“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.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)