How Important is Your Front Line?

We just got home from vacation. We had to rent a car. Which meant we had about a zillion places to choose from. We flew into Las Vegas (we don't gamble, but we sure can eat, and the food there is quite good). (Side note, we stayed at the Palazzo which we got for a cheap price on Priceline and it was fabulous.)

Anyway, the Las Vegas airport has a central car rental garage. Everyone takes the same shuttle over and then each car rental company has a space in a multi-story garage. There are security features set up to prevent you from stealing a car from this place. These include a large metal bar and tire shredders. In order to leave, you must take your rental car contract and scan the bar code on it. Then the metal bar raises up and the tire shredders go down and you can drive off.

Unless, of course, the front line person forgets to put a bar code on your contract. And by the time you have your car seats installed and your luggage shoved into the trunk, he has gone home, turning off the lights and locking the door. So, there we were: 12:30 a.m. Pacific time. We're East Coasters, so our body clocks were saying 3:30 a.m. I have one screaming infant and one helpful almost 5 year old saying, "what can I do to make you happier?" and my husband and I are dead tired and we are trapped in the garage. We call the car rental place's 800 number and the following conversation ensues:

Husband: We’re trapped in the garage in Las Vegas. We don’t have a bar code so we can’t leave.

Car Rental Customer Service Person: Why would you need a bar code?

Husband: You have to scan a bar code or you can’t get out. Everyone has gone home. So, we’re trapped.

Car Rental Customer Service Person: Just go ahead and exit, then. Don’t worry about the bar code.

Husband: We can’t exit. There’s a huge metal bar and tire shredders.

Car Rental Customer Service Person: Well, I guess you’ll just have to wait until morning when the workers come back. Sorry! Click!

My husband walked over to another company's booth and explained our plight. They gave us a bar code so we could exit.

Now, when we returned the car, 12 days later, the manager said, "How was your rental?" My husband explained. The manager took $150 off our bill. Even so, I would be very hesitant to rent from them again.

I didn't mention the name of the company on purpose. Why? Because while I was explaining this drama to my sister, who also flew from the east coast to the west for this reunion, she mentioned she'd rented from the same company, although she had flown into Salt Lake. She gushed with how wonderful everything had been. "They gave us a free upgrade! Provided cold bottled water for us! Carried our luggage! We're customers for life!"

Now, the original rental guy didn't leave us with any warm fuzzies--he made the mistake of not giving us a bar code, and he left before we did. That's bad customer service. The phone person was worse. Even if there was nothing he could have done, he made no effort to escalate the issue.

He probably figured, "hey, I'm only making $X per hour. What do I care?" He didn't care. But that is precisely why you need to be careful in hiring your front line people.

And now back to regular Evil HR Lady stuff.

I'm back

I'm back home. I know you missed me. (Or at least my trolls missed me! I know they wanted to pounce on me for something and I wasn't writing anything! Sob.)

We had a marvelous time. Although, I will warn you that red-eye flights sound good in theory (the kids will sleep!), but in reality, they are unpleasant. The kids did sleep, but the end result of that is you get home and you and your husband are dead tired and the kids want to play! I sent offspring 1 over to the neighbors, so we could take a nap.

Anyway, here is a picture of where we went!

Really. Don't you wish you could have accompanied us? We also went here:

But, least you feel too sorry for us, we also went here. Or at least my husband did. He and my brother-in-law climbed Mount Timpanogos and took that picture near the top. They said there were mountain goats within 100 feet of the summit. Which just goes to show you, I'm smarter than a mountain goat, as I would never climb that high.

And speaking of climbing, the offspring climbed as well.

I do know you are jealous. We spent most of the time at a family reunion--where all 6 of my siblings, their spouses and offspring and my parents--had a marvelous time. We ate way too much food and stayed up too late.

Now, it's back to reality. And to blogging. I have a customer service post coming up shortly.

Vacation

I'm going on one. I am taking a vacation from the internet. So, I shall miss all of you.

I've sworn to my family that I won't even check my e-mail. We'll see if I last.

Drug Screening

We pre-employment drug screen all applicants. Manager started someone, against my better judgment, before we got drug screen results. Of course, came back positive for Marijuana. Manager told applicant to stay home today, but this manager is in love with this applicant and wants to make exception to policy to keep them on board. Our policy says that the applicant can have other half of their specimen tested at their own expense and if it comes back negative we reimburse them and they can start working for us. Applicant says they don't smoke, but their husband does and that is why she probably tested positive. Manager wants to allow her to continue working and test her again in 30 days with her continued employment contingent on the results of that test.

Let me start by saying that I have never taken an illegal drug in my past and I don't view it very highly. I try not to judge folks, but my history does affect my judgment so I am seeking outside advice. Also, to me Marijuana, while pretty widely accepted, is still Illegal. My thoughts are to follow policy and terminate them immediately and be along our merry little way. However, what are the pluses and minuses of making the exception. Of course, our Regional Manager brings it to my attention that we have made this exception in the past, but it was before my time here. Another point I gave the manager was that this person, while they may not be smoking it themselves, is living with someone that does. If the cops break down the door and bust them, chances are they may both be going to jail and now we have a whole other situation. My gut says follow procedure and do not make exception and set a precedent.

I'm with you, 100%. You really have no way of knowing if the person is lying or not, but do you want to start down that road? The drug screen is what it is. She may well be telling the truth, but how can you really believe that? Sure, I wasn't the one inhaling...

Now, I did watch a Mythbuster's episode about poppy seeds and that was rather frightening. It made me believe that drug testing isn't quite so straight forward as we'd like to think it is. (HR according to Mythbusters...hmmm.) But, the problem you run into is that if you make one exception, what's going to be the rules around the exception policy? (Horrors--rules for exceptions? I've been in HR way too long.)

But, yes, rules for exceptions. Think about how the rule would have to be written to allow this: "If candidate says, 'that test gave a false positive' or 'someone put something in my drink' or 'it was just a poppyseed bagel' then re-test in 30 days." See, it sounds kind of silly.

Truth be told, I'm all in favor of meeting the needs of the individual--you want flex time, part time, telecommuting, I'm all there. You want to work with a positive drug screen? Hmmm, not so much.

The biggest problem in granting an exception is the appearance of favoritism, or discrimination. So, if this is a white woman who tested positive and you let her re-test in 30 days because the manager loves her, what happens if the next person to test positive is a so-so candidate that you made an offer to because you were desperate--and happens to be a black male? Oh joy. See you in court.

Now, as for drug testing in general--as I said, I watched Mythbusters and learned that a relatively small amount of poppy seeds can give you a false positive. Can walking through a smoky room where cigarettes aren't the vice of choice lead to the same result? I don't know. You might want to check with your vendor to ask what level of sensitivity you want to pick up. And make sure your vendor contacts the candidates for a list of the drugs they are taking legally. (Yes, I've had a candidate told he flunked the drug test only to find out that he was taking legally prescribed Ritalin. He'd tried to tell the vendor, they wouldn't listen. So they just reported back to the company that he'd failed. HR had to call the vendor back, who then called the candidate's physician and all was well--except he was unnecessarily embarrassed. I wasn't in charge of the vendor contract, but if i had been, they would have been fired.)

But for now, I'd say, "I'm so sorry. Good luck with your job search."

Embarrassed To Be In HR

I got the following comment on my post on networking:

Stop naming it networking, call it nepotism. Hiring people based on who they know is unprofessional. I work in HR and someone's recommendation means squat, I have enough of a brain to evaluate skills and not relationships. If you had to have life saving surgery would you pick the most qualified doctor or one that is funny at parties? Oh and the recruiter that says we remember names of people who turn down offers, why do you feel your time is more important than the candidates? typical HR workers that make me embarrassed to tell people my profession.

First of all, the usual use of the word "nepotism" is favoritism to family members. There are some who define it as favoritism to close friends, but a better word for what you are trying to describe is cronyism. It's all about word choice and I'm not saying the anonymous commenter's choice was technically incorrect, it was just not what I would have used.

I'm rather embarrassed that an HR person would presume to have more knowledge about the skills necessary to do the job then someone who actually does the job. Yes, yes, I can read a resume with the best of them. I can even ask interview questions. But, I would rather get an opinion from somebody who does the actual job.

Would I hire my brain surgeon based on his ability to tell jokes? No. But, if I needed brain surgery, I would start looking for one by asking for referrals for a neurologist from my current physician. Then I would ask the neurologist about neurosurgeons. Theoretically, all those years of medical school, residency and practice means they know a bit more about medicine then I do. Sure, I'd want to check the recommended person's resume and ask questions like, "how many of these types of surgeries have you performed?" But, would a physician's recommendation hold more weight than my hairdresser's recommendation? Absolutely. Why wouldn't I ask someone with knowledge and experience in the field before making my decision?

You know who else I would want to ask? The nurses that work in neurosurgery. They would know all the doctors, their success rates and their personalities. And in the case of brain surgery, I really would prefer a pompous jerk who knows how to fix my brain rather than a good joke teller. If I'm just basing my opinion on an interview, rather than someone who has worked with the surgeon before, I'm more likely to be swayed by the good conversationalist. And the reality is, conversation is nice, but what I need is a good surgeon.

I do agree that the recruiter who said they would hold it against someone who turned down a job offer is a jerk. If you are a good recruiter, you should be able to pull in quality candidates. Quality candidates frequently have other job offers because they are, you know, high quality. Just because this current position doesn't meet their current needs/goals doesn't mean they won't need a job in the future.

This reminds me of a little story. Once upon a time, my beloved husband went on a job interview that was 7 hours away from our home. He drove and paid his own expenses on the promise that he would be reimbursed. He submitted his expenses and the head hunter sent a check. The company made him an offer. The offer was a rather lousy one and he, at this point, had 4 or 5 offers that were better. So he turned it down.

And they stopped payment on the check.

My husband, being nicer than me, said, "Just let it go. It's only $300." (Clearly this was back in the days of reasonable gas prices.) I said, "It's $300 and dang it, I want the money." So, he said I could call. Generally having spouses call is a big no-no by the way, but we didn't have anything to lose. So I called and asked, innocently why they stopped payment on the check.

"Because he didn't accept the job," recruiter said.

"That wasn't part of the deal. You were to reimburse him for expenses related to the interview."

"But, he didn't accept the job! We've never had anyone get an offer and not accept it before!" she said.

"I want to talk to your boss," I said. Boss got on the phone.

"Do you even work?" he snarled, "or are you just a housewife with nothing better to do?"

So, now my blood is boiling, but I managed to reply, rather sweetly, if I do say so myself, "Your comment is insulting on many levels, but in fact, I do work. I'm in Human Resouces and I happen to know that paying travel expenses is part of the cost of recruiting."

"But, we've never had anyone turn down an offer before!" he said.

"In that case," I replied, "you must not be used to working with highly qualified candidates because people like that frequently have more than one offer."

"You'll have your check," he said.

And we did. And he was an idiot. And he was in HR. But, fortunately, most of us are not like that. And most of us recognize networking for what it is--an invaluable tool.

Lazy Posting

I can't write a real post today. Why? Because I found Not Always Right and I must sit here and read every single entry. It's like some sort of strange compulsion.

One other interesting thing I found yesterday was this listing of HR bloggers and their start dates by Michael Fox over at Jottings of an Employer's Lawyer.

And I just got an e-mail from Kris and the new HR Carnival is up!

Now I've given you lots of things to read.

Excessive Sick Time

I have worked for a company in Northern California for over 5 years. We have a small inside sales force that is extremely busy and we are all exempt employees. We are paid on commission (after our salary is covered). The company policy does not have a sick time policy for exempt employees and everyone is good about it but one of our top sales people. When he is out we are expected to do the best we can to cover all of his clients. Everyone was good about it the first two years(things will change right?) and now are very fed up about it. It is costing us time and all the customers are getting upset.

We are in our 5th year of this person being out 2 to 5 weeks a year (more like 3 to 4) and it takes away from our work (and commission). We've had several managers but since this guy's sales numbers are giant they keep saying they're "monitoring" it. This person has a sense of entitlement, is always sick (doesn't take care of themselves) and thinks as long as they bring in a number it doesn't matter.

The managers seem to feel that California law "ties their hands" and they keep thinking it will go away. There have been other employees fired in the company for excessive absences so wouldn't this be a bit discriminatory based on this employee's excessive number of sick days? What type of recourse do we have besides not help this guys clients and make them all mad?

Now, now, let's not make the clients mad. That would be vindictive and biting the hand that feeds us all at once. While it seems like justifiable fun and would "wake up" management, it will reflect poorly upon you.

First and foremost, I have little experience with California's special laws. So, I'm going to pretend you live in Kansas instead. (I have NO experience with any special laws Kansas may have, but I did drive through Kansas once and saw Bob Dole's home town, so that makes me feel more confident about Kansas law.)

Your problem is not your co-worker. Repeat after me: "My co-worker is not my problem. My co-worker is not my problem. My co-worker is not my problem." See if you can get into a zen state while you say this. Now you can switch, "My problem is my work load. My problem is my work load."

Since you are commissioned sales people, if you are supporting clients for your ill co-worker, you should be reaping the rewards for his clients. Present that to your boss. And sit down and say, "When Bob's out of the office, I have to do x and y for his clients, which means I can't do x and y for my clients. How would you like me to handle this?" No whining about Bob. Just "how should we manage our workload."

Since Bob has such stellar sales numbers, I doubt your management really believes customers aren't happy. (Now, of course, they may be and one day they'll all just drop you company like a hot potato, and then where you will be?) As for Bob's excessive sick days--he may have an FMLA approved illness. He may even be approved for "intermittent" FMLA, which means he can takes days off as needed, rather than taking a 12 week chunk of time off. If he does have an FMLA covered condition, your manager's hands are tied. Since his performance when he is in the office is stellar, they would find it very difficult, legally, to fire him. And why would they want to?

Stop worrying about him and worry about your workload and your clients. I think it's fair to get compensated for the work you do for Bob's clients. Ask for it. But, remember, your problem is not your co-worker. It's your workload. Don't worry about him (and his unhealthy lifestyle). Solve your workload issues and ignore him.

A Potential Bad Manager

I've been reading your wonderful blog for a while, so I'm hoping you and/or your readers can come up with some helpful suggestions. I've been working at the same medium-sized company for 15years. My current manager is getting ready to retire within the next 2 years. He supervises 8 people (including me), divided into 3 teams, and is generally very by-the-book but can be flexible with the rules if one makes a good case. My current team leader has been with the company 2 years longer than I have and is a smoking buddy of his (they are the only2 who smoke).

It is generally known within the department at the non-managerial level that the reason my team leader got the position instead of me after the last team leader resigned is because she used her special relationship to sabotage my reputation with our manager while I was on maternity leave. As might be expected, my team leader has started campaigning for the manager slot, but the rest of us in our unit feel she would be a terrible manager. Leaving aside the fact that she doesn't understand what our unit does except at a very superficial level, she is very vindictive against people who call her on her mistakes, and she's even more strictly by-the-book than my current manager.

Unfortunately, she has seniority over almost everyone in the department who is likely to apply for the manager position, so she is very likely to become my manager soon. Other than hunkering down and trying to be invisible, is there anything constructive that my coworkers and I can do? The head of the department is pretty clueless about personnel issues, so I'm pretty sure talking to her would be a bad idea.

Two years. Your manager is getting ready to retiree within the next two years. On the one hand, I applaud you for looking at your career that far in advance. (Despite the ubiquitous “where you see yourself in 5 years” question, people don’t do enough career planning.)

Anything can happen in two years. Your arch nemesis could quit. Your “clueless” department head could quit, be promoted, or gain a renewed interest in your group. You could quit. You could get promoted. You could be transferred to a different department. The whole company could collapse. [Enter presidential candidate you don’t like] could win the election and the entire country could be taken over by Iran. Anything can happen in two years.

Why do I mention this? Well, to give you some perspective. Here’s some other perspective. Your department head may well know precisely what is going on. She may be simply waiting for your manager to retire before making big changes. She may be counting down as well. It may be a carefully calculated decision to appear to be ignoring your department personnel issues.

And speaking of not knowing what is going on, how is it possible that the team lead, who has the most seniority, doesn’t understand what the department done, yet she is very by the book? You may be letting your distaste for this person color you views as well. You say it’s “well known” that she sabotaged your relationship with the boss while you were on maternity leave. I’d ask you to figure out what evidence there really is of that.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Approach your manager and ask for career planning guidance. You want to move into a manager role. Ask her advice on how to achieve that.

2. Let your manager know that you are also going to approach your department head on the same topic. Let her know you are interested in taking your manager’s job when she retires, and ask if that is a possibility and what skills you will need to gain and ask for help in gaining those skills. Are there projects or classes you can take on to help with this.

3. If it really is clear that the team lead will be your new boss, evaluate how much you want to stay in this job. You have two years to find a new job if you don’t wish to report to this person. Did I mention two years? If something bad is going to happen in two years, I’d make plans now to change that. You can work to gain the job yourself (see above), you can work to get a job in the same company in a different group, or you can look for a new job with a new company. You can also try to get to know the team leader. Just because she’s smoking buddies with the boss doesn’t mean she’s a bad person.

Who Will Companies Hire?

I have often been told that employers hire people they know to fill positions before they pick someone qualified for the position. Is this true? if so are there companies that prohibit the hiring of friends of friends and relatives of relatives?

Sure, lots of companies prohibit the hiring of relatives of current employees. I work in such a large company that this would be impractical, so we prohibit the hiring of relatives within the same department.

But friends? Honey, that's called networking and it's how the business world works. Unless the management is utterly incompetent (not saying such companies don't exist), they still hire qualified people--just not you. (That's what I'm getting out of your e-mail anyway. Why can't I find a job? Forgive me if I'm wrong or jumping to unwarrented conclusions.)

Hiring is an unpleasant and risky activity. Even though I harp on here that most employment in the United States is "at-will," meaning that a company can fire you for cause or no cause at any time, most companies don't terminate people willy-nillly. They have processes and procedures and just because termination is technically legal, they have to be concerned about lawsuits. (Even if a company wins a lawsuit they still have to pay legal bills.) Not to mention, no actual work gets done while you are dealing with a bad hire.

Because hiring is so risky, if Bob is a fabulous employee and he comes to me and says, "Hey, I worked with Karen at my previous company. She has all the skills needed for this vacant position and she's wonderful because of A, B, and C," then of course I'm going to interview Karen.

Karen gets an automatic bump up because Bob (who I know) has personally worked with her and recommends her. This is smart hiring, and not something to be stopped. (Not saying that hiring managers should automatically hire people who come recommended, but rather that these people are more likely to be a good fit.)

Now, of course, if Bob's reason for recommending Karen is "I understand I get a referral bonus if you hire her," she won't get that bump. "Hey, Karen was my college roommate, and dude, she's awesome!" probably will get an eyeroll from me.

Karen still needs to be qualified for the job. But, to an outsider who is trying to crack through the company fortress it can look like we only hire people's friends. This isn't likely to be true, but it can seem that way.

So, you need to start meeting people and networking. You also need to do a fabulous job at whatever company you are at now. Your co-workers may one day be in a position to recommend you. And heck, you may be in a position to to recommend them. Of course, networking has it's limitations. A recommendation from someone who worked with you for 5 years is going to pull a lot more weight than a recommendation from someone you exchanged business cards with at a mutual friend's birthday party.

Now, there are some problems with hiring via employee referral. One is that employees tend to be friends with people like themselves--same age, race, gender, socio-economic status. Fine, fine, fine, but if you've got affirmative action goals recruiting this way can make you over-represented in whatever hiring group you started with. (I seem to recall a court case where a cleaning company got sued for discrimination because almost all the employees were Korean. The case hinged on whether they were legally hiring people they knew or illegally discriminating against people who weren't Korean. I'd tell you how the case resolved, but that would involve either Googling (feasible)or going downstairs and pulling out my old constitutional law text book out and looking it up (ain't gonna happen).)

So, if you are recruiting, you need to use many methods to source your candidates. Referrals are great, but shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of existence.

If you are looking for a job, keep on it. Talk to everyone you know. Don't get angry and try not to get frustrated when it seems like you have to know someone to get a job. My first "real" job was at a company that was extremely difficult to get into. I didn't realize this (I was new to the area) and applied because I had the right skill set. I got the job even though I didn't know a soul in the company. People who had been recommended internally didn't get the job because they lacked a critical skill that I had. (In this case, the ability to do statistical analysis. Few HR people have that skill, which is a topic for another day.)

Why Do You Want This Job?

I am a graduate looking for jobs. I frequently attend interviews and I am asked “ Why do you want to join this job?” I actually couldn’t reply anything.

In the same way I got a interview call from another company in India. They have a opening for software engineer job. They have asked me to update my details and have to write “Reason why I am interested in this job” in 300 words. Could you please help me out in this.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but no. I can't help you. Why? Because not only do I not want a job as a software engineer, my desire to move to India is, well, low.

But apparently you want to be a software engineer. That is good. Now tell me why you want to work for this company? IF you don't want to work for the company don't bother going through with the application.

They want to know why you want to work there because they want someone who wants this job, not just a job. They want to know if you've done your homework about the company. They want to know what you know about the company and why you will be a good fit. What is it about this company that makes you want to work there.

Since the position is for a software engineer and they are only looking for 300 words, they aren't after brilliant prose that will be published in the company newsletter. They just want to know why you want to work for this company.

Stop overthinking it, and just write out a draft. Have some trusted friends review it and make the necessary changes. If you don't know why you would want to work for this company, find out. Do your research. Find out.

My guess is that you didn't write a cover letter when you applied. I could be wrong, but a cover letter should establish why you want to work for this particular company.

Good luck!

The Strangest Vacation Policy I've Ever Seen

We are a very small company and, up until now, haven’t had a need for anything more than a vacation policy. Recently, I have been placed in charge of creating a sick leave policy or PTO policy. My research has lead me to wonder about the legality of our vacation policy. Basically we are given a set number of days off for various years of service. Where the issue lies is taking the vacation time.

If vacation is taken during the months of November through February, we are allowed to use ½ day of paid vacation time per full day off; if vacation is taken during the months of March, April, September and October, vacation time is day for day; if vacation is taken during the months of May through August, 1 ½ days of paid vacation time is used per day off. So if I take 5 day vacation in January, I only have to use 2 ½ days of my paid vacation time. If I take the same vacation in July, I have to use 7 ½ days of my paid vacation time. Bonus in the winter, but for those of us who have school-age children, the summer months are family vacation time and time off from school in the winter is limited.

Do you have any insight into this? Is it legal to require employees to use their vacation time in this manner?

Not a lawyer and not going to comment on the legalities. I am going to comment that you are nuts if you think the only official policy you need is a vacation one, but I'm now going to leave that alone as well.

On the one hand, I think this vacation policy is brilliant! It would effectively encourage winter vacations and discourage summer vacations. I assume you have a business that is busier in the summer. Or perhaps you just don't want everyone on vacation at the same time.

On the other hand, I think, are you people on crack? Talk about discriminating against parents of school age children! Now, honestly, my oldest child starts kindergarten this fall (sob!), so up until this September, I would have loved your policy. I'd much rather go places on the off season anyway. But, starting September 2 I'd be really ticked about it. Not only do I get the priviledge of spending all my vacations with other people's annoying children, now my vacation time is cut! In all honesty, I'd start looking for a new job right about now.

Yes, you heard me. That policy alone would make me start looking for a new job. I love vacation. Do you hear me? I love it. I use every allotted vacation day. Every.single.one.

So, anyway, I'm intrigued as to what other people think. I'd think there would have to be a pretty strong business reason for such a policy. If there is one, I might be able to get behind it. Otherwise, say goodbye to people who can't (easily) take vacations during the winter.

Unfair Discipline

I was issued a written warning for failure to use the proper channels to report a complaint, referencing a policy from the handbook. This stems from a private conversation I had with another manager regarding how my boss/hostile environment is making me sick.

The other manager was concerned and reported to HR (or as some would say "threw me under the bus"). When I read the policy, I found that there was a paragraph that stated 'if you do not feel comfortable talking with your direct supervisor, you can talk with any other member of management', which I did.

I told the HR lady and my boss that i was not making a complaint and later emailed my comments and asked that the warning be revoked because it had not been violated. No response. I have been with the company for 12 years and have always received good performance reviews and have never experienced anything like this. I am sick over this. Our workplace is very dysfunctional and policies are broken every day without discipline (including harassment, safety violations, etc.).

The injustice of it all is what really bothers me. Can an employer just pick out one employee and one policy and decide to enforce it? I am under the care of several therapists and a doc and need to be medicated to go to work. I am feverishly looking for another job, but am sure that it will create a financial burden to my family. Thanks for any help you can provide.

You are clearly upset over this incident, but if nothing else was said, it is possible that the HR lady realizes she made a mistake and is too embarrassed to admit it to you, so she's ignoring it, hoping it will go away.

Or she has 112 unread messages in her inbox and hasn't gotten to yours yet.

Or she's a complete idiot who writes someone up for making a complaint according to the company's established procedures.

Take your pick.

I'm glad you are looking for a new job, because you aren't happy at this one. But, you aren't going to find a better one until you calm down and process what happened. Were there consequences to you, other than the write up in your file? Demotion, bad assignments, or something similar? I ask because this doesn't seem, in and of itself, something to be so horrified at that you are sick over it. This fear and panic are going to come across in your job interviews and it may prevent you from getting a good job. There ARE good jobs available. Being positive will help you in your search.

You also need to come up with an answer to the "why are you looking for a new job?" question that doesn't involve any of this. It needs to be an accurate answer, but without being negative towards your current company.

Now, the above was the answer to the question you didn't ask. Here's the answer to the question you did ask: Companies should apply their policies fairly across the board. No one should ever be punished for bringing a legitimate complaint to management. It should always be perfectly acceptable to approach a member of a management team with your concerns.

My advice to you is to make an appointment with your boss to apologize for not speaking with her first, and to ask what you can do to help resolve the issue. I realize you were acting within policy when you went to another manager. I realize you did nothing wrong. I also realize that you are miserable and if something doesn't change you will continue to be miserable and it will affect your ability to find a new job. Be willing to work with your boss to find a solution.

For future reference, except in the rarest of rare circumstances, you should go to your boss first. Sidestepping her can cause animosity to rise from the boss. You should only go to someone else if you have attempted to resolve the issue with your boss. Remember also that even if you go to happy hour with this management team member you spoke to, it's still business. When you are with people you work with, you are absolutely at work, regardless of the setting.

I don't know what your complaint was about, but if it was something involving safety, harassment, or an illegal practice, this manager was required to act. You can't come up to me and say, "Hey Evil HR Lady, the funniest thing happened on the factory floor yesterday. Karen and Steve were having a water gun fight!" and not expect me to act on it.

Now some of you are shaking your heads and wondering why on earth I'd care about a harmless water fight. Well, water on the floor could be a safety hazard--hello, OSHA violation. Depending on the product it could cause contamination and be an FDA violation. Do you want to have product fail? Me neither. Perhaps neither did the manager you confided in.

Training to the Rescue

The Emergency Room is about to get some communication training.

The docs met with the “communication expert” the other day who is a social working, behavioral health RN (who I am sure has not practiced in years).

Can I just say one more time that we need business experience if we're going to be taken seriously? Yes, HR isn't specifically mentioned, but yhis is undoubtedly something HR has a hand in. I think it illustrates why so many people think HR is worthless. We run in and announce we're going to fix a communication problem without understanding what "problems" really exist. It's not like people don't know how to talk to each other.

And maybe the ER is really having a true communication breakdown. It may truly be causing the problems. The staff, however, doesn't think so. (Or at least our writer doesn't think so.) He states:

We don’t need communication classes, we need “What makes sense to run an ER safely and efficiently” classes!

And I can hear a communal HR clucking of tongues saying, "well, if you could communicate with each other more clearly, you would be more safe and efficient." Maybe so, but they aren't going to listen to anything the trainer says. Why? Because the trainer has no credibility, the trainees don't think there is a problem, and the course hasn't been designed based on the perceived needs of the department.

I realize that is a lot harder than pulling a "communication" class out of our HR bag of tricks, but it would also make it worth everyone's time.

Carnival of HR

The latest Carnival of HR is now up at Changeboard. This is the themed carnival that caused our recent controversy so head on over and see what it's all about.

Facility Closing

Is a company required to disclose to an employee that it has plans to close the facility at which they were hired to work? I was recruited by a company, that after 4 months of employing me, announced plans to close the facility. In the all-employee meeting when the closure announcement was made it was stated that the decision to close this facility had been made more than 6 months earlier. It seems to me that at the very least common decency would dictate they tell me, but does the law? I’m a bit irritated as I left a position that I could still be working at.

Quick, short answer: No. Longer also true answer: Because it is a facility closure, it would be covered by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which means they either have to give you 60 days notice, or pay you for 60 days following notice, or a combination of the two.

Now my long, drawn out answer. Things like this make my blood boil. It's entirely possible that the person/people who hired you had no idea. Senior Management wasn't ready to tell anyone their plans so they set out to ruin people's lives. Hello, you can do a hiring freeze without telling everyone your secret plant closing plans. It's also entirely possible that they did know and didn't care. A third possibility is that the decision had been made to close the facility if they didn't sell it--and they were operating in the hopes that they would sell it.

I am of the opinion that part of the reason this company has to shut down a facility is that their management is so concerned about covering their own behinds that they forget about the people who work for them. If you take a look at the Fortune Top 100 Companies to Work For you'll also notice that these companies are profitable. Treat your people right, they'll treat your customers right, and you'll all make money together.

So, is there anything you can do about this? Probably not. You could sue for breech of contract, but undoubtedly your offer letter specifically mentioned that you are an "at will" employee, so no contract implied. I hope you get a nice severance package, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for one. Do know that they need to give you an official WARN notice 60 days before your last day at work OR pay you for at least 60 days after you quit working. If they don't do that, then you could sue. (There are exceptions to WARN, but from what you've told me, this company wouldn't qualify-except perhaps on size, which my brilliant commenter just reminded me of.)

And now, polish up your resume and hit the pavement. It stinks. It's unfair. It's even unethical (in my never to be humble opinion). But, it's life.

Career Changes and Salary

I want to join the wonderful world of HR because it is just so darn interesting. I really think I could be a good HR analyst going into comp and benefits since I have been in consulting for six years and have a lot of financial data analysis, communication, and customer service skills. My issue is...when I am asked for my past salary, I am afraid to put down what I was really making before I dropped out of consulting (in the high 70's) because I don't want to be taken out of the pool of applicants. I want to be truthful but maybe the truth will hurt. What do you think?

Don't sell yourself short.

I've been telling people for years that if they want to be an effective HR person, they need to get experience on the business side. You have experience on the business side. (Well, perhaps. Some of the consultants I've met--well, let's just say a monkey could have done what they did. Well, maybe not a monkey unless the monkey knew power point. But, perhaps a toddler. One of those toddlers in the repeating stage of life. You know, where they have to repeat everything someone else says? Because, I've seen companies pay huge amounts of money to have consultants come in and "solve a problem." The consultant then sets up meetings where the employees that Senior Management refuse to take seriously tell the consultant what the problem is and how to fix it. The consultant then writes that up in a power point presentation and presents it. Ta-da! No thought involved. But, I digress.)

I don't know where you live or what industry you'd want to work in, but where I live and in my industry a comp analyst would not be out of line asking for a salary in the $70,000s or higher. You should apply for HR jobs in the same industry where you've been consulting. It makes your experience relevant.

Of course, if that kind of salary would be excessive in your area and industry then just make it clear that you are looking to change careers and you are willing to take the salary that comes with it. But, don't think you'd be walking into an analyst job with no experience. Analyzing is analyzing and you've done that. Just with different data. We can train you how to look at compensation data. It's harder to train you about the business side of things.

You may have noticed that senior people seem to jump around to jobs that they've had little experience in, yet we pay them a boatload of cash. Why? We're after their management skills and their ability to understand, learn, analyze, hire the right people and make decisions. Figure out what your skills are and sell yourself on those. Set up some informational interviews to learn about what a compensation analyst really does. (Please read the link first, or Ask a Manager will haunt me.) You should be able to see how your skills can apply there.

Good luck and welcome to the world of HR.

Public Service Announcement

This is completely off topic, and I apologize for it. On Monday, one of my friends was killed in a car crash. Her parents, who were with her, are in critical condition and the doctors don't expect her mother to survive. My friend was 46.

An 18 year old girl ran a stop sign and t-boned them. She walked away with minor injuries. She was also text messaging while driving.

Please don't do that. Texting requires that you use your hands for something other than steering and your eyes for something other than looking.

If your teenager is texting while driving, please take her phone and her car away from her.

Not only is my friend dead, this 18 year old girl has to live knowing her stupidity caused someone else's death. I don't think you would want to be in either position.

Carnival Poll

We're having a bit of a "discussion" behind the scenes regarding the Carnival of HR. The question is, should a host be able to require submissions on a certain theme, or should they just deal with whatever gets submitted.

My opinion is that I have no opposition to an occasional theme, but I wouldn't want it to be a requirement for every carnival. Some dates just scream theme. (Well, at least, to me, they do.)

So, vote in this poll. We'll go with whatever the consensus is.

Carnival of HR

I know. It's a day late. (Unless I get distracted and then it will be two days late.) I should be fired. In fact, this isn't the only reason I should be fired. Let that be our carnival theme: Reasons to fire Evil HR Lady.

1. HR Wench writes about the Americans With Disabilities act and Age Discrimination in answering a question about a school teacher. I'm neither disabled nor over 40, so I'm not a likely candidate for a law suit. Therefore, I'm easy to fire.

2. Chris Young thinks HR really doesn't want to reduce turnover--it's too scary. David Wentworth at even tells you how to downsize. So, getting rid of me is no problem at all.

3. John Ingham has his Mojo. Then Amit Avasthi talks about a new term Glocalisation. Your talent is where it's at. You need to be able to see it to bring it out. Sounds like it would work with Mojo. These are two words not normally in my vocabulary, so I should definitely be terminated.

4. Susan Heathfield talks about knowing your audience. You see, it's not all about you--it's about your audience. Well, I want it to be all about me.

5. Micheal Moore presents the E-Verify nightmare. And, Recruitment 2.0 talks about Northern Ireland's reporting requirements (Catholic or Protestant?). Never mind firing me. Just shoot me now.

6. Gautam Ghosh gives us 5 Skills for Success. Being positive is one of them. Well, Ask a Manager positively does not like Employee of the Month Programs. I'll join her in that negativity, which, I guess, means Guatam can fire both of us. Except that Ask A Manager is correct about employee of the month programs being a poor substitute for real retention strategies, so maybe fire me and promote her. But, speaking of negativity, HR Minion gives us signs that an employee has gone negative.

7. Wally Bock wants to be Left Alone in order to have time to reflect and make good decisions. He says this is important for leadership. Dan McCarthy also addresses good ideas for leaders through a Leadership Exchange program. Now, if only I could get fired so I could go work for Wally or Dan.

8. Alvaro Fernandez presents a new book, Sway, and discusses why smart brains makes stupid decisions. People with smart brains often end up in middle management, which then turns them, well read Wayne Turmel's The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Cubicle and find out. Let's just say that I have a smart brain which made a stupid decision to over-schedule her Wednesday, resulting in a late carnival. Definitely a fireable offense.

9. Lisa tells us how to Crush Positive Employee Relations. I should be fired because I took it as a delightful "how to" guide, instead of the "how not to guide" it really is.

10. Michael D. Haberman got his seat at the table stolen. (Okay, not his, but still.) He reminds us to get out of HR to learn the business. I should be fired so that I'm forced to escape.

11. Totally Consumed tells us to be honest when providing job references. The Career Encourager reminds us that, in a job search competition isn't a bad thing. But, Denise O'Berry reminds us that after we're hired, we need to make sure we can trust our team even when we don't see them daily. It's all so kind and friendly, that there isn't really a reason to fire me in these posts. So, I guess I'll continue blogging.

I Wonder Why The Other Mothers At The Park Are Avoiding Me

 

It's Just Not Working

Expat question for you: I am recently hired by a large international Hospitality organization. The welcome, after the very aggressive recruiting, has been disappointing.

Somebody hinted at the possibility that "the company had let me down" during my probation time and therefor could be found responsible for my relocation costs. (Normally, if the employee resigns during their 3 months probation time, the cost for the return tickt and moving expenses falls back on the employee.) What exactly does this mean: the co. has let someone down on their contract?

As I am in month one of my probation time, I am kind of curious what the answer is.

I have no idea what your company policy is. I have no idea what country you are now located in. I'm going to answer this based on my worldview, so it may or may not apply.

So, you don't like the job. There's no technical breach of contract (that I can divine from a short question--which I encouage short questions as they save me the editing time) unless you got here and they said, "oooh, that offer letter, we're not going to be paying you that salary and so much for relocation costs. You have to repay everything we've already spent." Instead, you don't like it.

In my world, we'd say tough cookies. Now, we'd say tough cookies to your face, but behind the scenes we'd be screaming at the recuiter and the hiring manager who brought you in with tales of greatness and then dumped you into reality.

Can I say it again? Let's be honest when we are recruiting. Let's tell our candidates what the problems are. Best interview I ever had (and I took the job, by the way) was when the hiring manager said to me, "I'll be honest. There's a lot of policitical stuff going on. I'll try to protect you from some of it, but I can't guarentee you won't get caught up in it." She then warned me that her boss was, shall we say, unstable and would yell and scream but rewarded people who put up with her shenanigans with high pay raises. I KNEW what I was getting into. Fortunately for me, her boss was fired three weeks after I started. But even if she hadn't been, I had no illusions going in.

But, it's too late for that. You're there and you don't like it. But, you've only been there for one month. ONE MONTH! You only have to stay for 3 to not have to repay your relocation costs (which seem very small, considering). My advice to you? Suck it up. Three months aren't going to kill you and you may find out you like it better then you thought you did. New jobs are often awkward and you start to feel stupid because you don't understand how the company operates. And, since you are a new country, there is a new culture to go with it.

What I would do is first go to your manager and explain your concerns. She may be able to come up with a solution. Perhaps change some aspect of you job to make it a better fit for you. She doesn't really want to go recruiting again. However, if she's just as annoyed with you as you are with the job, she may feel it's the best deal to hand you a return ticket home and wish you well.

Unless the country you are in has laws that vary from this, they are under no obligation to pay for your return because you are "unsatisfied" with the job. If you, contractually, have to repay for terminating voluntarily in less than x number of years, you'll have to repay.

This can be one of the reasons jobs with relocation are so scary (both domestic and international). You don't really know if you'll love a job until you get there (or a town, for that matter). But, you're on the hook for a huge sum of money if you
don't stick it out. (Full relocation can cost a ton of money--especially international relcations. We're talking in excess of $100,000.) I advise people to relocate cautiously.

But, managers don't want an unhappy employee either. So, talk with your boss. Work on a solution. If that doesn't work stick it out three months and graciously resign. Getting yourself home will be on your own dime, but so be it.

Please Don't Tell Anyone Who Told You This But

I am also an Evil HR Lady. They even call me 'The Warden'. I think they're kidding but I wear it as a badge of honor nonetheless. I am the HR Director and I have 4 Evilettes who handle most of the basic HR functions while I handle more of the big picture and really, really drama filled stuff.

My question is; how do I handle those situations where an employee comes to tell me something that they want addressed but want to remain anonymous? Sometimes these things are so specific and there is really only one way I could know about it.....a 'snitch'. Unless I catch the person doing it, it's hard to bring it to their attention without being obvious. Sometimes I am able to 'catch' someone and sometimes not. Any thoughts?

Wow. I bow in the honor of an HR Lady called "The Warden." That is awesome. Or really, really bad and you should be nicer. One of the two.

I'm really, really tempted to send you to my favorite day care provider to tell you how to handle it. ("Are you tattling? I don't listen to tattlers, so go play.")

That's actually a great way to handle things that aren't serious. ("John keeps coming in late." "Are you tattling on John? I don't listen to tattlers. Go work.") That and, "well, have you asked Susan to stop clearing her throat 64 times an hour? No? Try that," cover you for most of the situations that arise.

But the real problems come when it's not something you can ignore. When it's not that Susan is repeatedly clearing her throat, it's that she's stealing product, then you have to do something. Then there are the things such as sexual harassment that can open the company up to legal liabilities. You have to act.

So, how to do it without letting the target of the investigation know who brought it to your attention. Sometimes this is impossible and you just have to tell the person that while you would love to leave them out of it, it's impossible to do so. If the complaint is that John's supervisor is asking for "inappropriate" favors from him, you can't exactly just wire tap the supervisor's office and send John in there to run a sting operation. Nor can you just follow the supervisor around all day hoping he'll forget you are there and say something inappropriate.

The reality is that people know that even if a "case" is decided in their favor, their working life could be made into a nightmare. (John's supervisor is no longer sexually harassing him, but he receives worse assignments and subtle putdowns that turn the team against him.) Therefore, John doesn't want to be associated with the problem, just make it stop.

You can't. In some situations, you do just have to suck it up and deal with it, names and all. Of course, this is a huge catch 22 because if you can't keep it confidential fewer people will come to you and if fewer people come to you it's more likely that you'll miss things that are going on. Then your employes could claim that the reason they didn't come to HR with the problem was because you made it difficult to present a problem. Hoo-boy, then you're in for more trouble.

So, some suggestions on things that aren't going to blow up immediately. Mandatory training. I know, I know, unpleasant and difficult to just pull one bad egg into it. So, don't. You should be having regular training on health and safety issues, harassment, etc, so if you have regularly scheduled training, either the employee in question has recently completed it or will be due for additional training. Then you can simply "follow up" on the training. This will give you an excuse to talk to the alleged offender without bringing up the situation.

If it's something like stealing (probably not a legitimate training you could do on "why you shouldn't steal from the employer"), that's an immediately fireable offense, so less risk ruining the complainer's life if it's found to be true. Plus, it's not like you can be sued for someone stealing something. (I'm sure now I'll get a link where that happened.)

Part of the problem, which you know, is that people want HR to step in and solve all problems for them--rather than being growning up and solving it themselves. Still, as the Warden (I do love that) you've obviously gained some level of respect that the average employee and manager doesn't have. Use that to your advantage when you are explaining to an employee that there is no way you can keep their name out of it. "If you have further problems, let me know and I WILL take care of it." Who could not believe you?

For the less serious problems, I would let the "person who brings it to your attention" (I've been using "complainer" but that sounds too negative), decide if which they want more--the problem dealt with or anonymity. Of course, you can keep your eyes open and if you do see something deal with it, but not all workplace complaints need to be dealt with.

Part Time Exempt

I am an exempt employee, this is not only stated in my written offer letter, but also by the fact that my job specifications include independent authority, hiring and firing influence, and management of a department. I am paid over the weekly minimum amount for exempt status. I am in agreement that my job is that of an exempt employee.

However, I am paid by the hour. I am not expected to work any hours other than 9 to 5 (since my employer is paying me by the hour, they have a specific amount budgeted for my job title). I leave work at 5, even if tasks are not completed, with no adverse effect on my performance rating. They do not ask me to do more than what I can get done in that time period. I also am the only part-time employee, working only 3 days a week.

In addition, I do not receive any paid-time off benefits.

My question is this: should I keep my mouth shut and just enjoy the fact that I have regulated work hours and can leave at 5, even as other co-workers slave away into the night (I'm not eligible for OT, as I'm exempt, and it wouldn't be approved anyway, as they only have limited budget for my position)? Or, should I discuss with my manager the fact that as an "exempt" employee, I should receive company holidays (at least the ones that land on a regularly scheduled work day) because it's affecting my "salary"--which should remain consistent, given that I'm an exempt employee? There's a slight chance this would open the door to a possible "work until the job's done" discussion, but it's not likely.

I believe the fact that I get no paid sick or vacation time is legal, as they classify me as "part-time". Their written PTO policy for full-timers does not apply to me, as I'm a different class (part-time). Correct?

I think you should ask for holiday pay--for the holidays you are scheduled to work. I agree that that seems fair, especially if all other employees get it.

Are they required to give it to you? Well, no. You're right that it cuts into your pay if they don't. This would seem, on it's surface, to go against the principle of exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act. It really doesn't because even though your job could be classified as exempt, how they are acting indicates that it is not. Plus, there are exemptions from the exemption rules (got that?) that allow companies not to pay you for full days not worked.

Now, don't freak out. I haven't just changed your job description on you or said you wouldn't classify for exemption, it's just that by paying you by the hour they have chosen to not treat you as an exempt employee. Now, since your offer letter states you are exempt, could you pitch a fit? Maybe, but I'm not a lawyer nor am I an expert on FLSA.

The only disadvantage to the company for paying you like this is that if something strange happens and you end up putting in more than 40 hours one week, they'll have to pay you overtime. From what you said, this ain't happening.

There are very few professional part time jobs and lots of people who want them. I actually work part time and you should see the line up I have of people wanting to know when I'm going to quit so they can have my job. (Well, they want part time, plus my boss and my department are awesome, plus sometimes I get to travel to New Jersey, and who wouldn't want that?) There are trade-offs to the reduced schedule. You can decide if they are worth it to you, or not.

So, my advice, ask for holiday pay. I would give it to you. But, I'm a soft-hearted part time employee myself. If you don't ask, the answer will be no. If you do ask, the answer might be no, but it might be yes. Keep in mind that no one cares about your pay check like you do.

Too Dressed Up

Hi! I am the Director of Public Relations/Community Liaison for a non-profit counseling center in Wyoming. I am a young(in my 20's) professional female with a college degree and a passion for what I do. Recently I was pulled aside by my Executive Director and Clinical Director and given a lecture on my dress.

I dress in very professional business suits and dresses that are no shorter than knee length with business heels everyday, and I have worked hard and enjoy wearing designer clothes(Dior, Prada, etc). I was told that I needed to tone it down and think about wearing jeans, etc because I was dressing too professionally and that coworkers had complained that it made them uncomfortable. They then continued that donning designer shoes/bags/dresses makes my coworkers feel like I think that I am better than them. I was told that this is Wyoming and business is casual. Am I nuts or does this sound absurd to you? Thanks for your response!

You're nuts. Heck at my office, people pay $5 to be able to have the priviledge of wearing jeans once a year in order to raise money for March of Dimes.

Sorry. If your co-workers and boss (especially the boss)are wearing jeans and you're wearing a Prada suit with heels, you are inappropriately dressed.

Not that I would recognize a Prada suit if it bit me (I'm way too old and fashion challenged, plus a little bit cheap), but there are times it is inappropriate. I don't know much about Wyoming's dress code (does a state have a dress code?), but I did grow up in a town where suits were known as "marry 'em or bury 'em" clothes. Someone in a suit was out of place in most settings outside a church.

Now, I'm not one to criticize your sense of style and as long as your armpits aren't showing I'm fine with whatever you are wearing. However, there are consequences to all of our actions. The consequence for dressing up is that you co-workers feel uncomfortable.

They may be irrational. You may be the only appropriately dressed person in the entire place. It doesn't matter. Perception is reality and their reality is that your outfits make them uncomfortable.

As a commmity liaison, you should understand the importance of being able to communicate with your community.

Now, you don't have to dress exactly like everyone else. That might be a little creepy, because it's not your style. Dress like you would dress for business casual.

If your suits are too important to you to give up, fine. But, there will be consequences to that choice. Since the leadership at you company doesn't approve, a consequence could be a lack of career growth. Take a hint from your bosses and follow their leads.

Interview with Me

Totally Consumed interviewed me. Find it here.

A Hairy Situation

Help evil HR lady!! The tables have been turned!

I’ve just recently been told my HR Manager position has been eliminated (darn those salespeople, why couldn’t they sell more!!). But hey, I’m an evil HR person; I know the tricks to make this work.

Now that my colleagues know I’m being let go, they are all commenting that I need to get rid of my goatee (yes, I am an evil HR guy). Here is my (admittedly unusual) question – do employers really care about applicants with facial hair anymore? It’s not for religious reasons, and I keep it well trimmed. What’s the deal? I’d love to hear what your readers think!

Anonymous (but hairy) HR Guy

My personal opinion? As long as you are dressed properly and your facial hair is neat, it won't matter. If you have the facial hair and it's sloppy and has your lunch in it, then no. But, I don't hire, so I've created a poll:

HR Roles

First I must say how much I’ve enjoyed your blog – it helped me a lot when I applied for a new job last year.

Now (for only the second time in my career) I work for a company that is large enough to actually have an HR department!

My question is, I see references to roles such as ‘HR Generalist’ and ‘HR Business Partner’, and I’m sure there are more I haven’t found yet.

Could you please give a quick summary of the various HR roles and the differences?

Oh the desire for Snark is overwhelming me. I may not be able to hold back.

Companies differ and you can have two people with identical titles at different companies do very different jobs. These answers are based on my experiences, YMMV.

HR Business Partner: Works closely with the business leaders to help develop strategy and give general guidance. They take the "business" POV in dealing with a conflict between management and an employee. Things like reorganizations and succession planning falls on their shoulders.

HR Generalist: Most large companies don't truly have a generalist, although I suspect this term is sometimes applied to employee relations people (See below). A true generalist does everything--benefits, hiring, business partner, employee relations.

Employee Relations: Instead of looking at the department as a whole, they tend to deal with individual problems. Have a problem with an employee? Go there. Have a problem with a manager? Go to ER. Employee discipline problems, performance reviews, all that kind of fun stuff falls on Employee Relations. They also work very closely with the HR Business Partner.

Benefits: People with a benefits title can do a variety of things. Your senior benefits people will be choosing health plans, negotiating with vendors and developing policies. The junior people will be solving employee benefit problems, working with the vendors and making actual changes to individual employees.

HRIS: This stands for HR Information Systems. People with HR Analyst often fall into this category. These are the techie and numbers people of Human Resources. On the tech side, the run the HR systems. The can be the actual HRIS itself, where employee data is stored (employment history, salary, grade, etc) or supporting systems, such as training and development systems and resume tracking systems. Then there is the reporting side. These people provide data--usually to the HR business partners--to help them make decisions. Turnover, headcount, trends, etc. all come out of the HRIS and other systems and are put together by the analysts. This is an extremely important group that is often overlooked. HR can't provide value without knowledge, and these people keep the knowledge. (You might have detected that I began my career as an HR analyst.)

Staffing or Recruiters: In house staffing departments are responsible for hiring. They do more than just find and interview candidates. They work with the business to develop accurate job descriptions, train managers on how to conduct interviews, vett candidates, relocate employees, source candidates, review resumes, interview (and phonescreen), manage vendor relationships and act as ad hoc employee relations people. A good recruiter can make a manager's job so much easier. A bad one? Well, you'll suffer the effects of that for years.

Compensation: These are the people who figure out how much you should be paid. And how you should be paid. You'll also find people labeled HR Analyst, or Compensation Analyst in this group. They evaluate and grade job descriptions, determine exempt vs non-exempt status, develop annual increase programs, determine bonus levels, and do statistical analysis.

Organizational Development: They sit in leather chairs and think. They annoy the rest of us who do the work. Sorry. They look at how organizations function and develop strategies for increasing productivity and maximizing effectiveness.

Training: They develop and present training to employees. This can run the gamut from technical training to sexual harassment training (how to prevent it, not how to do it) to executive development. They work with line management to determine what employees lack and then figure out a solution to that. They are often associated closely with OD.

Labor and Employment Law: These are the lawyers. We love them. They keep us from making stupid and illegal mistakes. Or at least they advise us that we are making stupid mistakes and then we do it anyway.

Those are some of the basics. And I managed to keep the snark out of it. (At least for the most part.)

Carnival of HR

If you look over at my sidebar, you'll notice that the Carnival of HR listings have been updated. You'll also notice that there are a ton of available dates. (So, I kept listing until 2009 ended. I got a little carried away.)

If you are interested in hosting a Carnival--either for the first time or as a repeat host--send me an e-mail at evilhrlady at hotmail dot com.

It takes me a while to respond because I'm undoubtedly typing one handed while nursing a baby, so please forgive me.

You Just Don't Understand

My job involves ten and a half months of working 9-5 and six weeks of working 8-8 and occasional weekends due to government department deadlines

Apart from my co-worker, J, who works 9-5 throughout, because she has kids.

I have brought this up with my boss since we all have the same client allocations and I do not feel that I should be working unpaid overtime in order to help cover J's list, simply because J has kids and does not want to make arrangements for their care after work - her family all live in the area and there is no shortage of after-school clubs etc.

Furthermore, this is of particular concern to me since I have a chronic pain disorder and need to rest - obviously it is impossible for me to make arrangements to leave my pain elsewhere!

My boss tells me that 'well, J has kids, it's difficult. You don't understand'. I pointed out while I don't have kids, the 4 hours per day of overtime - which need not be so lengthy if she were doing it too - is wearing me out and making me ill.

I was told to 'Stop whining'. I am retyping my CV.

Kids are difficult and you just don't understand. Us working mothers should be paid triple what everyone else makes, plus only have to work 9 to 5 and we get to leave early if one of the little darlings has a school performance (in fact, those are so painful that we should be paid overtime to attend those performances). Ohh, plus, we should get 10 sick days for us, and 10 additional sick days for each child. Because it's HARD being a working mom.

Please write again when you have a real problem.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Of course, right now I'm basking in the freedom of maternity leave and writing this post when I should be painting my front door. (Did you know that you should paint your front door and frame every few years? Me neither. Turns out that if you don't, and you live where I live, your frame will start to rot and you'll have to spend $1300 to get a new frame installed. Trust me, I know on this one.)

But, it is hard to hold down a full time job and manage children. And it is true that until you've done it, you don't understand. But, really, that's not your problem.

I'm all for flexibility for anyone who wants it. But, flexibility should come at a cost--to the person getting the flexibility, not to the rest of her department. A manager should be clear in the hiring process that this job entails 6 weeks per year of intense unpaid overtime. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't take the job.

Now, for all you know, when "J" was hired they struck this deal where she would always be able to leave at 5:00, even during the busy season. She may have negotiated a lower salary in exchange for this. Your manager certainly shouldn't be discussing her salary arrangements with you.

But, even so, your manager needs to realize that granting one employee flexibility should not mean dumping work on another employee without adequately compensating that employee.

You've explained your concerns to your boss. You have been told to stop whining. You are working on your resume. Excellent. I would try one more time with the boss. And leave J out of it. You don't know what she's negotiated. You don't know if her family is willing to take the kids. And, you don't know if she has the money for the after school programs. And she might well have all those things available to her, but she doesn't want to do it for whatever reason. That doesn't matter to you.

What matters to you is your job. So, have the conversation with your boss over your responsibilities.

Is there another solution that would work? Can J's clients be spread over 3 or 4 people? Is there something that can be done to streamline the work? Can you get a raise?

The important thing when discussing inequities at work is to leave out any mention of slacker co-workers. They are not your problem. Your problem is your workload. Your manager is not managing well, so you'll have to help him balance your workload out. J and her childcare arrangements should not enter into the conversation. If the boss brings it up, don't go there. Just keep talking about your workload.

And yes, looking for a new job seems like a good idea.

Prying Supervisors

Is a supervisor allowed to ask an employee why they need to take the day off? The employees at the child care center that I manage are required to complete a request form when needing to take off part of the day or the whole day, stating when they need off and why. The form is primarily used to track the need to arrange for substitute teachers to fill in for the absent employees, but it does ask that they state the reason for their request.

Once again, a nice legal disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to be a lawyer and I do not give legal advice.

But, in all seriousness, why wouldn't a supervisor be allowed to ask an employee why they are taking a day off? I mean, talk about making a stilted workplace.

Now, would I advocate that supervisors should interrogate employees before granting time off? Absolutely not. In fact, I am more of an advocate of letting your employees be adults and letting them determine when they need to take a day off. I would even remove the question from the form. But, to ban supervisors from asking? Silliness.

In your setting, it's not practical to have employees be able to take off when ever they want--because you need substitutes. There are, perhaps, a limited number of substitutes available to cover classes. Let's say you have 20 regular teachers and 3 substitutes available. If 4 people ask for the day off, what are you going to do? (You can't work with fewer people without sending kids home--there are undoubtedly state mandated ratios of teachers/students. I know there are in the offspring's daycare.)

Well, the grown up thing to do is to say, "Hey, 4 people are asking for this Friday off. Is anyone willing to take next Friday instead?" Most likely someone will say, "It's my mother's birthday and we're driving to Cleveland, so I really need it off," and someone else will say, "I was just going to catch up on yard work, so I'll do next Friday instead." Ahh, problem solved.

But, if the problem can't be solved that way, the manager has to make a decision. I would hate to use reason for the request as the decision maker (it's too fraught for hurt feelings, and claims of discrimination). You can use time of request (first to ask gets it off), seniority, or something else.

If I were you, I'd let my employees know that you don't care why they need the day off--they can even leave that line blank on the form. (I presume you can't change the form, as it comes from your corporate office.) If you get in trouble from your bosses, then tell them to fill it out, but you'll ignore it. Then say, "If more than 3 people request the same day, I'll let all of you know and hopefully you can work it out. If not, time off will be granted on a first come, first serve basis, provided that you have the available time."

Now, there will be a time when 3 people have asked for a day off in advance and the 4th person then asks saying, "My husband is having surgery, so I have to take it off." What are you going to say, "Sorry, you're the fourth person, so he'll have to drive himself to the hospital"? See, reason rears its ugly head. Knowing the person's reason is going to make you much more likely to try to find a way to accommodate the request. If the reason is, "i want to go tanning before I go to the beach on the weekend," you're not going to bend over backwards and pull strings.

But, again, until your employees give you a reason to to trust you, trust them. Most will give you a reason anyway, in casual conversation. In all but the rarest circumstances, reason shouldn't matter in granting the request.

Gossip

I worked at car Dealership One for about six months. I was named sales person of the month. I consistently sold more cars than anyone else on the sales floor and I actively participated in all sales meetings and even started training other new sales associates who started working at the dealership. I was eventually promoted to the internet sales department and did very well. I was scolded and reprimanded for having too many people there and selling too many cars. After that conversation, I quietly spoke to the general manager of the dealership and turned in my resignation.

I was hired on by Dealership Two as an internet sales manager. I was thrilled about the move up and shared the news with a few of my friends and former co-workers from Dealership One. Of course, I knew this news that I shared with them would make its rounds through Dealership One. I was fine with that because I left on good terms and had nothing to hide from Dealership Two. In fact, I listed the general manager from Dealership One on the application that I filled out for Dealership Two.

I started work and was doing very well. I shared this news with one of my co-workers from Dealership One. As soon as the general manager of Dealership One heard of this news, he decided to place a call to the manager of Dealership Two to find out how I was doing.

He asked several questions about my performance, how much money I was making, and how many cars I had sold, as well as how my personality was fitting in with the new group. My current supervisors refused to answer any of these questions stating that it was not appropriate for them to discuss my performance or achievements with him without my prior consent. Good job, new dealership! At least someone was acting professionally.

After this phone conversation took place, the general manager from Dealership One told everyone during a staff meeting that he found out where I was working and how I was doing. He said I was making less money at Dealership Two than I was when I was still working for Dealership One and also that I was worse off and unhappy. He said it was a shame that I was headed toward a downward spiral and that he would be there to "give me a good talkin' to" if I ever came to my senses and asked for my old job back. He also made several comments about how my poor performance and attitude problems got me into this "situation" and that he hoped none of his current sales people went down the road I was traveling down.

How should I handle this situation? Should I contact him and ask what he was hoping to accomplish by spreading false rumors? I want to handle this very professionally so as not to compromise my integrity or my name in the car industry, but I also want to ensure that he does not continue to act in this manner going forward.

Well, you have some advantages here. People talk--but they don't only talk to this one sales manager. Your current sales manager not only didn't say bad things about your--or believe any of the bad things your former manager might have said--but told you about it. That is an excellent sign. People who lie eventually will not be trusted. Keep in mind that after your former boss blasted you, the co-worker who knew the truth about your success undoubtedly told the other sales people that your boss was, ummm, incorrect.

They just lost respect for him as well.

I see two options for you. Option one is to just let it go. Your record at your new job will speak for itself. If you are performing at a high level, your current manager would be a fool to let any rumors bother him. You can just wait for the natural order of things to occur, and boss one will eventually get what is coming to him.

Option 2 carries risk, but it is also a little bit more fun. Your previous boss said what he said because he assumes he can get away with it. He assumes that either you won't find out (dumb assumption) or that you won't say anything. He also assumes that his position as the boss ensures that his current salespeople will suck up to him, so he has no worries. You can pick up the phone and call him. Just be direct. Don't ask for an apology or an explanation. Just tell him that you know what he is saying about you. Something like this:

"John, I hear you've been talking about me in staff meetings. I'm honored that you are still concerned about me. Trust me, I'm doing just fine in my current job."

The advantage of this approach is that he's not expecting you to say anything, but in the back of his mind he thinks that IF you say something you'll be a screaming mess and he'll get to be all defensive and this will justify his statement because you are obviously unstable. By just letting him know that you know he's talking, he's been warned.

If he continues, I'd just let it go--unless it starts to affect your current job. The nice thing about sales jobs is that there are hard numbers to go along with performance. If, for a future job, he bad-mouths you, you'll be able to produce your actual sales numbers to show your performance.

Layoffs--the Employee's View

A friend sent me this article, Terminated: Desperately seeking plan B. Having been at least peripherally involved with thousands of terminations, but never having (yet) been laid off myself (my day too, will come, I'm sure), I found it fascinating. Especially this part, where the staff realizes that layoffs are happening:

In seconds, we are all back in the parking lot, slapping a Post-it on Jana's car -- "Meet us at Rotelli's" -- and fleeing a quarter-mile down the street on foot so that when the boss comes back out, there will be no one here to fire.

I can just imagine the freak outs on the part of managers and HR when they go to collect the next victim and find the whole office has gone to lunch.

Go read the whole thing.

Punitive Measures

I work for a company with technicians who travel to residence/business for installation or service. At the end of each day the policy is that all time sheets are to be handed in, so that at the end of the week I am not doing the data entry and payroll for 36 people. I have made several comments to them asking to PLEASE hand them in. One person gives me a hard time. This week I made a memo that any employee who does not follow the company policy will be removed from direct deposit and will have to pick up their check from my desk. Was this legal? Any suggestions on how to handle this?

Not a lawyer, so not going to answer the legal aspect. (Although I will say that I wouldn't dare try this in California. They have wonky direct deposit laws that I am aware of.)

Is this a good method of getting people to behave how you want them to? Maybe. Maybe not. I'm guessing that this isn't just a case of someone who is too flaky to turn in their time cards on time. It sounds like someone thinks your rule of daily time cards is nit-picky and unnecessary.

Is it?

Just something to think about. Sometimes we set up rules that had a great reason in 1997, but that reason has gone away and we haven't changed them. I'm not doubting you, just pointing out that sometimes the reasons for things have gone away.

But, I assume this reason hasn't and doing data entry for 36 people is a huge task and you need the time.

Frequently, people see their own tasks as being "difficult" and the tasks that others do as "easy." "Man, I could get the payroll done in 20 minutes. I don't know what her problem is," may well have been said several times.

You can drag the offender into your office and say, "look, let me show you what is required," but that probably won't happen. So, instead, you set up a an effective stick. "Don't turn in your time cards on time and you won't have direct deposit, which means not only a trip in to pick up a hard copy check, but then a trip to the bank to deposit it and perhaps a holding period before the money is available."

Sounds like a great big stick. But, it may come back to bite you. Let's say Mr. Problem Child has his mortgage set to automatically come out of his checking account on the first of the month. Normally his paycheck is direct deposited on the 31st. You give him a live check and his mortgage payment bounces. He gets a late fee and then he comes in and yells at you and calls your boss and complains that you've ruined his life and his credit. Yes, yes, it's his fault, but do you want to deal with the fall out?

Is it that big of deal to have one person have a late time card? It may be--I don't do payroll for your company. But, if you can get the other 35 people done, it may be better just to drop it.

I am 100% sure that this guy is annoying as all get out. Heck, he's annoying me and I've never met him. But sometimes, it's better to let things drop.

If there is a power struggle going on, bugging him and whacking him with sticks will only make it worse. Dropping it may take away his need to bug you and the time cards might start arriving on time. Of course, you can set a final deadline, after which pay is processed the next week. (Unless, that is illegal in your state. Always best to know your laws!)

You could also try some sort of carrot method before the stick method. Everyone that gets their time cards in on time gets entered into a drawing for some token--it's amazing what people will do for a candy bar. (Or maybe not all people--maybe I'll just do anything for chocolate. I'm easily bribed.)

Good luck running your pay. Payroll is truly what makes the world go round--and no one appreciates you like they should. I do, though. I love getting paid.

Drinking at Lunch

I am a Project Manager who was reprimanded for going out to a restaurant for lunch with several employees. One of them had a beer and upon returning to the office he commented to the newly appointed (inexperienced and unqualified) "Executive Assistant" what she missed for not going with us. I don't believe the company is liable if we are hourly paid employees during a lunch not paid by the company and not related to work in any way. I would like to clear the air before my upcoming performance review.

Your "inexperienced and unqualified" executive assistant apparently knows enough to know that drinking at lunch is inappropriate. Telling her that she missed out on such an event further indicates a lack of maturity on your team's part.

Here is Evil HR Lady's rule of co-workers: When you are with people you work with you are AT WORK. This means that even though you weren't getting paid, you should consider a lunch out, at work. Think about it this way. If you had sexually harassed a co-worker instead of watching him drink alcohol, could you successfully argue that "hey, we were at lunch, not work, so I can harass him all I want"? I didn't think so.

And here is the Management Corollary: When you are with people who you manage (either as a true manager or as a project manager), you are still the boss and their actions will reflect upon you accordingly. This is true, again, even if you are on your "own time."

Alcohol at lunch is downright stupid. Sure, it's your "own time," but do you want to have an employee who was drinking 30 minutes ago working for you? Of course not. (Well, you do, but most people do not.)

Sure, I've heard rumors of the 3 martini lunch, but those days are gone. (At least in my experience. I've never worked in investment banking and even if I did, I don't drink at all.)

I don't know squat about the liability issues (not a lawyer, remember?), but I do know that you should suck it up, admit you were wrong and grovel for forgiveness at your performance review. Yes, I understand that you weren't drinking, but you obviously condoned the activity and blamed the Exec Assistant for your problems and judgment lapse.

And next time, if going out to lunch brings temptations inappropriate for the office, stick to the company cafeteria.