Changing Diapers

Since my "official" title here in Switzerland is "Hausfrau" (really, it's on my paperwork!), I thought I'd comment on that ever so fun task of changing stinky diapers.

First of all, I'd like to express my love and appreciation to the designers, scientists, engineers (diaper engineer, if there is such a thing), and marketers who created the modern disposable diaper.

Ahem.

Now, in one of those child rearing books (I won't say which one, but I expect that any of you who have gone through childbirth and rearing of small children will have read at least part of these series) it gives very serious diaper changing advice: Do not criticize or indicate in any way that your child's output is stinky. Why? It will damage the poor little darling's self esteem! And we wouldn't want that, would we?

I found that to be one of the most laughable pieces of advice in the whole series. (And keep in mind, this same series informed me that for a treat, while pregnant, I can have some yogurt! Um, how about an entire carton of Ben and Jerry's Chunky Monkey instead? Note, I am not now pregnant, but when I was pregnant, no way was I following that advice.) I think about it when I'm changing my toddler's diaper. "Come here Mr. Stink pants," I say. Or, perhaps, "Where's my little stink butt?" And we all giggle and laugh at Mr. Stinky's exceptionally foul pants, because he has special skills and abilities in that area.

And, so as I was laughing about the ludicrousness of trying to convince my brilliant baby that his poo smells like flowers, in order not to damage his self esteem, I was reminded of a statement by Alison at Ask a Manager regarding firing bad employees. (It's in the comments, by the way, so scroll down.)

I fire them! I consider it part of the benefits package for other employees not to have to work with asses. Am I the only one?

Because you see, bad employees are similar to Mr. Stinky Pants. Everybody around him knows just how bad he stinks, but for some reason rather than saying, "Come here, Mr. Stinky!" (Okay, that would get you fired, but you see where I'm going with this), we try to pretend that it smells like flowers.

The problem is that saying it smells like flowers doesn't make it smell like flowers, but it can convince the stinker that his "output" is just fine, stink and all. But, what have you gained by convincing your baby that his poo is special and wonderful and should be shared with the world? Nothing. Your good employees aren't so dumb as to believe it and who wants to hang around a diaper pail? Not me, and not your other good employees.

If it stinks, it needs to be changed, not called something different. If it can't be changed, the whole thing needs to go.

Good thing we have disposable diapers, or Mr. Stinky's stay in our family would have been short lived.

Informational Interviews

I work at an organization where our managers do informational interviewers without talking with HR. Our policy per our AAP states that we only accept applications and interview candidates for open positions. Is there any harm in doing an informational interview if we have no interest in hiring them in the end?

For those of you who have never had the pleasure, an AAP is an Affirmative Action Plan and is required by the good old Federal Government for some companies. It is a huge pain in the rear end. It basically shows the government how you are going to rectify where you have "under hired" minorities. (Of course, you don't have to rectify where you have "over hired" minorities, but that's another blog post.)

All right, you're stuck with an AAP. Granted.

I'm going to now state something: Informational interviews are, by definition, not job interviews. Therefore, in theory, whether or not someone is granted an informational interview should be entirely irrelevant to your AAP. So, no harm done!

Except, I know what you are worried about. You're worried because nobody, outside some 20 year old who is writing a paper for his business class, really wants an informational interview to find out about the company; they want informational interviews to get a foot in the door. Sure, company X isn't hiring now, but if I talk to the big boss, when they are hiring, he'll remember me! Yeah! And that's where your AAP worries come about.

If you leave managers to their own devices and don't carefully monitor who comes in their doors, oh no! they might hire someone who looks like them! The horror! Yes, yes, yes, I know, as a general rule people tend to want to hire, be with, date, bowl with, people who look like them and who come from similar backgrounds. Your AAP is trying to get that to stop happening.

Now, I'm not an employment lawyer. (You all knew that line was coming, didn't you?) In fact, I might make a guess that an overly anxious employment lawyer would tell you to put an end to the informational interviews because they might give a leg up to a person who has not filled out an application yet.

I'm going to give the opposite advice. In fact, I'm also going to make a guess that your managers feel HR is a little heavy handed. They probably dislike having candidates have to be approved by HR, so they do the handy dandy "informational interview" in order to get around that. This way they can meet people without HR breathing down their necks and perhaps even gather a slate of potential candidates for when a position does open up. Because, you see, managers want the best person for the job.

I have never met any manager that just wanted the best white male for the job. Oh sure, you all roll your eyes and say, "like they are going to call up HR and say, 'Hey EHRL, I'm looking for a white male for this job, preferably with a SAHM wife and two kids.'" True, lacking the skill of legilimancy, they could be hiding their true preferences from me, but all I ever see is managers wanting the best possible person to fill the job.

Senior management wants their AAP numbers to line up. HR wants to never have to do another presentation on how we are "below target" in our accounting department, so would you please just hire a black guy so we don't have to tell you this any more, but it's just a guideline! Not a quota! No quotas here! Hire the best candidate. It would be great if it's a "diverse candidate!" But, no quotas! Gah.

I would just reiterate that informational interviews are informational and that job interviews are job interviews. I would also figure out why managers are doing so many informational interviews. You may find out that they have negative feelings towards the hiring process in general. Or, maybe they are just a bunch of friendly, networking people. (Note: When it's not a 20 year old college student asking for the interview, but a 45 year old person with a solid resume, the information flows both ways. They interviewers are networking just as much as the interviewees are. You never know when you'll run into someone again.)

Unable to Work

We have a fairly long term warehouse employee who claimed an injury about 8-9 months ago, which is being handled by our WC insurance. Our insurance says he is okay to work with no limitations. He has a lawyer who sent him to another doctor, who has him on restrictions. My question is : What is our responsibility as far as his Job Duties and Pay go? According to his doctor, he cannot work full time at any possible warehouse position, and he does not have any office skills at all, so I can’t move him there. What is my obligation if I simply have no position for him based on the restrictions he presents? By the way, we are not subject to FMLA. We haven’t had a claim of this type ever, so I am a bit at a loss on what to tell the employee regarding his job.

I'm not a lawyer. And even if I was, I wouldn't be a lawyer that specialized in workman's comp issues. It is a terribly complicated area of employment law and I don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. You need to contact a lawyer that specializes in this area before proceeding.

But, I will anyway, because I like living on the edge. (Someone needs to, and it might as well be me.) You are under no obligation to continue to employe someone who cannot do any work for you. Since his doctor has declared him unable to perform any warehouse work, you don't have to continue to employ him.

If you have a disability policy, follow that. If you don't, implement one so you don't have this problem later on.

If you are subject to ADA restrictions, you have to make reasonable accommodations. Employing someone who can't do any work isn't reasonable, so let him go.

But, first, call a lawyer. It will be worth the money. Especially since your employee has a lawyer. Since he has one now, you can bet he's planning on suing you for any misstep. Call me paranoid, but first call your own lawyer.

Maternity Leave Problems

I’m the managing attorney at a small law firm. We have an employee (paralegal) who is currently out of the office on maternity leave. She’ll be out until September. Her work product prior to leaving was average. However, now that she is not here, I’ve learned of various tasks that were mishandled to the point that I feel that she needs to be “written up” for her poor performance. How can I (should I) do this while she is out on maternity leave?


I just want to point out that I am not a lawyer, but you are. Ha! Actually, I write this to demonstrate that should somebody else need legal advice in an employment situation, it's important to find someone who practices employment law, as clearly not all lawyers can address all situations. (This, of course, is true for everything. You don't want a criminal lawyer handling your merger either.)


First the lecture: How could you not know until she went out that there were problems? Not saying that things can't be hidden from managers, but when you wait until the person is out on maternity leave, it looks awfully suspicious. In fact, as a lawyer, you know that this looks suspicious, which is why you are asking.


Now, the instructions. Document as you would if she were still working. Keep to the strict policies that (I hope!) you already have in place. Make sure you don't hold her time off against her. I presume she's not eligible for FMLA because you are a small firm, but if she is, remember that any time off for FMLA can't be considered in performance appraisals and similar.

You need to treat this exactly the same way you would treat it if she were still in the office--with the exception of actually calling her up and saying anything. That will not go over well and even if she knows it is all true (which she may not, denial runs deep in the bad employee world), she will take this as a sign that you want to fire her for having the audacity to have a baby.

When she returns from maternity leave, you welcome her back and look at all the pictures of her darling little baby. (And hope to heck the baby is darling--there are some ugly ones out there and gosh it's hard to be polite when a picture of a little troll is shoved under your nose.)

Then, invite her into your office and explain what you've learned and how it is a problem and work with her to develop a plan to avoid this in the future. The key point here is that you must treat her exactly the same as you would treat anybody who didn't just have a baby. Best way to cover your behind is to treat everyone the same.

Now, this all assumes that what she's done wrong is not a fireable offense. (Note to picky people--I realize you don't need a reason to fire someone in the US, but most companies don't generally fire people just because. Besides, that's not nice.) If this is a fireable offense you need to fire her, but only if you would have fired someone else for the same thing.

Now, I know it's sticky because of the whole baby thing. This is why I like frequent performance reviews and one-one communication because you don't want things like this getting out of hand and having no one know anything until suddenly the person is in a protected class. Like, you don't want to be quiet and hope that a situation gets better and five minutes before you planned to finally discuss it--after 6 months of worsening behavior--have your employee announce she's pregnant, gay, born-again-Christian, Pagan, or something else. You know the reason you're having the discussion is the bad work behavior; the employee sees it as discrimination against whatever she is/was/will become.

Being a manager is tough. That's why managers get paid more.

No Rehire

I started a job in a warehouse in 2006. I was a model employee, helping other co-workers and not missing work. I got pregnant, and it was a very physical job. I resigned, because there were no openings in an easier department. I had to lift up to 50 lbs. I DID do it up until I was four months pregnant. My supervisors were impressed, and said when I resigned to have my baby, if there was a position open, they would gladly accept me back after I had my baby. So I had my baby, and I was lucky enough to go back to work there. THIS time, though, I was getting harassed more by men than the first time. I was the only woman in the department at the time.

The first time my son's dad worked there, as well, and we were still together. That might be why it wasn't as bad the first time. The second time I wasn't with him, so it was BAD at times. There were nights I would go home crying. So, basically, I let them get to me and I started to not want to go to work. Stupid choice on my part to let it get to me to miss that much work. So, I switched departments when I had a chance, and it was GREAT. No harassment. I wasn't making myself sick about having to go to work. I still got fired because my new supervisor saw that I was over my allotted days off. Everyone else knew, and was willing to let it go, I think, maybe because of the harassment. They knew it was happening. But she saw it and fired me, and not only that, I was listed as a "no-rehire". My question is, there is a different supervisor that would like me to come back and work in his department. It's a different shift than that of the supervisor that fired me, and a totally different department.

I was wondering if this supervisor could overwrite the "no-rehire" if he makes it clear that he wants me to work for him, and that my previous actions resulted from my work environment, and it wouldn't happen again. It was just so bad in that particular department. Like I said, I was VERY happy when I changed departments. It was like a different world from where I came from. I just wanted to know if you could tell me anything...is it possible?

Anything is possible. This, though, is on the low end of possible. But, let's back up.

When you were being harassed, did you officially complain to your manager? Did you officially complain to HR? Now, those who read me frequently know I recommend handling these things on your own if possible. That means when your co-worker says something rude, nasty, sexist (insert your own unpleasant description) that you say directly to him, (or her) "Do not say that in my presence again. I find that offensive." Surprisingly, that solves a whole host of problems.

But, if you've done that and it doesn't stop, you must go to your manager and officially complain. You need to document who said what and when they said it. Things like, "I just feel uncomfortable" don't cut it. "Joe said X on X date. I asked him to not say things like that to me. Later that day he said X again." This is helpful.

All of this documenting can help you, should it come down to a termination.

You acknowledge that you made a big mistake in skipping work. In a situation where harassment is going on, we sometimes want to withdraw, which ends up hurting us more. (As you found out.)

So, now what to do? Well, I assume the manager who wants to hire you knows you have a no rehire status. Ask him if it's possible to be overridden. He'll know better than I will. You can even explain about the harassment you received. Many companies will freak out because firing you looks suspiciously like retaliation, even though you were terminated for missing work. Of course, if you never complained, your case is much weaker.

However, I think you should recognize that it's time to move on. You need to pursue work elsewhere. Yes, it was a great company, great job, great whatever. It's not the only job on the planet. Ask the supervisor who wants you back to serve as a reference for you.

Companies rarely re-hire people who were previously terminated for cause. You may be an exception, but I wouldn't count on it.

When Your Dream Job is a Nightmare

What do you do when your new dream job turns into 14 hours a day of nightmare? Head on over to US News and see what I recommend and make your own comments.

Should you go exempt?

I am happily employed at a nonprofit as a non-exempt employee. Unfortunately, as is true at many NPO’s I do not get any sick pay, holiday pay or vacation pay. The option of becoming an exempt employee is now on the table, but I’m not sure it’s beneficial. Last year I grossed $20,000 working an erratic but flexible schedule at an hourly rate of $20 and an average of 20 hours weekly. If I become exempt without a pay increase, 20 hours a week at $20 hour gets me $20,800, so what is the benefit. Yes, technically I would get paid holidays and vacation, but I already didn’t work those days, and made the same amount of money. What are the pros and cons of becoming an exempt or salaried (are these even the same thing) employee? Is it standard to get a pay raise when becoming exempt?

Nothing is standard. You can ask if a pay raise comes along with the exempt status. Who knows? But, financially, the benefits are only there if you're going to be working fewer hours than you have (unless a pay raise is in the offering).

Exempt/non-exempt status is determined by the type of job you do--your responsibilities. I'll assume you meet the requirements for exempt status. There's nothing wrong with an employer taking someone who would qualify for an FLSA exempt status and paying you hourly. However, if the employer chooses to do this, he must treat you as an hourly employee, in that if you work more than 40 hours a week, you are eligible for overtime pay.

This doesn't seem like an issue in your case.

Lots of people want to be exempt because of the prestige of the whole thing. For some reason we've determined that having that exempt label makes you cooler, or something. In your case, it does have the added benefit of paid sick and vacation days. However, since you are working a flexible, part time schedule anyway, there isn't a lot to be said for that.

My advice in the end? Find out the details. Be wary that they are "offering" you this because they want you to work more hours, but not have to pay you. (Perfectly legal--an exempt employee is paid by the job, not the hour, so you get the same paycheck whether you put in 5 hours in a week, or 60.) Ask yourself where you want to go. In many organizations, exempt staff are treated differently than hourly staff. You may be taken more seriously. (Honest!) You may have doors opened up to you that would otherwise be closed.

But, that is dependent on your organization's culture. Don't disregard the importance of culture.

If none of that matters, stay paid hourly. That way if you work more, you get paid more. Assuming, of course, that you will get enough hours to meet your needs.

Medical Problems with no FMLA

My mother is working part time for benefits until she retires. She has hated this job for many valid reasons. They have reprimanded employees hatefully in front of customers and refused employees time off for medical reasons.

She had cataract surgery on one eye and was required to work that next day. She did not complain. She made the managers aware at the time of scheduling the first surgery that she would need to have the other eye done in two weeks. They are refusing to give her the time off even though she is asking for 1 day and the next morning only.

She is a few hours shy of being qualified for FMLA. She is scared to go to HR about this because of retaliation. The Bank has a non-retaliation policy, but she doesn't find comfort in this because she is not sure how she could prove something like what she expects if she complains. This branch is known for its high turnover by other branches. She has great attendance, has come in to help on her days off, and has stayed over when they needed her. She fears if she loses this job, she will not be able to find another at her age.

This is where I like to play the game, "What is the worst that can happen." I find this is fun to play with myself when I'm nervous about something. Like, for instance, ordering cheese at the deli. Granted, you all say, that is easy to do. Well, you try doing it in a language your barely speak. Add into the mix that you will be doing it in bad High German, when the person behind the counter speaks Swiss German. And you can't really take Swiss German lessons because it's not really taught anywhere. But, I have to say, "the worst thing that could happen to me is that I'll get the wrong cheese." And since all cheese is good cheese, it's not that bad.

But enough about me. The worst thing that can happen to your mother if she goes to HR: She can be fired, which is against policy. (And just a reminder, I am not a lawyer, but since she's not eligible for FMLA, they don't have to grant her time off for medical reasons, but the courts generally consider company policies as binding, so blah, blah, blah a competent HR person would not allow her to be fired.) But, now we ask the next question: What is the worst that can happen if she doesn't go to HR?

Well, then, she can be fired for skipping work because they didn't approve a day off. Either way, the worst thing that can happen is the same thing. Since it's a lose-lose situation, you have to ask, "what is the best thing that can happen?"

Well, the best thing that can happen if she doesn't go to HR, is that her manager will just yell at her for taking the day off, unapproved. But, the best thing that can happen if she goes to HR is that the time off will be approved and there will be a crack down on nonsense by her management.

The latter is unlikely, by the way. If it's gotten this bad, it's not going to change easily. But, my point is, I think she should try. Don't be accusatory. Just ask, "I need to take the day off for surgery. This surgery will help me to do my job better because I'll be able to actually see. What do I need to do to get this done?"

By asking for help this way, rather than "My stupid manager won't let me have a day off, even though it's for surgery!" you get HR on your side, instead of in defensive mode. If she shows willingness to re-schedule her surgery, that might help as well.

I normally advise trying to work out problems without involving HR, but sometimes we can actually be helpful. (Really!)

I also suggest she ask her manager for a solution as well. Perhaps she's unknowingly scheduled her surgery on a day that 14 other people are going to be out of the office and the manager is to harried to explain that. Perhaps the manager is so used to dealing with liars that saying no is just a knee-jerk reaction. Try to not be adversarial and see if it helps. Really. After all, what is the worst that can happen?

Being (un)Helpful

I hope you can give me some direction. My husband works for a commercial electric company that has several locations across the US. The company has been suffering financially and in March 2009 a memo was sent to employees offering possible transfer opportunities. He continued employed out of Florida with travel to other states in order to continue working. He is a field foreman, and his last work site came to completion one week ago with no more work in our region. He was terminated with a rehire status for 60 days.

His HR manager is someone he has worked with closely in the past when he held an in-house position. They have never seen eye to eye. When my husband reached out to him inquiring about transfer opportunities to the west coast, it came as no surprise not to receive an answer. He left several messages for him for one week. We are a single income family, with 3 young children. Having spent the last year apart has drained us financially and more importantly emotionally.

As my husband continued to search for employment, I took out the March memo regarding transfer opportunities and began to call the HR managers listed, starting with his direct hr manager-no answer. The letter explained that any of the managers could be contacted and they would be happy to help all being privy to the same information. I was successful in reaching 2 out of 9, I explained why I was calling and not my husband and they were very helpful and understanding. They both stated the need for foreman in their areas and we should expect a call back after the weekend. At that point I told my husband what I had done and he put another call into his hr manager, leaving a message that I had called and he should expect a call from them possibly asking for recommendations.

Monday morning rolled in and he finally got the call back from his hr manager: "how unprofessional of you having your wife call....west coast has no work....maybe one of the areas has a need but not for a foreman rather a journeyman...." said his hr manager. What can we do--it seems to us that he is not being forthright. We were told that there is a need for him in those areas. I want to call back his hr manager and try to appeal to him on a human factor, we met several times and he seemed like a nice man when he was with his wife. I would like for him to know why I took it upon myself to call. I do not know if I should call back the other hr managers that had said they would call me back. We do not want to lose his tenure, pension, and job. Thank you in advance for your attention.

The first thing you can do is put down the phone. There are only a few times when a spouse should call their beloved’s boss/hr and this isn’t one of them. (Incidentally, the times spouses should call are when your husband/wife is in the hospital and unable to pick up a phone and call, and to inform the company that your spouse has died. There may be one or two other situations where it is appropriate, but really, this is something that should be used with extreme caution.)

You wanted to help. I totally get that. It is frustrating to have an out of work spouse. It’s even more frustrating when you know that there aren’t 12 other jobs just waiting for him. But, this is his battle and you have to let him fight it.

The HR managers were nice and helpful, because that’s what we are. (See, nice and evil!) But, all of them were thinking, “uggh, I hate it when the wife calls.” Incidentally, while I’ve received a ton of calls from wives over the years, I’ve never received a single call from a husband. The question I always have running in the back of my mind is, “Why isn’t your husband calling me? Does he not want the job? Does he not care? Does he know you are doing this? Did he ask you to do this?” All of these make him look worse, not better.

Appealing to the “human” side by emphasizing the single income family doesn’t necessarily work either. Everybody needs the money. That’s why we have jobs. (Okay, I did have one employee ask if his entire salary could be deferred because he was so phenomenally wealthy that getting money was just a pain. But that’s rare.) I’m not going to make decisions based on who “needs” the job more. I’m not saying that such things aren’t ever taken into consideration, but they shouldn’t be.

So what can you do? Well, you be supportive of your husband. Polish up your own resume and start looking for work.

What can he do? It may be time to realize that he is going to have to leave this company. If there has been a massive work slowdown, he’s not the only foreman looking for a new job. Absolutely pursue whatever is out there, but start looking outside the company as well.

If possible, leave HR out of internal search. (I say if possible, because I don’t know the company’s policies or practices and I don’t want him getting in trouble.) Have him send his resume directly to the hiring manager. Express his desire to relocate (perhaps even at his own expense—depends on the situation).

Times are tough for a lot of people right now. Granted, that isn’t comforting, but it is reality.

No Experience

First I just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your blog. I like your straight forward answers and sense of humor! My question to you is what should a new graduate like me do to get into the HR world?

A little bit about me: I’ve graduated with my BA in psych in 07 and will receive my MBA in Sept 09. I’ve also gotten a HR Certificate. I’ve worked as a recruiter for about a year at a staffing agency and found that sale was not something I enjoy. I am now working as a HR administrator for a local company. The problem is at this position, I am working under a payroll person who doesn’t know much about anything else but payroll. I want to look for a place where I can really learn from someone who’s experienced and foster my career.

I’ve been applying to numerous positions but have not gotten any luck. Every job I look requires experience! How can I gain experience if no one is giving me the chance? I know that networking is important so that’s why I’ve joined SHRM and my local HR Chapter, but even so, that hasn’t really help. Please help!

First of all, you are doing something right. Not just in writing to me (I used to say that showed superior intellect, but after some of the questions I've received, I've had to realize that that ain't true in all situations), but in how you've written to me. You started out by complimenting me and describing what I do here. This shows you are a better letter writer than our friend, the Public Relations guy, and he got a job.

Second, you do have experience. Recruiting and fulfilling administrative duties does give you experience. Stop thinking it doesn't. It, at a minimum, teaches you the language of HR. Use that langauge

Third, every job description every entry level job description says, "5 years of experience or similar." Bah. They know this job doesn't take 5 years of experience, so why write it? But they do and I don't know why. (Yes I do. Because they don't want to write, "this job requires you to have half a clue.")

So, what are you doing wrong? Well, for starters you're applying for jobs in a tight job market. And, unfortunately, this means you are competing against people who DO have five years of experience. Nothing you can do about that, just keep trying.

The other thing, which we can't fix now, is you have too much eduction in relation to your experience. Some people disagree with me, but I'm generally of the opinion that you should work for several years (5 or so) before getting an MBA. How can you be a master at business when you haven't even been a beginner at business?

Personalize your resume and cover letter. Don't discount your own experience. And keep on, keeping on.

Another DUI questions

I have a question about dui and job prospects. I know people really do look at your criminal records. Well, my friend is still an undergrad in college right now. He was hoping to get into engineering for the city (so a government job). But just recently he was charged with a DUI. He was wondering if this recent DUI will affect him very badly? I.e: would employers just throw the resume and application away?

what impact can a DUI make on job prospects? how do you guys view that?

Yes, it will affect him. Your friend is an idiot. I have no sympathy for people who drink and drive. You know before you pick up that glass of alcohol that you have car keys in your pocket.

However, that being said, he's just been charged, not convicted. But we'll assume a conviction will happen shortly.

Technically, an employer can't hold a conviction against someone unless it relates to the job at hand. As I said, DUI proves you're an idiot, so that pretty much applies to every job, although I realize that I couldn't actually argue that in court. (At least I think I couldn't win with that argument. I'm not a lawyer.) But, there are million and one reasons not to hire anyone, and this black mark will not help.

Employers will not just throw his resume away though. In the professional world, resumes are usually reviewed and phone interviews conducted prior to filling out an official appliaction. You wouldn't list your DUI on your resume; You would have to list it on an application if they ask about convictions. (Although, more and more, companies are having you apply through their websites, which means filling out applications from the get go.)

A smart recruiter knows that it is illegal to consider information such as that (in most cases), and won't inform a potential hiring manager. Applying for a government job may actually be a better idea than the private sector because they tend to have stricter rules in place regarding such things.

Still, the most important thing is to tell your friend not to do it again, and work his tail end off in school to get super good grades. Take whatever internships you can get (unpaid if necessary) because in a poor job market, with a DUI in tow, it's going to be difficult to get a good job.

The Importance of Individualizing a Cover Letter

I don't hire people; haven't hired people in years. But, I can still tell you that it's important to make sure what you send to someone who does hire people is tailored to that particular job. I was reminded of this when I received an e-mail from a public relations person who wanted me to promote a book.

I know that this person did not tailor his e-mail to me at all for the following reasons:

1. He just starts out with the text. No salutation including my name. (Dear Evil HR Lady, or Evil HR Lady-- or even, Hi Evil! which always cracks me up. You get extra points if you address me as Suzanne, which I have only occasionally mentioned, unless you follow me at US News, so I know you at least have done some reading.)

2. His second sentence is: "I think you do a great job discussing the significant issues and trends in HR today." If significant trends include answering people's questions and posting pictures warning against the evils of nose picking then he's right. Otherwise, he's never actually read my blog. I will admit, that once in a while I do comment on an HR trend, but it's certainly not my focus. Any regular reader would know that.

3. He asks me to participate in a blog tour. I haven't done any sort of book review or author interview in a long time. Asking is fine. If I really think your book is interesting, I might do just that. But, make some reference that you realize this is out of the oridinary for me

As an end result of this, I'm not going to even consider this "candidate." I know I was just a person on a list and he hit "send" on a mass e-mail.

When your cover letter has these flaws, you also find your resume in that big delete file in the sky. Sending a resume is asking for something from somebody. If you are going to ask, at least take the time to get to know who you are asking.

Payroll Problems

I am the manager of a department of nine, four of whom (including myself) are exempt employees. The exempt staff has, for years, altered their schedules to cover the vacations, absences, and terminations of other staff, both exempt and non-exempt. This has never been a problem before. Two of the exempt staff work five day, eight hour work-weeks, while the other two work four day, ten hour work-weeks.

A few weeks ago, one of the 5/8 employees covered the shift of the 4/10 staffer who went on vacation. The Friday of the second week of the switched schedule coincided with a federal holiday. The employee had already worked the altered shift for that week, but for some reason payroll said that they were not allowed to do that, and switched it to PTO time. I explained to them that, for years, this was the way we worked, and they replied that it didn't matter. I now have a meeting set with HR next week to discuss this matter and get some long-term guidance, but, somehow, this doesn't seem right to me.

The individual was assigned to (even though s/he volunteered to take the assignment) a different shift. They worked their expected workload (40 hours) and at least another four hours on top of that. I understand that exempt status is intended to ensure that certain professional roles are carried out properly, irregardless of the time needed to complete them, at a basically fixed rate of pay; but to force someone to take PTO time when they have already altered their shift (at personal inconvenience to them and their family) and have met the required forty hours seems to be an abuse of the exempt status.

Am I off base here?

You are not off base. I'm going to tell you the Evil HR Lady's First Rule of managing exempt employee time off: Don't tell anyone what you are doing. Just do it.

I know I've just set some micromanagers into serious twitch mode. Your want to give an exempt employee a comp day? Just do it. Don't tell HR. Don't tell payroll. Just do it.

But, this doesn't help you now. Here is what payroll is thinking: Bob is scheduled to work Mon-Friday. He did not work Friday. We did not receive any official paperwork changing Bob's schedule. Therefore, he must use a PTO day.

Now, why you have to use a PTO day for a Federal holiday is beyond me. It seems like either the company is open (in which case you don't mention to payroll that Bob didn't work), or the company is closed (in which case everyone gets it off). But, apparently your company doesn't work like that.

I'm also going to go out on a limb here and bet that your company requires time cards for exempt employees. I both like and dislike this policy. On the like side, it makes tracking vacation easier and you can also see how many hours your exempt staff is putting in, which can help you evaluate necessary changes to the job. On the other hand, they are exempt for a reason. Let them do their jobs and leave them alone. When it comes down to it, I dislike time tracking for exempt employees more than I like it.

Now, hopefully your HR person will have a clue and she'll work it out with payroll and Bob will get his PTO day restored. If he doesn't, this is where you follow the rule I listed above: Just don't tell anyone.

The next time Bob takes a week off (or a day off, or whatever) just report to payroll that he took one less day then he really did.

Oh dear, I'm encouraging lying, which I say never to do. I think I'm having an ethical problem here. What I'm really saying is that sometimes policy is so stupid that there is only one logical way around it.

To give payroll credit, though. How were they supposed to know that Bob had an arrangement with you? And they have to follow zillions of government imposed rules and no one ever thanks them--they only get yelled at when something goes wrong. And a lot of times, the thing that went "wrong" is actually legally correct, but they get blamed for it. (Like it's payroll's fault that the government requires them to garnish your wages for alimony for your soon to be ex-husband who quit his job and ran off with the biker girl that lived next door.)

But, I think HR will be able to straighten it out. I hope. For the record, I would have been able to straighten it out. But, I've always worked with rational pay roll people.

New Policy

When I'm put in charge of employee policy, I'm definitely adding this poster to the handbook. And posting it next to the cafeteria.

Edited to add that my brilliant German speaking readers have translated the poster for me (I'm still learning "Das Auto ist Blau.") and it is an anti women's suffrage poster, not an anti nose picking poster. I still want to use the poster, I'll just remove the political language. Although incidentally women's suffrage is very recent on Switzerland.

Definitely no nose picking at work.

Read before you sign

This is a long question, so I'm going to break it into parts and answer each part separately. Oh, and Class Factotum, this is for you, since you asked for more posts. I've been busy learning German. I conducted an entire transaction in German yesterday--granted it was just dry cleaning, and I mainly said, "Ja, ja!" but importantly, I knew what she said. At least, I think I did. Maybe when I go to pick up the pants, they'll be dyed purple or something. Anyway, back to our regular topic.

My husband gave his 2 week notice on Tuesday because we have decided to move back to the UK. He found out today, Friday, that they are planning to send him home on Monday. They said they are not firing him that they accept his resignation and are moving the last day up!! This was all unofficial as the nice HR lady told him in confidence, his boss does not plan on telling him until monday a.m.!!!! That means he loses a weeks pay - can they do that?? The said he is an exempt employee so they are not obligated to pay him the remaining days if they don't want to!

I don't have any idea what being an exempt employee has to do with this. But, in the USA almost everyone is an at will employee, which means you can be terminated at any point. No severance is owed. No notice required. No cause needed. Should they pay him out his notice period? Of course. It's the right thing to do. Do they have to? Perhaps in your state, but (in my thoroughly non-lawyerly way) not in all.

The boss is a jerk with a capital J. Technically, he can probably file for unemployment, but that may be a bigger pain than it's worth.

Also, the tuition reimbursement. my husband says that they are going to try to get him to rollover his 401k to guarantee the tuition reimbursement that he owes. I don't mind paying it but in my own time please. What are his obligations to pay it on the spot!

I haven't seen the paperwork he signed for the tuition reimbursement, but I doubt it said anything about taking money from his 401k. I understand why they want him to do that--it's very difficult to get money from someone once they've quit. Please understand, he owes the money and he should pay it. But, they know that it will be nearly impossible to get it from him if he doesn't wish to pay up--especially since you are moving to a different country. The cost of legal proceedings would be too high to bother with.

Repay the amount owed according to the contract he signed. Don't let them take the 401k money. Penalties are way too high for that kind of thing.

Lastly, he works for a credit union and we have a car financed through them. The car loan is in both of our names but as an employee they gave him 2% off the regular rate. He has heard that they will increase the rate to whatever the standard rate is now. Is that legal?? I have read over the contract and no where does it state that the rate given is an employee rate!

Speaking as a non lawyer, of course that is legal--as long as it was in the loan documents signed. If it wasn't in the loan documents, then it's not legal. Easy-peasy. Pull out your documents and look.

Don't sign things you don't understand. Ask questions before signing. If your boss is a jerk while you work for him, he's likely to be a jerk when you resign. And have fun in the UK!

Our Strength Lies in Our...

Unity.

I know you thought I was going to say "our strength lies in our diversity." That (and similar messages) are prevalent. We have diversity committees, VPs of Diversity, affirmative action plans and call minority candidates "diverse candidates." (Which drives me absolutely insane, but that's another topic.)

When we moved to Switzerland we enrolled our daughter in one of the most "diverse" schools on the planet. If you were to wander down the halls you would see children with skin colors in all possible shades and colors. A map outside my daughter's classroom identifies the home country for each child in the class. Several of the children in her class spoke little to no English at the beginning of the school year.

To add to the mix, many of the children are from mixed culture marriages--mom is from one country, dad is from another, and they are living in a third country.

The school is highly successful. It has an outstanding reputation. High schoolers go on to great universities. They have less of a problem with bullying than other schools. It's all that diversity, right? Children are exposed to different cultures and therefore learn to respect others, right?

Well, sure. I love that aspect. But, in terms of true diversity (or differences), I have never been involved in a less diverse organization.

Here is how the children are the same:

• Same socio-economic class. (True, some kids have more money than others, but there is a definite floor.)
  
• Educated parents.
• All have been the "new kid" and know what that feels like.
• They have all lived outside their home country.
• Stable home life. (Definite exceptions, but a look through the school directory yields only one single parent household. My guess is that single parents don't do the international career thing as often because of custody and other issues.)
• A majority have a stay-at-home parent.
• Education is seen as a priority by the parents.
  

Yes, their native languages vary. Their skin and hair colors cover the entire range of possibilities. Religions run the gamut. There is definite diversity. But there is definite unity as well.

So is it the diversity or the unity that makes the school so successful? I'd say both. The students learn a lot from each other. Different ideas are brought out in almost all activities. But, the things that unify them are strong as well.

If you grabbed a bunch of random kids from different countries and threw them together, would you get the great results this school gets? I doubt it. You'd run into many problems that the unify factors tend to nullify.

So, what does this mean for companies and hiring? I think it means that as you are looking towards diversity as the savior of your company, you also need to look towards unity. What things make your employees unified? Is there a shared company culture? Are there goals that everyone works towards?

Sometimes we get so focused on our diversity that we forget that we need unity in order to make things work. Without that, you have an interesting dinner party, but no road map for success. With both the unifying factors and the rich diversity of experience, you can achieve greater things.

Want to know my thoughts on Brad Pitt?

Of course you do. Check out why this might help your career. Plus, make sure you read comment 2. It will inform you that I lack character and depth. But, you already knew that.

Quit or Fired?

I live in CA. I worked for a small business owner for two plus years. Just recently I gave him two weeks notice in writing. He asked me to stay and stay and stay longer and I said “okay”. That meant that I would be working for him for at least three or four more weeks, maybe more. The next work day, he told me that I did not need to come back and after the close of business I did not come back to work. I have not received my last paycheck, for that single day and do not expect that I will be paid for more than the hours worked in that one day. I have been told by others that I have been let go, fired, terminated you know all of words better than me.

If indeed I do not get paid for any more hours than the ones worked, can I legally receive CA unemployment?

He definitely owes you for for hours worked and he should have paid you already, as California law requires that.

Can you legally receive unemployment? I have no idea, but the folks at the unemployment office do. Go ask them.

But, I think that since you resigned you should just drop it and move on with life. Why did you resign only to continue working anyway? Did you not have another job lined up? Were you planning to enter a life of leisure where you eat chocolate, listen to Volkmusic and only blog occasionally? (Ahh, my life is so difficult.)

Reprogram your brain to pretend that your boss just accepted your two week's notice and that you didn't do extra work and that you left on good terms. As a small business owner he probably did a small freak out when you presented your resignation letter. When you only have a few employees you don't have a large group of cross trained individuals to help you out when someone leaves. A missing employee means you have more work poured on your head.

Your boss probably initially thought he couldn't handle it without you, but then upon reflection realized he could. And so, he let you go. He didn't do it in a professional manner (no notice and no final paycheck), but he did. (Now, if I read this wrong and you didn't work extra, he terminated you before the two week notice was up, then what you should do is the same, but my analysis of your boss changes. That's extra jerky behavior and what happens when people take business relationships personally, but that's another story.)

Missing my posts?

I don't think I've ever posted an actual link to where I write at US News, so here it is! The other bloggers over there are fantastic as well.

Just a little light reading.

And You Think You Have Problems

Since we moved to Switzerland, my husband keeps making us listen to this:

Past Transgressions

I have come across some information at work and I don't know what I should do about it. Please help!

I work in a sales environment. I have been there for over one year now and I love all of the people for the exception of the one person I work for most directly -- I will refer to her as Andrea from here on. She is loud, obnoxious, dresses far too casually, and lies about every single thing that she does, yet still seems to be the apple of upper management's eye no matter how badly she errors or how much money she costs the company.

I was searching online last week to make sure a popular search engine would direct visitors searching our names to our company website. While searching, I came across some information about my co-worker's past. It was not something I was looking for or something that I ever would have imagined that I would find. The websites that I found were public websites containing detailed information about her prior arrests and convictions of drug trafficking, drug possession (crack cocaine), and carrying illegal tools (i.e. a crack pipe). I have verified this information to be absolutely accurate and is definitely related to Andrea without any doubt whatsoever.

I have not told a single person at work about this information because I assumed that she disclosed this information on her application for employment. However, I was able to view her application (which I was allowed to do for reasons not relating to this incident) and it was not disclosed.

Here is my dilemma: I am worried as to whether or not I should bring this information to the management's attention. I do not want her to get in trouble or lose her job even though I do not like her. Everyone makes mistakes in their past (and this was ten years ago) and I truly don't think that she deserves to have all this brought up again after she's started a new career (she lost her last job and ended up in the news about it because of the nature of her previous career path), but I am worried from a liability standpoint. What if she is still consuming illegal substances and ends up injuring someone at work because she cannot control herself (or her driving, which is a huge part of what she does every day) in a particular situation? One other person at work found out about this information within one day of when I found out about it because we were both checking to see if our names were directing people to our website through a popular search engine. This person brought it to my attention but we did not discuss any of the details because I did not feel that this was appropriate, but now it is known that I, too, have this information.

If I bring this to the attention of management I do not want them to think that I am bringing this up to damage her reputation or get her fired. It is well known that we do not like each other and that we work together only for the better of the company. I simply want to do the right thing but I'm not sure what that is. I could be making this into a huge deal over nothing and perhaps the best thing to do would be to keep the information to myself. Our company policy is that we do not hire people who have prior criminal backgrounds due to the nature of the business. She signed waiver forms to have a complete background check, police report check, credit check, fingerprint scan through a national database, and a drug pre-screening (four years ago), but obviously something was overlooked somewhere. Please share your thoughts on this situation. Your guidance is appreciated.

You know, I'd really like to believe that you are altruistic and only have the company's best interest at heart.

But, I don't. Not for a second. You don't like Andrea, and dollars to donuts, neither does your co-worker who also found out about Andrea's past.. (What on earth does googling your company name have to do with googling all your co-workers? Not saying you can't do that, but puh-lease. Don't try to pass off your "what's our Google ranking" with "I wonder what I can find out about Andrea.")

You found out some nasty stuff and have "authenticated it." (How? Asking her? DNA samples? Just wondering.) And further more, I'm trying to figure out how on earth you got access to her application file? I can count on one hand the number of times I've needed to reference someone's application and I'm HR. I can't figure out what information a salesperson would need from her co-worker's application. I can't come up with a legitimate reason. (I'm sure someone has one, I just can't think of one.)

If Googling your co-worker's names was a legitimate assignment, then you would have written up a report summarizing your findings. Then it would be allowable to say, "When you Google Andrea + Company name you get police records for someone with the same name. When you google John + Company name you get a link to "who we are" page on the company website. When you Google Katie + Company name you get a link to a weight loss forum." If the offense is ten years out (and I know there wasn't anything more recent because I know you tried to find more dirt), then they probably couldn't have even considered it when they hired her. Sure, the lying on the application part is reason not to hire someone, but they did and I don't care how you authenticated the information, unless your brother was her actual crack dealer you didn't authenticate it.

You will be the person who looks bad. Andrea will look like the victim.

Leave it alone. Do not discuss this with your fellow dirt digger. Get back to work and stop surfing the web. If this information comes to light and someone comes to you and says, "how come you didn't tell us about Andrea!?!?!?!?" you can simply reply, "Our company policy is to run a background check on everyone before they are hired. I assumed that management was aware of this information. Additionally, Andrea's past is not relevant to her current performance."

My Top 10

Blogs.com takes top 10 lists from various bloggers. Now they've posted mine!

It's probably not quite what you'd expect from me, but I hope you find it amusing.

Counter Offers

I work in California and have recently been offered a similar position with a new company. I turned in my resignation letter today and my boss asked me what it would take to make me stay. I told him that if they increase my salary to match the new offer I would stay.

After he talks with his boss and HR, he tells me that they will match the offer but they want to see a hard copy first.

I'm wondering if this is violating my privacy rights to salary information. I'm also hesitant to provide a copy of the new offer because I do not want to jeopardize this new position if the negotiations fall-out. Perhaps I could mark out the name and contact information of the new company....

I think you should thank your boss for his confidence in you, and take the new job and leave.

Why?

Because you went looking for a new job for a reason and it's highly doubtful that that reason was money. Oh sure, we all want more money. Me too. But, money is rarely the reason why people start looking for a new job.

I hear screaming from the crowd. The crowd is saying, "But I just went out looking for more money! I didn't have any other reason for looking for a new job. I love my job! I do! I just want more money.!"

Sure, fine. So, why did your boss not offer you more money before you presented him with an offer from a new company? Hmmm?

I believe it was because the company you worked for did not value you any higher.

Sure, your boss would love to give you more money but company policies prevent it.

Stupid company. They need to be watching out for their best people and meeting their needs. And if you truly loved your boss you wouldn't have been out looking for a new job in the first place.

There is another reason why you went out job shopping. Think about that. Most people who accept counter offers leave within a year anyway.

If you decide you want to continue on with the negotiations, go ahead and show them the offer letter. If you are concerned that doing this will jeopardize your job offer, that means you don't trust your boss or the HR person. Why on earth are you staying with a company where you don't trust your boss not to actively screw you over?

Think about that for a moment.

Take the new job and good luck.

Team Building

A friend had to go to a mandatory "team building" event. You can probably guess my opinion of such things, but some people like them. Wasting time "building unity" by doing a silly activity such as building a raft, making a dinner or negotiating a ropes course is bad enough during business hours, but this event was held in the evening.

You remember the purpose of evenings, don't you? It's time to be at home.

During this team building activity, a nice HR person (who undoubtedly had a hand in organizing the whole event) talked about how they were having a turnover problem. The theory was that by building cohesiveness everyone would start to love their team so much they wouldn't dare leave.

I think HR should have thought, "Gee, maybe it's that whole work-life balance thing creeping up on us. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't require people to spend their evenings at team building events!"

Sometimes we get caught up in the latest fad or program and we think, "gee, won't this be fabulous!" and we forget to ask if this is actually helping the business by truly meeting the needs of the people. Yes, the activity you came up with might be "fun," but most people consider work, work and want to find their fun elsewhere.

Or we think that for a team to be effective they need to be bonded in some significant fashion. And that perhaps trusting my coworker to catch me as I fall backwards will improve performance all around. Frankly, I'd rather trust my coworker to get her part of the project done on time. That builds team cohesiveness better than anything else, in my humble opinion.

So, next time you go implementing some sort of program, stop and think about how this will really affect business performance. Is it helping or inadvertantly hurting?

Vacation Micro Management

Need an opinion. I am an owner of a small-mid size consumer and auto finance company. We currently staff 6-7 full time employees. I was having a recent conversation with my office manager/supervisor regarding our policies on vacation. In a nut shell we offer 2 weeks of paid vacation from April through October. The supervisor has just earned a 3rd week for reaching 5 years (anniversary date) with the company. The only stipulations other than the months vacation can be scheduled is that 1 full consecutive week be taken and for those having 2 weeks, the second week can be split into a 3/2 or 2/3 day format allowing for some flexibility. I’m not a fan of that and would prefer that all vacation be taken in full one week increments M-F. I have kept the split format for the second week as a perk for my employees. Previously we also did not allow vacation to be taken at “month end” either because of the process we go through to close out our month. Due to some better and more efficient software the process is cut to a 1/3 so now we allow vacation to be scheduled around that time. Another perk in my opinion that I agreed to at my employee’s request. I also ask that vacations be posted by April 15th of each year so proper planning can be accomplished.

We recently had an employee to schedule his full week’s vacation Wed-Tues kinda screwing up two weeks if you know what I mean and now has two other split time vacations scheduled. This was an oversight on my supervisors part for not catching it but not intentional. At explaining “again” why we keep this format I restated that this is the reason I am a proponent of consecutive weeks not splits. Other wise if you’re not careful you’ll have folks out every week of the summer doing these mini vacations. I made the off color comment that it kinda goes back to them being a bit spoiled. She made the comment that this was the strictest vacation policy she had worked with before.

Sorry for the verboseness of this but I wanted to paint you a picture. In your experience as an HR professional does it sound like my vacation policies are “strict”? Being the owner and knowing that I try and perk them as much as I can in other areas too; I was quite offended at that comment and I guess am looking for an outside opinion. THANKS for your time!

I think you are thinking about this a little too much. What's the point of vacation? Honestly. Why give vacation at all? Well, because people wouldn't work for you if you didn't and because, drum roll please, people perform better if they have a break from time to time.

Now, I know nothing about the auto financing world, but I can't imagine that the winter months are so furiously busy that no one can take a single day off. So, why limit vacation time to the summer only? If part of the problem is having people out of the office, spreading it out over an entire year should help with that problem. Then you have less of a chance of two people wanting to leave at the same time.

What do you do when someone's brother-in-law decides to get married in February? Or someone's first grandchild is born in December? Are they not allowed to take any time off? Now, avoiding a gathering of inlaws might be a perk to the job, but what grandmother is going to want to hold off visiting the new baby, who happens to be in Keokuk Iowa?

On the number of days at a time, taking a week off consecutively does have some benefits, among them being an opportunity for fraud detection and a true chance to rest and relax. Requiring people to take the remaining vacation in one two and one three day chunk seems pointless.

You state that one employee "screwed" up two weeks by going Wed-Tues. Again, not knowing anything about car financing, but I can't see why this is. And what's wrong with a mini vacation? In fact, if my job is to cover for you while you are out, I'd much rather have you gone one day at a time than 3 days in a row. If you are just going to be out on Friday, most likely you'll work extra hard on Thursday and then anything that's not pressing I can just hold for you to do when you get back on Monday. If you're gone for 2, 3 or 5 days in a row, then I'm forced to do more of your job, which puts pressure on me.

I don't like more pressure on me, and neither do most of your employees.

If I were you, I'd loosen the hold on vacation. Let people take their vacation when they want to. (Although I do agree with a no vacation for the last week of the month/quarter/whatever super busy time you have, rule. That's good business sense and responsible employees wouldn't ask anyway, except in extreme circumstances.)

I think you'll find that it won't be nearly as disruptive as you fear. Most people want to do a good job and appreciate being given control over their own lives, as much as possible. You say that you spoil them. Excellent. Spoiled employees are happy employees (as long as you are also providing feedback and improvement plans and goals and all that other fun stuff that comes from being the boss). You want spoiled, but not rotten employees.

Have a marvelous vacation yourself. Switzerland is nice this time of year.

Random Swiss Fact

My computer is fixed. Yeah! It took a little longer than I thought because our friend did not have the right part. He knew what part I needed, though, so he wrote it down for me. I took it to the computer store and presented the written part number to the nice man behind the counter.

This man, by the way, spoke English, and apologized to me for his subject/verb order. "I need to work on my English!" he said. I thought that if I could get both a subject and a verb in German I wouldn't care about the proper order, I'd just be thrilled I'd communicated something.

Anyway, the computer store (and I find this amazing), does not accept credit cards. Cash or debit only. They sell computers! And big screen televisions! And fancy computer equipment.

I can only imagine that a place like that in America would go out of business if it didn't accept credit.

Fortunately, my part was only 29.90CHF, so not buying on credit wasn't a hardship. Still, I was amazed. They definitely have a different attitude towards credit over here.

Kaboom!

So, you are all wondering, what in the heck is she doing? Just sitting around and eating chocolate? Where are the posts?

Well, I am sitting around and eating chocolate. But, the reason for the lack of posting is that I blew up my computer.

Yes, smoke was coming out of the back. Yippee. Normally I would borrow my husband's computer, but he was on a business trip to New Jersey, of all places. Sigh.

My computer will (hopefully) be functional tonight. (I'm using my husband's right now.) Let's hear it for super-friendly-computer-savy computer people from church, who when he heard about my plight came over and volunteered to attempt to fix it. (He said if he's attempt doesn't work, then I would be wise to just buy a new computer as the cost to fix it would be more money than it would be worth.) I just have to say that this experience just adds to my opinion that the people of Switzerland are just so incredibly friendly.

Of course, I still don't know what people are saying to me 90% of the time, so for all I know they could be insulting my hair style, but they do it in a nice tone and with a smile, so I presume niceness all around.

You Can't Quit, I'm Firing You!

Another guy and I, used to work for a "bad boss". You know the type - he will lie, cheat, steal, etc. if so inclined. This other guy quit, and after the "non-compete" period was up, he started his own "competing" company. His company grew enough to bring on additional help, and he offered me a job. I accepted his offer and turned in my notice to HR at the old company. A week later, this "bad boss" found out I was leaving to go work for this competing ex-employee and drummed up a number of bogus reasons to fire me and I was walked out 2 days earlier than planned.

I worked for the new employer for a year before the economy slowed down and I was laid off. My problem is in applying for new jobs. They ask "Have you ever been terminated? Explain". If I say "No" and they contact the "bad boss" company, will a "He was terminated" response make me look like a liar? If I say "Yes", what do I put for the "explain" when I was really terminated for planning to work for a competitor? Will the "potential employer" get my "bad bosses" bogus reasons for my "termination?

I find this to be a fascinating question, which kind of surprises me because on the surface it doesn't seem that exotic a question. After all, it's not like the kind that Dear Abby gets ("Dear Abby, my sister-in-law didn't sit next to me at a bridal shower. True, she arrived late, and there were no chairs next to me, but she should have made an effort. I was so angry, I poisoned her punch. Then I felt guilty and knocked it out of her hand before she could drink it. It stained her shirt. She says I should pay for the cleaning. I don't think I should. What do you think?")

Here's why I think it's interesting: I would say that you've never been terminated from a position. Lots of times employers don't want you working for them once they know you are going to a competitor. It's not uncommon for someone to hand in two weeks notice and be told that today will be their last day.

But, I think I'm wrong here. This situation is different in that they came up with reasons to terminate you, didn't terminate you upon your giving notice, and will (most likely) state you were terminated if anyone should happen to call them for a reference.

The problem with references is that you don't get a chance to defend yourself. (Usually.) I know most HR types are huge fans of references, but I think there are huge flaws in the whole reference system. After all, unless I know the person giving the reference, how do I know she's not a complete whacko? That's another reason why networking is a much better system for finding a job. But, I'm digressing.

Here's what I would write: "I received an offer to work for [x] (a direct competitor), and gave two weeks' notice. Company opted to terminate me prior to the notice period ending." That sounds accurate, right? Will it compensate for a scathing reference should they call your previous company? Probably not. (See above paragraph.)

The more critical question is, will your last boss (who just laid you off) give you a good reference? I think it shows your value as a worker when someone has recruited you like he did. I think it says a lot when someone says, "I not only like working with you, I like working with you enough to hire you myself."

Good luck with your job search. Hopefully all will go well and you'll be in a fancy new job soon.

FMLA for a poor performer

I have an exempt employee on intermittant FLMA, due to a medical illness which has been confirmed by a doctor. The employee has not used all of the 12 weeks as of yet, but is getting there.

The employee is very sporadic in when he/she will work, some days the employee is fine and others not. She will work a week here and off one here and there. The doctor has cleared her to work 6 hours a day, but these six hours the work ethic is very poor, no past documentation. (I am the new HR Superintendent.)

To help you understand the situation a little better, this is a camp job, very remote, my exempt employees work 4 days on 3 off, they stay in camp 3 nights, normally work a 11-12 hour day. My worry is if I attempt to document poor work performance while the employee is under medical care, I am opening the door for the EEOC or ADA or NANA. I have offered reasonable accommodation by allowing a six hour work day. Again this is a camp job so working six hours leaves 18 hours in the employee dorm. I want to state that I cannot accommodate her 6 hours or better yet start documenting poor performance and terminate. But again I feel I am opening the door for the EEOC, ADA and NANA.

I want to say, off the bat, that I have no idea what NANA is. I hope it's not terribly important. I googled it and did not get any answers that seemed to fit the context, although I admit, I didn't look very hard.

You get, after all, what you pay for.

But, yes, you should document. You should be documenting on everyone with performance issues. If you are only documenting her issues, and not everyone elses, well then, you've got trouble with a capital T, which rhymes with P, which stands for pool. Which reminds me, I need to find out about swimming lessons for offspring number 1.

Anyway, your problem will probably resolve itself, if she's getting close to using all 12 weeks of FMLA. Intermittant FMLA can be extremely tricky, so I hope you have someone who is an expert advising you on this. Make sure that absences are approved under this FMLA, and not assigned to some other bucket.

Contrary to popular opinion, you can still fire someone for performance reasons, even if they are on FMLA. You can also eliminate their positions. But, you are right in that so doing opens you up for attack. It's generally guilty until proven innocent in these situations, so you have to be prepared to defend yourself.

You say you are new. Take this opportunity to do things the right way. Don't let this happen again. Frequently, people are afraid to deal with problems, because we all hope they will just go away. Problem employees rarely go away on their own accord. And, they don't get better unless they have reason to.

So, document for anyone with problems. Keep tabs on the FMLA. And, as for the six hour accommodation, since you've already approved that, I doubt that you'll be able to change that now.

Oh, and please don't just document. Keep the employee informed as to the expectations. She may be thinking, "I'm sick, therefore I don't need to do X." You may also not have a clear understanding of her limitations. Please keep an open dialogue.

Furlough

I work in a supervisory position in IT. My employer is, like everybody else, doing some belt-tightening in response to the economy. Among other things, they have announced a series of unpaid furloughs for this summer.

For scheduling purposes, they're being treated as extra (but, of course, unpaid) vacation days: the office will remain open, and individual employees will take their furloughs at different times. My question is, how do we reconcile the concept of the "unpaid furlough" with salaried employees who are usually on call for emergencies? Under normal circumstances, I'm happy to investigate, say, why the email stopped working at 4PM on Saturday. (Well, not "happy," but . . . you know what I mean.) I'd be considerably less amused to get a call on a day when I was "furloughed." The most obvious answer is to schedule things so that there's always somebody on call who's not taking their furlough (just like we do for vacations); and we will of course. But the reality is we're a small shop, and not everybody knows everything about everything. Murphy's Law suggests an inevitable situation where the "right" person to solve a problem will be on furlough. Looking forward to your Evil reply!

One of the definitions of a salaried, or exempt, employee is that they are paid for the job, not by the hour. For that reason, being on call is not a big deal for a salaried employee. (By not a big deal, I mean legally, not emotionally or in relationship to a work life balance.)

But, you're in a conundrum. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. I'm sure someone will jump in and let us know if my advice is problematic. At least, I hope so.

Anyway, here's my advice: Let management know that if a member of your staff gets called in when they are on furlough, they will have to be paid. No ifs, ands or buts.

I think you could probably safely pay by the half day, but to be safe you may want to pay by the day. I don't think you can say, "hey it was a 15 minute phone call, we'll pay him for 15 minutes worth of work." That would be dangerously close to declaring someone to be an hourly worker, which would make that person eligible for overtime in the future. I don't think you want to do that.

Try your best to not have to call those people who are on furlough, but let everyone know that you will have to pay if they are called in.

Vacation, by the way, is different because they are getting paid on vacation. At least, that's my opinion.

Hopefully everyone will be able to pull together and the company will do better, so this won't be necessary again.

Dirty Jobs

Laurie at Punk Rock HR posted this video of Mike Rowe. She said she hoped it would go viral, so I feel like I'm doing my part.

It's brilliant and I agree with him. We get so caught up in looking for that perfect job, that perfect career, the perfect boss or perfect career path, that we've forgotten the value of hard work.

It's twenty minutes long, but well worth your time. Watch it.

Please don't give me a break

Is there a law where an employee and a company can agree to take a lunch after 8 hours and not six?

California Law states after 6 hours employee must receive a break. Can employee & company agree to change this? Please help.

Funny you should ask. My very favorite legal site, Overlawyered just posted an interesting story about a United Airlines Ticket Agent who took a break. He blames the lawyers.

I love to blame lawyers. (Except for my lawyer brother, who gives me free legal advice. He's blameless.)

This really is a situation where the company's hands are tied. (Presuming you are correct on California law, that it is six hours and not something different.) They can't authorize you to skip your break.

In theory, this is because big, bad companies would force you to work until you dropped so the big good government steps in and saves us all, except for the poor couple trying to catch a flight to Oregon. (Now, let it be said, that to the best of my knowledge there is no law stipulating that a break must be taken at a precise time, just within a certain window. If United was scheduling breaks at the last possible moment then they are as stupid as the Consumerist story makes them out to be. Further more, the ticket agent was incompetent. Yes, she's required to take a break. No, you don't argue with the customer. When it became clear that he was going to argue, you say, "I'm sorry, sir. Let me get someone who can help you." And then you walk away and get someone and then go on your break.)

I'm not a big fan of government regulations on such things. I think that there are enough people, like you, who would prefer to work 7.5 hours straight and then go home, rather than working 5 hours, take a half hour, unpaid break, and then work 2.5 more hours. I used to beg to do that, but to no avail, back in my hourly days. I think that we should acknowledge that at will employment runs two ways. If I don't like how a company is treating me, I can walk away from it. Further more, if they don't want to accommodate my break prefences, they can terminate me. We're all grown ups here.

Yes, I know about how people were treated in the coal mines and meat packing plants and I've read all about the factory fires. I think we've moved a little beyond that when we're micromanaging how breaks must be taken.

But, in short, no you can't. Take your break. Bring a good novel. And furthermore, don't work when you are on break. It causes the same problems.

How to get hired?

A reader sent me an e-mail and a link to Jason Calacanis' article: How to Hire--and Get Hired in a Recession.

Calacanis advises the candidate to make it clear that you are a super hard worker. You keep up with the industry trends. You give your all to your company. He gives 8 questions he likes to ask.

1. Do you live to work or work to live?
2. Do you consider yourself a workaholic? Do you think there is anything wrong with being a workaholic?
3. Are you able to turn it off at 6 p.m. and on Friday for the weekend? You don't get obsessed by work, do you? (Trick question!)
4. Do you consider yourself a balanced person?
5. How would you feel if we all needed to come in on the weekend to make a deadline?
6. How would you feel if this happened two weekends in a row?
7. It's a tough time right now, and we're super short-staffed—how would you feel if I
asked you to cover for [insert job lower than candidate's experience] when they're on vacation?
8. Speaking of vacation, do you bring your BlackBerry and laptop with you to check in? Or do you like to unplug completely?

He gives examples of ideal answers to questions: ("Finally, I've made a philosophy of not leaving the office until my boss does…. I think that's the honorable thing to do.")

Readers, are, predictably, in totally disagreement. He's described as pompous and out of touch.

My reader, however, agrees with this position and asks me: "Am I crazy for appreciating the sense Jason makes in his article, or is he draconian as the readers make him out to be?"

My answer is yes. Jason makes sense and he is draconian. (And yippee for the chance to use the word "draconian" in a post. Twice. Although technically one is in a quote.)

Now, first of all, I want to work with hard working people. I don't want any slackers on the same team I am working on. I've had slackers and they are not appreciated. However, getting in before everyone else and leaving after everyone else does not make one a non-slacker.

Jason is confusing "hard work" for "long hours." He places a lot of emphasis on face time.

I think face time is important to your career. I also think results are more important. Yes, there is a correlation between lots of hours and high performance. But it's just a correlation, not necessarily a causation. We all know people who put in a ton of hours, but are slow in their actual work. They take too long on the wrong things.

I had a coworker once who would spend numerous hours writing detailed criticisms on the formatting of reports. (Change this to font sized 12. Increase the thickness of the line at column G. Widen column H by 2 points. Highlight row 4, except for column B. And so on and so forth. A one page Excel report could have 25 items she wanted changed. None of them substantive.) She worked long hours. But, writing up these criticisms (which changed every month, so you could never use last month's criticism as a guide for this month's report) took longer than making the changes herself ever could.

She was about as inefficient as the day was long. Yet, she could have answered the questions to this man's questions "correctly" and received a job offer. And she would have been the first in and the last to leave and gotten no more than half the work done that an efficient employee who worked an 8 hour day did.

My point in all of this is that Calacanis is right, and Calacanis is wrong. Hard work is important. Smart work is important. Philosophies of work are important. I DON'T want employees who feel like they are tethered to their blackberries/laptops on vacation. I DO want ones that take a break. But, I also do want to be assured that if a crunch comes, everyone will be willing to come in on a weekend.

That's a culture thing. But, if crunches keep coming, well then, that's bad management. So, no I wouldn't be willing to come in every weekend.

One more note: In his example he mentions the person applying for a VP position. In my experience, smart work and long hours are both required to rise to that type of position. So, yeah, sacrifice of other things are necessary for success at that level. I don't want to be a VP of anything, so there is my bias.

I bet the readers who objected so strongly don't want to be VPs either. At least, they aren't willing to pay the price.

Fortunately, companies function best when not everyone wants to be the boss.

Fraternization Policy

Do you have anything on the above, or work rules regarding supervisors and people that report to them having a friendship outside of work. It is becoming disruptive to the workplace.

I think anti-fraternization policies are really difficult to write and police. How do you get people to stop being friends? And if you don't want supervisers to be friends with their underlings, then you can't promote from within, or you have to say, "If we promote you, you won't be able to socialize with the people you used to socialize with." Except you'd say it with better grammar.

What you are in need of is some supervisors with a clearer understanding of what is expected of them. You need to manage the results. You need to talk to the supervisors about how favoritism (presumably that's the problem here) is affecting the entire team. You need to train your supervisors how to manage.

Very few companies actually do that. Heaven knows my management training was weak. (New boss: "Hey, here are some people to supervise!" Me (outloud): "Great. I truly believe I have a lot to share and I am looking forward to taking this next step in my career." Me (silently): "Crud. I've never even had a formal performance review. Now what?")

I wouldn't focus on the friendship part. I would focus on the measurable results part. Make sure that your supervisors have good managers who have set quantitative goals for them. Make sure they understand that they need to change whatever behavior is causing the problem.

If they can't do it, they should be removed from their supervisor positions, either through demotions or firing. The latter is probably perferable, because if you've got anxiety in the ranks now, putting a disgruntled supervisor back in with his former underlings will not be pleasant.

Part of the job of managing people is realizing that you get paid more because it is harder than it looks. This sometimes means changing your relationships with others. Focus on the results and the relationship problems will be solved.

A Really Bad Idea in Firing

If you'll recall, I'm not a lawyer. Still, my HR legal senses perked right up upon reading about a proposed new show on Fox: Someone's Gotta Go.

In this fun new reality show, real employees at real companies get to vote one (or more?) of their co-workers into unemployment land. Oh sure, it sounds like all sorts of fun. As the linked article points out, not all employment rights are waivable in advance, so who knows how this is going to work out.

Perhaps the "package" given to the terminated employees is so fantastic that the other employees will be fighting to be laid off. But, that would not make it a good reality show. It would just turn into "who can be the most obnoxious" and then it would be like Big Brother or something.

Gah. Do these television producers ever, ever, ever consult their lawyers? And legal aspects aside, being laid off (note, not fired for cause) can be extremely painful. Putting that on television is just down right rude.

I know, some people will do anything for their 15 minutes of fame. I bet Fox is counting on the fact that we'd all love to watch such procedures.

I bet they are wrong.

Have you ever noticed when watching an action movie in a theatre that the patrons silently munch on overpriced popcorn (with extra butter-ish!) while heads are exploding and limbs are being chopped off by airplane propellers, but see someone get their fingers slammed in a car door and everyone cringes. Why? Because we have no experience with our own heads exploding. (If we did, we wouldn't be watching the movie as there would be nowhere to put the popcorn.) But, we've all slammed our fingers and we KNOW that hurts.

Likewise, the things that take place on Survivor or the Amazing Race-or even the Apprentice-are so far from our reality that we can watch them without cringing. But, getting laid off is something that hits too close to home. Too many of us have experienced it ourselves. The rest of us know someone who has been through it. Most of us fear that it could happen to us at some point. Those that don't fear are in an advanced state of denial.

I predict viewers will find it too painful to watch, lawyers will find it too tempting for law suits and that Fox will bag the whole thing.

(Via Overlawyered.)

Happy Tax Day!

To all you accountants out there, I hope you take a few days off.

FMLA Goof

I’ll try and make this quick and to the point…….I screwed up! I had completed the Employer Response to Employee presumptuously and this employee has not worked for us for a year. Technically, he is not eligible for FMLA. However, he has seen the approved form (don’t think he has a copy of it). My question is……am I able to shorten the length of the FMLA time to maybe 6 weeks instead of 12, since he really isn’t eligible at all for this? I know……VERY STICKY situation since I’ve already approved. HELP!!!

I'm happy you've admitted to your own screw up and not blamed anyone else. So sorry that you will never be in senior management.

Anyway, here are my usual disclaimers. I am not a lawyer. I am not an FMLA expert. I'm not even employed.

But, I think this is a case where you say, "Bob, when I filled out the paperwork previously, I forgot that you hadn't been with us one year yet. To be eligible for FMLA, you have to have worked here for at least a year. Therefore we can't grant you FMLA."

Over and done.

Now, not all leaves have to fall under FMLA. Surely you have a leave policy for non FMLA leaves? (Tell me you have a policy. It would warm my little evil heart.) Grant him whatever leave he would be eligible under that policy.

If you have no policy, you can do whatever you want, as long as you are consistent and fair. You can grant 6 weeks, or 12, or 26 or whatever. Just make it clear that this is a leave of absence that is not subject to the rules of FMLA. If you continue to carry his insurance during the leave, it's doubtful he'll care about the difference.

A Laundry Question

What is the best way to launder money I make under the table while I am on unemployment?

I imagine all that under the table money has gum on it, or perhaps other slimy substances. But, let's start with the gum. While I hear peanut butter is good, I've never had any success with it. (Not that I've tried to get gum off money, but money is made out of cotton fibres and I have had gum on clothes.) I suggest putting it in the freezer and then trying.

Now, if it's not gum, but just general stickiness, there are other solutions. (Heaven knows if you have small children who can't seem to use a napkin, but are sick of their parents yelling at them for using their clothes, the will resort to wiping their hands on the underside of the table, which is where you have been working. Working at what, I don't know. Cleaning tables, I suppose. Or perhaps, table maintanance.) I like Tide with Bleach Alternative. Several of my siblings use the Kirkland brand, which you get at Costco. Depending on how much money you have to launder, the latter might not be a good buy.

If you were going to hand wash, you can always try woolite, but I find that unnecessary. The money that has gone through my washing machine, (usually it starts out in a pocket) has come through just fine, even on a hot wash.

Or, have I misunderstood your question? Were you asking me how to do something illegal? I'm sure you wouldn't do that, because you must be relatively intelligent if you've chosen to read my blog. And you would know that those of us who pay taxes really despise those of you who cheat on theirs, so you wouldn't be asking me that, would you? No, it must be about cleaning.

I hope you don't bonk your head on the table when you try to get up.

I'm Back

So, it's been nearly a whole month since I signed off and I still don't have a computer. But, we arrived in beautiful Switzerland Wednesday afternoon and we are in love with the place.

More precisely, we're in love with the holidays. My husband (who had been here for a month, but came to the states for meetings and to fly with us, so I didn't have to do an international flight with two small children), had to go into the office for a meeting that afternoon. He arrived home shortly after 5:00 with unexpected news: Sunday is Easter.

Now, you all know that. I know that. What we didn't know was that meant that Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Monday are all holidays. Time off work that doesn't count against his 6 weeks of vacation.

Ahh, so happy to be in Switzerland.

I quit!

Well, only temporarily.

In all actuality, I did quit my job, so technically I'm no longer an Evil HR Lady, but I hope you'll allow me to still play one on the internet. My PHR certification is still valid, anyway.

I didn't just quit to be lazy (ahh, laziness). I quit so that I could accompany my husband to his new job, in Switzerland. (Technically, I am legal to work there, but I'll be too busy eating chocolate and cheese to hold down a job, don't you think?)

The movers are coming today and they are packing up my computer. I will not see the computer again for two-three weeks. And it's a desktop, so no I couldn't carry it with me on the flight.

So, if you send me e-mails or comments or whatever and I don't respond, it's not that I don't love you dearly, it's that I have no internet access.

I'll "see" you in a few weeks. Send me some interesting questions.