Look Around HR

Despite consecutive months of job losses nationwide, despite hearing about massive layoffs at a number of large companies, and despite some economists floating out the R (recession) word, the outlook for this years graduating class appears to be good.
 
According to a survey sponsored by CareerBuilder, 58 percent of employers plan to hire recent grads. The new grads will also be receiving higher salaries than last year’s class- as 39 percent of employers plan to increase the starting salary, with only 6 percent planning on dropping it.
 
Here is the starting salary breakdown:
 

Thirty-two percent of employers will offer new grads between $30,000 and $40,000 and 15 percent of hiring managers will offer between $40,000 and $50,000. Eleven percent will offer new graduates a starting salary higher than $50,000 and 42 percent will offer less than $20,000.

And here are some tips from the job board site:

- Stress your experience- this doesn’t include internships alone, but also volunteer activities, clubs, Greek organizations, and sports.

- Watch you attitude- a lot of managers have a view this view of generation Y that we all have a sense of entitlement. Even if you went to prep school, belong to a country club, and have a degree from the Ivy League, don’t act like you are better than anyone else. Mistakes mentioned by employers include acting cocky and arrogant, dressing inappropriately, and not knowing anything about the company.

- Be yourself- it doesn’t make sense to work for a company you will not be a good fit for, so start with being yourself, and take it from there…

We often hear of the bad sides of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. Potential employers can search through your pictures and see your keg stand from last spring break or read inappropriate material on your wall.

There is a legal debate going on whether or not an employer can search these sites and disqualify you because of what they see. I’ll leave that debate for the lawyers, and move on to reality- which is employers are checking out these sites, as well as Google.

And that can be a good thing. You can use your page to sell yourself and look professional.

From baselinegmag.com:

“If you approach online profiles as a way to present your professional side to the world, then you have a great opportunity,” says John Challenger, CEO of outplacement consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

More…

“Recruiters are taking a close look at those networks, since it’s like going through someone’s Rolodex,” Challenger says. In the past, he adds, proprietary databases were unique to a search firm, including information on larger networks, but these days, most rely on LinkedIn instead.

He notes, “They’re always swamping that site, because it allows them to search on very specific information. And as younger people move from MySpace and Facebook, it’s likely they’ll spend more time on places like LinkedIn.”

If I were advising someone in college whether it was a current student looking for an internship or a grad looking for their first job, I would let them know that they will be “Googled,” “Facebooked,” etc. And this applies to anyone in the professional world as well. If you do a quick search of yourself and don’t think it looks professional, make an effort to change it. Chances are the hiring manager won’t think it looks professional either.

These networking sites, along with blogs, can be a great opportunity for a prospective employee to find you. Take advantage of this and present a platform of yourself that you want to show off.

Yes, according to one researcher.

According to Wayne Hochwarter, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Business, a new study shows that rising gas princes cause employees to be less excited about going to work; and therefore their quality of work decreases.

“People concerned with the effects of gas prices were significantly less attentive on the job, less excited about going to work, less passionate and conscientious, and more tense,” Hochwarter says. “These people also reported more ‘blues’ on the job. Employees were simply unable to detach themselves from the stress caused by escalating gas prices as they walked through the doors at work.”

More…

“Several employees said they simply could not escape the media onslaught of bad news regarding the future of gas prices, and many reported their financial futures were looking bleaker and bleaker,” say Hochwarter.

One respondent said that rising gas prices have left him distracted at work.

“I spend more time at work trying to figure out what I need to give up to keep gas in my tank than thinking about how to do my job,” said the factory worker.

To show that your company understands the problem employees face, you may want to offer alternative programs to the traditional 8-5 such as 4-10 hour days or telecommuting if at all possible. You might also want to organize a car pool system employees can participate in.

I would also argue that the stress isn’t because of gas prices alone. It could be from any prices rapidly increasing, resulting in a financial hardship for that worker and their family. You may want to think about an employee assistant program offering financial advice that workers can speak with confidentially.

P.S. Remember when $2.00 a gallon seemed expensive?

The Wall Street Journal published this column yesterday titled “The Union Police.” In it they describe a law national Democrats are trying to pass through Congress. No, not the Employee Free Choice Act, but it is another attempt by Democrats to increase Union power (and their power as a result).

From the WSJ:

Under current law, every state has the ability to set policies that govern its public workforce…Democrats want to change this for the entire country. A bill that passed the House last year would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people. They would also have the authority to bargain for everything- pay, benefits and work rules. The goal is to give labor the whip hand with local governments, and further coerce nonunion members to join the dues-paying ranks.

The Journal also adds that similar legislation has failed at the state level every time it has been brought up, and it may possibly violate the Constitution as it gives states any powers not specifically given to the federal government.

You probably will not hear a lot about this but the reality of this is it may become law. It passed the House with a veto proof 314-97 margin last year, and has 11 Republican co-sponsors in the Senate (to go along with the unanimous Democrat support) that may break any filibuster attempt.

You spend hours getting your resume ready, hours preparing for the interview when you get the call, and you probably spend a good amount of time picking the appropriate attire. But all the preparation could go for not if you do not follow-up the interview with a simple thank you note (or e-mail even).

Syndicated columnist and Ask The Headhunter host Nick Corcodilos offers his thoughts on the importance of the thank you note, and (more importantly) what to put it in.

A thank-you note should be designed carefully to gain you an extra edge on your competition- not just to express your politeness. It can make or break a job offer. But let’s work our way through all the options before we design that special note.

Here is what he advises you to include in the letter:

There are things you can include with a thank-you note to make it “sticky,” so the manager will continue to think about you:

• A clipping from a relevant publication that might be useful to the manager, with your notes in the margins. A good clipping will get passed around the office and your name will be on it.
• “Afterthought” suggestions about how you could help the manager solve a specific problem that was discussed in the interview. (Be brief.)
• A sales lead to be passed on to the company’s sales force, along with your suggestion about how the company might compete more effectively.
• The name of a person who might be a good potential candidate for another job in the company

I think he is right on with what to put in the thank you letter. I will just add this- if the position is down to two candidates (you and another guy) who are pretty equal in terms of experience, education, and what they can bring the company, and one person sends a thank you letter and one does not- who do you think the hiring manager would be inclined to make an offer to? It might not seal the deal, but it doesn’t hurt- so why not take the time to send the note?

The Las Vegas Sun has an excellent article detailing the Employee Free Choice Act. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but what caught my attention was some of the scary statistics from localities that already have card-check legislation.

From the Las Vegas Sun:

To illustrate card check’s cascading effect, Sonneborn pointed to Illinois.

The state passed mandatory card check in 2003. As a result, union density soared, she said. The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, for instance, doubled its number of bargaining units in four years, Sonneborn said.

In Las Vegas, the Culinary Union has tripled its membership over the past 20 years primarily through negotiating voluntary card check agreements with casino companies. The union added 10,000 members from 2002 to 2005 alone- and will add another 6,000 when MGM Mirage’s CityCenter opens in 2009.

In Canada, the effect also has been striking. Thirty-two percent of the country’s workers belong to a union, a density not seen in the United States since the American labor movement’s pinnacle in 1955. Only 12 percent of American workers today belong to a union. Labor benefits from mandatory card check laws in some Canadian provinces. Alberta sports the lowest union density of those places- a whopping 24 percent.

If Congress enacts similar legislation, expect to see Canada like unionization throughout the U.S.

One of the under-the-radar labor related bills that Democrats (and labor unions) are promoting is what is known as The Healthy Families Act. This bill would mandate that businesses with 15 or more employees provide a certain number of paid sick days each year. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is the chief sponsor of this legislation.

While it may have fizzled out in Washington (at least for now), this issue is alive in many states. There are currently two cities that have policies like this (San Francisco and Washington D.C.), although they may vary in scope. A number of states are considering mandatory paid leave (including AK, CA, CO, CT, MA, MN, NC, PA, RI, WV, and WY).

The Connecticut Senate recently debated this measure, and here is some of what was reported in the Hartford Courant:

Proponents said the bill would give average people the chance to address the health needs of themselves and their families- a chance they need more as they work harder while disposable income, job security and benefits shrink in the “global economy.”

But opponents said the increasing business competition of that same economy is the reason that lawmakers should not approve the bill: It would put Connecticut at a disadvantage and cost the jobs of some of the very workers it is intended to help, they said.

I understand the arguments of both sides.

The specifics of this bill included one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked. This would equal about 6 ½ days per year (in a typical 2080 hour year).

I think that 6 ½ days per year is a reasonable amount of paid time off as long as the number of hours work determines the amount accrued. I must admit I am a little shocked that many companies do not offer some form of PTO for full-time employees. Being in a competitive, professional field (healthcare)- it is rather foreign to me. We currently offer 20 days of PTO after one year of service (with a prorated amount during the first year that employees can use after 90 days). That number goes up to 25 after five years and 30 after 10.

The Heritage Foundation has a well thought out essay opposing the mandatory sick leave, while offering other proposals that would not be as costly to employers. Of course costs are the number one concern of business when legislation like this is considered.

From Heritage:

Congress should make it easier for employees to manage the demands of work and family life, but requiring employers to provide paid time off is the wrong approach. Employers would respond to mandatory greater sick leave benefits by reducing other benefits and wages. Congress should not force workers to take a pay cut to receive more sick leave. Instead of making this choice for workers, Congress should raise incomes by reducing taxes, creating sick leave savings accounts for workers, and allowing employers to offer comp time. Unlike a mandatory sick leave benefit, these policies would give workers more choices and greater flexibility to balance work and family life.

Read the entire essay here.

For the record, I think we will see legislation begin passing in state legislatures, and then Congress- possibly as soon as the next session.

The Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) is our state’s version of the Department of Labor (as we do not have an “official” department). It handles many important functions including job training, job placement programs, and distributing unemployment benefits- sounds like a pretty important department to me.

MDES has an annual budget of more than $200 million, but the state legislature recently ended their session without re-authorizing funds for the new fiscal year beginning on July 1st. Governor Haley Barbour has issued this press release and will call a special session to fund the agency.

The reason it was not funded you may ask- because the leadership in the House of Representatives was not happy with how the state was spending their advertising dollars. Of the $14 million advertising budget, a little less than $1 million went to TeleSouth Communications, the parent company of Supertalk Mississippi. Supertalk has a number of conservative talk radio hosts; who had been rather critical of the House leadership. So I guess to get back at Supertalk, the Speaker of the House has decided not to fund the entire agency.

Here is what would happen if funds for the agency were not reauthorized: Unemployed Mississippian would not receive their benefits and employers would see their Federal Unemployment Tax Rate rise from 0.8% to 6.2%. The department employs about 700 (who would be out of work), and operates the WIN job centers (which are in each county) that help unemployed find new jobs.

Here is the notice from the U.S. Department of Labor to the Executive Director of MDES.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver, a Democrat, is said to be contemplating vetoing a controversial labor backed bill that would force unionism on public employees. Iowa, as shown in this graph, is a Right-to-Work state. However, a simple repeal by the Democratic majority could do away with that status, as it is not a constitutionally protected right. This is what the majority hopes to do; just under a different name.

Here is a good rundown of the legislation and the controversy surrounding it from Linda Miller of the Quad City Times:

The bill, with the amendment, adds several mandatory bargaining items to the teacher quality law and eliminates some provisions that provided a balance between management and labor. The changes significantly tilt the playing field in favor of labor. The Des Moines Register reported on 3-20-08 that “school boards would lose much of their authority to determine a number of issues, including scheduling, class size and early retirement benefits for staff…”

None however were as controversial as the House Democrats attempt to sneak through the wildly controversial “Fair Share” provision. “Fair Share” is not fair. It is forced unionism. The House Democrats plan allowed forced unionism, which is currently illegal, to be placed onto the bargaining table by public employee unions. Forced unionism legislation like “Fair Share” forces non-union public employees - like teachers- to pay union dues. The only way for public employees to avoid paying union dues is to quit their jobs. The effect of any forced unionism legislation is the same as a direct repeal of the Right to Work law.

More…

The rest of the House Democrat’s plan stripped school board members, city council members and county supervisors of their ability to control the level of property tax increases. That ability is forfeited to an unnamed and unelected adjudicator. The reason is because property taxes makeup the vast majority of local government revenue and pay for nearly all of any employee contract. If the costs for that contract increase, so do property taxes.

And she finishes with this point…

With public employee unions able to bargain for that list of items, what use is there for managers, principals or superintendents anymore?

The specific language of the bill forces school districts and local governments to pay for whatever the eventual employment agreement is between labor and management. The language also states that if there is an impasse, an adjudicator decides between the two positions. Which means that if the adjudicator makes a decision on class size that forces a school district to hire more teachers or build new classrooms to meet the bargained class size number, the school district must levy property taxes to cover those increased costs.

Please read her entire post as it provides the best explanation of this scary legislation that I can find anywhere. I am not going to get into the games that Democrats and Republicans have been playing with this (I’ll leave that for the politicos). I will just say this is an attempt to undermine the right-to-work status of Iowa, and that is a dangerous thing. This will be bad for employers, it will be bad for employees that will be forced into unionism, and bad for every taxpayer that will see tax increases.

Last week, the bill was officially sent to Culver’s desk, and here is what he had to say on this subject:

Culver on Thursday sent a message to reporters saying that after more than 30 meetings with managers, union members, lawmakers and the public, he realized there’s no way to rewrite the bill in a way that would satisfy all parties.

“Through these meetings and communications, we have attempted to reach consensus among the many stakeholders who would be affected by this legislation,” Culver said in the statement. “Unfortunately, it has become clear that it is not possible to amend or revise this bill in a way that reflects a genuine consensus.”

Let’s hope the governor vetoes it, and we will keep you updated.

College graduation is coming up soon. Seniors from my Alma Mater will be walking on Saturday. It sure is hard to believe it’s been an entire year since I took that stroll across the stage. The new grads from the class of 2008 are sure to bring new skills and dynamics to the workforce. Some seniors may have jobs lined up, while some are still looking, and others may be waiting for six months or so.

I bring this up because CollegeGrad.com, which is the leader in entry-level job searches on the Internet, recently released a study of what employers are looking for in these new hires. Some of the results may surprise you.

The results are as follows:

#1- The student’s major (44 %)
#2- The student’s interviewing skills (18%)
#3- The student’s internship/ experience (17%)
#4- The college the student graduates from (10%)
#5- Other miscellaneous classifications (5%)
#6- The student’s GPA (4%)
#7- The student’s personal appearance (1%)
#8- The student’s computer skills (1%)

Major being the number one qualification makes sense. If you don’t have much experience, it’s all about the degree. Also, today’s workforce is very major specific orientated- whether it’s engineering, accounting, teaching, etc.

The relatively low percentage of employers looking for the college the student graduates from and the GPA kind of surprises me. We are always told to work hard in high school so we can get into a top college, and then work hard in college to have a top GPA. I think the GPA only matters if it is too low. Maybe it makes sense to go to the state college, rather than the private school that will leave you $50,000 in debt when you leave.

In today’s workplace it seems there is a mix of policies with regard to PTO. Some companies break it into different categories such as sick time, vacation time, and personal time. Others give you one lump sum and let you take it if you are at the doctor’s or the beach. I prefer the latter, if for no other reasons, because it makes it easier for HR and managers to track. If you are going to give your employee 20 days off a year- let them use it how they want to if scheduling permits (that’s just my opinion).

The reason I am talking about this…Because CareerBuilder.com has a list of the best excuses for calling in sick that I think will make you laugh this Friday. Here is the list:

1. At her sister’s wedding, an employee chipped her tooth on a Mint Julep, bent over to spit it out, hit her head on a keg and was knocked unconscious.
2. While at a circus, a tiger urinated on the employee’s ear, causing an ear infection.
3. An employee’s dog wasn’t feeling well, so the employee tasted the dog’s food and then got sick.
4. “Someone put LSD in my salad.”
5. An employee’s roommate locked all his clothes in a shed for spite.
6. “Stuck on an island – canoe floated away.”
7. An employee was upset because his favorite American Idol contestant was voted off.
8. “I didn’t think I had to come in if I had time in my vacation bank. I thought I could take it whenever I wanted.”
9. An employee said he wasn’t feeling well and wanted to rest up for the company’s holiday party that night.
10. A groundhog bit the employee’s car tire, causing it to go flat.

Some of these are pretty funny and I am not sure how I would react if I actually heard someone try to get away with this. According to the story, 67 percent of employers require a doctor’s note when an employee calls in sick, 35 percent have checked up on their employees, and 14 percent have paid the employees a house visit.

I say alleviate the headache on everyone and give one flat PTO amount.

I have reported on the attempt by national Democrats and labor unions to pass the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act.” The Senate killed it last week, and it is dead for the remainder of this Congress.

Similar attempts to pass the card-check bill have been going on at the state level as well. The most notable legislation occurred in Hawaii. The state House and Senate passed a bill, but the governor recently vetoed it.

From the Pacific Business News:

Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (a Republican) vetoed a bill Monday that would replace secret ballot elections for union representation with a simple petition.

The so-called “card-check” bill would replace a current law that requires an election by secret ballot when workers attempt to organize.

House Bill 2974 requires that union organizers only need to gather signatures from a majority of employees that favor forming a union.

The legislation is modeled after the Employee Free Choice Act, currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress.

I have read that the Democrats have a veto-proof majority in Hawaii, and every Democrat supported this measure so it may become law after all. We might want to remind Hawaiians of this poll showing overwhelming opposition to the card-check legislation.