Standing Up For Yourself

I am the HR Assistant at a decent-sized (160+ employees) company. Due to reasons I cannot discuss, the HR Director was suddenly terminated a few months ago. After a little over a month of keeping the department afloat by myself, we found a new director and I was happy.

Today, however, my new boss contacted our benefits administrators to make a change to the effective end date of benefits when people are terminated. Our current policy states that because we have them prepay a month in advance for benefits, their last day of benefits is 30 days after their term date. The new director feels that this makes the bill too difficult to figure out and it needs to change so that benefits run out at the end of the month they are terminated.

My issue is that all of the employees currently on our plan have already prepaid and thus either need to receive those benefits or be reimbursed. I approached my boss with these concerns and was told that our insurance rep told her the 30 day plan wasn't possible anymore. I pushed the issue a little in a respectful manner, and she called our rep with me in the room and complained to her that she keeps "trying to make changes here but keeps being met with all this slack." After discussing it with them we found out that we were always able to keep our old policy, but the new director is still set on changing it. She says that the money our employees have prepaid will "all come out in the wash" and that we wouldn't be able to reimburse anyone. If an employee has a family insurance plan, this shorts them almost $900.00. That won't come out in the wash.

Other than find a new job, which I am currently doing due to a number of other issues, is there anything I can do in this situation? Should I even try anything other than voicing my concerns since I am not a director?

Well, I think it makes sense to have benefits terminate at the end of the calendar month. So, I'm on your director's side there. But, I'm on your side on the whole "No one will care that we're screwing them over for $900," thing. Of course, the solution for that is to always quit on the first of the month, and never in February.

Anyway, this does not answer your question at all. There's something wrong in your director's head--she's somehow not recognizing that it's not the policy you're objecting to, it's the consequences of that policy. (If it is the date change you are objecting to, well then you need to get on board with that. It's not a battle worth fighting.) I've supported policies that I think are stupid and short sighted because once I've said my piece, it's my job to carry them out. I will not, however, carry out policies that are immoral or illegal.

This, I believe is definitely the former and most likely the latter. I only say most likely because, presumably, you could get employees to sign a waiver that indicates that they realize that over payments of benefits will not be refunded. However, I am not a benefits lawyer (nor any kind of lawyer), and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that that type of waiver violates ERISA or some other benefits law. Regardless of the legality, this is just wrong.

And when things are wrong, you need to bring it up.

I understand that it will be easier to figure out the bill if you change to this policy. I understand that the ease of the bill comes along with a more complicated final pay check if you refund the money. Got it. Solving complicated problems is why we get paid. If there were not complicated problems to solve, trained monkeys could do the job. (All right, all right, I'm anticipating the comments about how trained monkeys would be better than your stupid, dumb, imbecilic HR department. Fine. But most of us are smarter than monkeys. Even trained ones.)

So, yes, I think you need to say something, again. And I think it's important that you do so in the proper way, and document, document, document. Your behind may be on the line because of it, and it could get you fired. If it does, you can sue for violating whistle-blower protection laws, or something. Unless it's not illegal, in which case, it stinks to be you.

You need to clearly, in an e-mail, so it is documented, state your objection. Make sure you separate out the date change from the payment question. Give your full fledged support to the date change. You are not trying to undermine her ideas. You want change. You just don't want to do something wrong.

I would say:

Dear HR Director,

I want you to know that I fully support changing the date of benefits termination to the last day of the calender month in which an employee terminates. As you have stated, this will simplify our benefits billing, and be easier to explain to employees.

However, it is my understanding that we would not be refunding overpayments. If this is the case, I cannot support not this. I am concerned that this policy would open us up to legal challenges. We would be cheating employees out of their own money. This not only has legal and moral ramifications, but it will also affect employee morale.

If this policy is implemented, I will have to take this up with [HR director's boss] and make her aware of the potential liabilities this creates for the company.

If I have misunderstood how the policy will be implemented, can you please clarify for me.

Sincerely,

HR Assistant.

If your boss has half a clue, she'll realize what she's doing is wrong, blame you for being so stupid and not understanding that she clearly meant to refund money and it will all go away. (You will be blamed, by the way. I can almost guarantee it. )

If your boss insists, I think you morally have an obligation to escalate this issue. Honest to goodness, you have 160 employees. How many are quitting in a month? It can't be that many. This should not be so complicated. Besides, refunds would be payroll's problem, not yours. (Heh. Love you payroll! Honest!)

And the accountants--they wouldn't know where to place the extra benefit money anyway. What a mess this would be. So speak up. Loudly and clearly. And get your resume ready.

See What Happens When You Try to Cross US?

 

Just do what the nice HR lady says, or you may find yourself being cast into the fiery pit.

Just a fair warning.

(This is actually another Swiss culture moment. We attended Chienbaese in a town called Liestal. They burn huge piles of wood and drag them through the streets. First, they spread confetti everywhere. What could possibly go wrong with paper covered streets, fire filled wagons, and drunk people? It was awesome.)

Exempt Holiday Pay

Our company has 6-paid holidays a year. However, because of our industry we are required to work most of them with the option of being paid for them on top of the hours worked or hold the day and take it at another time (non-exempt employees).

My question is this – if an exempt employee works on the holiday:

1. Do we have to pay them on top of their normal salary and/or

2. Do we have to let them hold it and take it at another time under PTO

There are no Federal Laws requiring paid holidays (that I am aware of), but I'm not even going to begin to answer this from a legal standpoint. I'm going to answer this from a business perspective.

Your questions both start out with "Do we have to..." I added the emphasis because I want to point out what you are implying: We want to give our employees only what is required by law.

This is a recipe for failure. Employees can sense when their employers resent having to pay them. Remember, that without your employees you don't have a job either.

I think either offering them extra pay or adding that time to their PTO bank is fine. You may run into problems with extra pay in that somebody will claim that violates the rules of exemption. I don't think it does. Companies are allowed to give bonuses to exempt employees, and this would be a holiday bonus. That said, my preference would be for the PTO, but I'm a fan of days off. Overworked employees don't perform as well.

So, yes, you should offer your exempt employees compensation for working on a holiday. You want them to feel like you value them. You want them to be happy to be working on the holiday, not feeling jerked around. Treat your good employees well and you'll have plenty of good employees. Treat them poorly and you'll eventually only have poor employees.

Firing Thoughts

Have you ever had to fire someone? I came across this podcast from This American Life, called Human Resources. In the opening sequence there is a sample firing.

I think the guy does a pretty good job, but I prefer a much more direct approach. Of course, there was a fade out, so I don't know everything he said. But, you should listen to it anyway.

The next story is about the "Rubber Room" in New York City, where teachers are sent to sit and still get paid while the district is determining their fate. Contrast that with this town in Rhode Island that fired all the teachers.

Co-worker stealing work and credit

I work part time as an office assistant.

I am having a a problem with another full time employee who's current positon does not have enough work for her to do everyday. My boss is unaware that her workload has decreased.

After I left for the day she took one of my completed assignments changed it slightly and presented it to my boss and took credit for it. This is not the first incident.

How would you suggest I handle this situation? I would not want her to take over my position and find myself out of work.

I'm on your side here, but I feel obligated to prepare you for the worst: If your co-worker is full time and doesn't have enough to do, the most logical thing to do is eliminate the part time position. On that cheery thought, here is what I would do.

I would quietly approach your co-worker and say, "Jill, when you took credit for my work, that was not cool. Not cool at all. Please don't do it again."

Say it calmly and attempt to walk away after you say it. Why? This isn't a discussion you want to have. Jill will be defensive and tell you how she made a ton of changes and your work was terrible and she was saving you from embarrassment by taking over the project. It doesn't matter that none of this is true.

Then I would let that particular incident go. If it happens again, I would go to your boss with a copy of your draft of the project and say, "I know I'm not here all the time, but Jill keeps presenting my work as her own. Here's a copy of how I left the information. I don't want to cause problems with Jill, but I also don't want you to think I'm not working hard."

Then let your boss take it from there.

Unless Jill is a brazen type of person, I doubt she'll do it again after you've told her in plain language that it is unacceptable. People do things like this because they can get away with it. Being called out on it is usually enough to get all by the most egregious offenders to stop.

Update 4

This person had a manager who wanted an investigation done to determine who was talking about him:

I spoke to John. John did speak to another supervisor about Jane, but just to state that she had a confrontation with another employee (Employee A) and was a upset by it. He stated that he didn't say one way or the other who he thought was right because he wasn't there.

He stated that he was upset with Jane because she actually went to others before she came to him. Jane's side of it is that she went to John first.

He stated that he wanted to put a stop to Jane gossipping as well as other employees and he figured the way to do that was to tell her he would go to HR. He thought this would make her think twice about saying things behind his back instead of checking with him first. When he got in the meeting with me and I let him know that I would not investigate and find out WHO Jane was talking to (and was talking to her), he was ok with it.

I did let John know that especially since he is in a position of authority that others will speak about him. I let him know that I am always open to hear what he has to say and also it is important that he has open communication with his team members. I let him know that he is valued and that I know it is upsetting when someone finds out that others are talking about them.

John was worried that when his team members talk about him, that it would ruin his reputation to management. He stated that he had seen this happen in the past with a previous company. I let him know that if management was ever in a position that they felt they needed to question him about a particular incident, they would. This, however, was not an incident where that was the case and he was actually the one that brought it to our attention.

This person felt her PTO was being docked unfairly:

Apparently their unwritten policy is just like you said: if you're a manager, and you're gone an entire workday, they take a full 8 hours of PTO regardless of how many hours you work in a work week. Likewise, you can work 50 hours the first week of a pay period, and 30 the next, and they do not honor the 80 hours in the pay period; they still take 10 hours of PTO. However, if your manager likes you, and you wheedle enough, he or she can 'write off' the PTO they would normally use, effectively not using any. However, none of my PTO was returned.

This person had a nit-picky telecommuting boss:

For my effort, I still have the burn marks from the flaming I got. The lesson I learned, Evil HR Lady, was never go to the internet for any kind of advice or insight. People will type things to/about you that they would never say to your face. Frankly, who needs it?

However, the update on the situation is that this former boss got fired in June 2009. During the recession my former employer was hit hard. They also use layoffs as an excuse to divest themselves of troublesome employees. I think this woman was deemed troublesome. She was a great peer, but a terrible boss.

This person was contemplating leaving a job and getting pregnant:

Thanks for doing some follow up spots and for your answer. You made some excellent points (as usual) and certainly gave me quite a bit to think about. I applied for and accepted the new position. I've now been in place a year and a half and have lots of good things to report. I've made good progress, I feel the position is a good fit and my new supervisor is the closest thing I've had to that mystical boss/mentor combo we all dream about.

There is also a less happy news. I apparently fall into the category of unexplained infertility.' This is quite enough to deal with without being stuck at the job I left and feeling stagnant. I'm glad I left, I've been able to expand my skill set, broaden my network, and work with a fantastic executive director. I think the moral for me would be you can't make decisions on what you plan to do, when those plans may not be within your control. And definitely don't tell your coworkers (and think long and hard about the family) you are TTC. It's too much information and may lead to much hardbreak when everytime you forgo coffee you set tongues to wagging. In my case, I didn't have to tell anyone, they just all assumed (unfortunately correctly).

This person wanted a company to pay for an aptitude test:

Based on your answer I needed to stop wasting my time and my manager's time "rearranging the same stack of paper," so to speak, and take more direct actions to improve my job satisfaction. I decided not to leave my job yet because it pays very well for the credentials I have with less than five years in the field. I am lining up some industry training that the company will probably pay for and that could lead to another job in the company. But, if there is an issue with reimbursement, I am willing to pay myself, since I recognize the value of the training.

Update 3

This person had to fire someone with a ton of lead time:

Our instutitional rules require us to inform someone by March 31st that they will be let go, but they are not terminated till June 30th. So my question was how to handle this with the rest of the team, how to let them know what was happening without everyone getting freaked out that they might be next.

I was advised to put her on a formal improvement plan. We didn't do this. My boss and I are both so burned out with her that we just want her gone. I spent most of the last year coaching and counseling a problem employee who was finally let go, and I just don't have the stomach to go through that again.

My boss, thankfully, took the task of giving the news to the employee. We told her now, instead of waiting till March, so that she would have as much time as possible to look for a new position. If she leaves before we find a replacement for her academic duties, we'll deal with that. She, of course, is not thrilled with the news but had been expecting it and has already been talking to other departments about a new job. This new job will fit her skill set much better than her current position so I'm hoping that she will get it.

I had a meeting with the two admins who will be most impacted by her leaving, and told them that the boss had said that we could hire a bookkeeper to take over that part of the work so they would not have to do it.

They very sweetly told me I was crazy, that they didn't want another admin in the mix, and that they'd be more than happy to take over her bookkeeping tasks and get the overtime. They're already allowed to work as much overtime as they want because they are so phenomenally productive. So that's taken care of.

I also told the woman who shares an office with this employee, just so that she would know what was going on if there were a lot of tears. She is a very friendly and supportive person so I knew that she would help the employee get over it.

I'm letting the employee tell everyone else in her own time and her own way.

That's about it. I very much appreciate your advice and the advice of your posters

This person had been afflicted with a bad boss and a case of nebulous firing:

I think your assessment was right on the money. I don't think I need to worry too much about receiving "a scathing reference" from the previous employer as I found out that the "bad boss" was terminated himself a few months after I left. I doubt that the new manager would choose to badmouth a previous employee based solely on things written into their record by a terminated manager. I also did not have any "contested action" from either of the 2 most recent employers when filing for unemployment compensation.

Unfortunately I am still looking for work, but I believe this has to do with the state of the economy - rather than due to any job history issues. I think that I would probably feel differently about this if I were alone in not being able to find work, but in my case - "Misery loves company" does make me feel better about myself. Hopefully the job market will start improving for everyone soon.

This person was in a new job and had a very bad feeling about it:

Your answer at the time did not really clear things up, understandably as it was a non-US situation and international rules are different. However, in the end I should have listened to my instincts and taken the loss of repaying my recruiting expenses myself and get out of what in the end turned out to be a very bad situation. The company's values did not match mine at all. They aggressivley pursued me and wanted me to start "yesterday", but once I was there, they failed on a number of things. As it was a very well respected international company I thought maybe I did not get it, and things would improve as I got to know the company. Unfortunately things did not get better, on the contrary. The amount of abuse was enormous but as it slowly got worse,it dulled how bad the work environment really was until you'd step away from it and really look. In hindsight everything is always clear! A not so pleasant parting followed after 1 year of employment, where I was placed in the un-enviable position of being a whistle blower for the company's head office.

After receiving your email today, I could honestly not remember my initial question to you and had to look it up. After all the mess of getting out of this job, I had forgotten that only 2 months in my probation, I had already questioned the situation. Today's trip down memory lane served to tell me that I should always trust that little voice and believe in myself.

In the end things all worked out for the best, I am still an expat and have landed an exciting new job where I feel well appreciated and where I can grow professionally as well as contribute to my company's success.

This person was looking at a future situation where an unliked co-worker could become his manager:

Manager is obviously closer to retirement. I still do not have the law degree necessary to move into management and am still not interested in getting one. And with the economy in the tank, I'm not looking to change companies unless it gets really bad here. Also, 2 of the 8 members of my team were laid off and one has retired, with her replacement coming on board 2 weeks ago. Team Leader feels threatened by him because he has extensive subject knowledge and experience in our area of specialization and is afraid he was hired specifically to fast-track into "her" coveted management slot. I don't know him well enough yet to get a
sense of how he would be as a manager, but I'm quietly hopeful of a good outcome.

Additionally, Team Leader is now my neighbor, having moved into a house down the street from mine over the summer. Our kids get along OK and I'm trying to build a less adversarial relationship. This is proving difficult because she takes her kids' ups and downs at school and in sports personally. For this reason, and because I think it's none of her business how my kids do in school, I have told her directly
that I don't want to make our kids' academic and sports abilities into a competition, so please don't ask for test scores.

This person disliked being interviewed by people who would be subordinates:

I just had my second interview - this time with VP's, CEO and CFO (who I would be direct report). The response did enlighten me as to the changing paradigm of interviewing. I appreciated your posting the question and also all the responses.

Update 2

This guy didn't know how to dress for an interview. We all jumped in and gave our opinion. Here's what happened:

I went with your advice and wore dress slacks, a tie and sport coat. It seemed to be fine. All of the interviews (which were panel type, me and 3-4 people at a time) were at the actual biomedical device production facility. Most people I interviewed with were wearing their normal job wear, khakis (or even jeans) and polo type short sleeve shirts. I was somewhat more formally dressed than those I spoke with but it wasn't so much that I felt out of place. I felt comfortable and the interviews went very well. Ultimately, I wasn't offered the job, one of the other candidates had significantly more industry experience and they went with them. Thanks for the advice all the same!

This person wasn't sure if he had technically quit or was fired. Was unemployment a possibility? Here's what happened:

Okay, my update, I did not apply for UE. Sure the extra money would be nice but there was a lot I did not tell you, that really had nothing to do with the specific question. I’m north of fifty and have worked since about eighteen and saved the entire time. When I took on my job before this last one I was asking about, I was at the previous position a quarter of a century. I say it in those terms because as a major US corporation I took advantage of the savings and investment plan, they offered and at the time they actually had a pension plan. My wife too was doing the same thing.

Imagine that!

We do not live outside our means and feel that we are very lucky to be where we are. Many may say that luck had nothing to do with it and okay, that may be true. I decided that since we are where we are in life and did not have to do any “reprogramming of my brain, so to speak, we can sleep in, work on the side, stick my hands in the dirt, yell at the cats, make a big lunch (diet), take a walk, use my camera, call friends, visit friends, volunteer doing something, write nice HR Ladies, take pictures, do more wine tasting, just about anything.

I did not want to deal with bosses, lunch breaks, time off, vacations, schedule changes, break rooms, fighting for the computer, fighting for the bathroom, status reports, meetings, clean out the back room, take out the trash, just stuff, you know?

This person received an unfair performance review.

At this time, I am still at the company but I am on maternity leave and I am interviewing. I do not want to go back. They did not change my ratings and HR backed my boss and told me its his boss's problem that he is not qualified, not mine.

They are/were afraid that I was going to sue because I was pregnant when all of this went down and it was a 180 on the part of my boss from my last review (or since I had kids). Our relationship has only gotten worse. In my last few weeks there before my leave I had to tell my CEO to tell him to leave me alone as he was stressing me and my baby! They told him to leave me alone.

In sum, going to HR was a waste of time except that it put me on their radar as a potential lawsuit. Would not advise. The only solution I see is to move on if your job sucks and that is what I hope to do.

This person had an out of town boss and the need to resign.

Last year I had to resign my position while my boss was out of town. I followed your advice and resigned by phone, apologizing profusely that I could not do it in person. He was surprised, maybe perturbed, but by the next time I saw him he was over it. We remain on good terms and he's been an excellent reference for me.

Later that week there was a big layoff at the company. I'm glad I was able to give the management warning and I hope I saved someone's job by leaving.

This person had a fabulous admin and didn't know what developmental goals to give:

I needed to find two "development goals" for my receptionist. You suggested that I ask her, and suggested that she might like to take some courses. Bingo! I explained what was going on, and asked her what she thought she would like to work on. She wants to take courses, and she wants to go through old files in her desk area in order to discard or transport to offsite storage. She's been wanting to do that for a while and just needed to know that it was okay to spend time on it. I said, of course, by all means. So crisis averted, we have goals to work on this year and a strategy to find goals going forward. As a PS, one of the commenters chastised me for "ageism" for focusing on her age, and I, duly spanked, took that to heart. Thanks to all

Update!

This writer couldn't get a letter of recommendation after her layoff. She posted a response in the comments, but also sent me this:

My recent post was about letters of recommendation. I actually did post a kind of a follow-up, but it is listed as "anonymous." The only thing that has changed is that one of my previous directors did indeed supply me with a letter. He was never that "by the book" and was always a champion of me (unlike the person that chose me to be laid off). I also found someone of even higher status who now works with another company who is willing to write a letter, but I have not seen the letter yet.

This person's brother-in-law was going to be laid off, but

The other guy decided against trying for his license, so my brother in law's job is safe, for now.

Good for him, not so good for the other man.

This person took a dream job that turned into a nightmare. It has a happy ending, though:

Shortly after I wrote, things went from bad to worse, and I was let go at the end of September. However, my story has a happy ending. Via LinkedIn, a former co-worker saw my situation and put me in touch with his current employer. I was brought on board as a contractor in October, and went direct last week. I love my new job and the company and I am working for. They are very professional and the culture is fantastic - they truly value their employees. For example, my first week, I made a pretty serious mistake. I realized it immediately, and fixed it, but in other companies it could have gotten me fired. Instead, management looked at the whole situation (they liked that I had documented everything in real time, which made it possible for me to roll back my mistake easily) and realized the fault was really their own....I was too new to have been working on the problem. So instead of yelling at me, they reviewed THEIR procedures, and I came out looking good.

This person had an employee who was unable to work. These can be complex cases, and it got more complex, but it seems to be better:

Well, what happened… the employee hooked up with a lawyer who hasn’t really done him any favors. He actually filed a separate claim stating he hadn’t been given breaks. (Not true and we had an abundance of proof)). We went before the labor board with him, and our company prevailed. In the meantime he is still on disability, and the claim has not been settled. We are letting the insurance carrier handle it, and they say it will be unlikely that he would ever be able to work without some sort of restrictions. We have found out since that this is the second such claim he had filed (the other claim with a previous employer). After the Labor Board meeting, he was very upset at not having won his case, and verbally threatened us. Not too pleasant. We have no idea when he will be released for work, but the fact remains that he is not qualified for any type of office work since he cannot fluently read or write English or use a computer. His restrictions in the past included standing and sitting over certain lengths of time, no lifting, etc, which makes him unsuitable for warehouse work. If he comes back, I still have no position for him based on those restrictions. But based on what we know now, I don’t think that we will see him again – I think he is just looking for a large settlement at this point

Bad Grades

i found ur id on;line and found that u ans evil hr question. i am struck with a question in interview of "why my grades are so low". and also cant find an ans where a positive mindset is going to be created in mind of the interviewer. i am a law graduate.

You know why you can't come up with a positive answer? Because your grades are low because you don't care one whit about them. Or at least you didn't until now when you are in need of actual employment.

How do I know this? Because you did a Google search, found my blog and thought I could solve all your problems (and I could, if I wanted to!), and you didn't even bother to capitalize the first letter of every sentence. Oy.

Your lack of caring is coming through loud and clear in your resume, your GPA, and your interviews. I guarantee it.

It's not about coming up with some magic answer. It's about who you are. Some people have low grades but will make fabulous employees. They have drive and determination and had some hardship that they needed to overcome, or had to work two jobs to get through school or something. You can't even be bothered to use proper punctuation when you are asking someone you don't know to do a favor for you for free.

You need to start caring. You need to vow to never (and I mean NEVER) write another e-mail like this to anyone. I don't care if your friends all do it. You are now a grown up and grown ups don't communicate like this. (I know, I'll get comments about how someone is a super VP making $300,000 a year and writes like this, well bully to them, but it's not the norm and don't think for a minute that you can get away with this.)

If you write like this in your personal communications it will spill over into your job hunt. The attitude shows.

You need to be able to answer this question by stating the truth about why you got bad grades and what you are doing now to overcome that particular flaw. There's a standard question about your weaknesses--well this is yours. Overcome it.

Honest. It's a tough market out there and jobs are not readily available. If you want any chance at all, you have to prove yourself. Your transcript won't do it for you. Now, go out and change your attitude, and learn to use the shift key.

How Did It Work Out?

Evil HR Lady has been up and running for long time and I've answered a ton of questions. (Although, not nearly as many as I have not answered, unfortunately.)

Anyway, Ask A Manager had people write in with updates, and I hope she doesn't kill me for copying her, but if you had your question posted here, send me an e-mail at evilhrlady@hotmail.com and let me know what happened. Good or bad. If you could include a link to the original post, that would be helpful.

Please? I promise it will be fun. And I'll post the updates so everyone can see what happened.

Break Room Cell Phones

I have a question regarding the use of cell phones in the employee lunch room. I was recently asked this question by a manager, who I might add is problem manager, but that is another topic. So this is the question she asked

"I keep asking my staff not to use their cell phones in the building and around the lunch tables while other people are there, eating and socializing with others. I often ask them to punch out and take a walk 'downstairs'. I personally don't like being in the break room and listening to people on cell phones. What's your opinion on this please?"

So, Evil Hr Lady, what do you think? I would love to hear your answer.

This is an interesting question. If you had just sent me the question itself, with no other information, this would probably be my response:

Lots of people dislike cell phone talkers. Many restaurants ban them. There are quiet cars on trains. For some reason cell phone conversations grate on peoples nerves more than overhearing both sides of a conversation.

However, are these people being paid while they are in the break room? If not, why do they have to "punch out" to go downstairs? Some breaks are mandatory and I really dislike telling people what they can and cannot do on breaks. (Within reason, of course. No, you can't go get drunk on break because you will have to come back to work in 30 minutes and you will still be drunk.) Making a phone call seems to be a perfectly reasonable use of break time.

I have no problem with having a ban on cell phone usage in a company break room, as long as people aren't punished for going outside to make their calls. Sometimes calls need to be made during business hours, and wouldn't you rather they do it on break then when they are supposed to be working?

However, the question was within context of the asker being a problem manager. I suspect that no one else has any problem with cell phones being used in the break room. There may be problems with particular individuals--Sally, for instance, who has loud conversations with her sister about her fungus problem--but probably not with people making the occasional phone call.

This isn't a cell phone problem. This is a manager problem. She feels like she needs to have control of her people, even when they are on break. Part of me wants to say, "let's have a separate non-management break room" so that people can take breaks without being hovered over. But, I think that contributes to more problems. (Gives you much more of an Us vs. Them thing going on.)

What I would recommend in this situation is that you tell her that you haven't noticed an excessive cell phone problem, but you are willing to put it to a vote. Let the employees all vote on whether cell phones should be allowed in the break room. I have no idea what the outcome would be, by the way. I would vote for cell phones.

But, if cell phones are banned, I think it needs to be clear that people who go somewhere else to make their calls aren't treated differently from the people who stay in the break room and chat with the boss. Which may be another evidence of her need to control.

And just for fun, here's a little Evil HR Lady Poll:

The Joy of Unions

My brother-in-law works for a unionized company and has for 2 years now. He has all the qualifications needed for his job and is going to night school to get even more qualifications that are recommended for his job but not required. Another co-worker in another sector of the company is being laid off and was told by HR that if he gets a certain class of driver's license by the end of the week he can have my brother-in-law's job instead and they will lay my brother in law off instead. Is this even legal?

Yep! It's called bumping and it happens all the time in a unionized workforce. How the process works is spelled out in the union contract. Your brother-in-law may be able to bump someone further down the line. He should check into it.

This is one of the many reasons I don't care for unions. It makes no business sense to choose your terminations not based on the individual, but on some hierarchy hashed out by lawyers who have never met the people who will be effected by this.

But, that is neither here nor there. Hope the guy doesn't get a driver's license in time or ask the union rep if there is someone below him that he can bump. Which, of course, is unfair to that person. But, that person may be able to bump someone else, and so on and so forth. Sometimes, you can work it so that no one ends up getting terminated and the position that gets eliminated is a vacant one. My guess is, though, in this market, there are few vacant positions. Sorry.

PIP

Can a company divulge the details of a performance improvement plan to another company verifying a candidate's (assuming the candidate was put into a performance improvement plan by his former employer) employment history?

Can a company? Sure! (Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I have no knowledge of your actual location, so this may not apply to you at all.)

People have this strange idea that companies are a. only allowed to verify titles/dates/salaries or b. forbidden from giving bad reviews. This is false.

Now, if you follow the official rule book and your reference seeker calls HR (or an HR service center, which large companies frequently use) and asks for a reference, HR will give (or verify, depending on the company) title and dates of employment--maybe salary info if you are super-de-duper lucky. Most companies aren't going to authorize an official reference to include anything else. I suspect there may be some companies which will say if it was a voluntary or involuntary term as well.

However, someone who is actually doing a reference check and not merely verifying employment is going to ignore that 800 number and call someone you actually worked for.

This person may have company rules which dictate what he can/cannot say, but that's not to say he won't open his mouth and tell the truth about your performance plan.

And yes, your boss could get in trouble from his boss for doing this, but unless it goes into the level of libel, it's not illegal. Truth is still a defense against libel and a performance improvement plan (PIP) is an excellent way to prove truth. Whether or not the PIP itself was an accurate depiction of your performance is probably (hedging my answer here, as I am not a lawyer) irrelevant. Why? Because it is easily provable that you were on a PIP.

So, I suspect this isn't just an academic inquiry. If you are on one, you really, honestly, truly, need to work your tail end off to get off the PIP. You also need to go HERE RIGHT NOW and read Alison Green's (Ask A Manager) excellent column on what to do when you are about to get fired.

If it reaches the point of firing, it's important that you find out exactly what your boss will say about you if he is called for a reference. And don't think that if you don't put him down as a reference on a resume that he won't get called. Good recruiters are likely to call anyway.

For more on performance reviews:
Why a Formal Performance Review is Unnecessary.

Should you let subordinates do some interviewing?

How weird is that? You go to a job interview and find out one of the people behind the desk is a direct report to the position for which you are interviewing. Good idea or bad idea? Find out my thoughts over at US News and leave your comments there. Or here. I'm not picky.

Doodling

I am in a bind. I don't really know what to do. Previously, the HR lady in my fairly small office was nice to me, always smiling at me and saying hi, for about two years. Then, I got written up because we had this super boring mandatory 8 hour staff meeting and I was doodling on some papers that were passed out during it, which I wasn't doing maliciously so much as I was in an effort to stay awake during the 8 hours of sitting still in a hot room hearing about H1N1 and other mind-numbingly boring subjects.

In addition to this, one of my co-workers, who, during his time at my work, became one of my best friends, was fired for a really flimsy reason (official reason listed was that he fell asleep in a meeting, but i was sitting beside him in said meeting and he absolutely did nothing of the sort) and after his dismissal, I was very upset and distraught, and I shared these feelings with my supervisor, who I am sure shared my concerns with HR. Now, aforementioned HR lady won't even look at me, no longer greets me, and if I have to interact with her at all she is uncomfortably cold to me and as minimally helpful as she can be. I want to bring this concern about her conduct with me to my supervisor, but then who does it go to? Back to her, so that she can deny it and make me feel even more uncomfortable? I feel trapped. If it was anyone else in my office, I know who I would turn to, but who do I talk to when it is the HR lady that is making my work-life hell? What do I do?

I needed to re-read this question several times to grasp the concept--because I'm still in shock that you were written up for doodling? Honest? I'm a chronic doodler. I attribute my doodling to my success in life. Why?

A study that compared how well people remembered details of a dull monologue found that those who doodled throughout retained more information than those who tried to sit and listen.

But, I need to clarify something first. Your manager would have been the one to decide to write you up, not HR. Honest, we don't roam the halls looking for infractions. (Now, I will grant that there is probably an HR person or two out there who does this, and in some companies a lot of administrative staff has a hard-line reporting relationship to HR and only dotted-line relationships to the people they support.)

So, here's my best guess. Your manager is a dork who blames his own stupidity on HR. HR knows this, and the HR woman is now embarrassed to deal with you, because she's had to help out with the process of writing you up for doodling.

As for your friend being fired for sleeping in a meeting, again, unless HR Lady was running the meeting, it's most likely your boss who did this.

Which means, by complaining to your boss, you're complaining to him about problems he caused, but blaming HR. It's a little problematic.

This puts us to where you are. First, why do you care if the HR person smiles at you in the hallway? It reminds me of my freshman year in college where one of my roommates was absolutely convinced that one of my friends hated her. Why? "I saw Laura on campus today and she didn't say hi!" she would complain. I'd ask, "Did you say hi?" The answer was always something along the lines of, "I shouldn't have to. She should say hi to me!"

Now, we were 18 and dumb as rocks, and we've all grown up to be productive women who are hopefully not so petty.

So, if she doesn't smile at you, smile at her. If this really bothers you, make an appointment to talk to her and say, "I feel like there is a problem between us. I'd like to have a good relationship with you and your department. What changes do I need to make?"

Yes, it could be all her fault, but no one likes their faults thrown at them, and you can only change you.

But, I think the real problem is with the 8 hour administrative meetings with a strict you-must-stare-straight-ahead-and-not-blink policy. Take that up with your manager.

"I see we have another all day all hands meeting scheduled. Is there anyway we could split that into two days, 4 hours each day? That way, we don't get as far behind on our work and we stay on top of things." Don't couch it in terms of "I get sooo bored and sleepy in all day meetings." That will not go over well.

Now, assuming your boss isn't a complete idiot, it's likely that your doodling was the concrete thing they could use to describe you not paying attention in a meeting. I've done a lot of training/teaching and I can tell when someone is not paying attention. Your boss may be able to do this as well.

Will my high level connections overcome a DUI?

I have a friend pretty high up at a major company (in sales) who had recently talked to me about submitting my resume for employment. I had to gently remind this very good friend of mine that I have 2 DUI’s, but both are over 5 years old. I have since cleaned up my act and hardly ever drink at all. I certainly don’t drink and drive! She then took that information and asked her co-workers whether or not I’d have a shot at the position. They for obvious reasons told her that with so many viable candidates with clean records, why would they choose me?

But there’s a twist…One of my other good friend’s fathers happens to be a Senior VP with this very company. He was an ex cabinet member and has worked as a Senior VP for this company for around 6-7 years now. Needless to say, he has influence.

In your opinion, would this Senior VP be able to bypass “the rules” written or unwritten, with a letter of recommendation? Or am I still dead in the water? I doubt you can answer this question with certainty, so again, I am just looking for your opinion. I am qualified for this job otherwise and know I would be risk worth taking. My friend obviously feels the same or she would have never mentioned it in the first place. I am worried that my past in this regard has caught up to me and might prevent me from getting a job I really want.

Everyone has undoubtedly heard the phrase, "It's not what you know, it's who you know." There are certainly many cases where this is true, but usually you have to both know the right people and the right things.


So, in short, yes, a Sr. VP could pull strings and get you preferential treatment, and probably guarantee you a job. But, I can't see why he would want to.

You see, while VPs can pull strings, they can't pull them in a cost free way. If he does this, someone will owe him (or he'll use up his credit on someone else owing him). Usually, getting a qualified person a job would be low cost expenditure for your average Sr. VP. But, you have a big black mark next to you that increases the cost to him tremendously.

The problem with sales is that you are expected to drive around all day. Your car becomes your office, which means the company is liable for your actions while you are in the car. Unless it would be illegal to consider a 5 year old DUI, I would fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting a job which puts the company at so much risk.

I know you say you don't drink and drive any more, but there is no way for the company to know that. For all they know you just haven't gotten caught. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

If you were the VPs daughter, then maybe he'd try. But, for a daughter's friend, I doubt he would want to use up his capital and put his career on the line for you. Let's say you get hired and you get into a car accident. Even if it is 100% not your fault, it's going to come back and look bad on him.

Now, I don't know what the laws are in your state regarding how convictions can be considered. If they would require the conviction to be ignored, then go out and get the job on your own. Without the big black mark on your record Mr. VP could probably (and more willingly) put a good word for you.

But, if they can consider it, I would think a company (and any VP who suggested it) foolish to put someone with two DUIs in a company car. So, yeah, I think this is where your past catches up with you.

Failure to Hire

Recently, my company did not hire someone primarily because she was the sister of a former employee that did not leave on good terms. Of course they tried to frame this in a different way, but the reason was obvious. Is this legal? I've tried to look up federal laws on the subject, and I'm wondering if this type of action falls under illegal discrimination, since the person's non-hiring was based solely on her family relation to the former employee.

First of all, illegal discrimination is quite limited. It's not illegal to discriminate against family members. In fact many, many companies have policies against hiring family members of current employees. I've never seen one against hiring a family member of a former employee, however, that doesn't mean it's illegal. I'm not a lawyer, but family-member-of-former-employee-who-left-on-bad-terms is hardly a protected class.

That said, unless you were in on the hiring discussions you can't know for sure that this happened. Why did they bring her in for an interview if they weren't going to hire her, based on her relative? That makes absolutely no sense. If they refused to interview her, the relationship could have been behind that, but have you checked the unemployment rates lately? Honestly, if I had 300 candidate resumes (not unusual lately) and one was the sister of the psychopath we had to fire two years ago, I wouldn't put her as my top choice unless her qualifications were so phenomenally above the other 299 people.

And that's my point right there: Yeah, it's possible that her relationship hurt her, but there are so many people for each available job that it's not likely the only reason.

It's so much easier psychologically to blame your failure to get a particular job on something that is out of your immediate control--age, gender, marital status, children, sexual orientation, weight, etc. I'm not saying that people are never discriminated against in these things, but I am saying that more often then not there is another reason for the lack of a job offer.

If you spend time dwelling on the things that are out of your control, then you don't have to face the things that are in your control. Right now, with huge numbers of candidates, it's even more important to have your resume, cover letter, and interview skills perfected.

Yes, it's a bummer this woman didn't get this particular job. Her sister's bad behavior may have contributed to it, but it's time to move on.

Policies that you should fight

My exempt coworker had vacation days pre-approved by our Manager via our computer-based "time-off" system. At the last minute, some work tasks compelled him to work on those vacation days (the company benefited from his closing a large, end-of-year sale). The computer based system we use to request vacation days in advance doesn't allow us or a manager to cancel the requests, so his vacation hours balance shows the hours are used and "gone". Our HR says that because he's exempt, he's required to work when needed even on vacation days, and he can't recoup the vacation hours in his account. Aside from the moral/ethical lapse, can they do this?

First, I'm going to put on my warm and fuzzy "HR cannot possibly be this stupid" hat. Perhaps your friend exaggerated his work and he really took one phone call while lounging on the beach. If this is the case then he needs to suck it up because this is life. Or perhaps what the HR person he spoke with meant was the system wouldn't let him change it, but of course he could take it, just leave it off the record. Or perhaps it is one of those "you can't carry over vacation without VP approval" situations (since it is is year end). He should call and get clarification.

But, if he worked full days (not just responding to a few e-mails or taking a phone call or two), then there are so many things wrong with this, that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, that HR department needs to be ripped apart and thrown to the wolves. Do we remember what HR's purpose is? To help the business. That's right. How on earth does a policy such as this help the business?

Does it encourage people to work harder? No. Next time a situation like this comes up, your friend will go ahead and take his vacation and the sale will be lost.

Does it help retain good people? No. Your friend was able to close the sale. He's also now updated his resume and has started looking for a better company. (And if he hasn't, he should.)

Does it help recruit good people? No. Current and soon to be former employees talk about this stuff and it discourages their friends from wanting to work at this company.

Does it give people confidence in the company management? No. Managers aren't even trusted enough to be able to reschedule someone's vacation. (What kind of idiot implemented an electronic system where changes are not possible? I know, someone who never bothered to talk to an actual end user.)

Bah. I'm all cranky about this company. Tell me its name and I'll badmouth it all over the internet! (Just kidding people! Evil HR Lady doesn't need any lawsuits, and now my Evil Lawyer Brother is a prosecuting attorney, so doesn't even do civil law any more. But, if I ever get arrested in his town, I'll have an in!)

All right, let's talk laws. As you could infer from the above, I am not a lawyer. I don't give legal advice. I don't watch Law & Order any more, but I have been watching 24 so my understanding of laws has been severely screwed with. (As a note, on Law & Order when the plainclothes detectives need to bash down a door to go after seriously scary bad guys, they stand behind the people in full riot gear. In 24, when Jack and his current-partner-who-is-about-to-die (seriously, who would go out with Jack?) go first with the riot gear people behind them. No wonder terrorists keep coming back.)

There are not any federal laws regarding vacation, but there are state laws. I don't think you'd be able to pull this off in California, and probably not NY, but I can't say for sure. However, regardless of vacation laws, companies are bound by their own policies and handbooks.

Unless the handbook clearly explains this scenario I think you've got a good legal case. (Not a lawyer! Not a lawyer! Ignore this entire paragraph! Thank you.)

But, this is what I think your friend should do. Go to his boss and get his boss to agree to let him take the vacation without entering it into HR's stupid system. He's exempt for heaven's sake. He just closed a big sale. He deserves a vacation.

I think the boss should cut HR out of his life as much as possible. They have proved they cannot think clearly and are not interested in helping the business, so take away their seat at the table. (I doubt they have a seat at the table in this company anyway.)

Now, if the manager says he won't violate policy, then this needs to be escalated. And it needs to be escalated through your friend's management chain, not HR. The reason I think this is such a big deal is not the two days of vacation lost, but because of the message it sends. The message is "we hate our employees." This is not good for business. Honest, it's not.

Managers need the flexibility to manage. Employees that are willing to cancel their own vacations to close a sale should be rewarded, not punished. Such blindingly stupid control over vacation days just indicates an inability to understand employee needs. This means HR is truly out of touch. And HR departments like that give the rest of us a bad name.

Letters of Recommendation

I was recently laid off from my position at a large company during a first round of lay offs. I was the only official executive person there and did a good job. I was told that they have a "tool" that the manager uses to decide who stays and who goes, but my manager also assured me that the decision was not based on my performance. So, what is on these tools anyway? Also, I asked my manager for a letter of recommendation and was told that because he was a Director, he was not allowed to write one. This sounds strange to me. I have never had a situation where my direct manager could not write letters of recommendation. Is this common place? Am I getting the old song and dance on these issues?

There isn't a standard tool used for layoffs, but there are definitely tools used and it is very true that the decision is not a reflection of your performance at all. Frequently companies use things such as performance rating, location, years of service, and position to determine who stays and who goes.

Also (and I swear that this is true), high level people are especially vulnerable. Why? Money and power. Let's talk money first. You're expensive, as are your peers. One of the expectation of executive level is that you can do amazing things. There is a reason why you get the bigger pay check. However, this also means that your bosses always expect you to be able to do more.

So, when a budget crunch came up and layoffs needed to be done, it makes perfect sense that someone from the executive team would have to go. Furthermore, it makes sense that the big boss looked and said, "Who can we get rid of and who can take on this person's responsibilities?"

If you were the only executive person at your site, and they truly did this by a "tool," they probably plugged in sales/productivity/location/experience/performance rating/seniority and things unique to your company and determined that "The Duluth office can fall under the responsibility of the Minneapolis office." And so, Janet in Duluth gets laid off and Karen in Minneapolis gets extra responsibilities. An entire, expensive, salary is saved.

It's not personal. Honest. Except when it is, and when it is relates to the second reason: Power.

Now, I was not around when the decision to eliminate your position was made, so I have to assume that it was not personal and it was through a tool (this is VERY common) and everything is on the up and up. But, for the benefit of other people, let's talk power.

If you an analyst making $45,000 a year and you get a new boss and the new boss finds you annoying--not a bad employee, mind you, just annoying--most companies will not allow him to fire you. Terminating someone is a huge pain and ALWAYS opens up a company to a legal headache. (Lawsuits are headaches regardless of who wins. They take time and money to fight even if the whole premise is completely unfounded.) The new boss will go to his boss and HR and be told, "Suck it up!"

But, if you're a senior level person and your boss finds you annoying, well then, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Granted, the exit will be announced as "Janet has left to pursue other options" and Janet will get a severance package tied to a general release.

You might say, "Well, that's more expensive then whatever possible lawsuit the annoying $45k analyst could bring." Yes, well, but because the senior person has so much more responsibility it is that much more important for the senior team to work cohesively.

(Of course, none of this is universal. Businesses are like people--endless variation.)

This has to do with power, of course. This is not necessarily a bad thing. When you are in charge, you need the power to get things done and if you don't get along with your subordinates it can hinder progress. (Yes, I realize this applies at all levels, but the more responsibility you have the more important business feels it is.)

And here's a helpful Evil HR Lady tip for figuring out if you are on the executive chopping block: Special projects. Being assigned to a special project when you are low level can be a great growth experience and be good for your career. If you are high level and relieved of your other duties so you can head up this "special project," rest assured that unless you knock it out of the park, you've been slated for termination. Oh, termination isn't tomorrow, but they are thinking about it. You can save yourself, but be aware that once you hand over your regular responsibilities you should probably start taking home your personal items.

This is different then being asked to head up something new. New is permanent. Special projects have an end and when they end, the executive who headed it will have no place to go. (Because she gave up her other responsibilities, remember?)

So, those of you who are still reading are wondering "when in the heck is she going to get to the letters of recommendation part?" Yeah, yeah, I'm getting to it.

First of all, my opinion (and this is just how I feel, I don't know how others feel), is that letters of recommendation are practically worthless. I also feel that the recommendations on LinkedIn are worthless. Anything that is going to be read by the actual person being discussed is suspect. I don't feel that people are as honest in those situations.

Therefore, I always wonder what people have to hide when they present letters of recommendation. Why can't I just call your reference?

And that's the question you should ask: Can I use you as a reference? If the answer to that is no, then it's worth it to inquire as to why. "Because I'm a director" is a story unless the company has an official policy of not providing references and because of his position he knows he'd get busted and disciplined. You should know the policy and it's okay to challenge him back, because what is he going to do? Fire you? (I'm not talking about pitching a fit and burning bridges, I'm talking about pushing back and asking for an explanation.)

If the company will only provide employment verification, then that's what they'll do. It stinks, but it is what it is. (For a discussion on this topic, check out this post and comments from Ask A Manager.)

Good luck on the job hunt.

Educational Pauses

I started out in law school five years ago, and I attended full-time for three semesters. The school I was at got put on probation by the ABA, and the administration panicked and kicked out a bunch of students in order to increase their chances of maintaining accreditation. I got caught up in the purge and I was "academically disqualified". I wasn't a straight A student or anything, but I wasn't awful, either. I was your typical B- student.

The ABA requires a two year wait before any disqualified student can reapply to any accredited law school. During my suspension, I went to a community college and got an associates degree in paralegal studies. I graduated with honors. Now I'm back in law school, at a better school for me, and I'm doing well grade-wise. (I'm also a part-time evil HR lady in training to pay the bills.)

This was a long-winded way for me to get to the heart of the question. Do I have to put my first time in law school on my resume? I'm thinking that I don't, since I didn't graduate. I have been employed the entire time that I've been in school, so there are no resume gaps to account for. I transferred those units into my paralegal degree program, but that degree came from a community college. (I do put my associate's degree on my resume, along with my bachelor's degree.) I have on my resume that I'm in law school at my current school, with an expected graduation of 2011.

I've asked a few trusted people, and I get mixed responses, but none of them are in hiring. Also, if it comes up in an interview, how should I deal with it? I'm sure I'm not the first person to do poorly in school and then do better later.

Nope! You absolutely do not have to put your first time in law school on your resume.

You should never, ever, not in a million years, lie on your resume. But, you aren't required to put everything you've ever done on your resume. Remember, your resume is your way to advertise yourself. You never see a Hostess Cupcake ad saying, "Caution: If you eat 12 of thses in one sitting, you'll be sick as a dog!" (Not that I would know anything about this.)

If you weren't employed continuously, then you might want to consider including something because having a gap on your resume with no good explanation is problematic. But, leaving off schooling that is irrelevant is okay. Good luck with your current stint in law school and have fun in HR.

Things I learned on vacation

I just got home from a fabulous vacation in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt. I'd never heard of it before we moved to Europe, but it's a very popular vacation spot. We went and it was wonderful. Plus, I learned a few things about business.

Fancy isn't always better: We ate some really fancy desserts. They looked incredible. But, honestly, the brownies at a church potluck taste better.

Before you go spend all that money on the high priced consultant, see if you've got any brownie bakers in your company. You may be surprised that their view of the situation and proposed solution is actually more palatable then the one dreamed up by the B school grads with the fancy power point presentations. After all, your people are in the trenches every day.

Under promising and over delivering really works: We flew on Edelweiss Air. I have such low expectations of airlines that I about fell over when the flight attendant brought out little backpacks with coloring books and beach balls in them for my children. Wow! I said. I will fly this airline again.

The return flight was an evening flight and they brought me a pillow and blanket for my toddler without me even having to ask. "I thought this might help with the flight," she said cheerily. Again, wow.

Now, I didn't know anything about this particular airline when we booked the flight, but I expected the same lousy service I'm used to on the standard US carriers. By doing just a few things better then them I felt like I'd found the best kept secret in air travel.

HR has a lousy reputation in a lot of companies. If we do just a little bit better on the basics, people may actually start listening to the important things we have to share.

And speaking of airlines... We actually flew the same day as the infamous Panty bomber. I, of course, didn't hear about this until the next morning when I turned on my computer for the first time in a week. I rightly predicted that a whole bunch of new regulations will be thrown at passengers, none of which will actually make us safer.

The new TSA directives include "Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso." Super. So, if I'm a terrorist, now, I'll just put my plastic explosives in my socks.

See? Silliness. But, what do businesses do? Instead of coming up with solutions that will actually, you know, solve problems with problem employees, we come up with rules that will bother everyone else. For instance, we make exempt employees clock in, or we track when they log on to their computers, or we make them sign in and out for lunch, rather than saying, "Gee, we have a problem with Bill in accounting. He's not getting his work done. Let's work with Bill to come up with a solution."

Because, you see, requiring Bill and all his coworkers to clock in, doesn't actually make Bill a good employee and it bugs the snot out of those of us who are putting in 60 hours a week anyway, and get yelled at for not coming in until 8:13 when we were working (at home, on our laptops) until midnight the night before. Bill can be on time and still be a lousy employee.

Instead of imposing big rules that annoy your employees, teach your managers how to manage problems. Some problems can be solved. Some problems need to be shown the door and put on the "do not rehire" list.

Don't be a Russian Girl. We took a day trip to Cairo to see the pyramids. It was fantastic and fascinating. Our guide was a 25ish Egyptian man. He was nice and knowledgeable and funny and a little too open about his life. He told his he really wanted to get married to a "British girl," and did we happen to know any available ones? He assured us he would only marry for love, but she needed to be British.

Later he informed us that Russian tours were his favorite (he spoke Arabic, English, German and Russian) because the Russian girls were soooo easy.

Some of you may find out that your boss actually considers you a "Russian girl" while you keep thinking you're British. Stay with me and I'll explain.

I get e-mails from people all the time complaining about how they are hard workers, competent, get regular praise, but can't ever get promoted. That's because you are missing some quality that your boss (or your company) has decided is essential to a promotion. Any "Russian girl" dating our tour guide may think she's doing everything right to have a relationship that progresses to marriage, but our guide is just using her.

Unlike our love seeking tour guide's "dates" you can do something about changing yourself from Russian to British. Find out what those qualities are that you are missing. Work to obtain them. Realize that your particular boss may never recognize that you would be good in a higher role and leave the department or company. If you have cannot gain the necessary qualifications to "become British" then find a company that values your Russian-ness. (And no, I don't mean be "easy." This is just an analogy and keep your minds out of the gutter. Hard working! Responsible! Be good!)

No need to be so sensitive: We were in Egypt on Christmas Eve and Christmas day. Egypt is mostly Muslim. They put on a fantastic Christmas party for the guests. I have no idea of the religious affiliation of the rest of the guests, but I'm guessing the mothers in headscarves telling little "Mohammed"or "El Sayed" to go sit on Santa's knee (Santa rode in on a camel!) weren't practicing Christians. But it was a good party and so they came.

Most of the guests were from Europe (both Western and Eastern Europe), where most people celebrate Christmas. So, the hotel staff said, "Hey it's good for business if we cater to the bulk of our clientele. We realize that those of us putting up the Christmas trees and some of our guests won't actually be celebrating, but most of the guests will be." And so they did.

If your company has a Christmas party and you're Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/Whatever, don't sulk in the corner because it's not your holiday. Likewise, if you're Christian and your company has a generic "holiday" party, don't go sulking in the corner complaining about how it should be a Christmas party. Come on, lighten up. It's a party. No one is asking you to be baptized or declare your faith null and void.

I'm sure more than a few non-Christian kids climbed on Santa's knee and got a present. Super for them. And super for their parents. Before you pitch a fit about something, ask yourself, "is this important, or is it just a party?" If it's the latter, let it go.

And speaking of letting things go: Sharm El Sheik is on the Sinai Peninsula. This bit of land has been the site of many wars over hundreds of years. Now, while the snorkeling is fabulous and a hike to where Moses received the 10 commandments (among other things, but this is not a Sunday school lesson), is enlightening, the rest of the place is pretty desolate.

We kept asking ourselves, "Why do so many people care about this piece of land?" This, of course, was a rhetorical question. We know why they care. (Both my husband and I have degrees in politics and I studied Hebrew in college, for goodness sakes. We know why from an intellectual stand point.) My point is, that if you don't have an emotional/religious/historical attachment at stake it's not great land.

How many times do employees hold grudges, or attempt to cling to a project that is doomed to failure because they've already invested time into it? Sometimes you need to take a step back and just let go. Give that project to the person who has been angling for it for months and work on something else. Evaluate if this really is the hill you want to die on, before you go to battle. Some things just aren't as great in the cold light of day as we build them up to be in our minds.

These are a few of the things I learned on my vacation. I also learned I can get Betty Crocker brownie mix in Egypt, but not in Switzerland. That's worth a post of its own some day.

Benefits Swap

I have a single employee, currently enrolled in our group health plan, who is getting married to someone who does not work with us in April. He wants to drop our health insurance group plan in favor of joining his bride's group plan with her employer when he gets married. But he has asked our business owner if we would be willing to pay his new wife's monthly premium. He's arguing that it would be cheaper for the company to do this instead of carrying him and his wife on our health care, and our boss likes the idea.

Is this legit? I'm worried that it might be discriminatory (wouldn't we have to offer to pay for all our employee's spouses health care premiums?) Are we going down a road we don't want to travel? Or is this a clever way to reduce health care costs. I'm not an HR expert, just the poor guy assigned to these duties in the office, and I really could use some guidance. We're located in Pennsylvania.

This is an excellent question, for which I don't know the answer. So, I'm publishing it anyway! I used to work for a company that did just that, but that was 11 years ago, I was an admin, and I certainly wasn't in on any of the discussions. It was in New York State, if that helps any. I worked with some fine people, so I presume they did their legal checking, but it was also a very small company, so who knows?

Anybody know the answer to this, or how to proceed? I would never want a policy where you paid the whole amount of the spouse's insurance increase.

I would just raise everyone's salary by $200 (or whatever) and increase the amount they paid towards their own benefits by $200, so if they didn't take the insurance, they would have the extra $200. But, of course, once you did that, people would forget about that and you'd run into the same situation later.

Firing with a delay

I am the manager of an administrative team of seven people plus myself. Next year I am going to have to lay off one of my people for poor performance and inability to work as independently as the job requires. She's been informed of her poor performance but doesn't seem to understand that we are serious.

She has been in this position for about six years. Because of rules in our state institution, we are required to give her at least three months notice. We are allowed the option of moving her to a different position once she has received notice, but we don't have any other position open at this time. Sending her home and paying her for three months isn't an option. She can certainly leave earlier if she gets another job, but I can't count on that happening.

My question is, what is the best way to work with the rest of the team, who will definitely be shocked and surprised and unhappy that she is being let go? Her performance issues aren't evident to them. I can't cite budget issues because we will actually be hiring two people to replace her (each will handle half of her job and take other duties as well). I'm reluctant to tell them that her performance is poor, because that seems, well, pretty nasty, like kicking someone when they are down.

I really don't want the rest of the team feeling like their jobs are in jeopardy, and I can't imagine what it's going to be like to keep going for three months with her still working there knowing she is leaving. Any advice on how to handle this?

First of all, I don't like using the term layoff for someone who is being terminated for performance reasons. It makes people leery of hiring people who were terminated for no fault of their own. But, that's neither here nor there.

I hate terminations with advanced notice. I'm of the "today is your last day" philosophy for precisely the reasons you outlined. It's hard for someone in that position to come in. The co-workers don't know what to make of it and it makes for a tough time for everyone. I much prefer payment in lieu of notice.

But, as you said, that's not an option here. First of all, if you don't think she's aware of how serious you are, do you don't have her on a formal performance improvement plan? If not, put her on one now. She needs to be totally aware. (Now, truth me told there are times in which you will tell an employee, "If you are late to work/miss an assignment/swear at Bob one more time you will be terminated." And then when the employee does just that they are in utter disbelief. But that doesn't seem like the case here.)

You seem to think that her co-workers will have no idea that her performance is low. I seriously doubt it. They suspect it. And if she has friends at the office, she's talked with them about the performance meetings you've held with her.

I think you are absolutely correct in informing her co-workers. Rumors are always worse then the truth. Notify her of her impending termination, with a clear statement of her last day of work. (And please be clear that this her LAST DAY OF WORK. "March 15, 2010 will be your last day of work. You will be terminated as of end of day on March 15." You'd be surprised at how many people don't process the fact that they are actually being terminated if you are not absolutely clear.) Then have a meeting with the rest of the staff. "Stephanie is going to be leaving us. Her last day of work will be March 15, 2010. We wish her well. The nature of the job duties are changing and we will be recruiting new people for the department."

Yes, you'll be asked a bunch of questions, none of them relevant. Stephanie will tell them all that you're a big meanie who is firing her for no good reason. But, don't stoop to the level of trying to justify your decision.

Now, one more thought before you terminate. If her co-workers truly don't suspect, it means that she's doing at least an adequate job in many areas. I don't know what her problems are, but if it's a case of non-willful non-performance, have you thought about dividing the job responsibilities now, giving Stephanie responsibilities for the things that she does well and hiring someone else for the remaining responsibilities?

It takes a lot of work to bring people up to the same level as someone with 6 years of experience in the organization. I have no idea what her issues are, but this may be something to think about.

You also mention that she will be looking for another job (duh!) but I kind of got the feeling you meant internally. If this is the case, please, please, please be honest with the potential manager about her inadequacies. Please do not play the "shuffle the bad employee" game. It is a bad game with no winners.

Why we should put filters on our work computers

I work for a small family-run company. Upper management is all related, middle management and lower is not. The owner is a porn addict. One of my employees, "Lisa", complained about his porn within her view on occasion and said she was offended. I tried several methods to resolve this issue without direct confrontation as I found out that another employee in the past was conveniently terminated shortly after voicing her complaint.

That said, the end result was that I had to move Lisa to another area. It was not a punishment by any means (the work environment is much nicer in my opinion) but she now complains that she was not happy about why she had to be moved. Since the move, she disclosed to me that she has a mental illness. She also has made several statements about how she doesn't have any money and she seems to be a chronic complainer. The quality of her work has declined since her move and I get the feeling that she feels that she can do whatever she wants because she knows the "boss' dirty little secret". I do believe that if she were terminated that she would pursue a lawsuit for sexual harassment or whatever else she could come up with. She does enough to get by although she is definitely slacking more than normal.

The family is not aware of his porn problem although it turns out almost all of the non-familial employees do. Since I have resolved the situation to the point where she is no longer exposed to the harassment conditions, do I have anything to worry about or can I move forward with the issue with her non-performance? Should I just let her performance go if it makes the basic standards? If I let the necessary management/family members aware of his porn problem then it is almost guaranteed that I will lose my job.

Do you have any advice for me?

Help!


PS This is the second small company I have worked for where I have faced this problem of an owner viewing porn in front of employees. Unbelievable!

Okey-dokey. And why don't we have filters on our servers? I know they aren't fool proof, but they sure do make it easier. (Yes, I know the answer to this, the owner is the porn viewer.)

You have reason to believe that someone was fired for complaining about the owner's viewing habits. You also have reason to believe that you will be terminated if you complain. Interestingly enough, Lisa has the opposite view--I know the owner is viewing porn so my job is safe. Because it is, from you, because you don't want to lose your job.

Puts you in an interesting situation, doesn't it?

Porn viewing in the office can definitely lead to sexual harassment cases and the owner is putting his business at risk by doing so. The fact that the last person who complained about it was fired and didn't sue probably makes him feel invincible. You know, the whole "It's my company and I'll do what I want!" mentality.

You say the family members don't know about the porn problem. I bet that is not true. They just don't want to deal with it. Not only is this man their father/brother/husband, he's their boss. Talk about a classic example of why family owned businesses have a tendency to fall apart.

Your first step is you need to make your boss aware of the situation, even if your boss is the owner's wife. There are real potential consequences to his behavior. You, personally, need to be able to document that you have done everything in your power to end the porn problem in the office. Go to www.eeoc.gov and learn about the potential consequences to the business. Here's a little quote to present:

The court held that the proliferation of pornography and demeaning comments, if sufficiently continuous and pervasive "may be found to create an atmosphere in which women are viewed as men's sexual playthings rather than as their equal coworkers.

I realize you think you'll be terminated for bringing this up. You, yourself, would be able to file a sexual harassment charge in that case. So could everyone else that is aware of this. You, as a manager, whose only action was to move the complaining employee, are demonstrating that the company isn't committed to a workplace free of sexual harassment. Seriously. This could become a bigger problem for you if you don't tell.

If I were you, I'd go contact your local EEOC office first, and ask for advice. Have them document that you are afraid you'll be terminated for bringing up the problem. Then, go to your boss. Explain the situation, including the person who was terminated before. Say that you expect that this will be taken care of or you'll proceed to file a lawsuit.

You don't say, but I'm guessing you're male, so they probably think you can't complain about porn. Not true. It's obviously affecting your ability to perform your job.

After all this is done, go to Lisa and have a discussion about her work. If she has true mental health problems and your business is subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, work with her to develop an appropriate plan. If it's not, work with her to develop an appropriate plan anyway. Explain that you expect high performance from her.

If she brings up the whole issue with the owner, tell her that you have escalated the issue and that she is free to approach the EEOC as well. Point out that you have removed her from the situation as well, so there should be no ongoing problem. This, of course, doesn't prevent the prevailing overall atmosphere of women as objects.

Now, normally, I would tell you to just go straight to the offender before you go to the EEOC, but he's already demonstrated that he's not interested in changing and is interested in retaliation. (Note to my readers--he gave me some additional info that he asked me not to share, as it increases the risk of identification. Just trust me on this one that the boss will retaliate.)

No matter what, you want to start looking for a new job. This company is messed up and it's doubtful this will solve the problem. If you are fired for this, you can definitely sue and will probably win but that can take years and years and what a pain. Your boss needs to be made painfully aware that this habit is costing the company good employees and has potential to cost it a lot of money as well.

Now, with the number of times I've used the word "porn" I fear for the comments. Oy.

You're not Jack Bauer

Find out why over at US News.

Of course, after I wrote this I found out that Jack Bauer might be replaced!

And PS, fellow 24 watchers, I'm totally lame and just started watching this show, so I'm only on season 2, so no spoilers past 9:00 p.m. on day 2. :>)

The Wife

I am a 33 year old that has been working at the same company for 5 years. Things were going along quite smoothly until about 10 months ago. This is an involved story, and I apologize for writing an email longer than you want. I just can't explain quite how nuts the situation is without going into it all.

I work for a private marketing firm of about 35 people, with 4 partners. We do not have an HR department, but rather one of the partners is designated HR partner and we are to go to him with any HR related issues. With the exception of 1 person, who I will call Dee, we somehow all manage to get along great. The real problem? Dee is married to the HR partner, who also happens to be my direct boss.

For the first 4 years that I worked for this company, I managed to stay on the "Good Side" of Dee. Dee is not in any management or higher up position - she is a peer to everyone else at the company. While I was on her good side, I was amazed at the mean, vindictive and hateful things she would say about her coworkers. I did not join in. Furthermore, the quality of Dee's work is astonishingly low, and it is generally assumed that the only reason she is still working for the firm is because she is married to one of the partners. I don't know of a single coworker who respects her or her work.

I managed to get on her bad side about a year ago when at a work social event I mentioned that I was putting my house up for sale. Evidently, she is a realtor in her spare time. The second she found out that I was putting the house on the market, she began to offer her services to me. Knowing that I don't find her work to be satisfactory, I knew that the last thing I wanted was for her to be my realtor. However, I wasn't ready with a quick response such as "Oh, my friend is a realtor and we are using her!" (This is beside the point that under no circumstances should I have to have a ready made realtor excuse, but it sure would have made my life alot easier!)

Anyway, over the next couple months she harassed me endlessly about being my realtor. I was "Realtor harassed". I finally told her that I had a realtor in mind that I had used in the past and that I was going to have her be my realtor. This is when the evil Dee came out! She told me that she was going to be too busy anyway, and that people were going to have to walk through urine to get to my house (I'm not sure where she came up with that one) and several other petty comments. I smiled and said "Well as long as it gets sold!"

The next day all hell broke loose. She strongly badmouthed me to several of my coworkers including badmouthing my job performance - insinuating to them that her husband, my boss, had said negative things about my job performance while they were at home at night. Being that the coworkers are my friends and not so much hers, they reported everything that was said to me. At this point I was still considered a "rising star" in the firm, and I am literally my boss's "go to girl" for everything, so I was suspicious. I routinely make him look really, REALLY good, and clients have let him know that. Furthermore, I considered him to be my mentor and we had talked at length about how important it is to communicate criticisms so that one might have a chance to improve - he had promised to always let me know if he had an issue with me. But since the accusation was brought up, I felt like I had no choice but to address it. So I spoke to him privately, let him know what happened, and told him that I had no interest in involving him in petty issues, but that if my job performance was in question, then I needed to know that.

He responded that No, he had no issue with my work and was very appreciative to have an employee like me. He said that he would take care of the issue and apologized to me that it was even an issue. He seemed to recognize that it was an absurd situation for me to be in. He also thanked me for coming to him. No other employee has gone to him when they have had a problem with Dee, they always go to other partners because they are too scared to say bad things about his wife to his face.

However, since this conversation 10 months ago, things have been different at the company. My boss seems like he tries really hard to separate his professional and personal life, but he's not really good at it. Dee continues to harass me in her own way - sometimes affecting my work and other times just being obnoxious. She routinely tries to make me look bad - I don't think she's succeeded yet, but quite frankly, the behavior is getting old. I have no interest in being involved in pettiness, but it's getting harder and harder as the days go on. I can deal with people I don't like - because I care about the end goal and I care about getting my job done. What I'm having a hard time dealing with is someone attacking me and tearing me down. I have tried very hard to control my reactions to her behavior, but after a year, I feel myself losing the battle and am feeling quite negative.

6 people have left the company in the 3.5 years that I have worked for them because they couldn't put up with Dee's behavior anymore. The company looses good employees because they refuse to deal with the bad ones. I have come very close to leaving the company, but I enjoy my relationships with my clients, and with the economy being what it is, there is NOBODY hiring in my field right now. I also enjoy my job aside from Dee! I've tried very hard to simply ignore it, but now Dee is involving our projects in the mess as well. I sincerely believe that she is affecting my chances for success at this company. Do I talk to my bosses again? What will come of that? Valuable people have left because of her, and they've done nothing. If I am valuable enough for them to fire her over me, then I'm going to be the employee that got my boss's wife fired, and that's not good.

If I do go to the bosses, how far do I go in explaining her behavior? Do I tell my boss that she's accused the president of the company of staring at her boobs? Do I tell my boss that she makes coworkers uncomfortable by saying terrible things about his mother to us? Because everything she has done is small and petty, I don't know how to explain it to them without sounding petty myself.

Part of the problem is that I can't really prove much. I can't prove that she's dragging my name through the mud to our clients, but I am 100% sure of it. I can't prove that she's done much of anything.

Alright, I think you get the gist of it and so will end this now. Hopefully you can see my conundrum. I'm really feeling like I'm in a no-win situation.

There is nothing worse then a co-worker with a side job that involves selling. Pamper Chef, Melaluca, Real Estate. It's all bad. (Although, as a side note, I had a delightful Real Estate Agent co-worker at my last job and she never pressured anyone.) Make this person the boss's wife and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Here are some realities: Dee is not going to quit. Dee is not going to be fired.

As long as you are at this business you will need to deal with her.

To his credit, your boss, recognizes there is a problem and is not intentionally holding it against you. Obviously, he's got a difficult situation going on. Even though you are the only one who has gone to him with Dee problems, his response to you indicates that he knows full well what she is like. It's uncomfortable for him.

In the past you "stayed out of it" hoping that Dee would keep attacking others and leave you alone. This worked for a while. Now you are the target and others are laying low, hoping Dee will just leave them alone.

The time to hope Dee leaves everyone alone has come to an end. This plan will work best if you have some trusted co-workers that you can bring in on it. If not, you can go it alone. Here's what you do:

Every time Dee makes a negative comment about another worker, speak up. "Dee, you know that Ryan did a great job on the Jones account. Why would you say otherwise?" "Dee, that is an inappropriate comment." "Dee, why would you say that? Stephanie is hard worker with good results." "Dee, I didn't choose you as my realtor because I wanted someone who had experience in my neighborhood." Don't cower from her. Don't be mean, just let her know that you are not going to listen to or tolerate her mean behavior.

None of your other coworkers like her either, but they have been too scared to speak up. If you start this others will follow. Dee will go crying to her husband. But, given his earlier response it's doubtful that he'll do anything towards the rest of you. He's undoubtedly tired of the problem as well.

Don't run to any of the partners about her behavior. They see it. The other partners are just as stuck as you are. Just work on retraining her. (Also, I wouldn't worry about the quality of her work. I'd just focus on the meanness.)

If no one will listen to/put up with her mean behavior she'll have to change somehow. She may just sulk, but at least that's quiet. She may realize she can't expect immunity any more because she's a partner's wife.

This plan requires extreme caution. You cannot say, "Dee you are such a jerk!" Or "Dee, stop being rude!" You can only say things that are actual fact. If her complaint about how dumb Ryan is is met with, "Ryan did a good job on the Jones account," how is she going to complain to her husband about you? "But she said that Ryan did a good job!!! Waah!" See, it holds no water. Now, if you said, "Dee, stop being a jerk to Ryan," then she can say, "That big meanie called me a jerk!" So, don't do that.

And, just to be on the safe side, it's always a good idea to freshen up your resume! But, my bet is that as long as you say these things firmly and stick to the facts, you will have nothing to fear. But, also, keep notes. Just in case