Most of us know this quote, the character who states it, and in what story. It is the exclamation that assures us all’s right with the world, after all. Greed and an old sourpuss do not prevail. The statement is uncomplicated, clear, succinct – like my sister’s philosophy of life – “Just be nice to each other.” And, I hear you sigh: “If only it were that simple”.
Ok, so it isn’t. Get over it. Life is all grey when you are in the HR business. I taught a class in Sexual Harassment Prevention for Supervisors at a Valley fruit packing house last week and the owner of the company kept saying “But they won’t listen,” and “OK, but what if this happened instead . . .?” He wanted to hear a yes or no, black or white answer to situations that never are. The best I could do was to tell him his job (and that of his supervisors) was to create an atmosphere of respect and enforce it. Model it.
My favorite of his scenario/questions was this: “What if some male employees are at lunch at a restaurant and an effeminate man walks by and they call him a ‘fag’, and one of the guys at the table is a closeted homosexual: is that harassment?” I was ready with my standard HR response: “It depends.” But before I could elaborate or say “What kind of morons are you hiring, who think it’s OK to talk like that, especially in public, for God's sake?” he said it had happened at a previous job. And the guy had claimed harassment and “got some money for it”.
I often respond to a scenario like that by telling them to turn it around: pretend the person who walked by was an elderly woman, or a beautiful woman, or a person in a wheelchair. Would the morons at lunch have said one was an “old hag”, the next a “whore”, and the last a “cripple”? Certainly not. My point was that if appropriate, respectful behavior can be learned in those instances, it can be learned for all instances. We must model and demand decent behavior if we don't want to run the risk of losing “some money for it.”
New stats have been released that remind me of all the ways we find to be mean to each other. (It’s like watching Law and Order on TV – what will some maniac come up with this week?)The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has just had its three busiest years in a row. (And "that's nothin' to be proud of, Rusty").Charges in FY 2010 numbered over 99,000! I expect we'll see retaliation, race, religious, and disability discrimination top the list again this year.
Please don't dismiss these numbers by saying they are caused by new laws and/or the high unemployment rate. Yes, those things have an impact, but we let ourselves off the hook if we find solace in those excuses rather than acknowledging our duty as employers to demand that our employees be civil to each other. Besides, nobody wants to work with a bunch of Scrooges.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Blackmail, I-9 Style
Here's a new one: a former employee contacts a current employee and tells him if he doesn't support the former employee, the former employee will reveal that he (the current employee) is an illegal alien. So the current employee tells his boss about the threat -- he doesn't even know what the former employee is talking about. "Support him" in what?? But he knows a threat when he hears one.
Background: The former employee and others were laid off when business slowed, and subsequently claimed they didn't get their meal and rest breaks. Labor Commissioner found for the employer!
Question: This sounds like revenge against the employer, but is still a threat to the employee. Does the employer now have knowledge that the existing employee is not properly documented?
Background: The former employee and others were laid off when business slowed, and subsequently claimed they didn't get their meal and rest breaks. Labor Commissioner found for the employer!
Question: This sounds like revenge against the employer, but is still a threat to the employee. Does the employer now have knowledge that the existing employee is not properly documented?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Undocumented Workers: Part 2
The thing is, we have used an underpaid workforce since Jamestown. But I didn’t want to get into that discussion when I addressed the increase in worker documentation audits by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at a recent Good Morning, SLO. I didn't want to talk about the $1 apple. I was happy to point out, however, that if one of your competitors is paying workers under the table, at less than minimum wage, then they are also not paying their share of payroll tax and probably not paying for workers comp insurance. Unfair competition, I’d say.
The Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have focused on the little guy for the past 3 years. Documentation investigations, which precede I-9 audits, have increased 8-fold since 2007. 170 business owners have been arrested in 2010 alone. Arresting the owners only started as a supplement to fines a few years ago. The first to be arrested were the owners of the fence company that built the fence between the USA and Mexico. I love it! Yes, the company that built the fence was using undocumented workers. I can just see the sign on the fence: ABC Fence Co, San Diego. And then in small print, in Spanish: If you can get over this fence we’ll give you a job. No questions asked.
So the feds are going to the source of the jobs: the broader the enforcement the better the compliance. As long as we have these laws we might as well enforce them.
It is to the file cabinet or binder of I-9s that the DHS will head if they come to your business. So the I-9 form is the place to start in making sure your workers are properly documented. The fines for failing to do so range from $110 to over $10,000 per worker, so it behooves you to learn how to do this right. By the employee’s third day.
You have the list of acceptable documents on the back of the I-9, and the instructions tell you whether to place the information in List A, B or C on the form. You don't have to be a forgery expert, but you do have to review the originals and you when you sign the form you are attesting that they appear genuine to you.
Few employees carry their social security card or other documents with them, so I recommend telling the applicant when they are hired, what to bring with them on their first day: Whatever info you need to complete the W-4, and the I-9. Give them the list of acceptable docs: you may not tell them to bring their social security card and driver’s license or any other specific document. If you want the social security number for the W-4, that’s fine. And the driver’s license and proof of insurance for driving on company business, also fine. But don’t confuse these requirements with the I-9.
You could be guilty of discrimination: just ask Catholic Healthcare West. Seems they had a habit of asking for more documentation from only the more swarthy looking applicants.
The Department of Homeland Security and other agencies have focused on the little guy for the past 3 years. Documentation investigations, which precede I-9 audits, have increased 8-fold since 2007. 170 business owners have been arrested in 2010 alone. Arresting the owners only started as a supplement to fines a few years ago. The first to be arrested were the owners of the fence company that built the fence between the USA and Mexico. I love it! Yes, the company that built the fence was using undocumented workers. I can just see the sign on the fence: ABC Fence Co, San Diego. And then in small print, in Spanish: If you can get over this fence we’ll give you a job. No questions asked.
So the feds are going to the source of the jobs: the broader the enforcement the better the compliance. As long as we have these laws we might as well enforce them.
It is to the file cabinet or binder of I-9s that the DHS will head if they come to your business. So the I-9 form is the place to start in making sure your workers are properly documented. The fines for failing to do so range from $110 to over $10,000 per worker, so it behooves you to learn how to do this right. By the employee’s third day.
You have the list of acceptable documents on the back of the I-9, and the instructions tell you whether to place the information in List A, B or C on the form. You don't have to be a forgery expert, but you do have to review the originals and you when you sign the form you are attesting that they appear genuine to you.
Few employees carry their social security card or other documents with them, so I recommend telling the applicant when they are hired, what to bring with them on their first day: Whatever info you need to complete the W-4, and the I-9. Give them the list of acceptable docs: you may not tell them to bring their social security card and driver’s license or any other specific document. If you want the social security number for the W-4, that’s fine. And the driver’s license and proof of insurance for driving on company business, also fine. But don’t confuse these requirements with the I-9.
You could be guilty of discrimination: just ask Catholic Healthcare West. Seems they had a habit of asking for more documentation from only the more swarthy looking applicants.
Illegal Workers: Feds are Targeting Smaller Businesses
I had the pleasure of speaking at Good Morning, SLO a few weeks ago. It’s the monthly gathering of 200 or so business owners, managers, and non-profit leaders, mostly members of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. I get to speak often to the group, although usually only for a minute or two and to introduce someone or an upcoming event. I usually get a laugh or two and that’s fun for me. But I have to be careful: I once helped introduce an upcoming performance of the very moving Teen Mommalogues and found myself explaining what “Mommalogues” meant by saying it was “the talk my mom never had with me.” I had to bite my tongue to stop there. OK, I admit – I didn't stop there. That’s what I mean about being careful.
When the Chamber first asked me to present the topic of immigration I balked: not a politician, don't want to get embroiled in a no-win debate, etc. Sure, there’s an HR element, but it would be a lot to cover in 5 minutes. And not sure I would get a laugh.
Would I try? Sure: heck, as my friend Marci says, I never met a microphone I didn't like.
The reason I thought the topic was justified? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly the INS) has changed its approach to enforcing the laws around documented workers. They used to take years to investigate a big business, often by tracking the labor contractor, then they raided it, fined the owners, and deported hundreds of undocumented employees. Now the DHS is focusing on smaller businesses, expecting a smaller “take”, but figuring to make it up in volume. They are less concerned now with sending the undocumented workers home than they are with shutting down the source: businesses who employ them.
We are seeing a similar shift to volume in other agencies: OSHA and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have hired hundreds of investigators, as has the DHS, and they are now pursuing smaller fines. I heard a report that the EEOC levied a fine as low as $20,000 against a business for discrimination. I was shocked. In the past, the EEOC would not bother with any case that did not promise a fine over $100,000.
So even if your business is not AG or hospitality, be sure your documentation is in order. It all starts with the I-9, the form that documents the 1) identity, and 2), right to work in the United States for every one of your employees. Everyone. By the 3rd day of work. Or you have to let them go.
The list of acceptable documents is on the back of the form, and the directions on how to fill it out are pretty clear, but I come across errors by my consulting clients every day. And even the simplest error can cost you: from $110 - $1100 fine for incomplete or inaccurate paperwork. $10,000 for knowing hiring an undocumented worker. As we used to say at Home Depot: Read the directions.
When the Chamber first asked me to present the topic of immigration I balked: not a politician, don't want to get embroiled in a no-win debate, etc. Sure, there’s an HR element, but it would be a lot to cover in 5 minutes. And not sure I would get a laugh.
Would I try? Sure: heck, as my friend Marci says, I never met a microphone I didn't like.
The reason I thought the topic was justified? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (formerly the INS) has changed its approach to enforcing the laws around documented workers. They used to take years to investigate a big business, often by tracking the labor contractor, then they raided it, fined the owners, and deported hundreds of undocumented employees. Now the DHS is focusing on smaller businesses, expecting a smaller “take”, but figuring to make it up in volume. They are less concerned now with sending the undocumented workers home than they are with shutting down the source: businesses who employ them.
We are seeing a similar shift to volume in other agencies: OSHA and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have hired hundreds of investigators, as has the DHS, and they are now pursuing smaller fines. I heard a report that the EEOC levied a fine as low as $20,000 against a business for discrimination. I was shocked. In the past, the EEOC would not bother with any case that did not promise a fine over $100,000.
So even if your business is not AG or hospitality, be sure your documentation is in order. It all starts with the I-9, the form that documents the 1) identity, and 2), right to work in the United States for every one of your employees. Everyone. By the 3rd day of work. Or you have to let them go.
The list of acceptable documents is on the back of the form, and the directions on how to fill it out are pretty clear, but I come across errors by my consulting clients every day. And even the simplest error can cost you: from $110 - $1100 fine for incomplete or inaccurate paperwork. $10,000 for knowing hiring an undocumented worker. As we used to say at Home Depot: Read the directions.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Why We Have Employment Laws
If we want to understand why this country has so many draconian safety regulations we need only wait for the next fire on a drilling platform and learn about the alarms turned off so that the crews could sleep. Or we can wait until there is a cave-in at a mine & hear about the hundreds of short-cuts taken and violations for which the mine was cited over the years.
It is not always that clear in employment law – I have said before that if it weren’t for the industrial revolution we wouldn’t have as many laws. But employers chained women and children to sewing machines and they worked 18 hour shifts in locked, airless rooms. For a pittance.
If this country had a history of treating its employees well, then maybe by now employees could decide if they need a break every 2 hours; and maybe it would be left to the employer and the employee to decide what schedule worked best for them both.
So if our current regulations are a response to the past, I wonder what will be the legacy of the current employment relationship.
It is not always that clear in employment law – I have said before that if it weren’t for the industrial revolution we wouldn’t have as many laws. But employers chained women and children to sewing machines and they worked 18 hour shifts in locked, airless rooms. For a pittance.
If this country had a history of treating its employees well, then maybe by now employees could decide if they need a break every 2 hours; and maybe it would be left to the employer and the employee to decide what schedule worked best for them both.
So if our current regulations are a response to the past, I wonder what will be the legacy of the current employment relationship.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The USDA Needs a New HR Director
“It only took me 20 seconds to do it,” she said. “Call this 800 number to block telemarketers from calling your cell phone for 5 years.” This sounds familiar, I was thinking, when my step-daughter replied she’d just called the number and got some kind of Reward Center with “money saving offers.” Then my son-in-law emailed saying he thought there was no such database. My friend said she assumed it was valid because she got the email about it from her company’s IT department.
A quick check of the facts at an urban legends website (snopes.com): yep, it’s bogus. There is no national database for do not call, and, yes, it was familiar. This ruse has been around since 2004.
I remembered my friend’s assumption when reading about USDA employee Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign under a maelstrom of criticism as a racist. After the outrage, after the media flogging, after she resigned, someone finally stopped long enough to check the facts and learned she was the victim of a twisting of facts and truth – on purpose – designed to embarrass the NAACP. We know by now we cannot always believe what we see on the internet, but we trust the news media to check their facts. Right?
Apparently not. You see, the edited video where Sherrod appeared to be confessing her racism fit neatly into the belief system of Fox News and many of the people who heard about it.
Besides the news agency neglecting their duty, what was her employer thinking when they forced her out before they had all the facts? Even the greenest human resources professional knows to check the facts and the motivation behind charges against an employee. Where were the skeptics: like the ones who fill my Respect in the Workplace classes, looking for a hidden motive behind every claim of sexual harassment? “She wants to get back at him for breaking up with her.” “She’s mad because she didn’t get the promotion,” etc, ad nauseum. Talk of an ulterior motive can be wishful thinking by employers in denial, sometimes it is an impulsive leap to the defense of a colleague, and often it is pure retaliation: an attempt to deflect the heat from the accused.
But, like a stopped clock, sometimes these claims of ulterior motive are right.
I hate ulterior motives. It takes too much energy to watch out for them and too much work to figure them out. The world I want to live in is one of respectful, honest communication and collaboration among coworkers who always act in a friendly, professional manner. But until we create that world, it is HR’s job to consider every angle, motive, and assumption when investigating an incident or claim against an employee (or the employer). Regardless of the boss’s belief system or theirs, it is HR’s (and the news media’s) job to advocate for the truth. Period.
I’m thinking the USDA is looking for a new HR exec about now. And Fox needs a fact-checker who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid.
A quick check of the facts at an urban legends website (snopes.com): yep, it’s bogus. There is no national database for do not call, and, yes, it was familiar. This ruse has been around since 2004.
I remembered my friend’s assumption when reading about USDA employee Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign under a maelstrom of criticism as a racist. After the outrage, after the media flogging, after she resigned, someone finally stopped long enough to check the facts and learned she was the victim of a twisting of facts and truth – on purpose – designed to embarrass the NAACP. We know by now we cannot always believe what we see on the internet, but we trust the news media to check their facts. Right?
Apparently not. You see, the edited video where Sherrod appeared to be confessing her racism fit neatly into the belief system of Fox News and many of the people who heard about it.
Besides the news agency neglecting their duty, what was her employer thinking when they forced her out before they had all the facts? Even the greenest human resources professional knows to check the facts and the motivation behind charges against an employee. Where were the skeptics: like the ones who fill my Respect in the Workplace classes, looking for a hidden motive behind every claim of sexual harassment? “She wants to get back at him for breaking up with her.” “She’s mad because she didn’t get the promotion,” etc, ad nauseum. Talk of an ulterior motive can be wishful thinking by employers in denial, sometimes it is an impulsive leap to the defense of a colleague, and often it is pure retaliation: an attempt to deflect the heat from the accused.
But, like a stopped clock, sometimes these claims of ulterior motive are right.
I hate ulterior motives. It takes too much energy to watch out for them and too much work to figure them out. The world I want to live in is one of respectful, honest communication and collaboration among coworkers who always act in a friendly, professional manner. But until we create that world, it is HR’s job to consider every angle, motive, and assumption when investigating an incident or claim against an employee (or the employer). Regardless of the boss’s belief system or theirs, it is HR’s (and the news media’s) job to advocate for the truth. Period.
I’m thinking the USDA is looking for a new HR exec about now. And Fox needs a fact-checker who hasn’t drunk the Kool-Aid.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Health Care Reform -- Affordable?
I am speaking to the HR Association of the Central Coast tomorrow -- all about the Affordable Care Act. The only problem is, I am not sure it will really be affordable for employees or employers. But I do suspect the insurance companies will continue to be profitable and that the real costs of health care will not go down. How did such a pure concept get so screwed up and convoluted? Oh, wait, I know! Can you say fillibuster? Stonewall?
I imagine Teddy Kennedy is rolling in his grave.
I imagine Teddy Kennedy is rolling in his grave.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
11,000 HR Practitioners in One Hall
Did the title make you shudder? I tell you what, like when the local cops are all at one accident, I'm thinking some employees and employers got away with murder these last few days. 11,000 HR pros from the US (plus 800 from other countries) spent 4 days in San Diego learning the latest and greatest in our world. And it was great. I attended 3 workshops on the Health Care Reform regs alone. No, seriously: on purpose. And there must have been 6 on Leadership, and Diversity/Inclusion, demographic trends, benefits, technology, employee engagement, and, of course, labor laws. By my rough count there were 175 different presenters over 4 days.
Keynote speakers included Steve Forbes (he has faith that all will be well with the economy, and, oh yeah, a flat tax would help), Al Gore (also has faith in America's companies ability to survive if we adopt sustainability in more than just the environment), and Marcus Buckingham, the guru of talent & strength-based hiring, who wowed the crowd describing the difference between a manager and a leader. (I know,it sounds funny -- but we were wowed, for sure.)
Every speaker was gracious in their praise of HR for keeping corporate and small biz America from imploding, so we all drank the koolaid and have come home ready to step it up a notch. Watch out employees. And employers.Your HR team is pumped!
Keynote speakers included Steve Forbes (he has faith that all will be well with the economy, and, oh yeah, a flat tax would help), Al Gore (also has faith in America's companies ability to survive if we adopt sustainability in more than just the environment), and Marcus Buckingham, the guru of talent & strength-based hiring, who wowed the crowd describing the difference between a manager and a leader. (I know,it sounds funny -- but we were wowed, for sure.)
Every speaker was gracious in their praise of HR for keeping corporate and small biz America from imploding, so we all drank the koolaid and have come home ready to step it up a notch. Watch out employees. And employers.Your HR team is pumped!
Monday, June 14, 2010
Fired for Being Too Sexy?
Have you heard about the woman who is suing her previous employer for wrongful termination because she says they fired her for being too pretty. I've seen her picture and she's no Annette Benning or Catherine Zeta-Jone, so I admit, I may not have all the facts straight, but that's because the situation is so convoluted.
Here's what I know:
She said her managers couldn't keep their minds on their work when she was around.
They said she refused to tone down her provacative dress.
She said "What's wrong with pencil skirts and turtlenecks?" I am not showing cleavage, for crying out loud. (I added that last part)
She said (This is really her quote)"I could have worn a paperbag and it would not have mattered."
I say fire her for being so stuck up. As I said, she's no Catherine Zeta-Jones. But I digress.
There are pictures all over the internet of this woman (Debrahlee Lorenzana) in her regular (she says) business attire, which looks pretty professional to me. Except the photo of her sticking her butt out like Carol Burnett did when dressed up as that dizty secretary charachter, Mrs. Whiggins.
So: was she fired as retaliation for complaining that her bosses couldn't concentrate or for refusing to change her clothes? Is being too pretty a protected category?
At least it is a lawsuit that will be fun to follow. It will have as many layers as a good business suit.
Here's what I know:
She said her managers couldn't keep their minds on their work when she was around.
They said she refused to tone down her provacative dress.
She said "What's wrong with pencil skirts and turtlenecks?" I am not showing cleavage, for crying out loud. (I added that last part)
She said (This is really her quote)"I could have worn a paperbag and it would not have mattered."
I say fire her for being so stuck up. As I said, she's no Catherine Zeta-Jones. But I digress.
There are pictures all over the internet of this woman (Debrahlee Lorenzana) in her regular (she says) business attire, which looks pretty professional to me. Except the photo of her sticking her butt out like Carol Burnett did when dressed up as that dizty secretary charachter, Mrs. Whiggins.
So: was she fired as retaliation for complaining that her bosses couldn't concentrate or for refusing to change her clothes? Is being too pretty a protected category?
At least it is a lawsuit that will be fun to follow. It will have as many layers as a good business suit.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Overheard in a Breakroom Last Week
“I cannot believe that 60% of Americans approve of the Arizona immigration law! It’s unconstitutional.”
“Yeah, well I think it’s about time: the feds aren't doing anything about it.”
“Do you want to pay $1 for an apple?”
“And what about those greedy oil company bastards who sacrificed lives and the environment for a buck?”
Flash back to September 11, 2001 and a break room in an unnamed Home Depot:
“We should send all the Arabs back to where they came from.”
“I hope they round up every ^*#! ‘raghead’ and deport them.”
I was the HR manager in that Home Depot store. Diversity in our store meant that we had one East Indian employee and a few Hispanics: the rest reflected the very Caucasian ethnic makeup of the Conejo Valley. So as employees sat transfixed in the breakroom watching the horrifying TV images that day, all sorts of ethnic slurs could be heard and I didn’t hear one complaint about the coming ethnic profiling. By that afternoon I had planted myself in the break room and as new employees came in I gave them this little talk: “We don't know who did it, keep your prejudices to yourself, let’s just send our positive energy to the rescue workers and survivors.” That tiny redirection of focus made the breakroom and store merely sad, not bigoted, for the rest of the week.
But employers can’t plant themselves in their break rooms all day. Besides, you may agree with what is being said. But guess what, it is not a business issue so it doesn't not belong at work. Nor does a replay of someone’s date the night before, or the latest Sex & the City movie. Race, religion, politics, heck even the weather can be controversial: “We need the rain!” “No, it’s hurting the grapes!”
With elections approaching I am certain other break rooms have had other fiery discussions: this issue comes up at least every four years.
To stop a conversation that is disrespectful or inappropriate in the workplace, one need only say so to the parties doing the talking. Period. Stop it.
But anyone who has raised a child knows that may not be enough. The whole culture of the household needs to support respectful talk about suitable subjects or the lesson will soon be forgotten. Managers need to be told they have the responsibility to enforce the respect rule – whether they want to join in or not. Consistently: they don't get to pick and chose which disrespectful /inappropriate talk they allow to continue and which to shut down.
A good way to defuse an emotional discussion is to step back and turn the conversation on its head: ask yourself or those having the conversation: would I feel the same way if the tables were reversed? How would you feel if California law allowed the questioning of random people to discern if they had broken some other law? If law enforcement could make employers prove they hired only people with the right to work in the United States? Oh wait – that law already exists.
Well, anyway, respect should rule, regardless of the topic.
“Yeah, well I think it’s about time: the feds aren't doing anything about it.”
“Do you want to pay $1 for an apple?”
“And what about those greedy oil company bastards who sacrificed lives and the environment for a buck?”
Flash back to September 11, 2001 and a break room in an unnamed Home Depot:
“We should send all the Arabs back to where they came from.”
“I hope they round up every ^*#! ‘raghead’ and deport them.”
I was the HR manager in that Home Depot store. Diversity in our store meant that we had one East Indian employee and a few Hispanics: the rest reflected the very Caucasian ethnic makeup of the Conejo Valley. So as employees sat transfixed in the breakroom watching the horrifying TV images that day, all sorts of ethnic slurs could be heard and I didn’t hear one complaint about the coming ethnic profiling. By that afternoon I had planted myself in the break room and as new employees came in I gave them this little talk: “We don't know who did it, keep your prejudices to yourself, let’s just send our positive energy to the rescue workers and survivors.” That tiny redirection of focus made the breakroom and store merely sad, not bigoted, for the rest of the week.
But employers can’t plant themselves in their break rooms all day. Besides, you may agree with what is being said. But guess what, it is not a business issue so it doesn't not belong at work. Nor does a replay of someone’s date the night before, or the latest Sex & the City movie. Race, religion, politics, heck even the weather can be controversial: “We need the rain!” “No, it’s hurting the grapes!”
With elections approaching I am certain other break rooms have had other fiery discussions: this issue comes up at least every four years.
To stop a conversation that is disrespectful or inappropriate in the workplace, one need only say so to the parties doing the talking. Period. Stop it.
But anyone who has raised a child knows that may not be enough. The whole culture of the household needs to support respectful talk about suitable subjects or the lesson will soon be forgotten. Managers need to be told they have the responsibility to enforce the respect rule – whether they want to join in or not. Consistently: they don't get to pick and chose which disrespectful /inappropriate talk they allow to continue and which to shut down.
A good way to defuse an emotional discussion is to step back and turn the conversation on its head: ask yourself or those having the conversation: would I feel the same way if the tables were reversed? How would you feel if California law allowed the questioning of random people to discern if they had broken some other law? If law enforcement could make employers prove they hired only people with the right to work in the United States? Oh wait – that law already exists.
Well, anyway, respect should rule, regardless of the topic.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Privacy vs. Business Needs
Random drug testing & other privacy issues in the workplace: finding the balance of privacy and what's best for the business is very difficult and very important. And it mirrors our personal lives, too. Federal wire-tapping without a court order seems to be OK, but not secretly taping your employees to determine who is stealing from the register.
One thing often left out of these arguments is that the delemna affords employers another opportunity to counsel and coach their staff. Or come down hard with discipline and termination. Supervisors and employers are often afraid to discuss with their employees the issues behind behavior.
So the solution may not be in taping or not taping, but in setting clear expectations of what is private and what is company-owned (even behavior). And training your supervisors to have the difficult discussions with their employees as soon as there is a hint of trouble.
For what its worth -- I am not in favor of either wire-tapping or video-taping employees without a court order.
One thing often left out of these arguments is that the delemna affords employers another opportunity to counsel and coach their staff. Or come down hard with discipline and termination. Supervisors and employers are often afraid to discuss with their employees the issues behind behavior.
So the solution may not be in taping or not taping, but in setting clear expectations of what is private and what is company-owned (even behavior). And training your supervisors to have the difficult discussions with their employees as soon as there is a hint of trouble.
For what its worth -- I am not in favor of either wire-tapping or video-taping employees without a court order.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Health Care Affordability Act: It’s Only the Third Inning
Last month all you heard in the HR locker-rooms were complaints about all the texting going on. Employees were finding ways to bypass surveillance cameras and text blind. If a company uses Twitter to network socially about their business, how can they differentiate personal texting from business tweeting? OMG!
Well, this week, all the talk is about health care reform and how it affects the business and the employees. The reforms put in place by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) are designed to phase in gradually, but some things happen pretty quickly. And just because the biggest changes don't take place until 2013 doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t want to know right now what lies ahead. Our Safety Division Manager received demands for details from four of her Safety clients in the first two days, and our staffing staff got earfuls from clients and candidates alike. Of course, we in the HR Division were swamped with requests for info that wasn’t yet available.
So here are some of the basics that we know to date. As the presenter in a statewide webinar I attended last week said:”We are only in the third inning of what may be an extra-inning game, folks.” Translation: the law is passed but now the detailed regulations, standards, and enforcement get hammered out, and that will take awhile.
• Now: Small employers (less than 25 FT employees, or the equivalent in part-time) are immediately eligible for a 2010 tax break of up to 35% of the cost of premiums if they provide at least 50% of the cost of their employees’ healthcare coverage. During the week of April 19th , small business owners were sent postcards by the IRS, and the jokes about the IRS “finally taking a hike” were plentiful. For details about go to http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220809,00.html?portlet=6.
• June: A temporary high-risk pool will be established to provide access to insurance for Americans previously denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
• September: Lots of things kick in:
o Health plans may not deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
o Health plans must allow young people up to age 26 remain on their parent’s policy. Unless they are married. Not sure about school requirement yet and I have seen opposite answers to the question of whether the child must be a dependent.
o Health plans can no longer drop people when they get sick or place caps on lifetime coverage.
o Tight restrictions on annual policy limits. Details to be supplied by the Department of Health and Human Services.
One of the provisions of the PPACA that will impact employers and their employees is that some coverage plans will be grandfathered in even if they don't meet the minimum coverage requirements.
If we are in the 3rd inning now, I am hoping for some clarity and direction before the 7th inning stretch. For now, assure your employees that we are on their team. Not that there really is an HR locker room, but you know what I mean.
Well, this week, all the talk is about health care reform and how it affects the business and the employees. The reforms put in place by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) are designed to phase in gradually, but some things happen pretty quickly. And just because the biggest changes don't take place until 2013 doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t want to know right now what lies ahead. Our Safety Division Manager received demands for details from four of her Safety clients in the first two days, and our staffing staff got earfuls from clients and candidates alike. Of course, we in the HR Division were swamped with requests for info that wasn’t yet available.
So here are some of the basics that we know to date. As the presenter in a statewide webinar I attended last week said:”We are only in the third inning of what may be an extra-inning game, folks.” Translation: the law is passed but now the detailed regulations, standards, and enforcement get hammered out, and that will take awhile.
• Now: Small employers (less than 25 FT employees, or the equivalent in part-time) are immediately eligible for a 2010 tax break of up to 35% of the cost of premiums if they provide at least 50% of the cost of their employees’ healthcare coverage. During the week of April 19th , small business owners were sent postcards by the IRS, and the jokes about the IRS “finally taking a hike” were plentiful. For details about go to http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=220809,00.html?portlet=6.
• June: A temporary high-risk pool will be established to provide access to insurance for Americans previously denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
• September: Lots of things kick in:
o Health plans may not deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
o Health plans must allow young people up to age 26 remain on their parent’s policy. Unless they are married. Not sure about school requirement yet and I have seen opposite answers to the question of whether the child must be a dependent.
o Health plans can no longer drop people when they get sick or place caps on lifetime coverage.
o Tight restrictions on annual policy limits. Details to be supplied by the Department of Health and Human Services.
One of the provisions of the PPACA that will impact employers and their employees is that some coverage plans will be grandfathered in even if they don't meet the minimum coverage requirements.
If we are in the 3rd inning now, I am hoping for some clarity and direction before the 7th inning stretch. For now, assure your employees that we are on their team. Not that there really is an HR locker room, but you know what I mean.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
A Favorable Determination From the EDD
No, this is not a headline from one of those supermarket tabloids. This really did happen. One of my clients received a favorable determination from the EDD today. I had given up hope. I hate to admit it because I’m a lemonade kind of gal, but, really, after being told that an employee taking sales receipts (cash!) home over night instead of placing it in the safe was not grounds for dismissal, I thought: what’s it take these days?
But, after this decision, I no longer feel like I am in an asylum run by the patients. OK, that was over the top. Sorry. But in the irresponsible-with-money case we had documented earlier indiscretions, had demoted the employee, and had counseled him on expectations like working his shift instead of making up his own schedule. The money thing was the last straw.
I was told years ago by a former EDD employee not to lump a bunch of issues together when responding to an EDD inquiry about a dismissal – just explain the final incident. Be sure to indicate that the employee knew what was expected of him, that you had spoken with the employee the first time it happened, that you enforced the policy fairly, and that you were consistent with previous practices in doing so. Now I am rethinking that advice.
I was talking with another HR professional the other day (yes, this is what we talk about), and they said they received an unfavorable decision because they summarized 3 occurrences of the same policy violation, and the EDD told them they should have separated them. “They did this before?” “Yes, that’s what I said in my notes to you: 3 times”. “Did you talk to them each time?” “Yes, on the dates I indicated.” “Oh. You should have sent in 3 separate documents then.”
And how about the guy who sent his supervisor a threatening text message? Did we overreact when we let him go? I don't think so. Besides, sometimes, even if you end up having to pay for unemployment, it’s still cheaper than keeping the person on your payroll. And safer.
I can fully understand providing support to employees who are laid off or discharged through no fault of their own. A safety-net is a good thing. But is NO employee at fault?
So you can understand my delight today when my client called to say that the EDD told the former employee: “You were discharged from your last job with XYZ Company because your work did not meet your employer’s standards. You are not eligible for benefits.” (Cue Hallelujah Chorus)
There are 2 lessons here. The first one you know, but I am going to repeat it: 1) Document, document, document (on separate sheets of paper); and 2) All is not lost! It is still OK to discharge an employee who does not perform well.
If they take cash home, though, you may be on your own.
But, after this decision, I no longer feel like I am in an asylum run by the patients. OK, that was over the top. Sorry. But in the irresponsible-with-money case we had documented earlier indiscretions, had demoted the employee, and had counseled him on expectations like working his shift instead of making up his own schedule. The money thing was the last straw.
I was told years ago by a former EDD employee not to lump a bunch of issues together when responding to an EDD inquiry about a dismissal – just explain the final incident. Be sure to indicate that the employee knew what was expected of him, that you had spoken with the employee the first time it happened, that you enforced the policy fairly, and that you were consistent with previous practices in doing so. Now I am rethinking that advice.
I was talking with another HR professional the other day (yes, this is what we talk about), and they said they received an unfavorable decision because they summarized 3 occurrences of the same policy violation, and the EDD told them they should have separated them. “They did this before?” “Yes, that’s what I said in my notes to you: 3 times”. “Did you talk to them each time?” “Yes, on the dates I indicated.” “Oh. You should have sent in 3 separate documents then.”
And how about the guy who sent his supervisor a threatening text message? Did we overreact when we let him go? I don't think so. Besides, sometimes, even if you end up having to pay for unemployment, it’s still cheaper than keeping the person on your payroll. And safer.
I can fully understand providing support to employees who are laid off or discharged through no fault of their own. A safety-net is a good thing. But is NO employee at fault?
So you can understand my delight today when my client called to say that the EDD told the former employee: “You were discharged from your last job with XYZ Company because your work did not meet your employer’s standards. You are not eligible for benefits.” (Cue Hallelujah Chorus)
There are 2 lessons here. The first one you know, but I am going to repeat it: 1) Document, document, document (on separate sheets of paper); and 2) All is not lost! It is still OK to discharge an employee who does not perform well.
If they take cash home, though, you may be on your own.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
"Can We All Just Get Along?"
If you are of a certain age you will know that the above quote came from Rodney King, lamenting the fact that he was beat up my the police, who were not punished for doing so. Good for him: rather than fan the fast-spreading flames, he took the high road. I find myself repeating Rodney's plea lately, when reflecting on the destructive dynamics among some of my clients' employees. Yes, I did place the apostrophe in the right place. I have 2 clients in 2 states, experiencing similar conflicts among coworkers.
My brother says I should lock them both in a room and tell them they can't come out until they have agreed to get along. A more traditional approach is to sit down with them and attempt to mediate their concerns, make sure both feel "heard", and then . . . well, I guess, then you sit together until they agree to get along.
It sure isn't simple: if I take sides I am condemning one to a miserable work experience and not facilitating the other's growth. If I tell them they are acting like spoiled children (my brother's other suggestion) I have probably inspired them to dig their heels in harder. Have you ever seen a 35 year old pout? (Shudder)
All 4 employees add value to their organizations. Each has strengths that serve the organizations' missions. All 4 need their jobs.
So -- you are the boss: what do you do? (Oh, you thought I was going to solve this conundrum? Nope -- your turn. What say you?
My brother says I should lock them both in a room and tell them they can't come out until they have agreed to get along. A more traditional approach is to sit down with them and attempt to mediate their concerns, make sure both feel "heard", and then . . . well, I guess, then you sit together until they agree to get along.
It sure isn't simple: if I take sides I am condemning one to a miserable work experience and not facilitating the other's growth. If I tell them they are acting like spoiled children (my brother's other suggestion) I have probably inspired them to dig their heels in harder. Have you ever seen a 35 year old pout? (Shudder)
All 4 employees add value to their organizations. Each has strengths that serve the organizations' missions. All 4 need their jobs.
So -- you are the boss: what do you do? (Oh, you thought I was going to solve this conundrum? Nope -- your turn. What say you?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Lindsey Lohan and homelessness
OMG!! Did you hear that Lindsey Lohan is suing E-Trade for mocking her in one of their clever baby e-trader commercials? You know the commercial – a girl baby asks the boy baby e-trader if “that milkaholic, Lindsey” spent the night with him. Be honest – did that make you think of Lindsey Lohan? Drinking milk? Onterested in the stock market? Really?
Of course, it may be that Lindsey (the older one, not the milkaholic) and her dad are following that old rule that any publicity is good publicity. But, really: even publicity that makes you looks like an idiot? And now I will think of her every time I see that commercial, which really makes me mad. That was one of very few commercials I didn't speed past with my TIVO.
So I contrast this “news item” with another I came across on the same day: the 2009 San Luis Obispo, CA, County Homeless Enumeration Report. Now here is some information worth our attention.
What does this report have to do with employee-employer relations? Almost 20% of the county’s homeless have jobs. I don’t know if they are part-time or full-time or what, but 9% of respondents said they live in San Luis Obispo county because they have a job. Not because of the great homeless services, not because of the weather, but because they have a job. So, stereotypes be damned.
Some local employers have workers with no place to go at night, and the impact this one fact has on productivity, absenteeism, and morale can be significant.
Almost half of the homeless respondents with jobs work in construction: that can’t feel very secure about now. A third work in retail: not the best pay around, even though the great majority of our homeless have at least a high school diploma and a third have attended college.
I guess I would know if one of my employees did not have a home to go to. Wouldn’t I? What would be the signs? Dress and grooming? Sure, if they are one of the 46% who sleep in a vehicle or outside at night. Lack of engagement? Easy to believe they would have things other than work on their minds, especially if they are part of the 29% who are responsible for one or more children. (Of the 1372 children and teens counted on this January day in 2009, 384 were not in school.)
What are their special needs? I can’t expect them to advance any business expenses and wait for reimbursement, so does that limit which position they can fill? If you don’t have an address can you get a driver’s license? They can’t drive for me if they can’t afford insurance. That means they can’t run company errands: another limitation to their employment? What about a phone?
And what are my obligations as an employer if I do know that an employee is homeless? Nothing legal as far as I know. That milkaholic Lindsey certainly has a sense of entitlement, but homelessness is not a “protected class”. That’s for sure.
Of course, it may be that Lindsey (the older one, not the milkaholic) and her dad are following that old rule that any publicity is good publicity. But, really: even publicity that makes you looks like an idiot? And now I will think of her every time I see that commercial, which really makes me mad. That was one of very few commercials I didn't speed past with my TIVO.
So I contrast this “news item” with another I came across on the same day: the 2009 San Luis Obispo, CA, County Homeless Enumeration Report. Now here is some information worth our attention.
What does this report have to do with employee-employer relations? Almost 20% of the county’s homeless have jobs. I don’t know if they are part-time or full-time or what, but 9% of respondents said they live in San Luis Obispo county because they have a job. Not because of the great homeless services, not because of the weather, but because they have a job. So, stereotypes be damned.
Some local employers have workers with no place to go at night, and the impact this one fact has on productivity, absenteeism, and morale can be significant.
Almost half of the homeless respondents with jobs work in construction: that can’t feel very secure about now. A third work in retail: not the best pay around, even though the great majority of our homeless have at least a high school diploma and a third have attended college.
I guess I would know if one of my employees did not have a home to go to. Wouldn’t I? What would be the signs? Dress and grooming? Sure, if they are one of the 46% who sleep in a vehicle or outside at night. Lack of engagement? Easy to believe they would have things other than work on their minds, especially if they are part of the 29% who are responsible for one or more children. (Of the 1372 children and teens counted on this January day in 2009, 384 were not in school.)
What are their special needs? I can’t expect them to advance any business expenses and wait for reimbursement, so does that limit which position they can fill? If you don’t have an address can you get a driver’s license? They can’t drive for me if they can’t afford insurance. That means they can’t run company errands: another limitation to their employment? What about a phone?
And what are my obligations as an employer if I do know that an employee is homeless? Nothing legal as far as I know. That milkaholic Lindsey certainly has a sense of entitlement, but homelessness is not a “protected class”. That’s for sure.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Texting: The Key to Controlling the Latest Distraction
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but sneakiness is the father. Just ask any employer who is trying to curb the use of iPhones and Blackberries in the workplace. Some employees are so good at texting that they can do it without looking. Secret Texting could be the next Olympic sport: “Look at that! A 360 behind the back twist while checking movie times in his sweatshirt pocket! That should rate at least a 56.7, Bob”.
Employers have to decide if they want to keep employees from checking in with their BFF while they should be helping customers. Diligent, consistent enforcement is going to be key. Some outlaw cell phones altogether. Not allowed in the building. If you can’t live without your phone, you should get a job at the phone company. The thinking here: if it ain’t within reach it can’t be used. Other employers have decided to allow their employees to text while on breaks: they figure if they offer a time for their use, the employee will wait until then. Hmmm.
Lawsuits are appearing in this arena: blogging nasty things about your boss, hackers in your social media site, freedom of speech, and privacy issues are all in play. If an employee texts f-worded threats to his supervisor for changing his schedule is that free speech? If an employee is fired for no-call, no-show, but says she texted her boss that she was sick, is that sufficient notice? Should she be reinstated? If the employee agrees to pay for text characters over a certain limit on the company’s phone, can the company limit what is said or is this a privacy issue?
I tell my clients that this is just the latest distraction at work. Be consistent or you can’t expect compliance. Do you allow personal phone calls? Are friends allowed to come visit your employees while they are on the clock? Do you care if your employees come in a few minutes late or are you a stickler for being on time? Do you have filters on the computers so that your staff cannot access porn sites and Facebook? How much control do you want over the myriad distractions in the workday? When you know the answer to this question, then you will know the policy you need to put into place.
Here are two abbreviated samples:
1). Engaging in social networking and texting during your day can negatively impact your productivity and work performance. Therefore it is your responsibility to regulate your social networking and texting so that it does not impact your productivity or cause you performance issues.
2). Employee’s own electronic media is not to be used during work hours on the work premises under any circumstances. Texting and the use of Internet based programs such as Facebook, [etc.] is a violation of Company policy and use of these programs either on Company owned property or on your personal property during work hours on the work premises can result in discipline up to and including termination.
In either case, consistent enforcement – as always – is key.Let me know what you think.
Employers have to decide if they want to keep employees from checking in with their BFF while they should be helping customers. Diligent, consistent enforcement is going to be key. Some outlaw cell phones altogether. Not allowed in the building. If you can’t live without your phone, you should get a job at the phone company. The thinking here: if it ain’t within reach it can’t be used. Other employers have decided to allow their employees to text while on breaks: they figure if they offer a time for their use, the employee will wait until then. Hmmm.
Lawsuits are appearing in this arena: blogging nasty things about your boss, hackers in your social media site, freedom of speech, and privacy issues are all in play. If an employee texts f-worded threats to his supervisor for changing his schedule is that free speech? If an employee is fired for no-call, no-show, but says she texted her boss that she was sick, is that sufficient notice? Should she be reinstated? If the employee agrees to pay for text characters over a certain limit on the company’s phone, can the company limit what is said or is this a privacy issue?
I tell my clients that this is just the latest distraction at work. Be consistent or you can’t expect compliance. Do you allow personal phone calls? Are friends allowed to come visit your employees while they are on the clock? Do you care if your employees come in a few minutes late or are you a stickler for being on time? Do you have filters on the computers so that your staff cannot access porn sites and Facebook? How much control do you want over the myriad distractions in the workday? When you know the answer to this question, then you will know the policy you need to put into place.
Here are two abbreviated samples:
1). Engaging in social networking and texting during your day can negatively impact your productivity and work performance. Therefore it is your responsibility to regulate your social networking and texting so that it does not impact your productivity or cause you performance issues.
2). Employee’s own electronic media is not to be used during work hours on the work premises under any circumstances. Texting and the use of Internet based programs such as Facebook, [etc.] is a violation of Company policy and use of these programs either on Company owned property or on your personal property during work hours on the work premises can result in discipline up to and including termination.
In either case, consistent enforcement – as always – is key.Let me know what you think.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Leadership and Love
A lingering cliché is that of the weary worker coming home after a long day at “the plant” and kicking the dog. All those long-suffering Ralph Kramdens shouting “To the moon, Alice” at their (also long-suffering) wives. And the executive who wants his wife to meet him at the door with a martini and then keep the kids quiet and out of the way until he’s had a chance to relax and read the paper. Did all of our parents hate their jobs? Did our grandparents stay in jobs for 40 years only to receive that gold watch at the end of a life full of “thank God it’s Friday’s?”
Was it after the downsizing of the 80’s that we realized that if we cannot rely on an employer to always be there then we’d better not let our jobs define us? So now we have a generation of workers who do not hesitate to change jobs for any number of reasons. Don’t get along with your boss? See ya. Sink in the bathroom stopped up again? ‘Bye. One wonders if our current high unemployment means workers will stay in hated jobs again.
Then again, some people love their jobs. Love them. Can you imagine? Recent studies show job satisfaction dropping like a rock, but a popular management parable claims loving your job is possible, and helping you fall in love with your job is the responsibility of your supervisor.
The Radical Leap, by Steve Farber, is one of those little management books, like the One Minute Manager and Who Moved My Cheese, that provides lessons in the form of parables. My ear worn copy of this story about a wise surfer (seriously) is still close at hand, long after I stopped caring about my cheese and I listed reading it among the 12 suggestions for employer/supervisors wanting to improve the workplace in my December 29 blog.
The message here is that a true leader will inspire his or her employees to achieve success for themselves and the business by cultivating love: “Love of what future we create together, love of what principles we live out, love of what people I have around me, what they want for their lives, what customers I have and might have in the future if I am smarter, faster, and more creative in serving their needs. Love for the impact we have on their lives and the world as a whole, for what our business really is and what we really do at work every day.”
How’s’ that for an audacious attitude? The wise surfer says that love creates the boundless energy necessary to inspire the courage needed to overcome the fear that can cripple us. Michael Gunther, of San Luis Obispo-based Collaboration addressed the importance of attitude in the Tolosa Press a few weeks ago. We know it is going to take something special for our businesses to thrive this year, so we might as well try love.
What do you think?
Was it after the downsizing of the 80’s that we realized that if we cannot rely on an employer to always be there then we’d better not let our jobs define us? So now we have a generation of workers who do not hesitate to change jobs for any number of reasons. Don’t get along with your boss? See ya. Sink in the bathroom stopped up again? ‘Bye. One wonders if our current high unemployment means workers will stay in hated jobs again.
Then again, some people love their jobs. Love them. Can you imagine? Recent studies show job satisfaction dropping like a rock, but a popular management parable claims loving your job is possible, and helping you fall in love with your job is the responsibility of your supervisor.
The Radical Leap, by Steve Farber, is one of those little management books, like the One Minute Manager and Who Moved My Cheese, that provides lessons in the form of parables. My ear worn copy of this story about a wise surfer (seriously) is still close at hand, long after I stopped caring about my cheese and I listed reading it among the 12 suggestions for employer/supervisors wanting to improve the workplace in my December 29 blog.
The message here is that a true leader will inspire his or her employees to achieve success for themselves and the business by cultivating love: “Love of what future we create together, love of what principles we live out, love of what people I have around me, what they want for their lives, what customers I have and might have in the future if I am smarter, faster, and more creative in serving their needs. Love for the impact we have on their lives and the world as a whole, for what our business really is and what we really do at work every day.”
How’s’ that for an audacious attitude? The wise surfer says that love creates the boundless energy necessary to inspire the courage needed to overcome the fear that can cripple us. Michael Gunther, of San Luis Obispo-based Collaboration addressed the importance of attitude in the Tolosa Press a few weeks ago. We know it is going to take something special for our businesses to thrive this year, so we might as well try love.
What do you think?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Doppledanger Week on Facebook
What a fun idea: in the place of your profile picture, this week, place the photo of someone famous you (supposedly) look like. I have seen some hilarious postings -- and I got most my laughs before I knew what my nephew was doing -- I thought I needed my eyes checked!
Can we do something similar with our employees? They could pretend to be someone else this week: your attendence slacker could pretend to be the employee that arrives early every day; the complainer can take on the persona of the easy-going guy; etc. I think I'd like to replace the drama queen with someone who minds their own business.
Ideas?
Can we do something similar with our employees? They could pretend to be someone else this week: your attendence slacker could pretend to be the employee that arrives early every day; the complainer can take on the persona of the easy-going guy; etc. I think I'd like to replace the drama queen with someone who minds their own business.
Ideas?
Friday, January 15, 2010
A Year’s Worth of Resolutions for Employees
A few weeks ago I listed 12 resolutions for business owners, managers, & supervisors to adopt in 2010. Sure it was audacious, but aren’t all such lists at this time of the year? Not to be left out, employees now have a list for themselves. As with the other one, the hope is that working these concepts and activities into your worklife will result in a happier and more productive you.
So here goes:
1. Discover your strengths: remember the book: “Do What You Love and the Money Will Follow”? Same concept. There is something magical about it.
2. Leave your personal life at the door: think of it as a respite, an oasis if you must, but personal problems only muck up the workplace.
3. List what you can do to add (more) value to the organization: the boss may not realize all you can offer. Once you know what you can add, go tell the boss.
4. What can you take off your supervisor’s plate? Another boss-pleaser.
5. Find a “junior” employee to mentor: even if you are not a Baby Boomer who plans to retire soon, mentoring someone places you in a position of leadership, ready to be promoted.
6. Realize that you’re in charge of your own morale: are you waiting for management to “do something” about morale around here? Wrong.
7. Determine the temperament of your supervisor: figure out how he or she thinks; what kinds of projects they prefer? This knowledge will help you know how to communicate with them better.
8. Think about what you can do to ensure a respectful work environment: are tasteless jokes and emails running through the office? Knock it off. Be professional: you can still be friendly.
9. Take a class or training that will help you do your job better: stretch your knowledge and abilities. Now you are more valuable to the company.
10. Teach your new skills/knowledge to your coworkers. This ensures you have mastered the info and places you in a leadership position even if you don’t have the title.
11. Make sure your heart is in your work: Are you bringing yourself fully and gratefully into everything you do? What would it take for that to happen? Is this an alien concept for you to consider? Older generations stayed for decades in jobs they hated, these days employees jump around at the drop of a hat. Bring your heart to your work.
12. Talk with your supervisor about the big picture: one of the biggest differences between your job and your boss’ is that their view of the company is holistic. It is referred to as the view from 30,000 feet, where they can see the flow, what’s coming and going, what’s on the “horizon”. You, however, are in the “trenches”, as the metaphor marches on. What’s it like from their perspective?
There you have it. It can be a great 2010: a year of growth for you and better awareness of your value for your boss. Enjoy!
So here goes:
1. Discover your strengths: remember the book: “Do What You Love and the Money Will Follow”? Same concept. There is something magical about it.
2. Leave your personal life at the door: think of it as a respite, an oasis if you must, but personal problems only muck up the workplace.
3. List what you can do to add (more) value to the organization: the boss may not realize all you can offer. Once you know what you can add, go tell the boss.
4. What can you take off your supervisor’s plate? Another boss-pleaser.
5. Find a “junior” employee to mentor: even if you are not a Baby Boomer who plans to retire soon, mentoring someone places you in a position of leadership, ready to be promoted.
6. Realize that you’re in charge of your own morale: are you waiting for management to “do something” about morale around here? Wrong.
7. Determine the temperament of your supervisor: figure out how he or she thinks; what kinds of projects they prefer? This knowledge will help you know how to communicate with them better.
8. Think about what you can do to ensure a respectful work environment: are tasteless jokes and emails running through the office? Knock it off. Be professional: you can still be friendly.
9. Take a class or training that will help you do your job better: stretch your knowledge and abilities. Now you are more valuable to the company.
10. Teach your new skills/knowledge to your coworkers. This ensures you have mastered the info and places you in a leadership position even if you don’t have the title.
11. Make sure your heart is in your work: Are you bringing yourself fully and gratefully into everything you do? What would it take for that to happen? Is this an alien concept for you to consider? Older generations stayed for decades in jobs they hated, these days employees jump around at the drop of a hat. Bring your heart to your work.
12. Talk with your supervisor about the big picture: one of the biggest differences between your job and your boss’ is that their view of the company is holistic. It is referred to as the view from 30,000 feet, where they can see the flow, what’s coming and going, what’s on the “horizon”. You, however, are in the “trenches”, as the metaphor marches on. What’s it like from their perspective?
There you have it. It can be a great 2010: a year of growth for you and better awareness of your value for your boss. Enjoy!
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Employer Resolutions for the New Year
Forgive me: I cannot resist the urge to jump on the New Year’s LIST bandwagon. At this time of year we see countless TOP 100 Lists: books, movies, U-tube videos, excuses for missing school or work, and on and on. That’s not the bandwagon of which I speak, although it might be fun to see what list I could come up with: The Top 100 HR Conundrums. Now, that’d be interesting reading.
Nope, I am all over lists of New Year’s Resolutions. For the employer and the employee. In this column we’ll list 12 things an employer/supervisor can do to improve the workplace and their experience in it. Next column will contain a similar list for employees. I made the list include 12 things, but not so you rush through them like the 12 Days of Christmas. (OH! That’s another great idea: “The 12 Days of HR”. “Five golden parachutes!”) Anyway, I picked 12 things because you may want to take a month for each one to be accomplished or developed into a habit.
In no particular order, here are things an employer and/or supervisor can resolve to do during 2010:
1. Determine the temperaments of your employees: once you know how they process information you can more effectively match their work assignments.
2. Discover the strengths of your employees: build on these strengths and find ways to work around their weaknesses. This will result in better results for all.
3. Greet them every day: not as obvious as you might think. It matters.
4. Ask them what will keep them working for you: discover what turns them on about working for you.
5. Ask them what would prompt them to leave: don’t wait for the exit interview to find out what you could have done to retain good employees.
6. Read The Radical Leap, by Steve Farber: it defines leadership as cultivating love in order to generate boundless energy and inspire courageous audacity.
7. Learn how to delegate: no, it is not dumping, and you do have to follow up. It is great for both parties and the business.
8. Re-read the One Minute Manager: the simplest management book and still one of the best.
9. Determine your temperament: oh yeah, you should know how you process information and communicate, too.
10. Evaluate the makeup of your workforce for diversity: the most successful companies draw on the talents of a diverse workforce.
11. Review your Employee Handbook: does it reflect the company’s personality? Toss out anything that doesn’t sound like you (except the legal stuff). Do you really need that long list of ways to get fired?
12. Have every employee write their job description: does it match what you think they are doing? What they should be doing?
OK, that’s it. Let me know what you think. What I think is that in 12 months you will have a happier and more productive workforce made up of employees who love what they do. Happy New Year!
Nope, I am all over lists of New Year’s Resolutions. For the employer and the employee. In this column we’ll list 12 things an employer/supervisor can do to improve the workplace and their experience in it. Next column will contain a similar list for employees. I made the list include 12 things, but not so you rush through them like the 12 Days of Christmas. (OH! That’s another great idea: “The 12 Days of HR”. “Five golden parachutes!”) Anyway, I picked 12 things because you may want to take a month for each one to be accomplished or developed into a habit.
In no particular order, here are things an employer and/or supervisor can resolve to do during 2010:
1. Determine the temperaments of your employees: once you know how they process information you can more effectively match their work assignments.
2. Discover the strengths of your employees: build on these strengths and find ways to work around their weaknesses. This will result in better results for all.
3. Greet them every day: not as obvious as you might think. It matters.
4. Ask them what will keep them working for you: discover what turns them on about working for you.
5. Ask them what would prompt them to leave: don’t wait for the exit interview to find out what you could have done to retain good employees.
6. Read The Radical Leap, by Steve Farber: it defines leadership as cultivating love in order to generate boundless energy and inspire courageous audacity.
7. Learn how to delegate: no, it is not dumping, and you do have to follow up. It is great for both parties and the business.
8. Re-read the One Minute Manager: the simplest management book and still one of the best.
9. Determine your temperament: oh yeah, you should know how you process information and communicate, too.
10. Evaluate the makeup of your workforce for diversity: the most successful companies draw on the talents of a diverse workforce.
11. Review your Employee Handbook: does it reflect the company’s personality? Toss out anything that doesn’t sound like you (except the legal stuff). Do you really need that long list of ways to get fired?
12. Have every employee write their job description: does it match what you think they are doing? What they should be doing?
OK, that’s it. Let me know what you think. What I think is that in 12 months you will have a happier and more productive workforce made up of employees who love what they do. Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)