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.
Monday, June 14, 2010
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)