I’m interested in your thoughts on management by telecommuters. I worked for 10 years for a large non-profit organization in DC. About 2 or 3 years ago, they began to allow more people to telecommute. My much younger, green director worked from home 2 or 3 days a week. Her immediate boss (the dept. head) lived out of state was only in the office 2 weeks of the month. I could have opted to work from home (WFH) myself, but I was in a “body-count dependent” carpool, plus I would be bored and distracted at home all day.
I had been friendly coworkers with my boss for several years before she became the director. She had 4 children under the age of 7 and a long commute, so I completely understood her desire to WFH. Therefore, I was shocked one day on a con call when I told someone I couldn’t talk to them that afternoon at 1:00 because I had a doctor’s appointment, but could we do it later in the afternoon. My boss, who was also on the call from her home, caught me completely by surprise when she called me out about going to the appointment that she knew nothing about. Mind you, this organization was pretty laid back about these types of things and it had been close to a decade since I had to get prior permission to visit a doctor, particularly since I was going during my lunch. Also, the topic to be discussed was not of a timely nature.
One hour, 15 minutes later, when I returned from the doctor’s, I had waiting for me both an email and a VM informing me to code my time as PTO and, in the future, to always let her know when I was going to be out of the office. This from a woman who could be getting a pedicure at that very moment for all the rest of us knew. I always just assumed that during her WFH time, she was caring for her children, taking them to the doctor, picking them up from school, etc. It certainly did not bother me because it’s a new world, right? It’s all about results and not so much about bottom-time-in-the-chair, right? Well, apparently not for the daily schleppers.
Every morning I fought traffic to meet my carpool at 7:30. We then jumped from one car to another, in all weathers, schlepping bags, laptops, coats, etc. Then we fought traffic again to get to DC. In the evening, we did it all over again. I did this five days/week for years only to be called out on a doctor’s appointment by someone wearing a bathrobe?? I was livid. What a ridiculous (and hypocritical) double standard. Needless to say, a huge row ensued. I decided right then I was leaving the organization. I stayed there until I found another job (about 3 months) and have now been happily employed for 16 months, with another telecommuter for a boss. However, he has never treated any employee this way. He is older and more seasoned and -- I suspect -- knows how to pick his battles.
I’d be interested in your comments on this situation and how telecommuters can successfully manage daily schleppers without such hypocrisy.
I think you've mistaken telecommuting for not working.
That bugs me.
If your boss, with 4 children under 7, has them home with her while she's working, she's remiss in her duties. Yes, yes, I'm all about results, but you cannot effectively put in an 8 hour day with 4 little helpers. Sure, keeping an infant nearby is one thing, but 4 is impossible.
My bet is that your boss had them in daycare. Or she had a nanny. I'm sure she occasionally picked them up or took them to doctor's appointments. She undoubtedly told her boss she was doing so as well.
I agree with you that your boss over-reacted about your doctor's appointment. But, why didn't you talk to her about it then? Instead, you had a huge fight with her where you probably made comments about working in a bathrobe. This is what we like to call foolish.
You could have apologized and explained that your previous boss hadn't required prior notification for short amounts of time out of the office. She probably would have accepted your apology and life would go on.
You pointed out that she used to be a peer. She probably felt like her new underlings weren't respecting her and chose to assert herself in this situation to "show who is boss." It was a foolish and inexperienced thing to do. But, it had NOTHING to do with telecommuting.
I'm a fan of telecommuting. Ideally, I like to see partial telecommuting and partial in office time. I think that is the best solution for team cohesiveness and work-life balance--for those who desire to work from home. Not everybody does. I telecommute because of commuting distance, but if I lived close to the office, I'd prefer to work in one.
You decided you couldn't work for this woman, so you found a new job. Yeah! Many people would suffer and moan and complain. You actively sought work elsewhere and found it. It's possible you could have salvaged the relationship, but you chose not to. This is fine.
But don't let her inexperience put you against telecommuting. And don't let your pesky gender bias get in your way either. I noticed you haven't accused your new, male boss off extra-curricular activities during the day. Be careful what you assume. It can come back to bite you.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Credit Checks
We already run criminal record, adult maltreatment and child abuse registry checks, but what about credit checks? Employees who are unable to manage their financial lives results in us having to deal with garnishments, difficulty in make direct deposit of checks (either they keep changing accounts or can't get one at all) and petty theft or worse. What is the best way to do this and what are the pitfalls? We are a nonprofit serving people with disabilities and a staff of 90 plus.
I'm not so sure you want to get involved with credit checks. First of all, people claim that credit checks are discriminatory because minorities tend to have lower scores. Whether this is due to discrimination or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a perception of discrimination can open you up for law suits and win or lose, the employer always has to pay costs to defend.
Garnishments are a non-issue. You can have stellar credit and still have a garnishment. (For instance, some states don't allow you to write an actual check for alimony or child support--it comes out of your paycheck directly.) Your payroll should be set up to handle garnishments.
You can make it clear to prospective employees that your company will honor all legal garnishments and you will not discuss them, but the person must take it up with the state. I realize that won't stop your payroll manager from being screamed at. But, as I said, credit checks won't make that go away.
Your second concern is direct deposit. I'm guessing, given the nature of your work and your nonprofit status, that your employees are not highly paid. You aren't going to find adults making $10 an hour with credit scores in the 800s. You are also going to find that many of them don't have bank accounts at all. (In fact, a friend who is a payroll manager at a large company said she finds that many professional level people from certain countries also don't use bank accounts, or at least not direct deposit. They get live checks and sometimes wait months to cash them.)
My best advice is to stop fighting the lack of direct deposit problem and just acknowledge that some percentage of your workforce prefers a live check. I know it's more expensive. I know it's a huge pain. But, there it is. You can do things to encourage direct deposit. (See if you can join your business to a credit union--that could help. I have no idea how that is done or if that's even feasible, but it seems like a good idea.)
The last thing is petty theft. Again, I don't think a credit check is going to help you with this. Someone stealing $10 in supplies from an employer isn't going to have that theft show up on her credit report. If prosecuted, it would show on a criminal report. I realize you are trying to weed out people who are in bad financial straits and therefore tempted to commit petty theft.
While that may be your best justifiable reason for running a check, the liability that opens you up to--I think you're obligated to show how a good credit relates directly to the job--isn't worth it. Instead implement policies and practices that discourages and punishes petty theft.
Now, don't make your policies so punitive that people are scared to accidentally take home a company pen. One thing to keep in mind is that companies typically allow their office staff privileges that their hourly staff don't get. For instance, you don't freak out at all if Jane in accounting photocopies her Christmas letter on the color copier every year (100 friends she sends to!), but if Jill in housekeeping takes home a plastic mug you are all over that, even though Jane cost the company a lot more.
But, go ahead and let people know that taking company supplies is unacceptable and grounds for termination. And then do it.
As I said, I don't think credit checks are the answer to your problems. Perhaps better interviewing techniques, or raising pay to attract a more skilled set of employees. If these aren't feasible, print some paper checks, garnish away, and lock up your supplies.
I'm not so sure you want to get involved with credit checks. First of all, people claim that credit checks are discriminatory because minorities tend to have lower scores. Whether this is due to discrimination or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a perception of discrimination can open you up for law suits and win or lose, the employer always has to pay costs to defend.
Garnishments are a non-issue. You can have stellar credit and still have a garnishment. (For instance, some states don't allow you to write an actual check for alimony or child support--it comes out of your paycheck directly.) Your payroll should be set up to handle garnishments.
You can make it clear to prospective employees that your company will honor all legal garnishments and you will not discuss them, but the person must take it up with the state. I realize that won't stop your payroll manager from being screamed at. But, as I said, credit checks won't make that go away.
Your second concern is direct deposit. I'm guessing, given the nature of your work and your nonprofit status, that your employees are not highly paid. You aren't going to find adults making $10 an hour with credit scores in the 800s. You are also going to find that many of them don't have bank accounts at all. (In fact, a friend who is a payroll manager at a large company said she finds that many professional level people from certain countries also don't use bank accounts, or at least not direct deposit. They get live checks and sometimes wait months to cash them.)
My best advice is to stop fighting the lack of direct deposit problem and just acknowledge that some percentage of your workforce prefers a live check. I know it's more expensive. I know it's a huge pain. But, there it is. You can do things to encourage direct deposit. (See if you can join your business to a credit union--that could help. I have no idea how that is done or if that's even feasible, but it seems like a good idea.)
The last thing is petty theft. Again, I don't think a credit check is going to help you with this. Someone stealing $10 in supplies from an employer isn't going to have that theft show up on her credit report. If prosecuted, it would show on a criminal report. I realize you are trying to weed out people who are in bad financial straits and therefore tempted to commit petty theft.
While that may be your best justifiable reason for running a check, the liability that opens you up to--I think you're obligated to show how a good credit relates directly to the job--isn't worth it. Instead implement policies and practices that discourages and punishes petty theft.
Now, don't make your policies so punitive that people are scared to accidentally take home a company pen. One thing to keep in mind is that companies typically allow their office staff privileges that their hourly staff don't get. For instance, you don't freak out at all if Jane in accounting photocopies her Christmas letter on the color copier every year (100 friends she sends to!), but if Jill in housekeeping takes home a plastic mug you are all over that, even though Jane cost the company a lot more.
But, go ahead and let people know that taking company supplies is unacceptable and grounds for termination. And then do it.
As I said, I don't think credit checks are the answer to your problems. Perhaps better interviewing techniques, or raising pay to attract a more skilled set of employees. If these aren't feasible, print some paper checks, garnish away, and lock up your supplies.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Blogging and Your Career
I have heard many stories about job applicants who are rejected because of drunken photos of themselves that they have posted on the Internet.
Don't worry. I have no plans to start posting pictures of my wild parties. However, I started a blog recently. I know that it is common for prospective employers to search the Internet to dig up dirt on job applicants, so I am wary of putting too much personal information, good or bad, on my blog. My concern is that some employers might refuse to hire me because of my political, religious, and ideological views. Is this a valid concern? What suggestions do you have for blogging so that I do not hurt my future career? Thanks for your advice.
Ahh, internet anonymity. A subject near and dear to my heart. Obviously I'm someone who was concerned because I didn't start out blogging under my real name. (Incidentally, although I don't blog under my real name, I write under my real name, Suzanne Lucas, at US News.)
So, the answer to this is very important to me. I can't give you a definitive answer, but I think I would be hesitant to put my name out there if I was putting information down I didn't want to come up in a job interview.
I came to the realization that the next time I'm on a job search, I want to work for a company that likes Evil HR Lady's views. If they don't, I really don't want to work there. (Unless I get desperate, then I'll deny, deny, deny!)
But my blog is related to my job. I'm very careful not to comment on companies I've worked for or even specific industry related things. I want everyone reading this to know that my views represent MY views and not any company's views.
You aren't looking to do a professional related blog. You're interested in politics, religion and ideology. Can that hurt you? Sure. Especially if you take super whacko views on something.
Would I be careful about what I put in the internet? Absolutely. Would I want to know before hiring someone that they held a firm belief in the the flatness of the earth and want Kansas to be declared the center of the universe? Umm, yeah.
Would I advise recruiters and hiring managers to scour the web looking for any bit of evidence of what a candidate writes? No. Would I label a recruiter remiss if she didn't run a google search on the candidate in addition to a background search? Yes.
So, can your blogging hurt you? Yes. Be careful what you say. Blog anonymously, but as you do so, remember that your anonymity is really a false sense of security. It's not THAT hard to figure out who someone is if you really want to know.
Don't worry. I have no plans to start posting pictures of my wild parties. However, I started a blog recently. I know that it is common for prospective employers to search the Internet to dig up dirt on job applicants, so I am wary of putting too much personal information, good or bad, on my blog. My concern is that some employers might refuse to hire me because of my political, religious, and ideological views. Is this a valid concern? What suggestions do you have for blogging so that I do not hurt my future career? Thanks for your advice.
Ahh, internet anonymity. A subject near and dear to my heart. Obviously I'm someone who was concerned because I didn't start out blogging under my real name. (Incidentally, although I don't blog under my real name, I write under my real name, Suzanne Lucas, at US News.)
So, the answer to this is very important to me. I can't give you a definitive answer, but I think I would be hesitant to put my name out there if I was putting information down I didn't want to come up in a job interview.
I came to the realization that the next time I'm on a job search, I want to work for a company that likes Evil HR Lady's views. If they don't, I really don't want to work there. (Unless I get desperate, then I'll deny, deny, deny!)
But my blog is related to my job. I'm very careful not to comment on companies I've worked for or even specific industry related things. I want everyone reading this to know that my views represent MY views and not any company's views.
You aren't looking to do a professional related blog. You're interested in politics, religion and ideology. Can that hurt you? Sure. Especially if you take super whacko views on something.
Would I be careful about what I put in the internet? Absolutely. Would I want to know before hiring someone that they held a firm belief in the the flatness of the earth and want Kansas to be declared the center of the universe? Umm, yeah.
Would I advise recruiters and hiring managers to scour the web looking for any bit of evidence of what a candidate writes? No. Would I label a recruiter remiss if she didn't run a google search on the candidate in addition to a background search? Yes.
So, can your blogging hurt you? Yes. Be careful what you say. Blog anonymously, but as you do so, remember that your anonymity is really a false sense of security. It's not THAT hard to figure out who someone is if you really want to know.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Cheapity, Cheapity, Cheap
I know what the IRS mileage rate is ($.55 per mile for 2009). My question is what is the LEAST amount I can pay an employee for mileage reimbursement? She hardly ever drives but needs to a couple times a month for client meetings. Can I pay ½ the IRS rate? Seems like labor law 2802 is very vague about this so I thought I’d come to your HR department since we don’t have one.
I so do not know the answer to this and furthermore, I'm not even going to attempt to look it up. So, you might ask, why am I bothering to even post about this?
Well, the title I've chosen might give you a clue.
If your employee is a good one, your attempt to save a few dollars will increase the probability that she will leave you for another job.
I know, I know, the economy is in the toilet, so you can treat your employees like--ummm, like toilet contents. (Okay, I've crossed into crude territory. I should stop now.) This is false, false, false. This is the time when you need to treat your good employees as well as you possibly can. Your good employees are going to be able to pull your business through tough economic times.
Everybody says, "there are no jobs out there!" True, there are fewer jobs available. But, fewer doesn't mean zero and your good employees are far more capable of finding a new job than your bad employees.
Let's say your employee has to go 100 miles month to meet clients. At the IRS rate of $0.55 per mile, that's $55 a month, or $660 per year. Do you want to have a disgruntled employee over $660 a year? Do you? Do you? Because while it's only a little bit of money, she'll complain about it--maybe not to you, but to her husband and her friends. And once you've decided there is something that annoys you about your boss, everything else begins to grate on your nerves.
And so, what if it's not 100 miles a month, but 1,000 miles a month. Is $6,600 a year worth having to find and train a new employee? This, by the way, is far more expensive than $6,600.
Stop trying to figure out how to be cheap and start figuring out how to maximize your employees' productivity. And remember, a happy employee is a good employee.
I so do not know the answer to this and furthermore, I'm not even going to attempt to look it up. So, you might ask, why am I bothering to even post about this?
Well, the title I've chosen might give you a clue.
If your employee is a good one, your attempt to save a few dollars will increase the probability that she will leave you for another job.
I know, I know, the economy is in the toilet, so you can treat your employees like--ummm, like toilet contents. (Okay, I've crossed into crude territory. I should stop now.) This is false, false, false. This is the time when you need to treat your good employees as well as you possibly can. Your good employees are going to be able to pull your business through tough economic times.
Everybody says, "there are no jobs out there!" True, there are fewer jobs available. But, fewer doesn't mean zero and your good employees are far more capable of finding a new job than your bad employees.
Let's say your employee has to go 100 miles month to meet clients. At the IRS rate of $0.55 per mile, that's $55 a month, or $660 per year. Do you want to have a disgruntled employee over $660 a year? Do you? Do you? Because while it's only a little bit of money, she'll complain about it--maybe not to you, but to her husband and her friends. And once you've decided there is something that annoys you about your boss, everything else begins to grate on your nerves.
And so, what if it's not 100 miles a month, but 1,000 miles a month. Is $6,600 a year worth having to find and train a new employee? This, by the way, is far more expensive than $6,600.
Stop trying to figure out how to be cheap and start figuring out how to maximize your employees' productivity. And remember, a happy employee is a good employee.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Bad, Bad Microsoft
Two people have sent me info about how Microsoft tried to make people repay an overpayment and then changed their minds.
I suppose I'm supposed to be horrified that a big, mean, evil empire like Microsoft would ask for erroneously paid money back.
I'm not.
Let's reverse the situation. Suppose Microsoft underpaid severance (which, in actuality, they did to some people) and that person wrote a letter asking them to please pay up. Would we be horrified that that person had the audacity to ask such a question? After all, Microsoft is a publicly traded company, which means it's owned by humans! Some of them grandmothers on fixed incomes. In fact, I'm sure some of them are great grandmothers with no money for new dentures! The horror of it all!
I think I've used up my exclamation mark quota for a while.
I understand the reason why Microsoft reversed itself. I understand that it wasn't worth the public affairs nightmare. What I don't get is why people get so outraged at this.
Someone in payroll or HR made a mistake. It wasn't vindictive. It wasn't mean spirited. It was a mistake. And they were within legal rights to attempt to rectify the mistake.
I would probably have sent a similar letter. I also would have ended with that letter and not pursued it any further if the person had balked. That isn't worth the time, money and effort.
But no company should be vilified for asking for a mistake to be fixed.
I suppose I'm supposed to be horrified that a big, mean, evil empire like Microsoft would ask for erroneously paid money back.
I'm not.
Let's reverse the situation. Suppose Microsoft underpaid severance (which, in actuality, they did to some people) and that person wrote a letter asking them to please pay up. Would we be horrified that that person had the audacity to ask such a question? After all, Microsoft is a publicly traded company, which means it's owned by humans! Some of them grandmothers on fixed incomes. In fact, I'm sure some of them are great grandmothers with no money for new dentures! The horror of it all!
I think I've used up my exclamation mark quota for a while.
I understand the reason why Microsoft reversed itself. I understand that it wasn't worth the public affairs nightmare. What I don't get is why people get so outraged at this.
Someone in payroll or HR made a mistake. It wasn't vindictive. It wasn't mean spirited. It was a mistake. And they were within legal rights to attempt to rectify the mistake.
I would probably have sent a similar letter. I also would have ended with that letter and not pursued it any further if the person had balked. That isn't worth the time, money and effort.
But no company should be vilified for asking for a mistake to be fixed.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Forms R Us
From an proactive HR audit perspective what should a hire justification form look like and what is the best way to broach this subject with senior management and hiring managers that may interpret the new process as unnecessary work?
Ahh, forms. Once, I was doing some sort of report and I noticed that the company I worked for had a person whose title was "Director of Forms." Awesome. I have no idea what that person did.
And if you're asking me to figure out a justification for your form, do you have any idea what your form is for?
I'm not trying to be snarky. (Well, perhaps a little bit...)
If the form is truly necessary than the reason for its necessity should be sufficient, should it not? If you say it's for "audit" purposes, what kind of audit are you looking at? Internal? Some governmental body? What?
If the purpose of the form is for managers to complete a job description so that the recruiter can start working on finding someone, then that doesn't need an explanation.
If the purpose is so that you can verify that there is available headcount, that's a different ball of wax.
If the purpose is so that your own, internal, director of forms can keep her job--well, not so much.
For hiring authorizations, I'd like to see a job description, title, grade, salary range, name of previous incumbent (if applicable), notations for if it is within budget or not, notations for if it is within authorized headcount or if you are asking for an addition, and an explanation as to why anything has changed to the position. (For instance, if you had a Grade 10 analyst who quit and you'd like to hire someone a bit more experienced and want to upgrade to a Grade 12 analyst, I'd like an explanation of why additional experience/skill is necessary.) I'd like to see a signature (or, preferably an electronic approval) from the requesting manager, her manager and the HR person responsible for that group. The HR person is to verify that the headcount is available and the job description is properly graded. HR's job is not to nitpick and find fault.
What you don't want is a requirement that everybody and their brother signs off. For filling a vacant position, you really shouldn't need the VP, CFO, and head of HR to sign off. Sure, if you're adding to headcount or upgrading in a super fashion (we'd like to replace this admin at $30k to a Sr. Director at $145k) you might want different signers.
The point is, make the form to serve whatever purpose you have. If you can't clearly and succinctly explain the purpose to the hiring manager, then evaluate why on earth you are doing it.
Ahh, forms. Once, I was doing some sort of report and I noticed that the company I worked for had a person whose title was "Director of Forms." Awesome. I have no idea what that person did.
And if you're asking me to figure out a justification for your form, do you have any idea what your form is for?
I'm not trying to be snarky. (Well, perhaps a little bit...)
If the form is truly necessary than the reason for its necessity should be sufficient, should it not? If you say it's for "audit" purposes, what kind of audit are you looking at? Internal? Some governmental body? What?
If the purpose of the form is for managers to complete a job description so that the recruiter can start working on finding someone, then that doesn't need an explanation.
If the purpose is so that you can verify that there is available headcount, that's a different ball of wax.
If the purpose is so that your own, internal, director of forms can keep her job--well, not so much.
For hiring authorizations, I'd like to see a job description, title, grade, salary range, name of previous incumbent (if applicable), notations for if it is within budget or not, notations for if it is within authorized headcount or if you are asking for an addition, and an explanation as to why anything has changed to the position. (For instance, if you had a Grade 10 analyst who quit and you'd like to hire someone a bit more experienced and want to upgrade to a Grade 12 analyst, I'd like an explanation of why additional experience/skill is necessary.) I'd like to see a signature (or, preferably an electronic approval) from the requesting manager, her manager and the HR person responsible for that group. The HR person is to verify that the headcount is available and the job description is properly graded. HR's job is not to nitpick and find fault.
What you don't want is a requirement that everybody and their brother signs off. For filling a vacant position, you really shouldn't need the VP, CFO, and head of HR to sign off. Sure, if you're adding to headcount or upgrading in a super fashion (we'd like to replace this admin at $30k to a Sr. Director at $145k) you might want different signers.
The point is, make the form to serve whatever purpose you have. If you can't clearly and succinctly explain the purpose to the hiring manager, then evaluate why on earth you are doing it.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Short (skirt) Requests
I wish I had one of you were I work so you could take care of this problem for me! I am the administrative assitant at a very small law firm (3 people). My boss is an older man (in his 60's), his partner is in her late 30's and the junior associate is another woman in her mid 20's. I am in my early 20's.
My boss, the only man in this small firm, is constantly telling me his preference for skirts. And not just skirts - short skirts. With neutral nylons, if I must wear them, not dark or black. If I do wear pants to work (dress pants, with heels and a nice blouse), he takes it as a personal insult. If I wear a skirt or dress he thanks me for "dressing up" for him. It's infuriating. Granted, I haven't really said anything because I was new, but I am coming to a breaking point. It's come to the point where one Friday he let me and my youngest co-worker go home early. He then asked me if I would dress up "nice" for him on Monday since he let us go early that day, all the while saying nothing to the other girl he let go early as well. He never say anything about this to my young co-worker, and his partner complies with and enables this behavior. I find it completely inappropriate. What should I do? Is this even legal? He seriously comments on my clothes at least 3 times a week.
This is what you need to do: Tell him to stop.
I realize this is uncomfortable and you'd rather the problem just went away. Or, as you mentioned, you'd like to turn it over to an HR person. Granted, most HR people would happily throttle someone like that for you, but you don't have one and so your options are to quit or deal with it yourself.
The next time he makes a comment say, firmly, "Bob, do not comment on my clothing choices. It is not appropriate and could be considered sexual harassment."
Then document the conversation. Every single time he says something remind him that it is inappropriate.
A few outcomes are possible. One is that he will be embarrassed because he truly did not realize what he was doing was inappropriate. (After all he may have read this horrible post that Ask a Manager linked to.)
Another outcome is that he will become defensive and state that he was "just kidding" and you are "too sensitive." If he says that, don't apologize for being offended, just state that you do not appreciate it. "Now that you know I am offended, I'm sure you won't do it."
A third outcome is that you'll be fired. I'd like to say that's not a possible outcome, but it is. Sexual harassers can also be jerks. If that happens, definitely apply for unemployment. I'm not a huge fan of lawsuits because they rarely solve anything and drag on forever and since you'd be suing a lawyer he'll be able to defend himself cheaply. You can contact your local EEOC office for help.
If you repeatedly tell him to stop commenting and he does not, make sure you document every instance and go ahead and contact the EEOC. Also, start looking for another job. Some battles are not worth sticking through to the bitter end.
Note, you must tell him to stop before you escalate the issue. If you don't, you fall into the category of wimps that drive me nuts. We're grown ups here and should attempt to solve our own problems. Hopefully, your case will fall into scenario one and bringing it to his attention will solve the problem. Most don't go into category three.
My boss, the only man in this small firm, is constantly telling me his preference for skirts. And not just skirts - short skirts. With neutral nylons, if I must wear them, not dark or black. If I do wear pants to work (dress pants, with heels and a nice blouse), he takes it as a personal insult. If I wear a skirt or dress he thanks me for "dressing up" for him. It's infuriating. Granted, I haven't really said anything because I was new, but I am coming to a breaking point. It's come to the point where one Friday he let me and my youngest co-worker go home early. He then asked me if I would dress up "nice" for him on Monday since he let us go early that day, all the while saying nothing to the other girl he let go early as well. He never say anything about this to my young co-worker, and his partner complies with and enables this behavior. I find it completely inappropriate. What should I do? Is this even legal? He seriously comments on my clothes at least 3 times a week.
This is what you need to do: Tell him to stop.
I realize this is uncomfortable and you'd rather the problem just went away. Or, as you mentioned, you'd like to turn it over to an HR person. Granted, most HR people would happily throttle someone like that for you, but you don't have one and so your options are to quit or deal with it yourself.
The next time he makes a comment say, firmly, "Bob, do not comment on my clothing choices. It is not appropriate and could be considered sexual harassment."
Then document the conversation. Every single time he says something remind him that it is inappropriate.
A few outcomes are possible. One is that he will be embarrassed because he truly did not realize what he was doing was inappropriate. (After all he may have read this horrible post that Ask a Manager linked to.)
Another outcome is that he will become defensive and state that he was "just kidding" and you are "too sensitive." If he says that, don't apologize for being offended, just state that you do not appreciate it. "Now that you know I am offended, I'm sure you won't do it."
A third outcome is that you'll be fired. I'd like to say that's not a possible outcome, but it is. Sexual harassers can also be jerks. If that happens, definitely apply for unemployment. I'm not a huge fan of lawsuits because they rarely solve anything and drag on forever and since you'd be suing a lawyer he'll be able to defend himself cheaply. You can contact your local EEOC office for help.
If you repeatedly tell him to stop commenting and he does not, make sure you document every instance and go ahead and contact the EEOC. Also, start looking for another job. Some battles are not worth sticking through to the bitter end.
Note, you must tell him to stop before you escalate the issue. If you don't, you fall into the category of wimps that drive me nuts. We're grown ups here and should attempt to solve our own problems. Hopefully, your case will fall into scenario one and bringing it to his attention will solve the problem. Most don't go into category three.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Cancer and Layoffs
I am an HR Manager in a professional services firm and am currently planning for headcount reductions like so many of my colleagues today. As my functional leader and I have assessed our employee population, my leader identified a man who has a history of poor performance, but was recently diagnosed with cancer (did I mention that his wife also left him this year and took the kids with her? Bad year). The good news is that his doctor caught the cancer early and his chances of survival are good. In fact, he has a couple of months before he will even start treatment. I have persistently raised my concerns to my leader about taking this action now, but he is adamant about doing it asap.
I understand that the economic climate makes these kinds of tough decisions necessary and given his recent performance, as compared with the rest of the employee population, I do believe he should be on "the list" ultimately, but I question the timing of doing it now. With his recent diagnosis I thought we would be legally bound to see him through his current health crisis before delivering the news. However, I wrote to our general counsel to see if we had any legal obligaions and, if not, what the firm's policy is in situations like this. I was told that if he were currently on medical leave, we would wait for his return before letting him go. But since he is not medical leave, they said we should "treat him like anyone else" and that I was not to offer him anything more than the standard severance package (3 months).
His only hope is to begin treatment now so he can take medical leave before the ax falls, but for a number of reason the employee is in no rush to start treatment now (chief among those reasons being that he doesn't know he's about to get canned. This feels totally wrong. I am very concerned about the individual, but also concerned that he's going to turn around and slap us with a big fat law suit. And what jury isn't going to hear this story and side with the cancer survivor? I know you are not an employment law specialist, but what advice can you offer an HR Manager who wants to help this employee get safely through treatment without having the added stress of paying for COBRA and finding a new job, thereby keeping my firm's name from potentially ending up in the news with some very bad PR?
This is a rotten situation. Not that layoffs are ever pleasant, but this one is particularly rotten. I agree that it seems unnecessarily heartless to terminate someone in this situation. However, if you must cut heads (and I assume you must), then it is also a problem to keep a low performer and fire a high (higher?) performing person just because the low performer is having personal problems.
That, to me, seems like, "we must keep all the single mothers and terminate the married men!" The company has to do what is right for the company. This also should mean we do what is right for our employees, because good employees make the company operate smoothly and successfully.
You are right to be concerned about PR, but it is far more likely that a case like this won't hit the papers (so many layoff stories to choose from!), but will be the hot topic around your remaining employees. That kills morale as well. (As if layoffs don't cause their own morale problems.)
Here is my suggestion, based on the assumption that this employee is aware of his failings as an employee. (If his manager has been too wimpy to address his performance issues, then you've got extra troubles.)
Have his manager sit down with him, explain that because of the recent economic downturn, it's highly likely that there will be layoffs. If there are layoffs his name is likely to be on the list. Therefore, he might want to prepare for such a possibility. Let the manager tell him, "I'm aware of your health situation and wanted to let you know that if, by some chance, you are on medical disability, we would not terminate you until your doctor clears you for work or the period of disability ends. At that time, you would be eligible for the severance package."
This way, the guy knows it is coming and can opt for disability right now. (If that's a possibility with his doctor.) The powers that be, at your company, may or may not approve. But, trust me, firing him now is not going to be much of a cost savings anyway. He needs the cancer treatment. COBRA is going to be cheaper than paying cash, so he'll undoubtedly take COBRA. His salary, while on disability, should be covered by your short term disability. Granted, if you are self insured this can be expensive. But, you also don't show bad will to the rest of your workforce.
In normal situations, I'm not a fan of advance notice of a layoff. Why? Because the affected person can't get on with his life and he comes to work crabby and his co-workers who weren't "selected" don't know how to relate and everybody is uncomfortable. Blech. But, this seems to be a situation where some advance notice may solve a whole host of problems.
It's not, by the way, illegal to fire a sick person. You just can't fire them because they are sick. Which goes back to the previous documentation. Good luck!
I understand that the economic climate makes these kinds of tough decisions necessary and given his recent performance, as compared with the rest of the employee population, I do believe he should be on "the list" ultimately, but I question the timing of doing it now. With his recent diagnosis I thought we would be legally bound to see him through his current health crisis before delivering the news. However, I wrote to our general counsel to see if we had any legal obligaions and, if not, what the firm's policy is in situations like this. I was told that if he were currently on medical leave, we would wait for his return before letting him go. But since he is not medical leave, they said we should "treat him like anyone else" and that I was not to offer him anything more than the standard severance package (3 months).
His only hope is to begin treatment now so he can take medical leave before the ax falls, but for a number of reason the employee is in no rush to start treatment now (chief among those reasons being that he doesn't know he's about to get canned. This feels totally wrong. I am very concerned about the individual, but also concerned that he's going to turn around and slap us with a big fat law suit. And what jury isn't going to hear this story and side with the cancer survivor? I know you are not an employment law specialist, but what advice can you offer an HR Manager who wants to help this employee get safely through treatment without having the added stress of paying for COBRA and finding a new job, thereby keeping my firm's name from potentially ending up in the news with some very bad PR?
This is a rotten situation. Not that layoffs are ever pleasant, but this one is particularly rotten. I agree that it seems unnecessarily heartless to terminate someone in this situation. However, if you must cut heads (and I assume you must), then it is also a problem to keep a low performer and fire a high (higher?) performing person just because the low performer is having personal problems.
That, to me, seems like, "we must keep all the single mothers and terminate the married men!" The company has to do what is right for the company. This also should mean we do what is right for our employees, because good employees make the company operate smoothly and successfully.
You are right to be concerned about PR, but it is far more likely that a case like this won't hit the papers (so many layoff stories to choose from!), but will be the hot topic around your remaining employees. That kills morale as well. (As if layoffs don't cause their own morale problems.)
Here is my suggestion, based on the assumption that this employee is aware of his failings as an employee. (If his manager has been too wimpy to address his performance issues, then you've got extra troubles.)
Have his manager sit down with him, explain that because of the recent economic downturn, it's highly likely that there will be layoffs. If there are layoffs his name is likely to be on the list. Therefore, he might want to prepare for such a possibility. Let the manager tell him, "I'm aware of your health situation and wanted to let you know that if, by some chance, you are on medical disability, we would not terminate you until your doctor clears you for work or the period of disability ends. At that time, you would be eligible for the severance package."
This way, the guy knows it is coming and can opt for disability right now. (If that's a possibility with his doctor.) The powers that be, at your company, may or may not approve. But, trust me, firing him now is not going to be much of a cost savings anyway. He needs the cancer treatment. COBRA is going to be cheaper than paying cash, so he'll undoubtedly take COBRA. His salary, while on disability, should be covered by your short term disability. Granted, if you are self insured this can be expensive. But, you also don't show bad will to the rest of your workforce.
In normal situations, I'm not a fan of advance notice of a layoff. Why? Because the affected person can't get on with his life and he comes to work crabby and his co-workers who weren't "selected" don't know how to relate and everybody is uncomfortable. Blech. But, this seems to be a situation where some advance notice may solve a whole host of problems.
It's not, by the way, illegal to fire a sick person. You just can't fire them because they are sick. Which goes back to the previous documentation. Good luck!
The Most Depressing Blog Ever
Layoff Tracker. It reports on all anounced layoffs.
The scary thing is to look at the number of posts so far this year: 181.
Fascinating.
On the other hand, my husband got a call from a headhunter this morning. So, there are jobs out there.
The scary thing is to look at the number of posts so far this year: 181.
Fascinating.
On the other hand, my husband got a call from a headhunter this morning. So, there are jobs out there.
Monday, February 02, 2009
An FMLA Question
You have an exempt employee who is officially at 20 hours a week. Because she is exempt she is paid the same amount every week, regardless of how many hours she puts in. She frequently works more than 20 hours, but no time cards exist.
She has a baby and requests FMLA. On her official schedule of 20 hours a week, she has not worked the requisite number of hours to qualify under the statute. She claims with the additional hours she has put in, she more than qualifies. Her manager agrees. (FYI, I believe you need 1250 hours in a year for FMLA to qualify. Assume her company meets the other qualifications for FMLA and she has been there more than a year.)
She has a baby and requests FMLA. On her official schedule of 20 hours a week, she has not worked the requisite number of hours to qualify under the statute. She claims with the additional hours she has put in, she more than qualifies. Her manager agrees. (FYI, I believe you need 1250 hours in a year for FMLA to qualify. Assume her company meets the other qualifications for FMLA and she has been there more than a year.)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Should I be offended?
My mother sent me this joke:
Some cannibals get a job in a big corporation on the condition that they don't eat any of the other staff. Things go very well until their boss calls them into his office one day and gives them some bad news--a janitor is missing in mysterious circumstances and the cannibals are under suspicion.
The cannibals get together after work. Their leader says, "Which of you idiots had the janitor?" One of the cannibals raises his hand.
"You idiot! For weeks we've been feasting on team leaders, project managers and human resources staff, then you go and eat someone they'll actually miss!"
General Release Woes
I was recently laid off with 60% of my department. I got 3 months of severance pay by signing a General Release that basically said I won’t sue the company for any reason, and I can’t work there for 6 months. I’ve tried to find out why this “6-month rule” is part of the General Release. Two hiring managers want to hire me back, but are hitting the 6-month rule roadblock.
Before I signed my General Release, I was chosen as the top candidate for a position in another department, but there was a sudden hiring freeze in that department just before the hiring manager could offer me a position. The position may open back up (at about 3 months into my 6 months), and I probably can’t be hired now, because of this dumb 6-month rule. Not only does this hurt me, the manager can’t get the employee he wants, and has to go farther down his list of applicants and/or re-open the time-consuming interview process.
A second position opened up (due to someone leaving that job for another job) that was absolutely perfect for me, in my old re-organized department. I was an excellent match for skills, and I had great connections within the group. I actually found out that the hiring manager had already inquired about hiring me, but he was told by HR that I can’t be hired because of the 6-month rule. Instead of filling his position ASAP, he now has to spend time interviewing lots of people.
This is very frustrating. I’ve talked to several HR people who are uniformly adamant that the 6-month rule cannot be waived (yet I know exceptions ARE made), and nobody in HR can explain the purpose of the 6 month rule. The 6-month rule can’t be about “double dipping” because there’s already a clause in the General Release that anyone re-hired before the severance pay runs out has to give money back (e.g. if you had 9 months of severance pay and were rehired at 6 months, you give back 3 months pay).
If I could figure this out, it might aid me in circumventing what appears to be a dumb, arbitrary and harmful rule.
I would love, love, love to help you figure this rule out, but alas, I cannot. It's not because it's a secret HR rule, it's because I think it's about as stupid as they come.
Now, I can give you some insight into a few other things. When you layoff someone you want to make a couple of things clear. First, that they aren't entitled to the next vacant position that matches their skills. Two, that they can't come back as a contractor in a similar role. Three, no double dipping.
My guess is that the six month prohibition against returning is related to the first point. Companies don't want to get involved in a "failure to hire" lawsuit. These lawsuits are where the candidate argues that the only reason he/she wasn't hired was an illegal one--race, gender, age, pregnancy status, etc. These are hard to prove (normally numerous candidates), but still expensive for the company.
My lawyer friends can chime in, but I actually think prohibiting someone from coming back for 6 months actually increases your chance of a failure to hire lawsuit. Why? Because you imply that they are eligible for rehire after that 6 month time period expires. I prefer to see a clause that states that your relationship with the company is severed and that the company has no obligation to rehire you at all.
Now, this statement doesn't mean that the company can't rehire you, it just means that when you sign the release you acknowledge that they are under no obligation to rehire you. And furthermore, that you will not be treated differently than other candidates.
When you put time frame prohibitions in your releases you are asking for problems, in my opinion. The goal of a reduction in force should be related to making the business more effective. Not just cutting heads. (Lots of companies have bloat and sometimes a mass layoff can help with that--proceed with caution though. Lots of potential problems, but that's a topic for another post.) If you are just obsessed with getting your headcount down, you are doing it wrong.
Managers should be able to hire the best candidate. This is what is best for the company. Remember the company? The company that was supposed to be more effective after a reduction? Yeah, that. So, stop prohibitions against hiring any particular person and just train your managers on how to hire.
If someone else could explain to me why 6 month or a 1 year prohibitions exist in releases, I'd be happy to know. And yes, I know that some releases prohibit employees from ever applying again. I know why this is: We don't want you back. (Companies that do this to everyone are just plain dumb, by the way. These clauses should be added to your low performers or problem causers, not everyone.)
The second prohibition I listed above was to prevent you from coming back in a contractor role. While this may seem as silly as the 6 month delay, there are actually legal reasons behind it. If you come back as a contractor 3 months after I lay you off, you can argue that you really are an employee and your job never was eliminated because, look! you're still doing this. Employees have rights under federal and state laws that contractors do not. For instance, if you successfully argue in court that you are an employee not a contractor then I have to give you the same benefits all my employees get.
The third, which your contract has, is a prohibition against double dipping. This also makes sense. We should not be paying you severance while we are paying you a salary. Repayment clauses are fine, in my book.
I realize this didn't solve your problem at all, but it was fun for me to muse on and I really do want someone to explain the logic. (Of course, I left out the most likely answer--someone high up wants it in there, so there it is and HR thinks it's stupid, but we're stuck with it.)
Before I signed my General Release, I was chosen as the top candidate for a position in another department, but there was a sudden hiring freeze in that department just before the hiring manager could offer me a position. The position may open back up (at about 3 months into my 6 months), and I probably can’t be hired now, because of this dumb 6-month rule. Not only does this hurt me, the manager can’t get the employee he wants, and has to go farther down his list of applicants and/or re-open the time-consuming interview process.
A second position opened up (due to someone leaving that job for another job) that was absolutely perfect for me, in my old re-organized department. I was an excellent match for skills, and I had great connections within the group. I actually found out that the hiring manager had already inquired about hiring me, but he was told by HR that I can’t be hired because of the 6-month rule. Instead of filling his position ASAP, he now has to spend time interviewing lots of people.
This is very frustrating. I’ve talked to several HR people who are uniformly adamant that the 6-month rule cannot be waived (yet I know exceptions ARE made), and nobody in HR can explain the purpose of the 6 month rule. The 6-month rule can’t be about “double dipping” because there’s already a clause in the General Release that anyone re-hired before the severance pay runs out has to give money back (e.g. if you had 9 months of severance pay and were rehired at 6 months, you give back 3 months pay).
If I could figure this out, it might aid me in circumventing what appears to be a dumb, arbitrary and harmful rule.
I would love, love, love to help you figure this rule out, but alas, I cannot. It's not because it's a secret HR rule, it's because I think it's about as stupid as they come.
Now, I can give you some insight into a few other things. When you layoff someone you want to make a couple of things clear. First, that they aren't entitled to the next vacant position that matches their skills. Two, that they can't come back as a contractor in a similar role. Three, no double dipping.
My guess is that the six month prohibition against returning is related to the first point. Companies don't want to get involved in a "failure to hire" lawsuit. These lawsuits are where the candidate argues that the only reason he/she wasn't hired was an illegal one--race, gender, age, pregnancy status, etc. These are hard to prove (normally numerous candidates), but still expensive for the company.
My lawyer friends can chime in, but I actually think prohibiting someone from coming back for 6 months actually increases your chance of a failure to hire lawsuit. Why? Because you imply that they are eligible for rehire after that 6 month time period expires. I prefer to see a clause that states that your relationship with the company is severed and that the company has no obligation to rehire you at all.
Now, this statement doesn't mean that the company can't rehire you, it just means that when you sign the release you acknowledge that they are under no obligation to rehire you. And furthermore, that you will not be treated differently than other candidates.
When you put time frame prohibitions in your releases you are asking for problems, in my opinion. The goal of a reduction in force should be related to making the business more effective. Not just cutting heads. (Lots of companies have bloat and sometimes a mass layoff can help with that--proceed with caution though. Lots of potential problems, but that's a topic for another post.) If you are just obsessed with getting your headcount down, you are doing it wrong.
Managers should be able to hire the best candidate. This is what is best for the company. Remember the company? The company that was supposed to be more effective after a reduction? Yeah, that. So, stop prohibitions against hiring any particular person and just train your managers on how to hire.
If someone else could explain to me why 6 month or a 1 year prohibitions exist in releases, I'd be happy to know. And yes, I know that some releases prohibit employees from ever applying again. I know why this is: We don't want you back. (Companies that do this to everyone are just plain dumb, by the way. These clauses should be added to your low performers or problem causers, not everyone.)
The second prohibition I listed above was to prevent you from coming back in a contractor role. While this may seem as silly as the 6 month delay, there are actually legal reasons behind it. If you come back as a contractor 3 months after I lay you off, you can argue that you really are an employee and your job never was eliminated because, look! you're still doing this. Employees have rights under federal and state laws that contractors do not. For instance, if you successfully argue in court that you are an employee not a contractor then I have to give you the same benefits all my employees get.
The third, which your contract has, is a prohibition against double dipping. This also makes sense. We should not be paying you severance while we are paying you a salary. Repayment clauses are fine, in my book.
I realize this didn't solve your problem at all, but it was fun for me to muse on and I really do want someone to explain the logic. (Of course, I left out the most likely answer--someone high up wants it in there, so there it is and HR thinks it's stupid, but we're stuck with it.)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Confidential Email
I have a question I am hoping you can answer as I have been searching the Internet for about three hours now and have found nothing. I did what was probably a really stupid thing to do. I was very ill and so not using my best judgment I wrote an email to our (evil??) HR lady. In this email I expressed my gross intolerance for a coworker. I posed, in a not so nice way, the question of why someone as inefficient as them could be allowed to keep their job for so long. I then went on to make a few snide remarks about the company for letting this go on so long. I know, I know, I know..... never in writing, but like I said I was sick and my judgment (not to mention my patience) was a bit off.
Come to find out the email had been forwarded to the COO (small company...about 40 employees) of the company and then to my direct supervisor from the COO. Now I feel like a total idiot. What I want to know is if the company's HR rep violated any laws by doing this. I know it was completely immoral, but was it illegal?
Well, it's not illegal (she says in her non-lawyer, non legal advice way). HR people are not required to keep a confidence as a doctor, priest or lawyer is. In fact, part of our job is to blab. Which means that I'm also going to suggest that it wasn't necessarily immoral either.
Let the angry evil HR comments begin.
HR represents the company, not the employee. This sometimes requires following up on a complaint. Now, your company is small, so you probably actually have a relationship with your HR person. If I'd received such and e-mail and I knew it was out of character for you, I might have e-mailed it back and said, "Did you mean to hit send?"
But, having a productive workforce is part of HR's long list of responsibilities. I have to assume that if you tell me a co-worker is a complete slacker that you want something done about it. Not knowing your company culture or the organizational structure I can't comment on whether it was appropriate to forward the e-mail to the COO.
Actually, I can. I would think the proper thing to do would be to find out myself if there was a problem with your co-worker, or with you, and then decide who needs to know. But in a company that small, the COO very well could be the right person.
We understand that sometimes steam needs to be blown off. We also sometimes over-react. Some people would send off an e-mail like this and wonder why in the heck no one brought it to the COO's attention! You can't win in this HR business.
What should you do? Apologize for losing your temper. Get back to work. Hope your co-worker doesn't find out about it. Address it head on with your boss. And finally, read the comments here, as my readers will have better advice.
Come to find out the email had been forwarded to the COO (small company...about 40 employees) of the company and then to my direct supervisor from the COO. Now I feel like a total idiot. What I want to know is if the company's HR rep violated any laws by doing this. I know it was completely immoral, but was it illegal?
Well, it's not illegal (she says in her non-lawyer, non legal advice way). HR people are not required to keep a confidence as a doctor, priest or lawyer is. In fact, part of our job is to blab. Which means that I'm also going to suggest that it wasn't necessarily immoral either.
Let the angry evil HR comments begin.
HR represents the company, not the employee. This sometimes requires following up on a complaint. Now, your company is small, so you probably actually have a relationship with your HR person. If I'd received such and e-mail and I knew it was out of character for you, I might have e-mailed it back and said, "Did you mean to hit send?"
But, having a productive workforce is part of HR's long list of responsibilities. I have to assume that if you tell me a co-worker is a complete slacker that you want something done about it. Not knowing your company culture or the organizational structure I can't comment on whether it was appropriate to forward the e-mail to the COO.
Actually, I can. I would think the proper thing to do would be to find out myself if there was a problem with your co-worker, or with you, and then decide who needs to know. But in a company that small, the COO very well could be the right person.
We understand that sometimes steam needs to be blown off. We also sometimes over-react. Some people would send off an e-mail like this and wonder why in the heck no one brought it to the COO's attention! You can't win in this HR business.
What should you do? Apologize for losing your temper. Get back to work. Hope your co-worker doesn't find out about it. Address it head on with your boss. And finally, read the comments here, as my readers will have better advice.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Exempt Time Wrangling
Is it possible (i.e. legal) for an employer to define some exempt employees as 40-hour per week exempt employees, some as 35-hour per week employees, some as 32-hour employees, etc. when all were originally hired for 40-hour per week exempt positions? This particular employer routinely reduces a 40-hour employee’s hours (as well as salary) if the work load for that employee decreases either temporarily or permanently. The employer does this at will and then often drags their feet in restoring the 40-hour status when the work load increases. All these employees are doing the same type job, have the same credentials and qualifications. Workload for this position is regulated by state law.
First of all, it's time for my standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not profess to be a lawyer, and I do not give any legal advice.
It's perfectly legal to have exempt jobs at less than 40 hours a week. But, I think what your boss is doing is illegal. One of the criteria to be exempt is that the employee must be paid the same amount, regardless of the number of hours worked. If he were evaluating jobs and adjusting pay (note, not hours, because technically you don't pay exempt people by the hour, although you can require that they work specific hours), once a year I might buy it. What he's doing is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
There's nothing wrong with paying someone by the hour, even if their responsibilities would make them exempt. The key is, though, if you choose to pay them by the hour you give up the exempt status and if they work 41 hours, they get overtime pay. (There are some exceptions to this in IT, I believe, but we'll assume this is not that situation.) What you can't do is pay less when they work less than 40, but not more when they work more than 40.
So, my advice is to contact your state Department of Labor. I don't know what your job is that is regulated by the state anyway, but methinks it's time for an unpleasant audit.
Of course, if you are feeling compassionate, you could warn the boss that you believe his actions are illegal. I suspect he knows that already, and no telling the fall out you'd get.
It really bugs me when people attempt to treat their employees like dirt and then wonder why they have low morale and high turnover (which I bet you have!).
First of all, it's time for my standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not profess to be a lawyer, and I do not give any legal advice.
It's perfectly legal to have exempt jobs at less than 40 hours a week. But, I think what your boss is doing is illegal. One of the criteria to be exempt is that the employee must be paid the same amount, regardless of the number of hours worked. If he were evaluating jobs and adjusting pay (note, not hours, because technically you don't pay exempt people by the hour, although you can require that they work specific hours), once a year I might buy it. What he's doing is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
There's nothing wrong with paying someone by the hour, even if their responsibilities would make them exempt. The key is, though, if you choose to pay them by the hour you give up the exempt status and if they work 41 hours, they get overtime pay. (There are some exceptions to this in IT, I believe, but we'll assume this is not that situation.) What you can't do is pay less when they work less than 40, but not more when they work more than 40.
So, my advice is to contact your state Department of Labor. I don't know what your job is that is regulated by the state anyway, but methinks it's time for an unpleasant audit.
Of course, if you are feeling compassionate, you could warn the boss that you believe his actions are illegal. I suspect he knows that already, and no telling the fall out you'd get.
It really bugs me when people attempt to treat their employees like dirt and then wonder why they have low morale and high turnover (which I bet you have!).
Monday, January 19, 2009
Race Questions
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. day. In preparation for this, Offspring #1's kindergarten class read a story about Marin Luther King Jr. She came home and told me all about it. And then she had some questions.
"Mom, are we white?" This was a sincere question, by the way.
"Yes, we're white."
pause
"Is Katelyn white?" Katlyn is the blond haired, blue eyed, neighbor girl of Scandinavian descent who, frankly, could be the poster child for white folks.
"Yes," I said. She doesn't really know what it means to be white or black. We've never talked about the concept. I decide to explain.
"Steve is black," I said, referring to an adult family friend.
Ahh, the dawning of recognition. "Samuel is black!" she said, excitedly.
"Yes," I said, "Samuel has dark skin, but his dad is black and his mom is white." Oops, I've introduced another layer of confusion, because the next question was;
"Is Mr. Baby black?" Mr. Baby happens to also be known as offspring #2. He has the same skin tones as the rest of the family. I explained.
"Oh," she said. And she was done with the questions.
She's 5 and contrary to what you might think from this story very bright. (Not that I'm biased in any way.) We've never talked about race. She's had friends and teachers of all races. It was clear that she had never given one moment's thought to why some people's skin colors were different than others.
Which makes me wonder; By talking and teaching about people's differences, does it make it more difficult to see how they are all the same? Does it lump people into groups that they shouldn't be lumped into? If we divide people up by color and pat ourselves on the back for increasing our diversity, have we really diversified anything? Or have we just made everyone suddenly very conscious of their skin color and the skin color of those around us?
I'm pretty sure Offspring #1 considered skin color something similar to hair color. Lots of differences, but not a big deal. If we start focusing on how skin tones make us different, then don't we end up falling into stereotypes? Katelyn must be like this because she's white and Samuel must be like this because he's black.
Reality is, both friends Katelyn and Samuel are being raised in the same town by parents of very similar economic status. They attend the same public school system. These things are going to lead them to be more alike than different. The big differences between Katelyn and Samuel will be found in things that have nothing to do with skin color. For instance, Katelyn has one little sister. Samuel is the second youngest of 8. Katelyn attends one church; Samuel another. Katelyn takes dance. Samuel plays soccer. Katelyn is up at the crack of dawn. Samuel's mother has to drag him out of bed every morning.
Many businesses are required to report on race. We have Affirmative Action plans that we are required to present and show "improvement" on. Doesn't this just turn us from looking at who someone really is and push us towards making judgments based on skin color? In one breath we tell managers to hire the best person for the job. In the next we say, "minorities are underrepresented in your department." How can that not influence a hiring decision.
I'm glad Offspring #1 has learned about Martin Luther King Jr. And, in fact, we are heading to a day of service in his honor this morning. I'm glad things have changed over the years. I'm not sure, however, the emphasizing differences is the best way to go about it.
"Mom, are we white?" This was a sincere question, by the way.
"Yes, we're white."
pause
"Is Katelyn white?" Katlyn is the blond haired, blue eyed, neighbor girl of Scandinavian descent who, frankly, could be the poster child for white folks.
"Yes," I said. She doesn't really know what it means to be white or black. We've never talked about the concept. I decide to explain.
"Steve is black," I said, referring to an adult family friend.
Ahh, the dawning of recognition. "Samuel is black!" she said, excitedly.
"Yes," I said, "Samuel has dark skin, but his dad is black and his mom is white." Oops, I've introduced another layer of confusion, because the next question was;
"Is Mr. Baby black?" Mr. Baby happens to also be known as offspring #2. He has the same skin tones as the rest of the family. I explained.
"Oh," she said. And she was done with the questions.
She's 5 and contrary to what you might think from this story very bright. (Not that I'm biased in any way.) We've never talked about race. She's had friends and teachers of all races. It was clear that she had never given one moment's thought to why some people's skin colors were different than others.
Which makes me wonder; By talking and teaching about people's differences, does it make it more difficult to see how they are all the same? Does it lump people into groups that they shouldn't be lumped into? If we divide people up by color and pat ourselves on the back for increasing our diversity, have we really diversified anything? Or have we just made everyone suddenly very conscious of their skin color and the skin color of those around us?
I'm pretty sure Offspring #1 considered skin color something similar to hair color. Lots of differences, but not a big deal. If we start focusing on how skin tones make us different, then don't we end up falling into stereotypes? Katelyn must be like this because she's white and Samuel must be like this because he's black.
Reality is, both friends Katelyn and Samuel are being raised in the same town by parents of very similar economic status. They attend the same public school system. These things are going to lead them to be more alike than different. The big differences between Katelyn and Samuel will be found in things that have nothing to do with skin color. For instance, Katelyn has one little sister. Samuel is the second youngest of 8. Katelyn attends one church; Samuel another. Katelyn takes dance. Samuel plays soccer. Katelyn is up at the crack of dawn. Samuel's mother has to drag him out of bed every morning.
Many businesses are required to report on race. We have Affirmative Action plans that we are required to present and show "improvement" on. Doesn't this just turn us from looking at who someone really is and push us towards making judgments based on skin color? In one breath we tell managers to hire the best person for the job. In the next we say, "minorities are underrepresented in your department." How can that not influence a hiring decision.
I'm glad Offspring #1 has learned about Martin Luther King Jr. And, in fact, we are heading to a day of service in his honor this morning. I'm glad things have changed over the years. I'm not sure, however, the emphasizing differences is the best way to go about it.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Super Secret HR Stuff
I've gotten a few questions lately that ask about "secret" HR stuff. So, I've decided to spill the secret HR beans and blab about all our secret handshakes and stuff. Except if there are any, no one has given them to me. I suppose this is because I don't belong to SHRM. Why? My employer won't pay for it and I'm too cheap to join myself. So, there's a secret for you!
The first question deals with a woman who fought the HR director and lost and then was coincidentally laid off shortly thereafter. In the past she's had no problem finding new jobs, but now the interviews go well, but then no one ever calls back. She asks:
The real question - the HR recruiter from my last company is well connected with recruiters all over the Bay Area which I can tell from our connected LinkedIn accounts. Is there a protected website for HR professionals where references are available that are not the type that would be given on the phone? Negative references that could lead to lawsuits? I just have this feeling that something else is in play here that I have no control over.
No secret, password protected sites that I'm aware of. (Again, maybe I just am not evil enough to get the passwords.) But, what you can do is follow up with the companies you interviewed with. Don't be pushy, but inquire about the position. If you really believe it's because of a negative reference from this woman, have a friend call her up and ask her for a reference for you.
If the reference is negative, you can then deal with that. If it's positive or neutral (many companies have policies against giving references--managers don't follow that but HR does), that's not your problem.
But keep in mind--the economy isn't going well. There are tons of applicants on the market and companies are sometimes hesitant to hire if they are afraid they will have to fire later. Also, make sure you provide references. Not everyone will restrict themselves to just calling people on the list, but many will. Control as much of the process as you can.
The next secret HR dealt with tattling to the authorities:
I recently applied for a job and as par for the course was required to consent to a criminal background check, credit check, physical.... Everything, it seems, except my blood, which i might add.... They took. Anyway, I'm worried that I may have a bench warrant from over ten years ago for a traffic violations. My question to you is, if this is true, can my prospective employer notify the local authorities?
Sure they can! Your neighbor can too. I don't know anyone that would--for traffic violations. Sure, if it comes up that you are wanted for armed robbery, I'd make that phone call myself. (Although I don't know how our attorneys would feel about that, but frankly, I'm more afraid of armed robbers than attorneys.)
Your real concern is that you've got something in your past you don't want to come out. Why not deal with it head on? Hire an attorney and have him contact the state in question and see what can be done to clear up your little mess. Pay your fines, take your punishment and get on with life. I don't know how bad this is, but I imagine the state would rather get money from you than throw you in jail, so why not face it head on and get over it?
HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If you get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire you in the first place because you might come after us when we eventually fire you.
So, deal with it and then you can stop worrying. Unless you are applying for a driving job, people don't care about traffic tickets. We do care if warrant comes up for you in a background check because that scares us a little. If we could legally not hire you because of it, I honestly don't know. Probably not. But, still, take care of it.
So, now you have learned some super secret HR stuff. Hope it helps.
The first question deals with a woman who fought the HR director and lost and then was coincidentally laid off shortly thereafter. In the past she's had no problem finding new jobs, but now the interviews go well, but then no one ever calls back. She asks:
The real question - the HR recruiter from my last company is well connected with recruiters all over the Bay Area which I can tell from our connected LinkedIn accounts. Is there a protected website for HR professionals where references are available that are not the type that would be given on the phone? Negative references that could lead to lawsuits? I just have this feeling that something else is in play here that I have no control over.
No secret, password protected sites that I'm aware of. (Again, maybe I just am not evil enough to get the passwords.) But, what you can do is follow up with the companies you interviewed with. Don't be pushy, but inquire about the position. If you really believe it's because of a negative reference from this woman, have a friend call her up and ask her for a reference for you.
If the reference is negative, you can then deal with that. If it's positive or neutral (many companies have policies against giving references--managers don't follow that but HR does), that's not your problem.
But keep in mind--the economy isn't going well. There are tons of applicants on the market and companies are sometimes hesitant to hire if they are afraid they will have to fire later. Also, make sure you provide references. Not everyone will restrict themselves to just calling people on the list, but many will. Control as much of the process as you can.
The next secret HR dealt with tattling to the authorities:
I recently applied for a job and as par for the course was required to consent to a criminal background check, credit check, physical.... Everything, it seems, except my blood, which i might add.... They took. Anyway, I'm worried that I may have a bench warrant from over ten years ago for a traffic violations. My question to you is, if this is true, can my prospective employer notify the local authorities?
Sure they can! Your neighbor can too. I don't know anyone that would--for traffic violations. Sure, if it comes up that you are wanted for armed robbery, I'd make that phone call myself. (Although I don't know how our attorneys would feel about that, but frankly, I'm more afraid of armed robbers than attorneys.)
Your real concern is that you've got something in your past you don't want to come out. Why not deal with it head on? Hire an attorney and have him contact the state in question and see what can be done to clear up your little mess. Pay your fines, take your punishment and get on with life. I don't know how bad this is, but I imagine the state would rather get money from you than throw you in jail, so why not face it head on and get over it?
HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If you get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire you in the first place because you might come after us when we eventually fire you.
So, deal with it and then you can stop worrying. Unless you are applying for a driving job, people don't care about traffic tickets. We do care if warrant comes up for you in a background check because that scares us a little. If we could legally not hire you because of it, I honestly don't know. Probably not. But, still, take care of it.
So, now you have learned some super secret HR stuff. Hope it helps.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
You've Been Upgraded
The Workplace Professor Blog brought a fabulous new way to label a termination to my attention: To Upgrade. As you've been upgraded immediately so you can go get a new job.
Seriously. Come on, people, this is an embarrassment to a grim reaper like me.
Seriously. Come on, people, this is an embarrassment to a grim reaper like me.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
When HR Should Act To Save Money
Phillis Dewitt was fired from her job as a nurse. The hospital maintains it was due to insubordination. Dewitt claims it was because her husband was dying of prostate cancer and costing the hospital a boatload in insurance claims.
Obviously, I wasn't involved in any termination discussions, but I imagine HR was. And perhaps they were overridden in any objections, but this is a situation where HR needs to be assertive and lay out the problems with a termination in this situation.
1. Employment in most situations (and no union was mentioned in the article) is at-will. This means that you can quit or be fired whenever. No warning. No severance. No notice. In practice, this hardly ever happens. The hospital had a practice following a formal disciplinary protocol. This was ignored in Dewitt's case. HR should say, "We understand that she was insubordinate, but we have to treat everyone the same."
2. Managers, even ones with medical knowledge, should not be suggesting that someone's spouse enter hospice care. Hospice is end of life care. It is deciding that it is time to let go and not attempt to prolong life. The manager claims she was trying to be compassionate. I would buy this if she didn't turn around and fire Dewitt for not coming in for a meeting while she was on a scheduled vacation. HR should say, "We understand that you believe they are making the wrong choices and that those choices are costing the company money, but this is not an area which you should be involved. If her performance suffers, then we'll talk about how to handle this. But, you are not to attempt to influence medical decisions."
3. Except in extreme circumstances, employees can opt for COBRA to continue their health coverage. Which Dewitt did. Therefore, the company only saved the $900 a month that Dewitt paid in, to keep coverage that was costing over $100,000 a year. HR should say, "You realize that this termination is highly suspect and will not save the company any money due to COBRA anyway."
4. For the reasons above, this termination is a law suit waiting to happen. The reality is, whether the hospital was legally justified in terminating this employee, HR should have brought the following information to the attention of the decision makers:
Any HR person worth her paycheck should have been able to present the above. Sure, she could be overridden (and I hope HR did the above, because otherwise they don't deserve to be respected).
This is a situation where keeping the employee working is actually cheaper than the "cost-saving firing." This is true even if Dewitt deserved to be fired. I certainly can't speak to that, but there are costs to terminating people that HR should understand.
(Via The Happy Hospitalist.)
Obviously, I wasn't involved in any termination discussions, but I imagine HR was. And perhaps they were overridden in any objections, but this is a situation where HR needs to be assertive and lay out the problems with a termination in this situation.
1. Employment in most situations (and no union was mentioned in the article) is at-will. This means that you can quit or be fired whenever. No warning. No severance. No notice. In practice, this hardly ever happens. The hospital had a practice following a formal disciplinary protocol. This was ignored in Dewitt's case. HR should say, "We understand that she was insubordinate, but we have to treat everyone the same."
2. Managers, even ones with medical knowledge, should not be suggesting that someone's spouse enter hospice care. Hospice is end of life care. It is deciding that it is time to let go and not attempt to prolong life. The manager claims she was trying to be compassionate. I would buy this if she didn't turn around and fire Dewitt for not coming in for a meeting while she was on a scheduled vacation. HR should say, "We understand that you believe they are making the wrong choices and that those choices are costing the company money, but this is not an area which you should be involved. If her performance suffers, then we'll talk about how to handle this. But, you are not to attempt to influence medical decisions."
3. Except in extreme circumstances, employees can opt for COBRA to continue their health coverage. Which Dewitt did. Therefore, the company only saved the $900 a month that Dewitt paid in, to keep coverage that was costing over $100,000 a year. HR should say, "You realize that this termination is highly suspect and will not save the company any money due to COBRA anyway."
4. For the reasons above, this termination is a law suit waiting to happen. The reality is, whether the hospital was legally justified in terminating this employee, HR should have brought the following information to the attention of the decision makers:
The termination did not follow policy. The employee is highly likely to sue. Lawsuits, whether successful or not, are very expensive. Expect to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending a lawsuit of this nature. The employee is highly likely to opt for COBRA, therefore the savings you hope to achieve by termination will not happen. This termination is a knee-jerk reaction to a financial problem. Any proposed solution will end up costing more than allowing the employee to continue working. This is a public affairs nightmare. This is the type of story the media will pick up on. This will go public.
Any HR person worth her paycheck should have been able to present the above. Sure, she could be overridden (and I hope HR did the above, because otherwise they don't deserve to be respected).
This is a situation where keeping the employee working is actually cheaper than the "cost-saving firing." This is true even if Dewitt deserved to be fired. I certainly can't speak to that, but there are costs to terminating people that HR should understand.
(Via The Happy Hospitalist.)
Monday, January 05, 2009
Year End Crunch
I work as an administrator for an accounting firm. Each December we seem to be understaffed due to vacation time to handle year end and month end client responsibilities. We are working to create a restricted vacation policy for the period of 12/15 through year end. There is no motive behind this other than the fact that we're an accounting firm, and by the nature of our business year end and month end responsibilities must be met. Do you have any suggestions for a fair policy?
Yes, HR gets whatever they want off and the rest of you have to suffer! Ha! Ha! Oh dear, I've had a little too long on vacation. (In fact, I'm actually tired of having fun. Well, having fun and cleaning out the basement.)
Yes, you see, my company shuts down between Christmas and New Year's so coverage isn't a problem, because we're all out. But, we're not an accounting firm. So, let's talk about a good policy.
Wait, let's ask a question. Why aren't your employees meeting their month end responsibilities? Because that's what I really wonder. In my set of beliefs, it doesn't matter what days you take off, you schedule your vacation around your work responsibilities.
I think you need a culture shift. Not that I'm advocating people selling their souls to the company. Not at all. I'm advocating people recognizing that their clients--their responsibilities--are important. If all your clients are taken care of, take a vacation. If not, well, you get to work!
But, then you could argue, what about administrative and support staff? They can't control what the actual accountants do with their clients and if there is no one to make copies then you've got troubles.
I also understand that clients are procrastinators and you can plan and plan and plan and promise your mother-in-law you will be there (and perhaps your mother-in-law will call you to tell you that it might be a good idea to bring a blanket for the baby because you, of course, wouldn't think that snow=cold and that babies need to be kept warm, but I digress), but the client will still call on December 23 with new requests and when you say, "is this everything?" they will say yes, but on December 31, they send you new "updated documents" via courier. So, yes, it's always going to be a problem.
But, this is predictable, so again, I have to go back to the old "you work when there is work to do." Which stinks. So, don't work for an accounting firm.
But, I haven't given you any new and exciting vacation policies. I don't have great ones. You can always do it by seniority, but if you have low turnover it makes the new people feel unappreciated and bitter. You can do it first come-first serve, but then you have people requesting vacation time for December in January and it becomes a big mess.
You can also limit December vacation altogether. Or close down December 24-26 and say that's it. Then clients know as well that you won't be available.
If I had to make a policy I would do it on a rotating basis. I would figure out the bare minimum of staff needed during December 15-31, and then have the other spots available for vacation. If you got to take vacation this year, next year you are last in line for vacation spots. You also limit the number of days they can take during that time period--3 days, or 5, so that more people get the opportunity to take off.
It's not pleasant, but that's why they call it work. Any other suggestions are welcome.
Yes, HR gets whatever they want off and the rest of you have to suffer! Ha! Ha! Oh dear, I've had a little too long on vacation. (In fact, I'm actually tired of having fun. Well, having fun and cleaning out the basement.)
Yes, you see, my company shuts down between Christmas and New Year's so coverage isn't a problem, because we're all out. But, we're not an accounting firm. So, let's talk about a good policy.
Wait, let's ask a question. Why aren't your employees meeting their month end responsibilities? Because that's what I really wonder. In my set of beliefs, it doesn't matter what days you take off, you schedule your vacation around your work responsibilities.
I think you need a culture shift. Not that I'm advocating people selling their souls to the company. Not at all. I'm advocating people recognizing that their clients--their responsibilities--are important. If all your clients are taken care of, take a vacation. If not, well, you get to work!
But, then you could argue, what about administrative and support staff? They can't control what the actual accountants do with their clients and if there is no one to make copies then you've got troubles.
I also understand that clients are procrastinators and you can plan and plan and plan and promise your mother-in-law you will be there (and perhaps your mother-in-law will call you to tell you that it might be a good idea to bring a blanket for the baby because you, of course, wouldn't think that snow=cold and that babies need to be kept warm, but I digress), but the client will still call on December 23 with new requests and when you say, "is this everything?" they will say yes, but on December 31, they send you new "updated documents" via courier. So, yes, it's always going to be a problem.
But, this is predictable, so again, I have to go back to the old "you work when there is work to do." Which stinks. So, don't work for an accounting firm.
But, I haven't given you any new and exciting vacation policies. I don't have great ones. You can always do it by seniority, but if you have low turnover it makes the new people feel unappreciated and bitter. You can do it first come-first serve, but then you have people requesting vacation time for December in January and it becomes a big mess.
You can also limit December vacation altogether. Or close down December 24-26 and say that's it. Then clients know as well that you won't be available.
If I had to make a policy I would do it on a rotating basis. I would figure out the bare minimum of staff needed during December 15-31, and then have the other spots available for vacation. If you got to take vacation this year, next year you are last in line for vacation spots. You also limit the number of days they can take during that time period--3 days, or 5, so that more people get the opportunity to take off.
It's not pleasant, but that's why they call it work. Any other suggestions are welcome.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Under the Table Employment
I work at a small company that has been struggling for a long time now. A couple years ago the I was faced with a choice. Get paid under the table, accept a 25% pay cut, and lose health insurance or lose my job. I chose to become an "undocumented worker." So I not have paid or filed for taxes since 2006. I would like to be legitimate and pay my taxes but I live paycheck to paycheck and I really can't pay even this years taxes, much less taxes from previous years. Bankruptcy would offer one potential solution and is worth consideration. But my questions are not about bankruptcy but rather employment.
I have two questions:
1. I have to wonder how this will impact employment verification. When applying for a new job, will the potential employer know that I have not been paying taxes?
2. Assuming I am hired, and the new employer bringing me into their HR and tax systems, will they then learn that I was not paying taxes?
I presume you lost your health insurance anyway, as employees who don't technically exist can't really be added to your health insurance rolls. So, you've just chosen to be dishonest, working for someone who is dishonest and now you fear it might catch up to you.
Ahh, wickedness never was happiness. Sometimes it just takes a while for the unhappiness to catch up to you. Never mind, here are the answers to your questions.
1. For all intents and purposes you have not been employed. If your current company has been paying you under the table, you can't really list it on your resume as your current company. The best you can say is that you were an independent contractor who did work for this company. It's doubtful that they will ask to see your 1099s to verify. Your current employer can offer a reference, stating you are a contactor.
2. No, your new employer will not learn whether you have been paying taxes or not by simply hiring you and bringing you into their system. They will simply start reporting your income to the IRS.
Of course, when the IRS busts you (which they will), they can require your new employer to start garnishing your wages to make up for your lack of tax paying. Fun!
Now, as for the troubles you've created for yourself, I suggest you try to fix it as soon as possible. You say you have no extra money. Well, then, you have no extra money for IRS fines. I suggest you use what money you do have to hire a competent accountant (not a trained monkey at one of those fast food style tax offices) to help you figure out what you owe and what you need to do about it. It can only get worse. If you are a low income earner, it may not be as bad as you feared.
Now, I need the lawyers and accountants (of which I am neither) to weigh in and tell you how much trouble you are really in. It's best to get honest as soon as possible and be honest going forward. And while you are at it, let's get your finances in shape so you don't end up like this again.
I have two questions:
1. I have to wonder how this will impact employment verification. When applying for a new job, will the potential employer know that I have not been paying taxes?
2. Assuming I am hired, and the new employer bringing me into their HR and tax systems, will they then learn that I was not paying taxes?
I presume you lost your health insurance anyway, as employees who don't technically exist can't really be added to your health insurance rolls. So, you've just chosen to be dishonest, working for someone who is dishonest and now you fear it might catch up to you.
Ahh, wickedness never was happiness. Sometimes it just takes a while for the unhappiness to catch up to you. Never mind, here are the answers to your questions.
1. For all intents and purposes you have not been employed. If your current company has been paying you under the table, you can't really list it on your resume as your current company. The best you can say is that you were an independent contractor who did work for this company. It's doubtful that they will ask to see your 1099s to verify. Your current employer can offer a reference, stating you are a contactor.
2. No, your new employer will not learn whether you have been paying taxes or not by simply hiring you and bringing you into their system. They will simply start reporting your income to the IRS.
Of course, when the IRS busts you (which they will), they can require your new employer to start garnishing your wages to make up for your lack of tax paying. Fun!
Now, as for the troubles you've created for yourself, I suggest you try to fix it as soon as possible. You say you have no extra money. Well, then, you have no extra money for IRS fines. I suggest you use what money you do have to hire a competent accountant (not a trained monkey at one of those fast food style tax offices) to help you figure out what you owe and what you need to do about it. It can only get worse. If you are a low income earner, it may not be as bad as you feared.
Now, I need the lawyers and accountants (of which I am neither) to weigh in and tell you how much trouble you are really in. It's best to get honest as soon as possible and be honest going forward. And while you are at it, let's get your finances in shape so you don't end up like this again.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Holiday Parties
Two thoughts on Holiday Parties:
One from the lawyers and one from HR.
I hate work holiday parties. Unless they are during lunch and involve good food. (Good food can be pizza, as long as it's not ordered from the company cafeteria.)
One from the lawyers and one from HR.
I hate work holiday parties. Unless they are during lunch and involve good food. (Good food can be pizza, as long as it's not ordered from the company cafeteria.)
A Friendly Warning from the Grim Reaper
I may have hinted a few times that I know a thing or two about layoffs. This would be true. I do. In fact, if you see me coming, it's best to start packing up your things right now because it will save us all hassle later on. (This, actually, is not true. Your manager would be terminating you, not me, so feel free to chat with me and share your Christmas candy.)
So, here's the deal. You may get laid off. Yes, I know, you are a stellar performer and your boss loves you and blah, blah, blah. Humor me. You may get laid off. And here's the kicker: You will still have bills to pay.
My company offers severance. Yeah! Severance checks come in the mail, not direct deposit. (Yes, I've tried to change that. No, payroll wasn't interested. They said it was a systems thing. I like to get paid, so I said I believed them and now we're all happy together.)
Two pay days in a row I've gotten a tearful phone call from a woman. It seems that the US mail did not deliver her check on the day expected. How could she pay her bills? Her car was going to be repossessed if she did not have that check TODAY.
I can't control the US post office. (Wouldn't that be cool if I could, though? That would be some serious super powers if I could do that.) I also can't guarentee you'll have a job. I can't guarantee that your company will give you severance. (I can't even guarantee that my company will give you severance, largely because you don't work for my company.)
If a check being one day late will be the death of you financially, you need to get control over your financial life. Nobody should be living this close to the edge. I know now is not the best financial time, but please, think about the very real possibility that your check may be worse than one day late--it may not come at all if your job goes away.
I really feel for the woman who is having post office problems. I do. And that's why I'm writing this. Please, put aside some money. Stop spending as if you'll always have tons of cash. If you say, "But I can't put anything aside!" Stop and think about what you'll do if you do get laid off. You are better off now then you will be then, so do something to put a little aside. A little can grow into a lot if you just leave it alone and add a little each pay day.
It'll make it a lot easier on all of us when your manager calls you into his office.
So, here's the deal. You may get laid off. Yes, I know, you are a stellar performer and your boss loves you and blah, blah, blah. Humor me. You may get laid off. And here's the kicker: You will still have bills to pay.
My company offers severance. Yeah! Severance checks come in the mail, not direct deposit. (Yes, I've tried to change that. No, payroll wasn't interested. They said it was a systems thing. I like to get paid, so I said I believed them and now we're all happy together.)
Two pay days in a row I've gotten a tearful phone call from a woman. It seems that the US mail did not deliver her check on the day expected. How could she pay her bills? Her car was going to be repossessed if she did not have that check TODAY.
I can't control the US post office. (Wouldn't that be cool if I could, though? That would be some serious super powers if I could do that.) I also can't guarentee you'll have a job. I can't guarantee that your company will give you severance. (I can't even guarantee that my company will give you severance, largely because you don't work for my company.)
If a check being one day late will be the death of you financially, you need to get control over your financial life. Nobody should be living this close to the edge. I know now is not the best financial time, but please, think about the very real possibility that your check may be worse than one day late--it may not come at all if your job goes away.
I really feel for the woman who is having post office problems. I do. And that's why I'm writing this. Please, put aside some money. Stop spending as if you'll always have tons of cash. If you say, "But I can't put anything aside!" Stop and think about what you'll do if you do get laid off. You are better off now then you will be then, so do something to put a little aside. A little can grow into a lot if you just leave it alone and add a little each pay day.
It'll make it a lot easier on all of us when your manager calls you into his office.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Leave Policy Missing In Action
A long-time employee went out on sick leave a couple of months ago, and has recently expressed the intention of remaining on leave for the next six months. The person is genuinely unable to work and has indicated informally that a return to the workforce is unlikely even though the health condition involved does not reduce life-span. I have received mixed messages from HR about what options are available to this employee and/or to me as the supervisor. For example: Can this individual remain on the payroll collecting sick leave until the leave runs out? When the paid leave runs out, can unpaid leave be continued for another three months under FMLA? Under what circumstances can an employee with sick leave available but no intention of returning to work remain on the payroll?
I don't really have any answers for you, so I'll just use your question as a jumping off point for a good rant.
Mixed messages? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously people, this is HR 101. You must have a leave policy in place. It should contain, at minimum, the following information:
Number of days an employee can take as sick leave before going on short term disability
Number of company paid sick days (or if unlimited, then number of days before disability is required)
FMLA policy (make sure this is compliant with both Federal and State laws--some states are more generous)
At what point an employee is terminated (after FMLA expires? At 6 months? At one year?)
How all this fits with your disability (short and long term) policies
Under what conditions a manager is allowed to hire a temp or contractor to fill the duties
See, that's not so hard, right?
I mean, geesh, does HR think that no one is going to get sick? (Because that NEVER happens, right?) They should have a policy and every HR person in the company should be able to spout it out to you, consistently and clearly. (Okay, not every HR person. I don't think the HRIS people should have to know--strike that, of course they should, as they control the system that indicates whether someone is active or on leave. ALL HR PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Well, maybe compensation...)
If you don't have a policy, managers are left not knowing what to do. Then managers have to wing it. Then Manager A wings it differently than Manager B and Bob gets great leave at full pay and Maria gets terminated as soon as FMLA expires and she didn't get paid during that time frame either. What happens when Bob and Maria (I'm feeling reminiscent of Sesame Street right now) run into each other in the grocery store? (Oh Bob is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood!)
Bob: Oh, Maria, I heard you were sick. Me too. I've had these persistent migraines. I'm so thankful that I'm still getting paid.
Maria: What?!?!!??! (then a few chosen expletives, which I won't write because I don't say such words.)
Bob: What are you so upset about?
Maria: I haven't gotten a check in 4 months and they terminated me 4 weeks ago.
Bob: That's strange, I've been out longer than you have.
Maria: Excuse me, I have to go call my attorney.
Is this what you want happening? No. No, you don't.
Now, my real guess is that there is a policy, it's just that your HR department is unorganized and inconsistent. Escalate this issue. Get your boss involved. There should be clear guidance. This should not be an area for manager discretion.
I don't really have any answers for you, so I'll just use your question as a jumping off point for a good rant.
Mixed messages? Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously people, this is HR 101. You must have a leave policy in place. It should contain, at minimum, the following information:
See, that's not so hard, right?
I mean, geesh, does HR think that no one is going to get sick? (Because that NEVER happens, right?) They should have a policy and every HR person in the company should be able to spout it out to you, consistently and clearly. (Okay, not every HR person. I don't think the HRIS people should have to know--strike that, of course they should, as they control the system that indicates whether someone is active or on leave. ALL HR PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS. Well, maybe compensation...)
If you don't have a policy, managers are left not knowing what to do. Then managers have to wing it. Then Manager A wings it differently than Manager B and Bob gets great leave at full pay and Maria gets terminated as soon as FMLA expires and she didn't get paid during that time frame either. What happens when Bob and Maria (I'm feeling reminiscent of Sesame Street right now) run into each other in the grocery store? (Oh Bob is a person in your neighborhood, in your neighborhood, in your neigh-bor-hood!)
Bob: Oh, Maria, I heard you were sick. Me too. I've had these persistent migraines. I'm so thankful that I'm still getting paid.
Maria: What?!?!!??! (then a few chosen expletives, which I won't write because I don't say such words.)
Bob: What are you so upset about?
Maria: I haven't gotten a check in 4 months and they terminated me 4 weeks ago.
Bob: That's strange, I've been out longer than you have.
Maria: Excuse me, I have to go call my attorney.
Is this what you want happening? No. No, you don't.
Now, my real guess is that there is a policy, it's just that your HR department is unorganized and inconsistent. Escalate this issue. Get your boss involved. There should be clear guidance. This should not be an area for manager discretion.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Some Good E-mail Advice
There are somethings you should never put in an e-mail. Death by Email gives us a list. Some samples:
All of us HR types need to be aware of these things.
Is this actually legal?
We're going to do this differently than normal.
All of us HR types need to be aware of these things.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Relocated and Laid Off
I was recently relocated across the country for a position at a better company (leaving behind a good paying, secure job that my heart was no longer in). I was worried about the immediate future of the company (lots of merger/buyout talks) and said I didn't know if I could take the position because I was upside down on my house and would take a big hit selling. The HR person told me that my contract spelled out the severance package if the company was bought out and that there would be no layoffs for at least the next 6 months. I figured that 6 months would allow me to cover the hit on my house if I got laid off and give me enough time to prove my skill set. However, after 3 months, they announced layoffs and I was let go. Is there recourse that I can do other than accept the severance package (much smaller than if the company got bought) and be upset?
I would not have accepted the job had I known that layoffs would occur this soon and I was even promised that they would not. It was just not written in my contract, just expressed verbally. Also, they paid relocation, and if I left within the first year, I had to pay back a pro-rated amount. Does that impact my at-will status since if I chose to quit willingly I would take a financial hit? They told me it had nothing to do with performance, I just knew the least about the business model itself compared to my teammates, which makes sense, because I was told to expect a 3-6 month learning curve.
Once again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. And even if I was a lawyer (which I'm not), I don't know what state you are in. But, in my non-lawyerly way, I'd tell you to pick up the phone book (does anybody do that anymore? Okay, go to Google.) and find yourself an employment lawyer.
In some states a verbal promise is as good as a contract. (I believe, remember, not a lawyer!) Even if it's not, it would be worth it to get a lawyer's opinion on this.
I would ask for more severance. I would ask for, at minimum, what you were promised in case of a buy-out. In fact, I would ask for more because of false promises. Talk about a stupidly short-sighted company. (I know, I know, who could have predicted the sub prime mortgage market would collapse and spread into all areas of the economy? Oh, that's right, everyone with half a brain could have predicted it, except for the people who actually dealt in sub prime mortgages. Go figure.) Only in the rarest of circumstances should a company do a position elimination for someone who has only worked there for 3 months. I say, if a position needs to go, it should be the manager who was fool enough to hire someone he wouldn't have work for in 3 months.
Sorry, a bit ranty today. I don't often say this, but I honestly say you should contact a lawyer. Don't look to win the employment law lottery. It's not worth that. But a nicely worded letter or phone call from your attorney to the legal department of your company may be quite effective.
This is one of the times I say don't sign the release that is undoubtedly part of the severance offer until it's been reviewed by an attorney. Make sure that your full relocation costs are covered as well.
Good luck on the job hunt. Don't let this get you discouraged.
I would not have accepted the job had I known that layoffs would occur this soon and I was even promised that they would not. It was just not written in my contract, just expressed verbally. Also, they paid relocation, and if I left within the first year, I had to pay back a pro-rated amount. Does that impact my at-will status since if I chose to quit willingly I would take a financial hit? They told me it had nothing to do with performance, I just knew the least about the business model itself compared to my teammates, which makes sense, because I was told to expect a 3-6 month learning curve.
Once again, I must point out that I am not a lawyer. And even if I was a lawyer (which I'm not), I don't know what state you are in. But, in my non-lawyerly way, I'd tell you to pick up the phone book (does anybody do that anymore? Okay, go to Google.) and find yourself an employment lawyer.
In some states a verbal promise is as good as a contract. (I believe, remember, not a lawyer!) Even if it's not, it would be worth it to get a lawyer's opinion on this.
I would ask for more severance. I would ask for, at minimum, what you were promised in case of a buy-out. In fact, I would ask for more because of false promises. Talk about a stupidly short-sighted company. (I know, I know, who could have predicted the sub prime mortgage market would collapse and spread into all areas of the economy? Oh, that's right, everyone with half a brain could have predicted it, except for the people who actually dealt in sub prime mortgages. Go figure.) Only in the rarest of circumstances should a company do a position elimination for someone who has only worked there for 3 months. I say, if a position needs to go, it should be the manager who was fool enough to hire someone he wouldn't have work for in 3 months.
Sorry, a bit ranty today. I don't often say this, but I honestly say you should contact a lawyer. Don't look to win the employment law lottery. It's not worth that. But a nicely worded letter or phone call from your attorney to the legal department of your company may be quite effective.
This is one of the times I say don't sign the release that is undoubtedly part of the severance offer until it's been reviewed by an attorney. Make sure that your full relocation costs are covered as well.
Good luck on the job hunt. Don't let this get you discouraged.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
You Make More Money???!?!?!?!?
Two managers were socializing outside of work. Yes, alcohol was involved. Manager one said to Manager Two: Hey, I know what you make. Manager one then quoted – to the penny – what Manager Two’s salary was. Manager One said that he had seen the information in an offer letter on the HR Manager’s desk (that’s me). Manager two then said: OK, so now that you know my salary, I want to know your salary. Manager One then disclosed his salary amount.
There are obviously a couple issues here, but the plot thickens. It turns out that Manager One makes quite a bit more than Manager Two, even though their positions are somewhat equal. (There are major wage equity issues here that I am battling). Manager Two is devastated, and has done an amazing job of turning his department around and building his team. This really took the wind out of his sales.
My issue is with Manager One. While I am at fault for leaving something confidential on my desk, I have a huge issue with Manager One disclosing this. Managers are exposed to confidential, sensitive information all the time, so the expectation is that he keeps his mouth shut. This is also covered very clearly in our policies. If he disclosed this after a couple drinks, what else is he saying?
When Manager Two disclosed this to me, he stated that he was asking for advice and simply wanted to vent. As an HR professional, I am well aware that there are some topics that employees CAN NOT ask me to keep confidential, and I believe this is potentially one of them. However, since it took place outside of work, are we in a position to talk with and potentially discipline Manager One?
I'll start my reprimanding with you--bad of you to keep confidential info in a place where others could see it. But, you know that.
Then I'll reprimand the company for having pay inequities. Now, I'm somewhat of a radical when it comes to pay. Hold on to your horses, but I don't think pay should be confidential.
Let the ranting begin. Let me state my case. I've been in HR a long time and in every HR position I've ever held--including when I was a temp admin--I've had access to everyone's salary. And I mean everyone's salary. CEOs and co-workers included. It's always been part of my job. At first it's fascinating. Now? Not so much.
And that's part of why I'm opposed to secrecy. None of this would have mattered if your company was open about such things. (I know of no companies (government jobs excepted) that are open about such things--I am, as I said, an HR extremist. I wonder if that's like extreme sports: Up Next, Evil HR Lady in the Extreme Compensation Policy competition!)
But the real reason I'm opposed to secrecy is because secrecy allows pay inequities like the one you are dealing with now. Just think--if everyone's salaries were open managers would never hire people at unfair levels or offer big bumps to people they *like* but who hadn't earned the increase.
I realize there are whining problems with this and it takes a lot of guts to have people know that their co-worker with the same title makes more money than they do, but that just means that the company truly needs to pay for performance. Rational people understand that. Irrational people, you don't want working for you.
But, now to your situation (clearly, I just hijacked my own blog!). Can you "punish" manager one for something he did outside of work? Sure! Do you want to go there? No. I don't. But, what I would recommend is this:
HR: So, Manager 1, I understand you had a talk with Manager 2 about salaries. Just couldn't keep quiet about how yours is so much better, right?
Manager 1: So what? (If he's defensive, that is. If he realizes he was a drunk idiot, he'll hang his head and apologize.)
HR: Yeah, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm not sure this company can trust people who make stupid decisions, inside or outside of work.
And then I'd end the conversation. If you are respected and valued enough it will freak him out just a little bit.
As for confidentiality, you're neither a priest nor a lawyer. Some things you are required by law to act on, but stupid managers who reveal salary information is not one of them. (In my non-lawyer, non-legal advice way. Entertainment, people, this blog is pure entertainment. In fact, did I tell you my favorite joke. It goes like this: There was a snake named Nate...)
I would also bust my buns to deal with the salary inequities, starting with Manager 2. You say he's turned his group around. You better make sure he's rewarded for it, or you are going to lose him. You may already lose him. I can guarantee if I was manager 2, I would have come home and started working on my resume. I've just been told that my company doesn't value me. I'd expect the burden is on the company to prove otherwise.
There are obviously a couple issues here, but the plot thickens. It turns out that Manager One makes quite a bit more than Manager Two, even though their positions are somewhat equal. (There are major wage equity issues here that I am battling). Manager Two is devastated, and has done an amazing job of turning his department around and building his team. This really took the wind out of his sales.
My issue is with Manager One. While I am at fault for leaving something confidential on my desk, I have a huge issue with Manager One disclosing this. Managers are exposed to confidential, sensitive information all the time, so the expectation is that he keeps his mouth shut. This is also covered very clearly in our policies. If he disclosed this after a couple drinks, what else is he saying?
When Manager Two disclosed this to me, he stated that he was asking for advice and simply wanted to vent. As an HR professional, I am well aware that there are some topics that employees CAN NOT ask me to keep confidential, and I believe this is potentially one of them. However, since it took place outside of work, are we in a position to talk with and potentially discipline Manager One?
I'll start my reprimanding with you--bad of you to keep confidential info in a place where others could see it. But, you know that.
Then I'll reprimand the company for having pay inequities. Now, I'm somewhat of a radical when it comes to pay. Hold on to your horses, but I don't think pay should be confidential.
Let the ranting begin. Let me state my case. I've been in HR a long time and in every HR position I've ever held--including when I was a temp admin--I've had access to everyone's salary. And I mean everyone's salary. CEOs and co-workers included. It's always been part of my job. At first it's fascinating. Now? Not so much.
And that's part of why I'm opposed to secrecy. None of this would have mattered if your company was open about such things. (I know of no companies (government jobs excepted) that are open about such things--I am, as I said, an HR extremist. I wonder if that's like extreme sports: Up Next, Evil HR Lady in the Extreme Compensation Policy competition!)
But the real reason I'm opposed to secrecy is because secrecy allows pay inequities like the one you are dealing with now. Just think--if everyone's salaries were open managers would never hire people at unfair levels or offer big bumps to people they *like* but who hadn't earned the increase.
I realize there are whining problems with this and it takes a lot of guts to have people know that their co-worker with the same title makes more money than they do, but that just means that the company truly needs to pay for performance. Rational people understand that. Irrational people, you don't want working for you.
But, now to your situation (clearly, I just hijacked my own blog!). Can you "punish" manager one for something he did outside of work? Sure! Do you want to go there? No. I don't. But, what I would recommend is this:
HR: So, Manager 1, I understand you had a talk with Manager 2 about salaries. Just couldn't keep quiet about how yours is so much better, right?
Manager 1: So what? (If he's defensive, that is. If he realizes he was a drunk idiot, he'll hang his head and apologize.)
HR: Yeah, so it was a pretty stupid thing to do. I'm not sure this company can trust people who make stupid decisions, inside or outside of work.
And then I'd end the conversation. If you are respected and valued enough it will freak him out just a little bit.
As for confidentiality, you're neither a priest nor a lawyer. Some things you are required by law to act on, but stupid managers who reveal salary information is not one of them. (In my non-lawyer, non-legal advice way. Entertainment, people, this blog is pure entertainment. In fact, did I tell you my favorite joke. It goes like this: There was a snake named Nate...)
I would also bust my buns to deal with the salary inequities, starting with Manager 2. You say he's turned his group around. You better make sure he's rewarded for it, or you are going to lose him. You may already lose him. I can guarantee if I was manager 2, I would have come home and started working on my resume. I've just been told that my company doesn't value me. I'd expect the burden is on the company to prove otherwise.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Random Thoughts
1. I realized I’ve been in HR too long when I was reading Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to my daughter and when Grandpa Joe tells about how Mr. Wonka just shut down his factory and fired all 10,000 workers and all I can think about is, “You can’t do that! You just violated the WARN act. Being mad at competitors is not a valid reason not to give 60 days notice.”
2. Why is it that if I can’t answer the phone when someone calls, but I call them back within five minutes, they are never at their desks? Ever. It’s like “I must call Evil HR Lady before I leave for that Mount Everest Expedition.” I find this even more bizarre when people call from their cell phones. I mean, did you call me and then accidentally flush your phone or something?
3. And speaking of phones, if you see a number come up on your caller ID and you don’t recognize it, don’t just call it back and say, “someone called this number.” If the person left a message, listen to it before calling back. If no message was left that means it wasn’t important, so don’t bother calling. Besides, you don’t know who it was! Leave it alone.
4. So, it’s 9:30 at night and I’m working. I send e-mails to three different people. All three respond within minutes. Shouldn’t we take at least some time off each day?
5. When I hear massive layoffs announced at companies, my immediate sympathies are with the HR people who have to figure out the whole mess and create the documents for everyone. I realize this is a sickness.
6. Pies for Thanksgiving this year will be: 2 Cherry, 2 Pumpkin, 1 Pecan and 1 Key Lime. The latter is not at all traditional. What can I say? We’re a wild and crazy kind of family.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Leading People. Leading Organizations
I'm a little bit tired and cranky. (Although not as cranky as Mr. Crabby pants who got 5 needles jabbed into his little thighs today. Sorry--just a bit of mommy blogging here.) So, when I read this I wanted to grab some HR VPs and bang their little heads together:
I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers (although for the record, I would never in a million years support such a thing and I believe they will lose the case). Let's talk about the people. Remember them? We're supposed to lead them. This is supposed to cause HR to lead organizations.
Apparently, we were leading them to self destruction. (Where are we and why are we in this handbasket? we might ask ourselves.) Sure, employees aren't "working" while their computers are booting up. They may even be, gasp! talking to their co-workers or drinking coffee. But, they are in the office. They can't be somewhere else. They have to be in the building. Therefore, they are at work and should be paid as such.
How do you even monitor such a thing? What if I come in, turn my computer on and get up to get a cup of coffee (which I wouldn't do because I don't drink coffee), but right then my phone rings. I answer it and it's my boss and I have a 30 minute discussion with him about work stuff. By this time, my computer is all booted up. Then I go get coffee (or rather water, which is what I drink at work). Do I have to clock out? What if I'm just going to the kitchen/cafeteria/water cooler and back? What if I run into Bob from Accounting in the kitchen and we discuss business stuff? Aargh! How would you even administer this?
Oh, I know, it's probably call center people, so everything is clocked on your computer. Still. If I'm required to be in the building, I should be getting paid.
But, let's say, for argument's sake, that AT&T et al are legally right. Computer booting time can be unpaid. Just how much do you hate your people? Do you want them to leave? Do you want to drain the lifeblood out of them? Do you not understand that your best employees will find new jobs and that as a result, the quality of your workforce will gradually decline?
United Healthcare received the lowest rating from hospital executives. This does not surprise me. You cannot run a good business without good employees. You cannot get and keep good employees without good policies. If HR is encouraging this type of policy (please let it be Finance who overrode the HR people on this, please?) then they should be ashamed of themselves.
Trying to save a few bucks will result in you destroying your company. Your people are your company. Stop being stingy.
Gah. Now I'm even more fired up and cranky. I'm going to bed.
During the past year, several companies, including AT&T Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp., have been hit with lawsuits in which employees claimed that they were not paid for the 15- to 30-minute task of booting their computers at the start of each day and logging out at the end.
I'll leave the legalities to the lawyers (although for the record, I would never in a million years support such a thing and I believe they will lose the case). Let's talk about the people. Remember them? We're supposed to lead them. This is supposed to cause HR to lead organizations.
Apparently, we were leading them to self destruction. (Where are we and why are we in this handbasket? we might ask ourselves.) Sure, employees aren't "working" while their computers are booting up. They may even be, gasp! talking to their co-workers or drinking coffee. But, they are in the office. They can't be somewhere else. They have to be in the building. Therefore, they are at work and should be paid as such.
How do you even monitor such a thing? What if I come in, turn my computer on and get up to get a cup of coffee (which I wouldn't do because I don't drink coffee), but right then my phone rings. I answer it and it's my boss and I have a 30 minute discussion with him about work stuff. By this time, my computer is all booted up. Then I go get coffee (or rather water, which is what I drink at work). Do I have to clock out? What if I'm just going to the kitchen/cafeteria/water cooler and back? What if I run into Bob from Accounting in the kitchen and we discuss business stuff? Aargh! How would you even administer this?
Oh, I know, it's probably call center people, so everything is clocked on your computer. Still. If I'm required to be in the building, I should be getting paid.
But, let's say, for argument's sake, that AT&T et al are legally right. Computer booting time can be unpaid. Just how much do you hate your people? Do you want them to leave? Do you want to drain the lifeblood out of them? Do you not understand that your best employees will find new jobs and that as a result, the quality of your workforce will gradually decline?
United Healthcare received the lowest rating from hospital executives. This does not surprise me. You cannot run a good business without good employees. You cannot get and keep good employees without good policies. If HR is encouraging this type of policy (please let it be Finance who overrode the HR people on this, please?) then they should be ashamed of themselves.
Trying to save a few bucks will result in you destroying your company. Your people are your company. Stop being stingy.
Gah. Now I'm even more fired up and cranky. I'm going to bed.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Happy Birthday Deb!
See, I remembered! Now you are in a protected class. The thing all of us HR types dream about.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Family Owned Business
My company is a family owned manufacturing business. The owner's son manages the place while the owner has moved to another state. The son hires a friend of his and promises to pay him more than the set amount that entry level employees make. This friend had no prior experience to warrant being paid more, nor has the company ever paid any employee in this position more than another in this same position (as a starting pay). In the past, this boss has also hired all 5 of his children and paid them more than anyone else. Is this legal? Is it ethical? I'm stuck in the HR/ payroll position and feel like I should advise the owner, which of course will bring about problems with this boss, who is not my direct boss. What to do?
I am not a lawyer. I do not offer legal advice. I do not pretend to offer legal advice. I don't even watch Law and Order any more, so I'm not even up on the nuances of NY criminal law. Not that this would matter in this situation.
Not being friends with the boss is not a protected class. This, in my way of thinking, means that you don't have any claim of discrimination if the boss pays his BFF more than he is paying you, or rather the other entry level workers. You may see it as stupid, he may see it as being generous to an old friend.
Hiring your children is not illegal either. Nor would paying them more than other employees be anything less than expected. Is it stupid? Probably. (Although, I wonder if it would be illegal to pay them extreme amounts of money in an attempt to transfer assets to them without IRS problems. Hmmmm, too bad I'm not an accountant either.)
As you are probably already aware, salary information like this gets around very fast although no one is willing to admit that they said the boss's friend/child is getting more money than everyone else. It ruins morale and if in addition to being overpaid, the boss's friends and children aren't stellar performers, it's going to increase turnover.
So, this is why it matters to you. It doesn't matter how much the boss pays someone or who he hires. (Does not matter. Does not matter. Repeat that.) It matters how the workplace is affected.
Should you go to the owner? Only if you regularly report to the owner. If not, then it's a phone call out of the blue to say that sonny-boy is a screw up. They either already know or they are in denial, so what good will it do? You don't even report to the boss, let alone his parents.
You should voice your concerns--to your boss. Your concerns are with employee morale, pay consistency and productivity. If the first and the last are not a concern--frequently people in family owned businesses expect the boss's children/friends to be given special privileges and while they may grumble about it, it doesn't really have an effect on performance--then don't bother. Now, if clueless friend gets promoted out of an entry level job without proper qualifications, then as an HR person it is your responsibility to lay out the problems with this approach.
If you have a regular working relationship with Sonny you may mention your concerns about morale to him. He may think he's a great guy who is helping people while you see him destroying the business. Now, if the owner happens to give you a call and ask what is going on, you can express your concerns, but don't call them up.
I am not a lawyer. I do not offer legal advice. I do not pretend to offer legal advice. I don't even watch Law and Order any more, so I'm not even up on the nuances of NY criminal law. Not that this would matter in this situation.
Not being friends with the boss is not a protected class. This, in my way of thinking, means that you don't have any claim of discrimination if the boss pays his BFF more than he is paying you, or rather the other entry level workers. You may see it as stupid, he may see it as being generous to an old friend.
Hiring your children is not illegal either. Nor would paying them more than other employees be anything less than expected. Is it stupid? Probably. (Although, I wonder if it would be illegal to pay them extreme amounts of money in an attempt to transfer assets to them without IRS problems. Hmmmm, too bad I'm not an accountant either.)
As you are probably already aware, salary information like this gets around very fast although no one is willing to admit that they said the boss's friend/child is getting more money than everyone else. It ruins morale and if in addition to being overpaid, the boss's friends and children aren't stellar performers, it's going to increase turnover.
So, this is why it matters to you. It doesn't matter how much the boss pays someone or who he hires. (Does not matter. Does not matter. Repeat that.) It matters how the workplace is affected.
Should you go to the owner? Only if you regularly report to the owner. If not, then it's a phone call out of the blue to say that sonny-boy is a screw up. They either already know or they are in denial, so what good will it do? You don't even report to the boss, let alone his parents.
You should voice your concerns--to your boss. Your concerns are with employee morale, pay consistency and productivity. If the first and the last are not a concern--frequently people in family owned businesses expect the boss's children/friends to be given special privileges and while they may grumble about it, it doesn't really have an effect on performance--then don't bother. Now, if clueless friend gets promoted out of an entry level job without proper qualifications, then as an HR person it is your responsibility to lay out the problems with this approach.
If you have a regular working relationship with Sonny you may mention your concerns about morale to him. He may think he's a great guy who is helping people while you see him destroying the business. Now, if the owner happens to give you a call and ask what is going on, you can express your concerns, but don't call them up.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Because We Like to Give Advice
I am interviewing for an HR/Information Assistant position this Thursday (October 30). I really really want to get this position, as I am very interested in working for Human Resources. However, I do not have any prior experience in HR, and have heard that it is difficult to get into the department without prior experience. Is there any advice you could provide for someone like me, who really wants to prove to the employer that I am serious about this job, and that I am the perfect candidate?
It is difficult to get a job without experience, but we all did it at some point. I'll ask my readers to give additional advice to you, but here's mine: Don't pretend you can do something when you can't.
I would far rather have someone say, "I have no idea how to do x, but I'm a fast learner and I'm willing to try anything. I'm sure I could learn to do it. In fact, in my last job I [learned x] and became the department expert." So much better than, "yeah, I can do that," and then you really can't.
Also, I'm not sure what an Information Assistant is (but can I have one?), but an HR assistant is an entry level job where you aren't expected to know everything, but you are expected to jump in and try and learn. Also, we expect that you will never make a mistake. (Ha! We know you will, but we will try to prevent you from making mistakes that will show up on the CEO's desk.)
What other advice do you have for this future HR person?
It is difficult to get a job without experience, but we all did it at some point. I'll ask my readers to give additional advice to you, but here's mine: Don't pretend you can do something when you can't.
I would far rather have someone say, "I have no idea how to do x, but I'm a fast learner and I'm willing to try anything. I'm sure I could learn to do it. In fact, in my last job I [learned x] and became the department expert." So much better than, "yeah, I can do that," and then you really can't.
Also, I'm not sure what an Information Assistant is (but can I have one?), but an HR assistant is an entry level job where you aren't expected to know everything, but you are expected to jump in and try and learn. Also, we expect that you will never make a mistake. (Ha! We know you will, but we will try to prevent you from making mistakes that will show up on the CEO's desk.)
What other advice do you have for this future HR person?
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Problem With HR
In the comments on Policy Problem Just Another HR Lady Wrote:
And with that she sums up a very real problem. Every employee at every level has contact with HR and sometimes with very low level HR people. Add to this that HR isn't the highest paid profession and sometimes you get some real problems.
Any mistake we make is magnified--because it involves people. Let me tell you about a memorable mistake in my past. Once upon a time, I was responsible for running the year end salary increase program--for the entire, very large company. This was in the dark ages, so at the end of the whole thing we sent every manager a piece of paper with a list of their employees and the employee's official increase. Attached to that were individual notification sheets for each employee with their names and new salaries. Did I mention this was a very large company? Did I also mention this was all done on PAPER? Oy.
So, we're handling tens of thousands of sheets of paper. Stuffing them into envelopes and sending them out. It was quite a process. And we made a mistake. No one really knows who--everyone in the department, from admin to VP helped out on this stuffing process, so it could have been anyone. But, we made a mistake and ONE Vice President (note how I said, one out of thousands) got an extra sheet stuck to his list. The extra sheet happened to be for one of his direct reports, so it wasn't as if he saw anything he didn't already have access to. It was just a mistake. And unfortunately, it happened at the top.
Of course, the world came to an end and there were meetings and process re-designs and it was a mess and if you ask me if I ever want to do that again the answer is a resounding no. It made us look terrible and no one recognized that our error rate was well below 0.0002%. You ask me if any other department would get reamed for that error level. Even worse all of HR looked bad, even though staffing, employee relations, benefits, etc. didn't even make the mistake. My group did.
My point is, of course, that we do have to be better. We need to know more than we do. We need to be more accurate than we are. We just need to be better employees.
Which makes sense. After all, if we're in the people business we should be the best people.
I would like to just comment that every profession (not just HR) has individuals who are low-performers or who are not the right fit for the job. Because HR deals with every single person in the organization at every level, HR low-performers or those who make mistakes/errors/missteps are much higher profile in the company than someone who only deals with one department.
And with that she sums up a very real problem. Every employee at every level has contact with HR and sometimes with very low level HR people. Add to this that HR isn't the highest paid profession and sometimes you get some real problems.
Any mistake we make is magnified--because it involves people. Let me tell you about a memorable mistake in my past. Once upon a time, I was responsible for running the year end salary increase program--for the entire, very large company. This was in the dark ages, so at the end of the whole thing we sent every manager a piece of paper with a list of their employees and the employee's official increase. Attached to that were individual notification sheets for each employee with their names and new salaries. Did I mention this was a very large company? Did I also mention this was all done on PAPER? Oy.
So, we're handling tens of thousands of sheets of paper. Stuffing them into envelopes and sending them out. It was quite a process. And we made a mistake. No one really knows who--everyone in the department, from admin to VP helped out on this stuffing process, so it could have been anyone. But, we made a mistake and ONE Vice President (note how I said, one out of thousands) got an extra sheet stuck to his list. The extra sheet happened to be for one of his direct reports, so it wasn't as if he saw anything he didn't already have access to. It was just a mistake. And unfortunately, it happened at the top.
Of course, the world came to an end and there were meetings and process re-designs and it was a mess and if you ask me if I ever want to do that again the answer is a resounding no. It made us look terrible and no one recognized that our error rate was well below 0.0002%. You ask me if any other department would get reamed for that error level. Even worse all of HR looked bad, even though staffing, employee relations, benefits, etc. didn't even make the mistake. My group did.
My point is, of course, that we do have to be better. We need to know more than we do. We need to be more accurate than we are. We just need to be better employees.
Which makes sense. After all, if we're in the people business we should be the best people.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Fail
This has nothing to do with HR, but it would be so phenomenally horrible if it happened to you. But it would also be really funny.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Policy Problem
I had asked one of our HR ladies via e-mail 3 different times to supply me with the tuition reimbursement policy our company has. After waiting over 6 months I went to our companies intranet site and searched "tuition reimbursement". I found the policy and sent her the link since she obliviously didn't know where to find it.
A few minutes after finding it I received an e-mail from our evil HR. Manager asking where I found it and that it because it was not to be available to the public. How is that right? How am I supposed to follow policies that I am not privy to? Is he being evil or are HR policies not for employees to view?
Of course he’s being evil. That’s what we HR types do.
You’ve got several different issues going on here. Let’s talk about issue number 1: HR not returning e-mails. You have a simple question—what is the tuition reimbursement policy? Now, depending on the size of your company the person you know as “HR” may not (and judging from the lack of response, does not) know what the policy is. So, she ignored your e-mail. Or she forwarded it and that person ignored it and she didn’t follow up. This is completely unprofessional and downright rude.
If she didn’t know the answer and didn’t know whom to ask, the proper response is to e-mail you back and apologetically tell you she doesn’t know the answer. Then the other proper response is for her boss to fire her because she should either know the answer to that question, know who to ask, or be willing to wade in and find out who knows.
The second issue is that your intranet security stinks. If there is a document that you shouldn’t have access to, you shouldn’t be able to get to it without some serious hacking skills. It sounds like you just surfed around and found it. Bad intranet security.
The third, and really most important point, is that your HR manager is paranoid and wrong. I've never understood the desire to "hide" information from employees. Do you have a tuition reimbursement policy or not? If you do, make it available to everyone. Do you have a vacation policy or not? If you make it available to everyone.
I know, the "little people" can't possibly understand big, complicated policies! Plus, the world will come to an end if we change one of them, so we should keep them secret. Well, we can let managers know because everyone knows managers can handle that information, whereas individual contributors cannot.
If you haven't guessed, I hate this attitude. In any organiztion that doesn't hire teenagers (and even in those that do, but I'll grant you this much), everyone should be able to handle policies and even handle the knowledge that not all policies apply to all people. Get this, people even understand that sometimes policies change.
I'm a big fan of openess. If you can't justify why you have a policy in place, you probably shouldn't have it. If a policy is so complicated that posting it would lead to confusion among the masses, perhaps you should revise your policy so that it makes sense.
I realize that initial posting of policies can cause phone calls. I get that. (I've also been the recipient of many dumb phone calls, including ones that went someone like this: "I'm looking at the tuition reimbursement policy and it says that in order to be reimbursed, I have to get at least a C in the class. So, if I get a D can I be reimubursed?") I also think that if someone's knickers get too twisted after reading a policy you've got a management issue.
And that is why HR is afraid of posting policies. We'd rather avoid the issues of having someone question. We'd rather avoid having managers manage their people. In short, we're wimps.
We shouldn't be. We won't be respected as an organization until we stop being wimps.
A few minutes after finding it I received an e-mail from our evil HR. Manager asking where I found it and that it because it was not to be available to the public. How is that right? How am I supposed to follow policies that I am not privy to? Is he being evil or are HR policies not for employees to view?
Of course he’s being evil. That’s what we HR types do.
You’ve got several different issues going on here. Let’s talk about issue number 1: HR not returning e-mails. You have a simple question—what is the tuition reimbursement policy? Now, depending on the size of your company the person you know as “HR” may not (and judging from the lack of response, does not) know what the policy is. So, she ignored your e-mail. Or she forwarded it and that person ignored it and she didn’t follow up. This is completely unprofessional and downright rude.
If she didn’t know the answer and didn’t know whom to ask, the proper response is to e-mail you back and apologetically tell you she doesn’t know the answer. Then the other proper response is for her boss to fire her because she should either know the answer to that question, know who to ask, or be willing to wade in and find out who knows.
The second issue is that your intranet security stinks. If there is a document that you shouldn’t have access to, you shouldn’t be able to get to it without some serious hacking skills. It sounds like you just surfed around and found it. Bad intranet security.
The third, and really most important point, is that your HR manager is paranoid and wrong. I've never understood the desire to "hide" information from employees. Do you have a tuition reimbursement policy or not? If you do, make it available to everyone. Do you have a vacation policy or not? If you make it available to everyone.
I know, the "little people" can't possibly understand big, complicated policies! Plus, the world will come to an end if we change one of them, so we should keep them secret. Well, we can let managers know because everyone knows managers can handle that information, whereas individual contributors cannot.
If you haven't guessed, I hate this attitude. In any organiztion that doesn't hire teenagers (and even in those that do, but I'll grant you this much), everyone should be able to handle policies and even handle the knowledge that not all policies apply to all people. Get this, people even understand that sometimes policies change.
I'm a big fan of openess. If you can't justify why you have a policy in place, you probably shouldn't have it. If a policy is so complicated that posting it would lead to confusion among the masses, perhaps you should revise your policy so that it makes sense.
I realize that initial posting of policies can cause phone calls. I get that. (I've also been the recipient of many dumb phone calls, including ones that went someone like this: "I'm looking at the tuition reimbursement policy and it says that in order to be reimbursed, I have to get at least a C in the class. So, if I get a D can I be reimubursed?") I also think that if someone's knickers get too twisted after reading a policy you've got a management issue.
And that is why HR is afraid of posting policies. We'd rather avoid the issues of having someone question. We'd rather avoid having managers manage their people. In short, we're wimps.
We shouldn't be. We won't be respected as an organization until we stop being wimps.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Unpaid, Uncompensated Overtime
I have a title, more than two employees, satisfy the salary requirement, and have weight given to my decisions to hire , fire, task assignment, etc... So I'm exempt right?
I am salaried for 40 hr. a week, about half of the work year I repeatedly put in 70 hrs. a week performing predictable,rotational, maintenance labor identical to that of my employees. I work unpaid in the field every Sunday and all summer holidays. My company does not have the budget to hire any staff to perform these tasks that are critical to the deliverables. The employees I supervise are assigned to single service areas and may not work on the broader assignment for which I am responsible. The rotational tasks are weather dependent so regardless of re-arrangements and behind the desk Monday quarterbacking, service must be delivered. The most critical of the tasks can only be performed on weekends when I have accessibility to the sites. HR said you have to work whatever hours it takes to get the job done.
We anticipated this at point of hire, and vague promises were forwarded to compensate with additional paid time off (PTO).
Nothing in writing. I took a vacation after serving these 70 hour weeks for 16 weeks straight. Then received an email upon return informing that I didn't have sufficient PTO, and will go unpaid for the vacation.
I reminded my supervisor of the vague promises, a date was set to draw up language, this has past with no follow up.
Any ideas?
Yes, but the best one is of no use to you. Never, and I mean never, accept a job offer contingent on vague verbal promises. Something like this should have been in writing as part of the offer letter or in the employee handbook as a matter of policy. Working 16 straight 70 hour weeks would send me over the edge and a vacation or 12 weeks of mental FMLA would be required.
So, where do we go from here? First, you need to take responsibility for getting this fixed. Your boss doesn't care. He should, but he doesn't. Nobody cares about your vacation like you do.
You need to make sure you get on his calendar. Go in prepared with what your expectations are. Do not pause for a second if he says, "what do you think is fair?" You know what you think is fair, so make sure you have something to say. Don't leave without a resolution. If he says, "Well, I need to check with HR and the big boss on this," say, "Great. Let's write up a proposal right now and e-mail it to both of them." Otherwise, he won't have gotten around to meeting with them and you'll be working another 16 straight weeks of weekends.
If the vague offer of additional PTO came from him, keep in mind he may not have gotten authorization and he may be getting in trouble. So, it may not be truly possible to give you what he promised you. (My lawyer friends can tell you that in some cases a verbal promise is equal to a written contract, but I don't know if this is such a case and I'm not a lawyer anyway. I did, however, hear a "pro-lawyer" advertisement on the radio the other day. Seriously. It was weird. Yeah lawyers!)
If you cannot get a meeting (people who are avoiding you can miss meetings like you wouldn't believe) then type up what your expectations are in an e-mail. This is a last resort, because many people see this as a passive aggressive move. I hate confrontation so I do as much as possible via e-mail (plus e-mail covers your rear end sometimes). Try, try, try to meet in person. But if not, try something like this:
John,
When you offered me [position x] part of the offer included comp time in exchange for the 70 hour weeks I would be expected to work. I would like to formalize this so there are no more misunderstandings.
For each 70 hour week I work, I will receive an additional [half day, quarter day, hour--whatever was discussed previously] in paid time off.
Please let me know if this is not to your understanding.
Thanks,
[your name]
For the first e-mail, don't copy his boss or HR. We want to stay out of it and it won't help your cause. If his offer was outside of company policy he'll get in trouble and you don't want him to get in trouble if you can help it. (A happy boss is more likely to give you the time off you deserve).
If he doesn't respond, send him a follow up e-mail saying that you understand this is now in place and you are acting accordingly.
Then ask yourself this question, "why am I working for such a place? Do the benefits outweigh all the negatives?" If the answer is no, get your resume updated and start looking. I certainly wouldn't want to work under the conditions you are describing. Of course, I've worked part time for 5 years now, so I've grown soft.
(And PS--before someone comments and says "maybe she's not really exempt!" we're assuming she is exempt. Hire/Fire and supervisory responsibilities tend to make one exempt. If she's doing a lot of the actual work and it's not professional level work, you may be right, but we are assuming this is an exempt position.)
I am salaried for 40 hr. a week, about half of the work year I repeatedly put in 70 hrs. a week performing predictable,rotational, maintenance labor identical to that of my employees. I work unpaid in the field every Sunday and all summer holidays. My company does not have the budget to hire any staff to perform these tasks that are critical to the deliverables. The employees I supervise are assigned to single service areas and may not work on the broader assignment for which I am responsible. The rotational tasks are weather dependent so regardless of re-arrangements and behind the desk Monday quarterbacking, service must be delivered. The most critical of the tasks can only be performed on weekends when I have accessibility to the sites. HR said you have to work whatever hours it takes to get the job done.
We anticipated this at point of hire, and vague promises were forwarded to compensate with additional paid time off (PTO).
Nothing in writing. I took a vacation after serving these 70 hour weeks for 16 weeks straight. Then received an email upon return informing that I didn't have sufficient PTO, and will go unpaid for the vacation.
I reminded my supervisor of the vague promises, a date was set to draw up language, this has past with no follow up.
Any ideas?
Yes, but the best one is of no use to you. Never, and I mean never, accept a job offer contingent on vague verbal promises. Something like this should have been in writing as part of the offer letter or in the employee handbook as a matter of policy. Working 16 straight 70 hour weeks would send me over the edge and a vacation or 12 weeks of mental FMLA would be required.
So, where do we go from here? First, you need to take responsibility for getting this fixed. Your boss doesn't care. He should, but he doesn't. Nobody cares about your vacation like you do.
You need to make sure you get on his calendar. Go in prepared with what your expectations are. Do not pause for a second if he says, "what do you think is fair?" You know what you think is fair, so make sure you have something to say. Don't leave without a resolution. If he says, "Well, I need to check with HR and the big boss on this," say, "Great. Let's write up a proposal right now and e-mail it to both of them." Otherwise, he won't have gotten around to meeting with them and you'll be working another 16 straight weeks of weekends.
If the vague offer of additional PTO came from him, keep in mind he may not have gotten authorization and he may be getting in trouble. So, it may not be truly possible to give you what he promised you. (My lawyer friends can tell you that in some cases a verbal promise is equal to a written contract, but I don't know if this is such a case and I'm not a lawyer anyway. I did, however, hear a "pro-lawyer" advertisement on the radio the other day. Seriously. It was weird. Yeah lawyers!)
If you cannot get a meeting (people who are avoiding you can miss meetings like you wouldn't believe) then type up what your expectations are in an e-mail. This is a last resort, because many people see this as a passive aggressive move. I hate confrontation so I do as much as possible via e-mail (plus e-mail covers your rear end sometimes). Try, try, try to meet in person. But if not, try something like this:
John,
When you offered me [position x] part of the offer included comp time in exchange for the 70 hour weeks I would be expected to work. I would like to formalize this so there are no more misunderstandings.
For each 70 hour week I work, I will receive an additional [half day, quarter day, hour--whatever was discussed previously] in paid time off.
Please let me know if this is not to your understanding.
Thanks,
[your name]
For the first e-mail, don't copy his boss or HR. We want to stay out of it and it won't help your cause. If his offer was outside of company policy he'll get in trouble and you don't want him to get in trouble if you can help it. (A happy boss is more likely to give you the time off you deserve).
If he doesn't respond, send him a follow up e-mail saying that you understand this is now in place and you are acting accordingly.
Then ask yourself this question, "why am I working for such a place? Do the benefits outweigh all the negatives?" If the answer is no, get your resume updated and start looking. I certainly wouldn't want to work under the conditions you are describing. Of course, I've worked part time for 5 years now, so I've grown soft.
(And PS--before someone comments and says "maybe she's not really exempt!" we're assuming she is exempt. Hire/Fire and supervisory responsibilities tend to make one exempt. If she's doing a lot of the actual work and it's not professional level work, you may be right, but we are assuming this is an exempt position.)
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Completely Random Overheard
18 year old Chuck E. Cheese employee to fellow employees: "I'm voting Obama and don't argue with me because no one beats me on politics. I study the stuff. And Joe Biden is hot."
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Would You Laugh or Write Up?
If one of your employees wrote a letter like this would you laugh or write the person up?
I laughed. (Not that I work for this law firm. I don't work for a law firm.)
Via lowering the bar.
I laughed. (Not that I work for this law firm. I don't work for a law firm.)
Via lowering the bar.
Fired and Hired
I've had interviews with a prospective employer and multiple discussions over the last month. The prospective employer said they would have an offer to me tomorrow (Thursday) 10/2. I was terminated today (Wednesday) from my current employer (entire career /work history is with this employer, over 10 years) Do I need to make the prospective employer aware of my termination or just sit tight? Do prospective employers ever do reference checks after they've hired to verify positions, or dates of employment? Please help as I am in a panic right now and don't know what to do.
Have they already done the reference check on you? If so, it probably doesn't matter. They are extremely unlikely to do a second check. If not, it might.
I wouldn't panic, though. Get the offer letter. If it says in it that it's contingent on a reference check then mention to the recruiter that today was your last day with your former company and you are eager to start at their company. If the termination was something other than a position elimination (performance or cause) and there is any chance of them calling your old company for a reference, explain. Usually a good explanation is one that doesn't make your previous company sound bad. "My boss was a jerk who couldn't see that I was a genius" is a bad explanation. "My boss wanted to take the department this way and I think we should go that way, which is in accordance with [new company] and so the timing couldn't be better" is a better explanation.
If you were fired for stealing copy paper and toner from the supply closet, well then you're on your own.
Getting fired is not the end of the world. It's extremely common. EXTREMELY common for someone to have a lost job in their past. Yours seemed to have hit at the perfect time. I hope everything goes through with your new job.
Have they already done the reference check on you? If so, it probably doesn't matter. They are extremely unlikely to do a second check. If not, it might.
I wouldn't panic, though. Get the offer letter. If it says in it that it's contingent on a reference check then mention to the recruiter that today was your last day with your former company and you are eager to start at their company. If the termination was something other than a position elimination (performance or cause) and there is any chance of them calling your old company for a reference, explain. Usually a good explanation is one that doesn't make your previous company sound bad. "My boss was a jerk who couldn't see that I was a genius" is a bad explanation. "My boss wanted to take the department this way and I think we should go that way, which is in accordance with [new company] and so the timing couldn't be better" is a better explanation.
If you were fired for stealing copy paper and toner from the supply closet, well then you're on your own.
Getting fired is not the end of the world. It's extremely common. EXTREMELY common for someone to have a lost job in their past. Yours seemed to have hit at the perfect time. I hope everything goes through with your new job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
