have since had a bad working relationship with John. He is a micro-manager, very political in the organization and not supportive of work-life balance. He's everything I didn't want in a manager, and I absolutely would not have taken the job had I known I was going to report to him.
At this point I'm actively seeking employment elsewhere. I have tried to accept with working for John - I have talked to him about my concerns and have also expressed to Bob that I'm not happy with the arrangement. It's pretty clear nothing is going to change. So my question is: When I quit, do you think I will have any right to not pay back the sign-on bonus I received, since the terms of my offer were not met? I received my offer letter almost 3 weeks before I started the job, so they had plenty of time to alert me of the mistake but never did.
Your direct question (do you have to pay back the sign on bonus) would be best handled by a lawyer who read your actual offer letter. You may have a case, but I would bet not. (Companies definitely have the right to change your supervisor--if not, they could end up in violations every time a manager quit or was transferred or promoted.) I do think you would have more of a case if you had stated, when you first found out, that you would not have taken the job had you known.
For the record, I think you are wise to realize that this situation is not going to work out. So many people stay in jobs that they hate, hoping that things will get better. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. However, you have no legal or moral obligation to stick around.
I have a sneaking suspicion that John wouldn't be unhappy to see you go either. Managers dislike managing people who hate them as much as you hate being managed by them. You may be able to negotiate a deal where you go quietly without having to repay, or only repaying a portion.
And make sure payroll calculates your repayment. Sign on bonuses have taxes withheld at a supplementary rate, which means a good chunk is taken out. You only have to repay the amount you actually received. So, your sign on bonus was $10,000. Your net check was $6500. You repay the $6500. Payroll will adjust your W2 to take care of all the tax implications.
And let this be a lesson to you sign on bonus people--don't go spending until you are sure you are happy.
Just be glad it wasn't a relocation deal. Relocation for a home owner can run over $100,000 in my neck of the woods. In that case I'd tell you to suffer.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Carnival Newness
Look over to your right to see the latest Carnival listing! That way, it's always available and easy for me to maintain.
Happy Friday!
Happy Friday!
My Boss Hates Me
I work at a private country club. I have been a Director of Tennis for nearly 18 months with this company and have been threatened with termination 4 times in the last few months. The reasons have varied from I am never there, to my staff is not happy with me, to I am a poor leader in my department, to the membership does not like me.
I completely understand that this is a private club and as such the membership could dictate my position. However, I have an evaluation from the membership last year that rated me at a 3.97 on a 5.0 scale; the third or fourth highest rating in the club. Also, I have detailed work records showing that I average 50 hours a week every week at work, with multiple weeks in the 55 - 65 hour range.
I have records showing I have consistently had 6 days or less off each month for the last 6 months including sick days/vacation days. The staff issues could be a valid point however, my staff has been called into numerous, private meetings with our general manager and I have not been allowed to voice my opinion on those meetings. Instead I have been treated to a steady diet of meetings with my general manager about the poor morale and lousy working conditions my staff deals with. However, my staff has never filed a single complaint nor voluntarily asked for a private meeting to discuss work place behavior. My staff itself are all on 40 hour work weeks due to hourly and wage laws.
Finally, the leadership comment has disheartened me the most. I was brought on board at this company to handle a financial and personal crisis in the department. Since my hiring I have maintained our department budget for 15 of 18 months, coming in under budgeted loss for last year and most of this year, until my general manager took over purchasing and overspent this past 2 months.
And I am still being held accountable for such purchases even though I no longer had any power on the ordering. I have a track record and history of awards on my resume for outstanding leadership, attended college on a "Leadership Scholarship," and have several "Outstanding Employee of the Year" awards from previous employees. Leadership for my staff has included training on various computer programs we utilize, delegation of duties (some of which I had to re-assume due to procrastination on my staffs part), lesson planning, etc.
I apologize for the length of this email but I have grown increasingly frustrated by my lack of options at this time. We have no internal HR Department at our club and I feel that any complaints (that are backed by documentation) on my part will only result in my termination.
Please advise and thank you for your time.
In answering your question I am assuming that everything you wrote above is true. This is how I see it. Your boss does not like you. He may have irrational reasons for not liking you (your hair color, the type of car you drive, the type of bottled water you prefer). He may have completely rational reasons for not liking you (you constantly clear your throat, you are a better worker than he is and he's afraid you'll take his job).
But, reasons not withstanding he doesn't like you. What he is doing right now is making a very thorough effort to document performance "problems" so that he can fire you.
You live in an at-will-employment state (although I don't know the particulars of your state's laws) which means that, technically, he doesn't need any reason to terminate you. You can just be sent out the door with nothing more than your last pay check.
Here is what you need to do.
1. Decide if this is a job you really, really, really want. If not, start job hunting immediately.
2. If you've decided to fight for your job, arrange a meeting with your boss. Present the information you've given me here and say, very clearly, "I understand that you do not feel that I am doing a good job. The results of my work show that I am meeting and exceeding the expectations laid out when I was hired. Can you please explain what I need to do to be successful in your eyes?"
3. While your boss stammers an answer (your employees do not like you! you are over-budget on supplies! the club members like you better than me!) calmly take notes and repeat. "Are you saying that my employees do not like me? Can you show me what their specific complaints are? I really enjoy all the people I work with and am under the impression that we get along well." or "The only months we've been over budget are the months that you were responsible for ordering supplies."
4. Document, document, document. (That's what he is doing, by the way)
5. If Step 3 doesn't resolve the issue, (It may--sometimes when it becomes clear to someone that what they are systematically doing is very noticeable), you go over his head to the Club board president. (This may kill your career, though, as I don't know the culture. fair warning!) Ask her opinion on the situation. If you have the member's backing, your boss is simply an annoyance. If you don't, well polish up that resume.
6. When you are fired (if steps 3 and 5 don't work), apply for unemployment. Your boss will try to use the "Evidence" he has gathered to say that you were fired for cause and are not eligible for unemployment. You present your evidence that you were not fired for cause at all. Hope you win.
It's not a happy and sunshine answer because dealing with people means dealing with their irrationalities and their preferences. That's life. Sorry about that.
I completely understand that this is a private club and as such the membership could dictate my position. However, I have an evaluation from the membership last year that rated me at a 3.97 on a 5.0 scale; the third or fourth highest rating in the club. Also, I have detailed work records showing that I average 50 hours a week every week at work, with multiple weeks in the 55 - 65 hour range.
I have records showing I have consistently had 6 days or less off each month for the last 6 months including sick days/vacation days. The staff issues could be a valid point however, my staff has been called into numerous, private meetings with our general manager and I have not been allowed to voice my opinion on those meetings. Instead I have been treated to a steady diet of meetings with my general manager about the poor morale and lousy working conditions my staff deals with. However, my staff has never filed a single complaint nor voluntarily asked for a private meeting to discuss work place behavior. My staff itself are all on 40 hour work weeks due to hourly and wage laws.
Finally, the leadership comment has disheartened me the most. I was brought on board at this company to handle a financial and personal crisis in the department. Since my hiring I have maintained our department budget for 15 of 18 months, coming in under budgeted loss for last year and most of this year, until my general manager took over purchasing and overspent this past 2 months.
And I am still being held accountable for such purchases even though I no longer had any power on the ordering. I have a track record and history of awards on my resume for outstanding leadership, attended college on a "Leadership Scholarship," and have several "Outstanding Employee of the Year" awards from previous employees. Leadership for my staff has included training on various computer programs we utilize, delegation of duties (some of which I had to re-assume due to procrastination on my staffs part), lesson planning, etc.
I apologize for the length of this email but I have grown increasingly frustrated by my lack of options at this time. We have no internal HR Department at our club and I feel that any complaints (that are backed by documentation) on my part will only result in my termination.
Please advise and thank you for your time.
In answering your question I am assuming that everything you wrote above is true. This is how I see it. Your boss does not like you. He may have irrational reasons for not liking you (your hair color, the type of car you drive, the type of bottled water you prefer). He may have completely rational reasons for not liking you (you constantly clear your throat, you are a better worker than he is and he's afraid you'll take his job).
But, reasons not withstanding he doesn't like you. What he is doing right now is making a very thorough effort to document performance "problems" so that he can fire you.
You live in an at-will-employment state (although I don't know the particulars of your state's laws) which means that, technically, he doesn't need any reason to terminate you. You can just be sent out the door with nothing more than your last pay check.
Here is what you need to do.
1. Decide if this is a job you really, really, really want. If not, start job hunting immediately.
2. If you've decided to fight for your job, arrange a meeting with your boss. Present the information you've given me here and say, very clearly, "I understand that you do not feel that I am doing a good job. The results of my work show that I am meeting and exceeding the expectations laid out when I was hired. Can you please explain what I need to do to be successful in your eyes?"
3. While your boss stammers an answer (your employees do not like you! you are over-budget on supplies! the club members like you better than me!) calmly take notes and repeat. "Are you saying that my employees do not like me? Can you show me what their specific complaints are? I really enjoy all the people I work with and am under the impression that we get along well." or "The only months we've been over budget are the months that you were responsible for ordering supplies."
4. Document, document, document. (That's what he is doing, by the way)
5. If Step 3 doesn't resolve the issue, (It may--sometimes when it becomes clear to someone that what they are systematically doing is very noticeable), you go over his head to the Club board president. (This may kill your career, though, as I don't know the culture. fair warning!) Ask her opinion on the situation. If you have the member's backing, your boss is simply an annoyance. If you don't, well polish up that resume.
6. When you are fired (if steps 3 and 5 don't work), apply for unemployment. Your boss will try to use the "Evidence" he has gathered to say that you were fired for cause and are not eligible for unemployment. You present your evidence that you were not fired for cause at all. Hope you win.
It's not a happy and sunshine answer because dealing with people means dealing with their irrationalities and their preferences. That's life. Sorry about that.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
ADA Question
Hello Evil HR Lady!
I have this niggling little question relating to an ADA issue. The background could run to, oh, 15+ paragraphs--it's all med related. Basically, last years, i had some medication related issues (I'm bipolar) that offended my cowrkers (OK, side effects made me smell). i got these under control, but then I had to tweak some stuff and it happened again and we (my doc and I) had to change assumptions about what happened. Both times involved time off for me. Apparently, I had agreed, with my supervisor and the ADA coordinator, to have my psychiatrist notify them in writing of any medication changes.
Well. I changed meds recently. i let slip to my supe that I did. the med I changed to was the one we originally thought was the problem--though now we are actually sure it wasn't. They, however, were never told. I never realized I agreed to any such thing. The reason I changed is because, well, the stress level in my office was...erm, driving me crazy. Er. Ahem.
So anyway, I've got an ADA coordinator breathing down my neck for a letter.
Cut to the chase: I don't want to give her jack. The most I intend to give her, and my doc is fully behind me (after the first 'issue", where we had a 90 minute after hour session--$200/hour...) is basically a letter saying "CNS has changed his meds". I don't think she can even ask that much legally, and I'm quite sure she can't demand any more.
Oh yeah--I had been hoping they'd forgotten and it'd just pass. but my supe brought it up yesterday. What he said about it was that she said the letter was "mandatory". Quite frankly, in normal times, that ticks me off--but I'm switching meds because I'm severly off-kilter and at this point, due to fears of "offending" my coworkers, we have dropped one med and the other is not yet effective. So I am effectively unmedicated and kind of a pissed off bastard.
But I do try to be polite.
thanks for your time
Now for the usual disclaimers. I am not a lawyer. I am not an official expert on ADA. I am not the Queen of England. (I know there was some confusion over that last point, what with me being anonymous after all. Do you think Queen Elizabeth blogs? That would be interesting.)
I've bolded a few things in your letter. According to my understanding, these things are illegal. Your illness has already been certified as an ADA (American's with Disability Act) eligible. I am going to assume that is the case. Here is information from the EEOC itself:
In plain English, your medication status doesn't change whether or not you qualify under ADA. Therefore, if they have certified that your illness is eligible (which it appears that they have) they do not need to know what medications you are on.
Now, companies only have to make "reasonable" accommodations. This can vary from company to company and situation to situation. If your condition prevented you from performing the essential job function you can be terminated. If the accommodation you need is "unreasonable" you can be terminated (or not hired in the first place).
I don't know what, if any, accommodations you need to perform your job. The central issue seems to be the unfortunate stinky side effect of your medication. I don't know how bad the smell is, but it wouldn't be unreasonable in some jobs to place you in a separate area. It would be unreasonable in other jobs. (For instance, in a desk job, you could be given a cube/office away from others. On a manufacturing line where everyone has to stand two feet apart, that would not work.)
My advice. Print out the above paragraph and the next time your ADA coordinator wants a med list, hand it to her and say, "why would you knowing what medications I'm on be relevant to this situation?" Then just keep repeating yourself.
Second piece of advice, (I edited your question for space, so my readers are about to be confused), you are unhappy in the job because of the work itself. You feel underutilized. Start looking for a new job. Put your resume together and head out job hunting. It's easier to find a job when you have one, so start looking now.
I have this niggling little question relating to an ADA issue. The background could run to, oh, 15+ paragraphs--it's all med related. Basically, last years, i had some medication related issues (I'm bipolar) that offended my cowrkers (OK, side effects made me smell). i got these under control, but then I had to tweak some stuff and it happened again and we (my doc and I) had to change assumptions about what happened. Both times involved time off for me. Apparently, I had agreed, with my supervisor and the ADA coordinator, to have my psychiatrist notify them in writing of any medication changes.
Well. I changed meds recently. i let slip to my supe that I did. the med I changed to was the one we originally thought was the problem--though now we are actually sure it wasn't. They, however, were never told. I never realized I agreed to any such thing. The reason I changed is because, well, the stress level in my office was...erm, driving me crazy. Er. Ahem.
So anyway, I've got an ADA coordinator breathing down my neck for a letter.
Cut to the chase: I don't want to give her jack. The most I intend to give her, and my doc is fully behind me (after the first 'issue", where we had a 90 minute after hour session--$200/hour...) is basically a letter saying "CNS has changed his meds". I don't think she can even ask that much legally, and I'm quite sure she can't demand any more.
Oh yeah--I had been hoping they'd forgotten and it'd just pass. but my supe brought it up yesterday. What he said about it was that she said the letter was "mandatory". Quite frankly, in normal times, that ticks me off--but I'm switching meds because I'm severly off-kilter and at this point, due to fears of "offending" my coworkers, we have dropped one med and the other is not yet effective. So I am effectively unmedicated and kind of a pissed off bastard.
But I do try to be polite.
thanks for your time
Now for the usual disclaimers. I am not a lawyer. I am not an official expert on ADA. I am not the Queen of England. (I know there was some confusion over that last point, what with me being anonymous after all. Do you think Queen Elizabeth blogs? That would be interesting.)
I've bolded a few things in your letter. According to my understanding, these things are illegal. Your illness has already been certified as an ADA (American's with Disability Act) eligible. I am going to assume that is the case. Here is information from the EEOC itself:
6. Should the corrective effects of medications be considered when deciding if an impairment is so severe that it substantially limits a major life activity?
No. The ADA legislative history unequivocally states that the extent to which an impairment limits performance of a major life activity is assessed without regard to mitigating measures, including medications. Thus, an individual who is taking medication for a mental impairment has an ADA disability if there is evidence that the mental impairment, when left untreated, substantially limits a major life activity. Relevant evidence for EEOC investigators includes, for example, a description of how an individual's condition changed when s/he went off medication23 or needed to have dosages adjusted, or a description of his/her condition
before starting medication.
In plain English, your medication status doesn't change whether or not you qualify under ADA. Therefore, if they have certified that your illness is eligible (which it appears that they have) they do not need to know what medications you are on.
Now, companies only have to make "reasonable" accommodations. This can vary from company to company and situation to situation. If your condition prevented you from performing the essential job function you can be terminated. If the accommodation you need is "unreasonable" you can be terminated (or not hired in the first place).
I don't know what, if any, accommodations you need to perform your job. The central issue seems to be the unfortunate stinky side effect of your medication. I don't know how bad the smell is, but it wouldn't be unreasonable in some jobs to place you in a separate area. It would be unreasonable in other jobs. (For instance, in a desk job, you could be given a cube/office away from others. On a manufacturing line where everyone has to stand two feet apart, that would not work.)
My advice. Print out the above paragraph and the next time your ADA coordinator wants a med list, hand it to her and say, "why would you knowing what medications I'm on be relevant to this situation?" Then just keep repeating yourself.
Second piece of advice, (I edited your question for space, so my readers are about to be confused), you are unhappy in the job because of the work itself. You feel underutilized. Start looking for a new job. Put your resume together and head out job hunting. It's easier to find a job when you have one, so start looking now.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Carnival of HR #17
Is now up over at The Work Clinic. Natalie's in the UK so it's up bright and early in the US.
The next Carnival will be on October 17th and hosted by our favorite HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn. Get your submissions in to him!
As a reminder, keep it down to one post per blogger. And if you could--something that you've written in the past couple of weeks is preferable.
The Spooky October 31st Carnival will be hosted by HRO Manager at HRO Manager
The November 14th Carnival will be hosted by Patrick Williams at Guerilla HR
The November 28th Carnival will be hosted by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace
The December 12th Carnival will be hosted by Wayne Turmel at The Cranky Middle Manager
The December 26th Carnival will be hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force.
The January 9th Carnival will be hosted by Ask a Manager at Ask a Manager.
The January 23rd Carnival will be hosted by Deb at 8 Hours & a Lunch.
The February 6th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The February 20th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts
The March 5th Carnival will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at Gautam Ghosh - Management Consultant
The March 19th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The April 2nd Carnival will be hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.
The March 16th Carnival will by hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force
The April 30th Carnival will be hosted by The Rainmaker Group.
The May 14th Carnival will be hosted by The Career Encourager at Career Encouragement
The May 28th Carnival will be hosted by Michael Moore at PA Employment Law Blog
The June 11th Carnival will be hosted by Jon Ingham at Stategic Human Capital.
The June 25th Carnival will be hosted by Evil HR Lady at Evil HR Lady.
The July 9th Carnival will be hosted by Natalie Cooper at Personnel Today.
We're always looking for new hosts, so send me an e-mail at evilhrlady at hotmail dot com if you want to host. And get your submissions into me!
The next Carnival will be on October 17th and hosted by our favorite HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn. Get your submissions in to him!
As a reminder, keep it down to one post per blogger. And if you could--something that you've written in the past couple of weeks is preferable.
The Spooky October 31st Carnival will be hosted by HRO Manager at HRO Manager
The November 14th Carnival will be hosted by Patrick Williams at Guerilla HR
The November 28th Carnival will be hosted by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace
The December 12th Carnival will be hosted by Wayne Turmel at The Cranky Middle Manager
The December 26th Carnival will be hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force.
The January 9th Carnival will be hosted by Ask a Manager at Ask a Manager.
The January 23rd Carnival will be hosted by Deb at 8 Hours & a Lunch.
The February 6th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The February 20th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts
The March 5th Carnival will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at Gautam Ghosh - Management Consultant
The March 19th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The April 2nd Carnival will be hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.
The March 16th Carnival will by hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force
The April 30th Carnival will be hosted by The Rainmaker Group.
The May 14th Carnival will be hosted by The Career Encourager at Career Encouragement
The May 28th Carnival will be hosted by Michael Moore at PA Employment Law Blog
The June 11th Carnival will be hosted by Jon Ingham at Stategic Human Capital.
The June 25th Carnival will be hosted by Evil HR Lady at Evil HR Lady.
The July 9th Carnival will be hosted by Natalie Cooper at Personnel Today.
We're always looking for new hosts, so send me an e-mail at evilhrlady at hotmail dot com if you want to host. And get your submissions into me!
Maternity Leave
No, no, not mine (sorry for making you unnecessarily excited, Mom). Maternity leave in general. It's an interesting topic and one that people don't generally like to discuss--because it's a sensitive topic and if you say anything against it you are a woman hating jerk, or just down right evil.
Well, since I'm evil and a woman, I figure it's time to speak up. Well, that and The Naked Economist brought it up first. He writes (after a conversation with his wife):
The end result of this, economically speaking, is that firms will cut back on maternity leave. If every pregnant woman gets the same "benefits" and a large enough number take the benefits and run, firms may consider going back to only the benefits required by law.
Now, for full disclosure, when I was 12 weeks pregnant I told my boss that I was pregnant and that I was most likely not coming back. After the Offspring made her appearance, I took six weeks of disability leave and then resigned. My boss then offered me a part time telecommuting position which I accepted and I am still at that company.
The Naked Economist (Charles Wheelen) makes the following suggestion (again based on his wife's suggestion):
I really like that suggestion. Why not? Yes, there are some obvious problems, mainly that you need the money when you are not working, not when you are working. But it makes more sense than handing out generous benefits without any guarantee that the employee will return.
One of the problems I've always seen with generous maternity leaves is that it makes hiring females of child bearing age much more expensive than other employees. Let's face it, even though men can take FMLA leave for the birth of a new child, I have never known any to take more than a few days. My Brother-in-law's company offered paid paternity leave. He took it, but not consecutively, so he was never out more than two days in a row. You don't have to hire someone to fill in in that type of situation, where you would for a six month leave.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I think that Naked Economist guy has some very good insights. Of course, now I wonder what kind of Google I'm going to get. I have a feeling, some people are going to be disappointed.
Well, since I'm evil and a woman, I figure it's time to speak up. Well, that and The Naked Economist brought it up first. He writes (after a conversation with his wife):
1. Maternity benefits are expensive. And the more generous the firm in this regard, the more expensive the policy.
2. Even an expensive maternity policy makes perfect sense if it helps to retain valuable employees. But the more often a firm gets "burned" by an employee who accepts generous benefits (beyond what's required by law) and then quits, the less sense the policy makes.
3. The more generous the policy, the more it hurts to get burned.
4. If enough women accept generous maternity benefits but don't ultimately return to work, some rational firms will decide that expansive maternity benefits just don't make financial sense
The end result of this, economically speaking, is that firms will cut back on maternity leave. If every pregnant woman gets the same "benefits" and a large enough number take the benefits and run, firms may consider going back to only the benefits required by law.
Now, for full disclosure, when I was 12 weeks pregnant I told my boss that I was pregnant and that I was most likely not coming back. After the Offspring made her appearance, I took six weeks of disability leave and then resigned. My boss then offered me a part time telecommuting position which I accepted and I am still at that company.
The Naked Economist (Charles Wheelen) makes the following suggestion (again based on his wife's suggestion):
Suppose a firm wants to offer a maternity leave of 6 months at 100 percent salary, rather than the bare minimum of 6 weeks at 60 percent pay. Great. But why not fold those benefits into an employee's paycheck over the year in which he or she comes back to work -- or two years, or whatever? That's what my wife would like to see.
I really like that suggestion. Why not? Yes, there are some obvious problems, mainly that you need the money when you are not working, not when you are working. But it makes more sense than handing out generous benefits without any guarantee that the employee will return.
One of the problems I've always seen with generous maternity leaves is that it makes hiring females of child bearing age much more expensive than other employees. Let's face it, even though men can take FMLA leave for the birth of a new child, I have never known any to take more than a few days. My Brother-in-law's company offered paid paternity leave. He took it, but not consecutively, so he was never out more than two days in a row. You don't have to hire someone to fill in in that type of situation, where you would for a six month leave.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I think that Naked Economist guy has some very good insights. Of course, now I wonder what kind of Google I'm going to get. I have a feeling, some people are going to be disappointed.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Time Equals Money, but Extra Money Does Not Equal Extra Time
I received a copy of Curt Finch's new book, All Your Money Won't Another Minute Buy: Valuing Time as a Business Resource and he was gracious enough to answer a few questions for us.
1. I think HR understands the importance of other people tracking time--IT, Lawyers, non-exempt employees, but struggles with the idea of tracking our own time. I so often go from project to project and back, that I feel it would be difficult to track my time. Why should HR implement time tracking in our own department?
Staff justification is one reason that I've seen. When a company is under financial pressure--just like an airline customer of ours has often been--the big executives often look to HR as a place to cut people. After all, they often think, "HR is pure overhead, right?" Once you have data that indicates who is working on which projects, like "Pilot Union Negotiation" or "Health Benefit Cost Analysis Project," then those executives are forced to make a decision on which projects to cut, not which people. It tends to make HR jobs more secure.
2. My business has a lot of people who "think." Since we eventually make an awful lot of money off what these people think up, how would you recommend tracking time for this group?
Knowledge workers think. Most Americans are now or soon will be working in jobs that are all about thinking. That thinking is our new cost of production today, the inventory of our century. Surely some of their thinking is coordinated and directed towards some kind of goal, and completion of that goal is eventually desired. Time tracking can give insight into the ROI of those activities. If such knowledge workers are not tracking time, then some of them are inevitably working on something that will never make money for the company, and they should perhaps consider redirecting their efforts towards something that the market will reward them for. If you're associated with activities that clearly make money, it makes for a better resume, better compensation, and a better feeling of self-worth.
3. Part of your argument for Time Tracking is so that we don't have to "remember" what we did--there will be a record. While part of that is appealing to an HR person (Bob, we talked about your performance on June 2 from 2:15 to 2:22, I have it right here!), another part of me thinks that level of accuracy just isn't needed. I'm sure you'll disagree, so convince me.
If your time is less valuable, then it is probably less worthwhile to track it. For example, most companies consider people who work for minimum wage to be more fungible. If your time is expensive, however, then knowing where it goes is more critical. I once worked at a company, TKG, where we increased our revenues by millions and ran off a competitor with nothing more than excellent time data and an attitude problem. Your company can do that too and some of those millions will trickle down to the frontline workers (or you should quit anyway because there's a company culture problem.) Of course, some smart manager has to care and look at the data for any of this to be useful.
4. What's your best argument for getting exempt employees on board with the idea of time tracking?
If your company continues to flounder about without a deep understanding of the costs of production of knowledge work, you will get crushed by whichever one of your competitors figures it out first. Change is accelerating in our world. You have to get out in front of it and innovate to win. But if you don't understand the costs of that innovation, you will fail. It's not that some projects shouldn't be risky and expensive--they should--but you need to be managing all of these risks and costs consciously. Consciousness in this arena requires an understanding of project costs, which requires that you track your time.
1. I think HR understands the importance of other people tracking time--IT, Lawyers, non-exempt employees, but struggles with the idea of tracking our own time. I so often go from project to project and back, that I feel it would be difficult to track my time. Why should HR implement time tracking in our own department?
Staff justification is one reason that I've seen. When a company is under financial pressure--just like an airline customer of ours has often been--the big executives often look to HR as a place to cut people. After all, they often think, "HR is pure overhead, right?" Once you have data that indicates who is working on which projects, like "Pilot Union Negotiation" or "Health Benefit Cost Analysis Project," then those executives are forced to make a decision on which projects to cut, not which people. It tends to make HR jobs more secure.
2. My business has a lot of people who "think." Since we eventually make an awful lot of money off what these people think up, how would you recommend tracking time for this group?
Knowledge workers think. Most Americans are now or soon will be working in jobs that are all about thinking. That thinking is our new cost of production today, the inventory of our century. Surely some of their thinking is coordinated and directed towards some kind of goal, and completion of that goal is eventually desired. Time tracking can give insight into the ROI of those activities. If such knowledge workers are not tracking time, then some of them are inevitably working on something that will never make money for the company, and they should perhaps consider redirecting their efforts towards something that the market will reward them for. If you're associated with activities that clearly make money, it makes for a better resume, better compensation, and a better feeling of self-worth.
3. Part of your argument for Time Tracking is so that we don't have to "remember" what we did--there will be a record. While part of that is appealing to an HR person (Bob, we talked about your performance on June 2 from 2:15 to 2:22, I have it right here!), another part of me thinks that level of accuracy just isn't needed. I'm sure you'll disagree, so convince me.
If your time is less valuable, then it is probably less worthwhile to track it. For example, most companies consider people who work for minimum wage to be more fungible. If your time is expensive, however, then knowing where it goes is more critical. I once worked at a company, TKG, where we increased our revenues by millions and ran off a competitor with nothing more than excellent time data and an attitude problem. Your company can do that too and some of those millions will trickle down to the frontline workers (or you should quit anyway because there's a company culture problem.) Of course, some smart manager has to care and look at the data for any of this to be useful.
4. What's your best argument for getting exempt employees on board with the idea of time tracking?
If your company continues to flounder about without a deep understanding of the costs of production of knowledge work, you will get crushed by whichever one of your competitors figures it out first. Change is accelerating in our world. You have to get out in front of it and innovate to win. But if you don't understand the costs of that innovation, you will fail. It's not that some projects shouldn't be risky and expensive--they should--but you need to be managing all of these risks and costs consciously. Consciousness in this arena requires an understanding of project costs, which requires that you track your time.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
One Title, Coming Up!
Hi, love your site.
I am working for a consulting company, we consult with all kinds of businesses, the two primary are a bowling center and a hotel (currently under construction), but I am getting business cards printed, and now need a title.
So I am SPHR, certified, and worked for a quasi government "one stop" job and career center. I will be working mostly in the areas of handbooks and policies, and HR audits. I am also the "girl Friday" for my current employer, so I do a lot of crazy things; the marketing for the bowling center, running errands, along with the HR duties.
So I am asking for some help. The owner said I can make it up, VP of HR was one of his suggestions, he was joking. He is the "Operating Partner" and the General Manager/Owner, and Managing Member, for the companies he owns and consults for.
HELP! Thank you so very much. Right now I am thinking HR Consultant.
I'm still pondering being a bowling alley consultant. For some reason this cracks me up. (At the university I attended, we were required to take two P.E. classes--one "Fitness for Life" class and one elective. My elective? Bowling. I figured, P.E. credit and the only sweat was from the rented shoes!)
I think HR Consultant is fine. HR Manager comes to mind, but that seems more like you are managing your company's HR rather than consulting for others. (I believe you are consulting for others--correct me if I'm wrong.) You could also make yourself Lead HR Consultant or Senior HR Consultant.
Anyone else have any suggestions?
I am working for a consulting company, we consult with all kinds of businesses, the two primary are a bowling center and a hotel (currently under construction), but I am getting business cards printed, and now need a title.
So I am SPHR, certified, and worked for a quasi government "one stop" job and career center. I will be working mostly in the areas of handbooks and policies, and HR audits. I am also the "girl Friday" for my current employer, so I do a lot of crazy things; the marketing for the bowling center, running errands, along with the HR duties.
So I am asking for some help. The owner said I can make it up, VP of HR was one of his suggestions, he was joking. He is the "Operating Partner" and the General Manager/Owner, and Managing Member, for the companies he owns and consults for.
HELP! Thank you so very much. Right now I am thinking HR Consultant.
I'm still pondering being a bowling alley consultant. For some reason this cracks me up. (At the university I attended, we were required to take two P.E. classes--one "Fitness for Life" class and one elective. My elective? Bowling. I figured, P.E. credit and the only sweat was from the rented shoes!)
I think HR Consultant is fine. HR Manager comes to mind, but that seems more like you are managing your company's HR rather than consulting for others. (I believe you are consulting for others--correct me if I'm wrong.) You could also make yourself Lead HR Consultant or Senior HR Consultant.
Anyone else have any suggestions?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
You Can Either Meet or Work
I haven't had much time to blog (I know, I know, where are my priorities?!?!?) because I've been spending way too much time working.
Well, not "working" but rather being "in meetings."
Now, we all know that I have a small problem with negativity, but here is Evil HR Lady's helpful meeting tip:
15 HR people in any room is about 12 too many.
The meeting I have been in have involved the following people: 2 people from staffing, 3 from employee relations, 6 HR business partners, 2 labor and employment lawyers, 1 labor and employment consultant and 1 relocation specialist.
How much do you think gets accomplished at these "meetings"?
Well, not "working" but rather being "in meetings."
Now, we all know that I have a small problem with negativity, but here is Evil HR Lady's helpful meeting tip:
15 HR people in any room is about 12 too many.
The meeting I have been in have involved the following people: 2 people from staffing, 3 from employee relations, 6 HR business partners, 2 labor and employment lawyers, 1 labor and employment consultant and 1 relocation specialist.
How much do you think gets accomplished at these "meetings"?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Carnival Reminder!
The 17th Carnival of HR is only 1 week away! Make sure you get your submissions in to Natalie CooperPersonnel Today. Send your submissions to Natalie!
As a reminder, keep it down to one post per blogger. And if you could--something that you've written in the past couple of weeks is preferable.
The October 3rd Carnival will be hosted by Natalie Cooper at Personnel Today.
The October 17th Carnival will be hosted by Kris Dunn at HR Capitalist
The Spooky October 31st Carnival will be hosted by HRO Manager at HRO Manager
The November 14th Carnival will be hosted by Patrick Williams at Guerilla HR
The November 28th Carnival will be hosted by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace
The December 12th Carnival will be hosted by Wayne Turmel at The Cranky Middle Manager
The December 26th Carnival will be hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force.
The January 9th Carnival will be hosted by Ask a Manager at Ask a Manager.
The January 23rd Carnival will be hosted by Deb at 8 Hours & a Lunch.
The February 6th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The February 20th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts
The March 5th Carnival will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at Gautam Ghosh - Management Consultant
The March 19th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The April 2nd Carnival will be hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.
The March 16th Carnival will by hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force
The April 30th Carnival will be hosted by The Rainmaker Group.
The May 14th Carnival will be hosted by The Career Encourager at Career Encouragement
The May 28th Carnival will be hosted by Michael Moore at PA Employment Law Blog
The June 11th Carnival will be hosted by Jon Ingham at Stategic Human Capital.
The June 25th Carnival will be hosted by Evil HR Lady at Evil HR Lady.
We're always looking for new hosts, so send me an e-mail at evilhrlady at hotmail dot com if you want to host. And get your submissions into me!
As a reminder, keep it down to one post per blogger. And if you could--something that you've written in the past couple of weeks is preferable.
The October 3rd Carnival will be hosted by Natalie Cooper at Personnel Today.
The October 17th Carnival will be hosted by Kris Dunn at HR Capitalist
The Spooky October 31st Carnival will be hosted by HRO Manager at HRO Manager
The November 14th Carnival will be hosted by Patrick Williams at Guerilla HR
The November 28th Carnival will be hosted by Carmen Van Kerckhove at Race in the Workplace
The December 12th Carnival will be hosted by Wayne Turmel at The Cranky Middle Manager
The December 26th Carnival will be hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force.
The January 9th Carnival will be hosted by Ask a Manager at Ask a Manager.
The January 23rd Carnival will be hosted by Deb at 8 Hours & a Lunch.
The February 6th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The February 20th Carnival will be hosted by Lisa Rosendahl at HR Thoughts
The March 5th Carnival will be hosted by Gautam Ghosh at Gautam Ghosh - Management Consultant
The March 19th Carnival will be hosted by Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership.
The April 2nd Carnival will be hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.
The March 16th Carnival will by hosted by Ann Bares at Compensation Force
The April 30th Carnival will be hosted by The Rainmaker Group.
The May 14th Carnival will be hosted by The Career Encourager at Career Encouragement
The May 28th Carnival will be hosted by Michael Moore at PA Employment Law Blog
The June 11th Carnival will be hosted by Jon Ingham at Stategic Human Capital.
The June 25th Carnival will be hosted by Evil HR Lady at Evil HR Lady.
We're always looking for new hosts, so send me an e-mail at evilhrlady at hotmail dot com if you want to host. And get your submissions into me!
Monday, September 24, 2007
Headaches Caused by Someone Else
We recently had to fire the head of one of our satellite offices. Very shortly after his termination, it came to our attention that one of her new hires was not working out. We have a requirement that all employees at that office at that site are on call on a rotating schedule. The head of that office hired an individual who could not come in on that schedule. To further complicate things, this manager forbade anyone to contact HR on the pain of instant termination. Therefore, I did not find out about any of this until after her departure.
The problem is that we need to terminate this employee because he can not fulfil the on call rotation requirement due to a family issue. For other reasons, this employee is not completely working out, but this is the main issue.
The complicating factor (there is always at least two, aren't there?) is that this person is in a protected class and already feels that they are being discriminated against. This person was hired based on that protected class status because the site manager's former brother-in-law was a member of that same protected class and the manager thought it would be great to work with another member of that protected class. This person should never have been hired, because they can not complete the basic requirements of the job. A new job was created for him because the site head really wanted to work with this person to practice her Mandarin. The job he was originally hired for? The position is still open because we can't afford to hire someone else for it with him on the payroll.
Unfortunately, the former site manager is the only one who speaks Mandarin and no one else can communicate with this gentleman. As a result of this, this individual feels discriminated against and has made multiple complaints that people don't socialize with him as much as they should. This person has great conversational English skills, but he does have trouble with the technical side of things.
He was insulted when it was gently suggested that the company would cover ESL classes through an adult education program. There is relatively decent comprehension, but when there are safety issues involved (the job involves multiple areas where one could be seriously injured or killed), it is important to be able to understand instructions and warnings. When another employee yelled for him to stop what he was doing, he called the HR office to file a complaint that he was being discriminated against and treated like a child. The employee was doing something that, had he continued for another five seconds, would have broken a very expensive air filtration system for the hospital. He was also standing on a ladder in a loud room and one would have to yell to be heard in the first place. Perhaps it's a hostile work environment for him, but there is a good possibility that it may not be. We have sent the company vice president and the president out there on separate occasions to observe how people get along and investigate any allegations of a hostile work environment and found nothing amiss.
In any case, we need to let him go because he can not be on call. There is no way around this on call thing without other employees having a case for preferential treatment. Or if we let him go, are we going to be sued through hell and half of Georgia?
Well, well, well. If you appeared on my doorstep with this problem I'd say, "Ummm, I'm really busy right now, but my job share partner gets back from maternity leave next Tuesday. Can it wait until then?" Then I'd quickly shut my door and put my fingers in my ears and sing loudly, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
Okay, it's not that bad. You do have some difficulties, and they all begin with your fired manager. Things like this, I suppose, are among the reasons you chose to terminate him in the first place.
One good rule of thumb when you have to fire someone in a protected class is to have the person who hired him fire him. That way the person has less of a claim of discrimination--after all, if Bob was willing to hire you in the first place, the termination must not be related to your race, gender or age. But, you can't do that.
You have a clear case of the person not being able to perform the job. Simple termination? Right? Of course not. This is because the person can perform the job he was truly hired for--helping the former manager learn Mandarin.
My solution? Since he can't do the "job" you need filled and you certainly won't replace him for what he is doing, you label it a position elimination and offer him a huge chunk of severance in exchange for signing a general release.
Yes, it's more expensive than saying, "sorry, but you are failing in your job." It, however, is less expensive than getting sued. So, offer the guy 3 months salary (or whatever your severance policy is) and extend his medical benefits (if applicable) for 6 months. In exchange, he signs a release saying he won't sue you. Make sure you consult with your labor and employment lawyer when you draft the release. There are a lot of things that should and should not be included in such a document.
Let this be a warning to all of you who are letting bad managers slide by. Bad managers do bad things, such as hiring people who can't do the job. Then the company has to take responsibility for such employees. Keep on top of your managers and provide training and development for them. And get rid of the bad apples as soon as possible.
The problem is that we need to terminate this employee because he can not fulfil the on call rotation requirement due to a family issue. For other reasons, this employee is not completely working out, but this is the main issue.
The complicating factor (there is always at least two, aren't there?) is that this person is in a protected class and already feels that they are being discriminated against. This person was hired based on that protected class status because the site manager's former brother-in-law was a member of that same protected class and the manager thought it would be great to work with another member of that protected class. This person should never have been hired, because they can not complete the basic requirements of the job. A new job was created for him because the site head really wanted to work with this person to practice her Mandarin. The job he was originally hired for? The position is still open because we can't afford to hire someone else for it with him on the payroll.
Unfortunately, the former site manager is the only one who speaks Mandarin and no one else can communicate with this gentleman. As a result of this, this individual feels discriminated against and has made multiple complaints that people don't socialize with him as much as they should. This person has great conversational English skills, but he does have trouble with the technical side of things.
He was insulted when it was gently suggested that the company would cover ESL classes through an adult education program. There is relatively decent comprehension, but when there are safety issues involved (the job involves multiple areas where one could be seriously injured or killed), it is important to be able to understand instructions and warnings. When another employee yelled for him to stop what he was doing, he called the HR office to file a complaint that he was being discriminated against and treated like a child. The employee was doing something that, had he continued for another five seconds, would have broken a very expensive air filtration system for the hospital. He was also standing on a ladder in a loud room and one would have to yell to be heard in the first place. Perhaps it's a hostile work environment for him, but there is a good possibility that it may not be. We have sent the company vice president and the president out there on separate occasions to observe how people get along and investigate any allegations of a hostile work environment and found nothing amiss.
In any case, we need to let him go because he can not be on call. There is no way around this on call thing without other employees having a case for preferential treatment. Or if we let him go, are we going to be sued through hell and half of Georgia?
Well, well, well. If you appeared on my doorstep with this problem I'd say, "Ummm, I'm really busy right now, but my job share partner gets back from maternity leave next Tuesday. Can it wait until then?" Then I'd quickly shut my door and put my fingers in my ears and sing loudly, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
Okay, it's not that bad. You do have some difficulties, and they all begin with your fired manager. Things like this, I suppose, are among the reasons you chose to terminate him in the first place.
One good rule of thumb when you have to fire someone in a protected class is to have the person who hired him fire him. That way the person has less of a claim of discrimination--after all, if Bob was willing to hire you in the first place, the termination must not be related to your race, gender or age. But, you can't do that.
You have a clear case of the person not being able to perform the job. Simple termination? Right? Of course not. This is because the person can perform the job he was truly hired for--helping the former manager learn Mandarin.
My solution? Since he can't do the "job" you need filled and you certainly won't replace him for what he is doing, you label it a position elimination and offer him a huge chunk of severance in exchange for signing a general release.
Yes, it's more expensive than saying, "sorry, but you are failing in your job." It, however, is less expensive than getting sued. So, offer the guy 3 months salary (or whatever your severance policy is) and extend his medical benefits (if applicable) for 6 months. In exchange, he signs a release saying he won't sue you. Make sure you consult with your labor and employment lawyer when you draft the release. There are a lot of things that should and should not be included in such a document.
Let this be a warning to all of you who are letting bad managers slide by. Bad managers do bad things, such as hiring people who can't do the job. Then the company has to take responsibility for such employees. Keep on top of your managers and provide training and development for them. And get rid of the bad apples as soon as possible.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Peace & Quiet--or Not So Much
Hello Evil HR Lady,
I enjoy reading your blog! I'm not sure if this question is within your "realm" but if you have the time and inclination, any input would be helpful. A bit of background: I'm the (relatively new) chairperson of a 14-person dept. at a small, 4-yr college. Chairs are members of the faculty and since we are a unionized faculty, I am technically NOT the immediate supervisor of the other faculty in my dept.
That said, the chair is usually the first person a faculty member comes to (and certainly students do this) when they have a complaint about one of their colleagues. My department recently moved into a newly renovated building and all the faculty offices are lined up along a long, hallway, each next to the other.
My office is 2 floors below, so I am not "with" my colleagues. The new faculty offices, unfortunately, do not seem to offer much soundproofing. Even with the office door closed, noise from conversations in the hallway, "loud-talkers" having phone conversations and of, course radios tend to filter in. In addition, there is a diversity of needs that people seem to have for working (ie.writing lectures, grading, writing grants, etc.) such as:"I work best with music in the background""I don't want to have to close my door all the time when I am working in my office""I need a very quiet environment to work""I like my door open so students feel welcome"etc.
Currently, there is one person has a very low tolerance noise, especially for music playing in her work environment and her office is directly across the hall from an individual who not only has a loud voice and entertains students in loud conversations involving much laughter (wish I had profs that were like this) also likes to play his radio "so low that I can barely here it myself". They both like to keep their doors open. The quiet person requested the other turn their radio down or off the other day as it was distracting her from her work. The radio person became upset saying the request was unreasonable as the volume was already very low. Furthermore, the quiet person has others around her with loud phone voices (not much to do about that).
Tensions are mounting. The easy solution is to have a "no radio" policy or a headphones only policy. I have been told that this is not fair to those who require some sort of background music to work and why would we then not require the ones requiring quiet to wear noise-blocking headphones. It does seem sort of strict to have a "policy" about this. Can't we be adults and use common sense and good manners? Sigh. So I'm wondering - in office environments similar to this, cubicles etc. is this an ongoing issue? Is there more to this than to me, what would seem to be a simple solution - the default is as quiet as possible or is the background/music requirement for working as valid as the need for quiet? Thanks for reading through all this.
Ahh, behaving like adults. You know, my experiences lately tell me that children are expected to behave more like "adults" than adults are. Two kids can't get along? We say, "Billy and Sally, you have to be in the same class all year long. You will have to learn to be nice to each other or you will both be in the corner much of the time." (Well, we say that until Billy and Sally have their screaming irrational mothers show up and lecture us for daring to discipline their little darlings, but once again, I digress.)
First of all, I'm going to direct you to one of my favorite blogs, Confessions of a Community College Dean. He has more direct experience in this subject, and he's very interesting. But, all HR people have experienced the "my co-worker is bothering me!" whine.
Yes, rational people would say, "hmm, my colleague is bothered by my music. I'll wear headphones." Or, "I'm bothered by noise, I will shut my door." But that is no fun. So, it comes down to policies.
It's unfortunate that you are having these problems with people in offices. Most of corporate America seems to be living in cube land, where the problems are much more pronounced. (Thankfully, I have an office. I didn't about a year ago, even though what I deal with is confidential even in HR standards. We were finally able to prevail on the powers that be when my job share partner, after having a long discussion with an attorney regarding an employee's termination, turned around to find that same person standing in the neighboring cube. Fortunately, she hadn't heard anything, but we were finally able to knock some sense into the space planning people. Boy, I am full of digressions today.)
I wish I had a magic solution for all of this. You can ask people to keep the noise down. You can re-arrange people so that the loud talkers are together and the quiet people are together. You can require that professors shut their doors when they are having conversations--but from a liability standpoint, I would prefer to keep the door open in such situations.
What I would do with the chronic complainers? Bring the entire group in together and say, "You know, the walls are really thin. Some people need music to concentrate. Some need silence. We all have students in and out of our offices. What do you all suggest?"
Chances are, no one will have any good solution. The tensions are probably running high not because of a radio, but because of competition amongst your faculty. But, they will be forced to stop coming to you with complaints because you'll be able to smile sweetly and say, "Karen, we discussed this in faculty meeting. I'm not sure what you want me to do about it."
Now, of course, if anyone is being egregiously loud or super sensitive to noise, you can help that person come to their senses. (Easier said than done!) Since you aren't a direct supervisor,though, I don't know how much influence you really have.
Good luck!
I enjoy reading your blog! I'm not sure if this question is within your "realm" but if you have the time and inclination, any input would be helpful. A bit of background: I'm the (relatively new) chairperson of a 14-person dept. at a small, 4-yr college. Chairs are members of the faculty and since we are a unionized faculty, I am technically NOT the immediate supervisor of the other faculty in my dept.
That said, the chair is usually the first person a faculty member comes to (and certainly students do this) when they have a complaint about one of their colleagues. My department recently moved into a newly renovated building and all the faculty offices are lined up along a long, hallway, each next to the other.
My office is 2 floors below, so I am not "with" my colleagues. The new faculty offices, unfortunately, do not seem to offer much soundproofing. Even with the office door closed, noise from conversations in the hallway, "loud-talkers" having phone conversations and of, course radios tend to filter in. In addition, there is a diversity of needs that people seem to have for working (ie.writing lectures, grading, writing grants, etc.) such as:"I work best with music in the background""I don't want to have to close my door all the time when I am working in my office""I need a very quiet environment to work""I like my door open so students feel welcome"etc.
Currently, there is one person has a very low tolerance noise, especially for music playing in her work environment and her office is directly across the hall from an individual who not only has a loud voice and entertains students in loud conversations involving much laughter (wish I had profs that were like this) also likes to play his radio "so low that I can barely here it myself". They both like to keep their doors open. The quiet person requested the other turn their radio down or off the other day as it was distracting her from her work. The radio person became upset saying the request was unreasonable as the volume was already very low. Furthermore, the quiet person has others around her with loud phone voices (not much to do about that).
Tensions are mounting. The easy solution is to have a "no radio" policy or a headphones only policy. I have been told that this is not fair to those who require some sort of background music to work and why would we then not require the ones requiring quiet to wear noise-blocking headphones. It does seem sort of strict to have a "policy" about this. Can't we be adults and use common sense and good manners? Sigh. So I'm wondering - in office environments similar to this, cubicles etc. is this an ongoing issue? Is there more to this than to me, what would seem to be a simple solution - the default is as quiet as possible or is the background/music requirement for working as valid as the need for quiet? Thanks for reading through all this.
Ahh, behaving like adults. You know, my experiences lately tell me that children are expected to behave more like "adults" than adults are. Two kids can't get along? We say, "Billy and Sally, you have to be in the same class all year long. You will have to learn to be nice to each other or you will both be in the corner much of the time." (Well, we say that until Billy and Sally have their screaming irrational mothers show up and lecture us for daring to discipline their little darlings, but once again, I digress.)
First of all, I'm going to direct you to one of my favorite blogs, Confessions of a Community College Dean. He has more direct experience in this subject, and he's very interesting. But, all HR people have experienced the "my co-worker is bothering me!" whine.
Yes, rational people would say, "hmm, my colleague is bothered by my music. I'll wear headphones." Or, "I'm bothered by noise, I will shut my door." But that is no fun. So, it comes down to policies.
It's unfortunate that you are having these problems with people in offices. Most of corporate America seems to be living in cube land, where the problems are much more pronounced. (Thankfully, I have an office. I didn't about a year ago, even though what I deal with is confidential even in HR standards. We were finally able to prevail on the powers that be when my job share partner, after having a long discussion with an attorney regarding an employee's termination, turned around to find that same person standing in the neighboring cube. Fortunately, she hadn't heard anything, but we were finally able to knock some sense into the space planning people. Boy, I am full of digressions today.)
I wish I had a magic solution for all of this. You can ask people to keep the noise down. You can re-arrange people so that the loud talkers are together and the quiet people are together. You can require that professors shut their doors when they are having conversations--but from a liability standpoint, I would prefer to keep the door open in such situations.
What I would do with the chronic complainers? Bring the entire group in together and say, "You know, the walls are really thin. Some people need music to concentrate. Some need silence. We all have students in and out of our offices. What do you all suggest?"
Chances are, no one will have any good solution. The tensions are probably running high not because of a radio, but because of competition amongst your faculty. But, they will be forced to stop coming to you with complaints because you'll be able to smile sweetly and say, "Karen, we discussed this in faculty meeting. I'm not sure what you want me to do about it."
Now, of course, if anyone is being egregiously loud or super sensitive to noise, you can help that person come to their senses. (Easier said than done!) Since you aren't a direct supervisor,though, I don't know how much influence you really have.
Good luck!
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Exceedingly Poor Judgment
I've seen enough in my life to believe that this is true. Sometimes people can exercise such poor judgment you almost feel sorry for them--after all, being that stupid must hurt at least a little. Plus, the lawsuit payout...
I know that when I was in the hospital, I wasn't thinking about what the nurses looked like.
She said that the medical director called her into a meeting and informed her, in front of witnesses, that she is too old and ugly to work at their hospital. He explained it's about marketing, and that the hospital is updating its image. He said that only young, beautiful nurses would be allowed to work at the hospital. He also said that patients want beautiful nurses taking care of them, so she had to go. She was shown the door after thirty years of faithful service to the hospital.
I know that when I was in the hospital, I wasn't thinking about what the nurses looked like.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Fruity Drinks and Communication
Do you remember that old song? The Pina Colada Song? I always thought the people in that story were phenomenally stupid and wouldn't be able to repair their marriage after both were willing to cheat.
Turns out, I was (as always--well, as occasionally) right.
Yeah, well, duh.
So, why am I writing about this? Turnover. Bad turnover. Your employees leave you for new, exciting careers. It's quite possible that you could have offered them what they left to find--they just didn't know it was available. Likewise, you scour the universe looking for a perfect candidate to do X only to find out that a current employee is currently scouring the universe for a job to do X--only the two of you haven't communicated.
I once had a VP of HR tell me, "My job is to develop my people. If you are in the same job for more than two years, I start to worry. I don't want to lose good people, I want to develop and move and promote good people."
You can only do that if you are communicating. Don't be a manager that punishes people for looking for internal positions. Don't be an employee who keeps your career goals secret.
And most of all, stay out of the personal ads and chat rooms and talk with your spouse from time to time. Sheesh.
(Hat tip: Frank:)
Turns out, I was (as always--well, as occasionally) right.
A Bosnian couple are getting divorced after finding out they had been secretly chatting each other up online under fake names...
"It was amazing, we seemed to be stuck in the same kind of miserable marriages - and how right that turned out to be.
"We arranged to meet outside a shop and both of us would be carrying a single rose so we would know the other.
"When I saw my husband there with the rose and it dawned on me what had happened I was shattered. I felt so betrayed. I was so angry."
Yeah, well, duh.
So, why am I writing about this? Turnover. Bad turnover. Your employees leave you for new, exciting careers. It's quite possible that you could have offered them what they left to find--they just didn't know it was available. Likewise, you scour the universe looking for a perfect candidate to do X only to find out that a current employee is currently scouring the universe for a job to do X--only the two of you haven't communicated.
I once had a VP of HR tell me, "My job is to develop my people. If you are in the same job for more than two years, I start to worry. I don't want to lose good people, I want to develop and move and promote good people."
You can only do that if you are communicating. Don't be a manager that punishes people for looking for internal positions. Don't be an employee who keeps your career goals secret.
And most of all, stay out of the personal ads and chat rooms and talk with your spouse from time to time. Sheesh.
(Hat tip: Frank:)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Firing Someone with a Medical Condition
Hello Evil HR Lady!
I would like to say I love your website - I just stumbled upon today and I think it's great.
My question is - how do you fire someone with a medical condition? We have an employee who isn't very competent and her skills lack significantly yet she has worked for the company for 6+ years. (We're in the graphic design business - so it only creates more work for the people with skills.) And no one from HR will fire her because she has medical documentation saying she suffers from migraines.
She will miss days - sometimes a whole work week at a time due to her migraines. For example - in 33 working days she missed 16.5 - due to food poisoning and migraines. Isn't there a way to fire someone because they suck at their job and don't do much when they are "working." Any advise would be helpful.
Before I begin I am going to give my standard disclaimers--I am not a lawyer, I am assuming you live in the US in a state that has "at-will" employment.
Now my answer.
You can fire anyone, healthy, sick, black, white, pregnant and suffering from emotional distress. I'll repeat, you can fire anyone as long as you don't have some sort of employment contract.
FMLA, if it applies in this situation, has limitations. (Food poisoning, by the way, probably does not qualify.) Yes, the employer has to give you time off if you have a certified FMLA illness. But, that doesn't mean you can be a poor performer when you are at work.
There is increased risk when you fire someone who is in a protected class or who is subject to FMLA. The person may sue and sometimes the best thing to do is offer severance in return for signing a general release. For the record, you can't waive your right to FMLA. If the company is required to grant the leave, they must do so.
You have to make clear that the reason for the termination is not sickness, but performance. HR and her managers may not be interested in firing because they are wimps or because it is easier to keep this person on board than it is to deal with the paperwork involved in terminating. There is a maximum of 12 weeks of FMLA per year and if she's taking 16 days off in 33, she's going to max out that 12 weeks (60 working days) pretty darn quickly.
You can't do squat about it, by the way. It's not your decision to hire or fire. It's not your decision to assign out work. What you can do, is do your work. And by "your" work, I mean "your" work. Not her work. Document your assignments that involve her. For instance, send an e-mail to everyone on the team that says.
I just wanted to be clear about the Jones account and my responsibilities.
John: XYZ
Sheryl: QRS
Steve: ABC
Heidi: LMN
XYZ must be completed before Steve can begin ABC. I've attached a complete project plan.
I realize it's dull, it's boring and it squashes your creativity. Do it anyway. You're going to have to pick up her slack anyway, you just want to be clear that it wasn't your assignment in the first place.
But, the key thing is just letting go. You cannot solve this problem. You cannot make her headaches go away. You cannot get her to be productive when she is in the office. Your managers already know she is a slacker. She grates on your nerves. You just have to take a deep breath and ignore it.
Easier said than done, I realize. But that is what you, as a co-worker, can do. She can be fired. They don't want to do so. Sorry about that.
I would like to say I love your website - I just stumbled upon today and I think it's great.
My question is - how do you fire someone with a medical condition? We have an employee who isn't very competent and her skills lack significantly yet she has worked for the company for 6+ years. (We're in the graphic design business - so it only creates more work for the people with skills.) And no one from HR will fire her because she has medical documentation saying she suffers from migraines.
She will miss days - sometimes a whole work week at a time due to her migraines. For example - in 33 working days she missed 16.5 - due to food poisoning and migraines. Isn't there a way to fire someone because they suck at their job and don't do much when they are "working." Any advise would be helpful.
Before I begin I am going to give my standard disclaimers--I am not a lawyer, I am assuming you live in the US in a state that has "at-will" employment.
Now my answer.
You can fire anyone, healthy, sick, black, white, pregnant and suffering from emotional distress. I'll repeat, you can fire anyone as long as you don't have some sort of employment contract.
FMLA, if it applies in this situation, has limitations. (Food poisoning, by the way, probably does not qualify.) Yes, the employer has to give you time off if you have a certified FMLA illness. But, that doesn't mean you can be a poor performer when you are at work.
There is increased risk when you fire someone who is in a protected class or who is subject to FMLA. The person may sue and sometimes the best thing to do is offer severance in return for signing a general release. For the record, you can't waive your right to FMLA. If the company is required to grant the leave, they must do so.
You have to make clear that the reason for the termination is not sickness, but performance. HR and her managers may not be interested in firing because they are wimps or because it is easier to keep this person on board than it is to deal with the paperwork involved in terminating. There is a maximum of 12 weeks of FMLA per year and if she's taking 16 days off in 33, she's going to max out that 12 weeks (60 working days) pretty darn quickly.
You can't do squat about it, by the way. It's not your decision to hire or fire. It's not your decision to assign out work. What you can do, is do your work. And by "your" work, I mean "your" work. Not her work. Document your assignments that involve her. For instance, send an e-mail to everyone on the team that says.
I just wanted to be clear about the Jones account and my responsibilities.
John: XYZ
Sheryl: QRS
Steve: ABC
Heidi: LMN
XYZ must be completed before Steve can begin ABC. I've attached a complete project plan.
I realize it's dull, it's boring and it squashes your creativity. Do it anyway. You're going to have to pick up her slack anyway, you just want to be clear that it wasn't your assignment in the first place.
But, the key thing is just letting go. You cannot solve this problem. You cannot make her headaches go away. You cannot get her to be productive when she is in the office. Your managers already know she is a slacker. She grates on your nerves. You just have to take a deep breath and ignore it.
Easier said than done, I realize. But that is what you, as a co-worker, can do. She can be fired. They don't want to do so. Sorry about that.
Top 100 HR Bloggers
Bootstrapper has published their choices for the Top 100 HR Bloggers.
I'm pleased to join several of our Carnival Colleagues on the list. And pleased to find some new sites I haven't been to before.
I'm pleased to join several of our Carnival Colleagues on the list. And pleased to find some new sites I haven't been to before.
Carnival of HR #16
Welcome to the 16th Carnival of Human Resources. Because we've had so many, I think it's time for a nice staff meeting to discuss the carnival and other important HR business.
Of course, even though I've organized the meeting, I have some objections that such meetings are just too administrative and I would like to cut some of that. Being wiser than I, the "Career Encourager reminds us all that if we offer some contrast things will be more appealing and interesting.
Anna says, "Hey, if you want interesting, how about some magic?" Carmen counters, "yes, magic is definitely interesting, but what if we contrast that with some Diversity training that is boring and ineffective?" Well, maybe not.
"I believe we're really concerned about credibility" Michael says, "and making sure we aren't just 'paralegals for management.'" Daniel nods his head solemnly: "For instance, how we handle whistle blowing can effect our credibility and protect us from legal consequences. Like Lisa says, we not only need to be credible but we need to accurately assess other's credibility."
Jon reminds us that we not only need to be credible, but accountable. He suggests being "RACI" which wakes up Ask a Manager. "For some reason," she says, "that reminds me about dating and interviewing. It's our chance to evaluate candidates and assess their credibility."
Rowan sighs, "I wish candidates would take control of their job hunt. So few do and they could be so much better if they did."
Carl responds, "Maybe we wouldn't have to do so many interviews if we stopped giving people so much money. Maybe retention would be better with lower raises and more spa trips."
"Well," MabelandHarry says, "You need to find out what people really want. That's the key." Wally sighs, "It's not just about giving them stuff, it's about teaching them to manage their careers."
"I agree," says Michael, "but we need to make sure we're doing it legally. For instance, EAPs are good things but don't absolve us of responsibility."
Everyone nods, until someone (who shall remain nameless says) pipes up with, "Hey, I thought I was promised donuts at this staff meeting. I have way too much to do if there aren't going to be any donuts." And he/she gets up to leave, Natalie calls out "Make sure you come to the blogathon September 24!"
Of course, even though I've organized the meeting, I have some objections that such meetings are just too administrative and I would like to cut some of that. Being wiser than I, the "Career Encourager reminds us all that if we offer some contrast things will be more appealing and interesting.
Anna says, "Hey, if you want interesting, how about some magic?" Carmen counters, "yes, magic is definitely interesting, but what if we contrast that with some Diversity training that is boring and ineffective?" Well, maybe not.
"I believe we're really concerned about credibility" Michael says, "and making sure we aren't just 'paralegals for management.'" Daniel nods his head solemnly: "For instance, how we handle whistle blowing can effect our credibility and protect us from legal consequences. Like Lisa says, we not only need to be credible but we need to accurately assess other's credibility."
Jon reminds us that we not only need to be credible, but accountable. He suggests being "RACI" which wakes up Ask a Manager. "For some reason," she says, "that reminds me about dating and interviewing. It's our chance to evaluate candidates and assess their credibility."
Rowan sighs, "I wish candidates would take control of their job hunt. So few do and they could be so much better if they did."
Carl responds, "Maybe we wouldn't have to do so many interviews if we stopped giving people so much money. Maybe retention would be better with lower raises and more spa trips."
"Well," MabelandHarry says, "You need to find out what people really want. That's the key." Wally sighs, "It's not just about giving them stuff, it's about teaching them to manage their careers."
"I agree," says Michael, "but we need to make sure we're doing it legally. For instance, EAPs are good things but don't absolve us of responsibility."
Everyone nods, until someone (who shall remain nameless says) pipes up with, "Hey, I thought I was promised donuts at this staff meeting. I have way too much to do if there aren't going to be any donuts." And he/she gets up to leave, Natalie calls out "Make sure you come to the blogathon September 24!"
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Is HR Without Adminstrative Headaches Possible?
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I am currently at university (in Sweden) and will have my degree from a program aiming at HR (including i/o psychology, some other behavioural sciences, economics and labor law). I am just about to start applying for "real" jobs. :) I have some experience from an HR administrative position during summer, and also a few years of experience doing other things. During summer, when I got to come up with a proposal for how a competencies module for a new HRIS to be implemented should be built and what it should include, that was a lot of fun. Interviewing a candidate for a position was also rewarding. Filing papers into folders, or typing data into a database, for hours and hours, decidedly less so.
I am an intelligent, responsible person, a fast learner and I feel confident that I could be great at organizational development and tangent areas. "Good enough" as I may be, I will never be a great administrator because I am so bored by doing work without thinking or being creative. I try to make it more interesting when doing that kind of work, but that only goes so far. I don't mind SOME administrative work, esp. not administrating "my own stuff", but I am truly afraid of ending up in a position doing predominantly that.
Do you have any advice for how I can try to, basically, avoid the boring stuff and work at and be great at the fun stuff? Especially considering I am just about to start my career.
Thank you for a great blog!
First, a disclaimer, I know nothing about Sweden, so I am answering this question from a US perspective. I did call Sweden once and when the woman answered the phone, in Swedish of course, I said, hesitantly, "Can I speak with [name]?" she immediately responded, "Yes, just one moment please. May I tell him who is calling?" And I thought, if someone called me and I answered in English and they responded in Swedish I could never just switch into Swedish with no problem. But, I digress and I shouldn't have taken Hebrew as my foreign language in college because it has NOT been helpful.
So, can you just do the fun stuff? No. Sorry. Especially not at the entry level.
You enjoy organizational development? Great. But, as you sit around thinking, eventually thoughts will have to get down on paper and into Power Point. Seminars will be scheduled and handouts printed. Even if you had an admin to do the "putting together" part, you'll still have a ton of administrative work along with it.
You enjoy employee relations? Great. You get to talk to people. Help them solve their problems. Make the world a better place. And then you have to fill out paperwork--document performance issues, conduct employee exits where you have to check off boxes that say you've collected a badge and they have 3 days of remaining vacation.
You enjoy staffing? That's an administrative nightmare here in the US. Better make sure you save the criteria you used for every Monster.com search or you could be in big trouble for discrimination. Don't forget that not knowing a candidate's race is not an excuse for not being able to submit statistics on the racial makeup of your candidates. Then you have to schedule interviews, review paperwork, copy forms.
You want to do HRIS? Well, welcome to paper central. Who do you think makes sure those lovely forms that have to be signed get sent out and collected? Who does all the reporting?
Comp? Ever heard of a year end salary increase program? Sure, you get to strategize on the best percentage for increases and help managers determine how to go about dividing their available money. But you still have to make sure every eligible employee gets a raise or a reason for not getting one. And then let's talk about salary surveys.
Are you ready to run screaming? It's not that bad. Really, it's not. And you'll find paperwork in any department you go to. And as you start out, one of the worst things you can do for your career is say, "I'm too smart to file/staple/fill that form out. Get an admin to do it." Yes, there are many tasks that a trained monkey could do. However, a trained monkey is much more expensive than a low level HR person.
HR is great. I love it. I try to automate my administrative tasks as much as possible. But, in my experience you can never avoid them completely.
Generally, things such as typing data into databases fall on administrative staff unless it is a special project. I don't think you have to worry too much about that. Make sure when you are interviewing you have a clear understanding of what the job's expectations are. Just because the title says "trainer" it doesn't mean that you won't be responsible for maintenance of the training database. This is fine, you just need to know about it and what that entails.
Good luck and welcome to HR!
I am currently at university (in Sweden) and will have my degree from a program aiming at HR (including i/o psychology, some other behavioural sciences, economics and labor law). I am just about to start applying for "real" jobs. :) I have some experience from an HR administrative position during summer, and also a few years of experience doing other things. During summer, when I got to come up with a proposal for how a competencies module for a new HRIS to be implemented should be built and what it should include, that was a lot of fun. Interviewing a candidate for a position was also rewarding. Filing papers into folders, or typing data into a database, for hours and hours, decidedly less so.
I am an intelligent, responsible person, a fast learner and I feel confident that I could be great at organizational development and tangent areas. "Good enough" as I may be, I will never be a great administrator because I am so bored by doing work without thinking or being creative. I try to make it more interesting when doing that kind of work, but that only goes so far. I don't mind SOME administrative work, esp. not administrating "my own stuff", but I am truly afraid of ending up in a position doing predominantly that.
Do you have any advice for how I can try to, basically, avoid the boring stuff and work at and be great at the fun stuff? Especially considering I am just about to start my career.
Thank you for a great blog!
First, a disclaimer, I know nothing about Sweden, so I am answering this question from a US perspective. I did call Sweden once and when the woman answered the phone, in Swedish of course, I said, hesitantly, "Can I speak with [name]?" she immediately responded, "Yes, just one moment please. May I tell him who is calling?" And I thought, if someone called me and I answered in English and they responded in Swedish I could never just switch into Swedish with no problem. But, I digress and I shouldn't have taken Hebrew as my foreign language in college because it has NOT been helpful.
So, can you just do the fun stuff? No. Sorry. Especially not at the entry level.
You enjoy organizational development? Great. But, as you sit around thinking, eventually thoughts will have to get down on paper and into Power Point. Seminars will be scheduled and handouts printed. Even if you had an admin to do the "putting together" part, you'll still have a ton of administrative work along with it.
You enjoy employee relations? Great. You get to talk to people. Help them solve their problems. Make the world a better place. And then you have to fill out paperwork--document performance issues, conduct employee exits where you have to check off boxes that say you've collected a badge and they have 3 days of remaining vacation.
You enjoy staffing? That's an administrative nightmare here in the US. Better make sure you save the criteria you used for every Monster.com search or you could be in big trouble for discrimination. Don't forget that not knowing a candidate's race is not an excuse for not being able to submit statistics on the racial makeup of your candidates. Then you have to schedule interviews, review paperwork, copy forms.
You want to do HRIS? Well, welcome to paper central. Who do you think makes sure those lovely forms that have to be signed get sent out and collected? Who does all the reporting?
Comp? Ever heard of a year end salary increase program? Sure, you get to strategize on the best percentage for increases and help managers determine how to go about dividing their available money. But you still have to make sure every eligible employee gets a raise or a reason for not getting one. And then let's talk about salary surveys.
Are you ready to run screaming? It's not that bad. Really, it's not. And you'll find paperwork in any department you go to. And as you start out, one of the worst things you can do for your career is say, "I'm too smart to file/staple/fill that form out. Get an admin to do it." Yes, there are many tasks that a trained monkey could do. However, a trained monkey is much more expensive than a low level HR person.
HR is great. I love it. I try to automate my administrative tasks as much as possible. But, in my experience you can never avoid them completely.
Generally, things such as typing data into databases fall on administrative staff unless it is a special project. I don't think you have to worry too much about that. Make sure when you are interviewing you have a clear understanding of what the job's expectations are. Just because the title says "trainer" it doesn't mean that you won't be responsible for maintenance of the training database. This is fine, you just need to know about it and what that entails.
Good luck and welcome to HR!
Monday, September 17, 2007
What to Include on a Resume
I've been working a temp position since August 20th, but it is currently set to end later this month. How long should you work at a position, before putting it on your resume?
The reason I ask, is because my last long term job ended June 22nd. I worked a total of 7 days for one agency (PP) as an exec. admin asst. in late July/early August. Then I was placed on my current assignment with another agency (A), which should be around 6 weeks long. Looking at my resume, it's pretty much full of temp agencies. I worked for a few years (2001-2005) in California, then for agency A for a few months after moving back to Indiana. Then I found a direct hire position, but left that position for a placement with another agency (FPS), where I worked for 11 months. The position through FPS ended in June, which brings me to where I am now.
Should I put my 7 day placement with PP on my resume, as it will give me something for the months of July/August on my resume? Or leave it off, since it was so short? I think that if I am careful with my wording, I can probably fit both on my resume, and still keep it to 2 pages.
Well, you are smart to limit the length of your resume. The maximum you want is two pages--unless you are an often published writer and need three pages to list all your publications.
To include a 7 day temp job or not--this is how I'd do it. I'd write:
Temp Agency, June 2006 to Present
Acme Corp, Executive Administrative Assistant
Bob's House O'Pancakes, Administrative Assistant
Big Corporation, Administrative Assistant
Then under that I'd list all the stuff that I did. Especially since one administrative temp job is very similar to another. (In my experience--your experience may vary.) You don't need to put that you scheduled meetings at Acme Corp, and that you scheduled meetings at Bob's House O'Pancakes and that you scheduled meetings at Big Corporation. One time should be sufficient.
If the temp jobs were longer term and had greater variety then maybe you would want to list them out separately, and just leave off the one week job.
For the record, I think temp agencies can be a great way to get your foot in the door to a company or a profession.
I wish you the best of luck!
The reason I ask, is because my last long term job ended June 22nd. I worked a total of 7 days for one agency (PP) as an exec. admin asst. in late July/early August. Then I was placed on my current assignment with another agency (A), which should be around 6 weeks long. Looking at my resume, it's pretty much full of temp agencies. I worked for a few years (2001-2005) in California, then for agency A for a few months after moving back to Indiana. Then I found a direct hire position, but left that position for a placement with another agency (FPS), where I worked for 11 months. The position through FPS ended in June, which brings me to where I am now.
Should I put my 7 day placement with PP on my resume, as it will give me something for the months of July/August on my resume? Or leave it off, since it was so short? I think that if I am careful with my wording, I can probably fit both on my resume, and still keep it to 2 pages.
Well, you are smart to limit the length of your resume. The maximum you want is two pages--unless you are an often published writer and need three pages to list all your publications.
To include a 7 day temp job or not--this is how I'd do it. I'd write:
Temp Agency, June 2006 to Present
Then under that I'd list all the stuff that I did. Especially since one administrative temp job is very similar to another. (In my experience--your experience may vary.) You don't need to put that you scheduled meetings at Acme Corp, and that you scheduled meetings at Bob's House O'Pancakes and that you scheduled meetings at Big Corporation. One time should be sufficient.
If the temp jobs were longer term and had greater variety then maybe you would want to list them out separately, and just leave off the one week job.
For the record, I think temp agencies can be a great way to get your foot in the door to a company or a profession.
I wish you the best of luck!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Another HR Problem
Please help!
I am the HR Assistant for the HR Manager at my job. It is just the two of us in the department. She has reprimanded me on three different occasions regarding the clothing I wear to work. And each time I ask her specifically, what can I , or can't I wear. I need guidelines! And each time she added something different. But she of course follows it up with don't worry, your always dress professionally.
What's not fair is that she told me not to wear a specific sleeveless top, while about 10 other women in the office wear sleeveless. She told me mine was a little to far over the shoulder, therefore showing more skin. Sleeveless tops are sleeveless tops. Depending on your body type, they might fit differently. The top I wore was very professional and not too far over the shoulder. I let her know how I felt, and that I believed this was absurd because I have been trying really hard to go by her suggestions, but how am I supposed to feel when other women are wearing what I was told not too?
I even pointed this out, and she told me to be her helper and let her know when I see this type of clothing. She even told me to shop at Wal-Mart and go to a tailor to get the straps on my tops hemmed. Basically, I feel I am being treated unfairly. I am being singled out. This has created feelings of resentment. For the past month I have been scared about what I wear to work! I am nervous that at any moment she will call me in and criticize my clothes - again!
I dress very professionally in the workplace. This issue has been bothering me for quite some time, and I need some advice. I have documented all of our meetings, and our conversations. I have also noted names of the other women who wear the same thing I got in trouble for. What do I do? I don't feel comfortable speaking to her about this again.
When I give her my opinion, she just stares at me. I want to go to my GM and explain to him that this issue has created a negative environment for me and that I go home mad every day. My thoughts are on my clothing instead of my work. Do I go to my GM about this? Any other advice?
Thanks so much!
Unfortunately for you, you've come to the wrong person to complain about the unfairness of not being allowed to wear sleeveless shirts. But, since that's not really your question, we'll leave my fashion opinions here.
Your manager doesn't like you--or she believes you have more potential than you are living up to. It's quite possible that she feels threatened by you. Unfortunately, when you dislike someone it is very easy to pick out things and label them faults, when you would ignore the same thing in someone else. Likewise, when you feel threatened by someone, the way for mean people to deal with that is to try and destroy that person.
So, your options--deal with it or start looking for a new job. (Although I would find it difficult to not laugh at the idea of buying clothes at Walmart and then taking them to the tailor. It seems to defeat the purpose of going to Walmart in the first place.)
In my opinion, mentioning it to her again won't do any good. Neither will mentioning it to the General Manager. Ask yourself, how would he respond?
Response 1: Thanks for telling me. I think I'll go fire the HR manager.
Response 2: Why are you telling me this? I'm trying to run a business. Dress code is HR's problem.
Response 3: That's terrible. I'll talk to the HR manager right now. That will make your life a living Hell!
I'm guessing that you're hoping for Response 1. I'll give you my professional opinion that it's not likely to happen. A good GM will know if his HR manager is being irrational and he doesn't need you to tell him.
The only person you can control is you. Going home angry every day is only hurting you. It's not doing anything for your career and it's not hurting your boss. Because her complaints are unpredictable, you need to sit down and evaluate: Is this job worth the annoyance and frustration or not? If the answer is no, then dust off your resume and start job hunting. If the answer is yes, you'll have to deal with it.
And by dealing with it, I don't mean grit your teeth and take out your frustration on your friends and family. I mean, make a conscious decision that you are not going to let this bother you. When she criticizes your outfit, apologize politely and say whatever is true about it. "Dawn is currently wearing something very similar" or "This is the 6th time I've warn this outfit. What caught your eye about it this time?" Then forget she said anything.
If you don't let it bother you and you don't get steamed, it's possible that the bullying will stop. (And please understand, this type of behavior is bullying.) Work your hardest and you'll get noticed for your work.
I am the HR Assistant for the HR Manager at my job. It is just the two of us in the department. She has reprimanded me on three different occasions regarding the clothing I wear to work. And each time I ask her specifically, what can I , or can't I wear. I need guidelines! And each time she added something different. But she of course follows it up with don't worry, your always dress professionally.
What's not fair is that she told me not to wear a specific sleeveless top, while about 10 other women in the office wear sleeveless. She told me mine was a little to far over the shoulder, therefore showing more skin. Sleeveless tops are sleeveless tops. Depending on your body type, they might fit differently. The top I wore was very professional and not too far over the shoulder. I let her know how I felt, and that I believed this was absurd because I have been trying really hard to go by her suggestions, but how am I supposed to feel when other women are wearing what I was told not too?
I even pointed this out, and she told me to be her helper and let her know when I see this type of clothing. She even told me to shop at Wal-Mart and go to a tailor to get the straps on my tops hemmed. Basically, I feel I am being treated unfairly. I am being singled out. This has created feelings of resentment. For the past month I have been scared about what I wear to work! I am nervous that at any moment she will call me in and criticize my clothes - again!
I dress very professionally in the workplace. This issue has been bothering me for quite some time, and I need some advice. I have documented all of our meetings, and our conversations. I have also noted names of the other women who wear the same thing I got in trouble for. What do I do? I don't feel comfortable speaking to her about this again.
When I give her my opinion, she just stares at me. I want to go to my GM and explain to him that this issue has created a negative environment for me and that I go home mad every day. My thoughts are on my clothing instead of my work. Do I go to my GM about this? Any other advice?
Thanks so much!
Unfortunately for you, you've come to the wrong person to complain about the unfairness of not being allowed to wear sleeveless shirts. But, since that's not really your question, we'll leave my fashion opinions here.
Your manager doesn't like you--or she believes you have more potential than you are living up to. It's quite possible that she feels threatened by you. Unfortunately, when you dislike someone it is very easy to pick out things and label them faults, when you would ignore the same thing in someone else. Likewise, when you feel threatened by someone, the way for mean people to deal with that is to try and destroy that person.
So, your options--deal with it or start looking for a new job. (Although I would find it difficult to not laugh at the idea of buying clothes at Walmart and then taking them to the tailor. It seems to defeat the purpose of going to Walmart in the first place.)
In my opinion, mentioning it to her again won't do any good. Neither will mentioning it to the General Manager. Ask yourself, how would he respond?
Response 1: Thanks for telling me. I think I'll go fire the HR manager.
Response 2: Why are you telling me this? I'm trying to run a business. Dress code is HR's problem.
Response 3: That's terrible. I'll talk to the HR manager right now. That will make your life a living Hell!
I'm guessing that you're hoping for Response 1. I'll give you my professional opinion that it's not likely to happen. A good GM will know if his HR manager is being irrational and he doesn't need you to tell him.
The only person you can control is you. Going home angry every day is only hurting you. It's not doing anything for your career and it's not hurting your boss. Because her complaints are unpredictable, you need to sit down and evaluate: Is this job worth the annoyance and frustration or not? If the answer is no, then dust off your resume and start job hunting. If the answer is yes, you'll have to deal with it.
And by dealing with it, I don't mean grit your teeth and take out your frustration on your friends and family. I mean, make a conscious decision that you are not going to let this bother you. When she criticizes your outfit, apologize politely and say whatever is true about it. "Dawn is currently wearing something very similar" or "This is the 6th time I've warn this outfit. What caught your eye about it this time?" Then forget she said anything.
If you don't let it bother you and you don't get steamed, it's possible that the bullying will stop. (And please understand, this type of behavior is bullying.) Work your hardest and you'll get noticed for your work.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Your Permanent Record
Remember the threat from your elementary school teachers? If you do something bad it will go in your permanent record! Horrors. You would never get into college, let alone live any sort of productive life with a black mark on your permanent record. It was enough to keep a young Evil HR Lady sitting up straight and paying attention. (Okay, I slouched and constantly read novels during school, but I was quiet and I did well on tests, so the teachers ignored me.) (Second parenthetical, my mom is going to kill her self laughing at the thought of me being quiet.)
Well, it turned out that your elementary school teacher was exaggerating on the effect your permanent record had. Your college didn't even request a transcript from your elementary school. All that being good for nothing.
You think you've outgrown permanent records? Well you haven't. You have a new one now, called a Personnel File. Everyone has one. Everyone should have several. They are permanent, except when they are not.
Daniel A Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog writes about people requesting their personnel records.
The worry is that people are fretting about lawsuits, which he says is worrying for no good reason. I think personnel records are an interesting piece of information that we ignore too often.
Have you ever gotten a new job offer and then suddenly realized you didn't keep a copy of your non-compete agreement and you don't know what your restrictions are? (No comment on how silly it was to lose your copy of that. I'm evil, not mean.) You can get it from your personnel file. Feel like the company isn't living up to the promises in your offer letter? You can get a copy from your personnel file.
But, what (I suppose) most people are looking for are their performance appraisals and secret things placed there by their bosses. You should look at it.
Yes, it drives the record people nuts to have to pull your file, have you come over and look at it anyway. You should do it.
Why? Well, it turns out, much like your elementary school record, it was permanent but only in elementary school. It didn't follow you to college. When prospective employers call for a reference, they aren't going to be given a copy of your file. If they call HR, chances are they'll get confirmation of your dates of service an your job title and that's it. If they call your manager, they'll maybe get the real scoop.
So, why take the time to look at this permanent record? For internal transfers it is extremely important. A company won't share with outsiders, but they will certainly share with insiders. This is why it's important to insist a copy of your own self appraisal is attached to your manager's appraisal of you in the file. Get your side of the story in there.
And sit up straight and pay attention and don't poke the person next to you or you'll have to write "I will pay attention in class" 500 times before you can go to recess.
Well, it turned out that your elementary school teacher was exaggerating on the effect your permanent record had. Your college didn't even request a transcript from your elementary school. All that being good for nothing.
You think you've outgrown permanent records? Well you haven't. You have a new one now, called a Personnel File. Everyone has one. Everyone should have several. They are permanent, except when they are not.
Daniel A Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog writes about people requesting their personnel records.
The worry is that people are fretting about lawsuits, which he says is worrying for no good reason. I think personnel records are an interesting piece of information that we ignore too often.
Have you ever gotten a new job offer and then suddenly realized you didn't keep a copy of your non-compete agreement and you don't know what your restrictions are? (No comment on how silly it was to lose your copy of that. I'm evil, not mean.) You can get it from your personnel file. Feel like the company isn't living up to the promises in your offer letter? You can get a copy from your personnel file.
But, what (I suppose) most people are looking for are their performance appraisals and secret things placed there by their bosses. You should look at it.
Yes, it drives the record people nuts to have to pull your file, have you come over and look at it anyway. You should do it.
Why? Well, it turns out, much like your elementary school record, it was permanent but only in elementary school. It didn't follow you to college. When prospective employers call for a reference, they aren't going to be given a copy of your file. If they call HR, chances are they'll get confirmation of your dates of service an your job title and that's it. If they call your manager, they'll maybe get the real scoop.
So, why take the time to look at this permanent record? For internal transfers it is extremely important. A company won't share with outsiders, but they will certainly share with insiders. This is why it's important to insist a copy of your own self appraisal is attached to your manager's appraisal of you in the file. Get your side of the story in there.
And sit up straight and pay attention and don't poke the person next to you or you'll have to write "I will pay attention in class" 500 times before you can go to recess.
Carnivals and Lists
Remember to get your Carnival submission into Evil HR Lady (that would be me!) buy Monday night, September 17. (I'll let you define night by when you go to bed. I'm flexible that way.)
Also, the HR Capitalist has his HR Power Blog listing up. I've dropped by two in his ratings, so now I'm traumatized. Is there an ER rep for the blog world?
Also, the HR Capitalist has his HR Power Blog listing up. I've dropped by two in his ratings, so now I'm traumatized. Is there an ER rep for the blog world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
