Look Around HR

A recent PriceWaterhouseCoopers survey says that employer healthcare costs are set to rise 9.9 percent this year, and 9.6 percent in 2009; both rates are nearly double inflation, and will leave employers who sponsor health insurance plans with more hard choices.

Ways to combat the increased employer cost include raising the deductible, lowering the percentage the plan pays (co-insurance), raising the prescription drug co-pay or office co-pay. Employers will probably also have to raise the employee costs as well. None of these sound like very good, or very fun, ideas to me. But HR isn’t always fun and the easy decision isn’t always the best or right decision.

I think it may be years away before wellness programs are near universal, but that does not mean your company shouldn’t join the growing number of companies who take pro-active measures to keep their employees healthy and medical costs lower. Gym memberships, allowing employees to go for a walk on company time, staffing a nutritionist that can help employees eat healthier are just a couple of examples that companies should look at sooner than later.

One of the most irritating parts of recruiting is trying to get references from past employers on possible new hires. Most companies have a policy that states they can only give the employee’s dates of employment and position. I had some who said that I must say what the candidate put down and they will tell me if it’s right or wrong.

Some would only give dates of service. And I would have to fax over the verification form and get it back in a couple of days. Yes, 48-72 hours to look up a former employee’s hire and term date. Kind of frustrating when you are on the waiting end.

But there is a reason behind giving out as little information as possible. Just read this story about a lawsuit involving a positive reference.

An anesthesiologist was fired after he was caught using narcotics at work. But when he tried to get another job two months later, his old boss told the new employer he was “an excellent clinician” and “would be an asset to any anesthesia service.”

After he was hired by the new company, he came to work high and almost killed a patient. The patient sued and won $8 million. So that company sued the man’s old employer — and won.

Here is some more detail on the case. The potential employee has been terminated from a previous job because of poor recordkeeping and being under the influence of narcotics. However, the same doctors that signed his termination notice also wrote a recommendation for him, which the new company relied on in hiring him. From what I have read it did not say anything about his drug use.

The lesson here is to be careful. If you are honest in your recommendation (in a good or bad way) you should be able to avoid any litigation in the future. But, I would say, that giving out as little information is probably the best way to go.

While not receiving as much attention as Florida, the Georgia legislature and the governor signed new legislation known as the “parking lot bill.” Some of the main highlights of the bill include a prohibition against employers from maintaining or enforcing a concealed weapons ban and limits on searching an employee’s vehicle.

The NRA, whom led the fight in Georgia and elsewhere for this legislation, has a timeline and bullet point details of the bill on their legislation website.

Jackson Lewis, a workplace law firm, also has some very good details on the bill including the rights of employers, exemptions, limitations, and the perceived impact of it.

According to Jackson Lewis, it states that employers who own the property that their business is on are “exempt from the law and may restrict access to their property as a property owner.” Not only can you prohibit firearms from property you own, but you can also search employees or guests as you have in the past. As far as searches go, Jackson-Lewis outline specific instances when they are legal, and that mainly includes when you have good reason to think it might prevent an immediate threat or if you believe the employee unlawfully has company property. Normal law enforcement search warrants also apply.

Certain sensitive industries are exempt from the law (prisons, airports, etc.). The law also protects employers from liability:

An employer, private property owner, or property owner’s agent may not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions resulting from the transport or use of a firearm unless the employer commits a criminal act involving the firearm or the employer knew the criminal act would be committed on its premises.

Read more about the bill at the Jackson Lewis website.

I am guessing these blatantly illegal ads are more common on Craig’s List than you might expect…

See my post below from yesterday for another not-so-subtle ad.

This is a definite advertising no-no…

Pictured above is a clip from an ad on Craig’s List. The title and first line indicate the company is looking for a “Young and Experienced Realtor Wanted ASAP.” It does not take a lawyer to know that the word “young” is a no-no.

Like most Craig List ads, the company is anonymous and I am not sure of their motives, but all managers, recruiters, HR pros, etc. need to know what you can and can’t say. Any indication of age- young or old- is illegal.

Isaiah Thomas and the New York Knicks made some unwanted headlines last winter when they were hammered with a multi-million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit. Now, it looks like NASCAR has themselves in legal hot water.

I must first admit I am a huge NASCAR fan, so this is kind of hard for me to see and read, but I will be honest and say that the accusations do not look good for the auto racing body.

From the Associated Press:

The 32-year-old Grant, who is black, worked as a technical inspector responsible for certifying cars in NASCAR’s second-tier Nationwide Series from January 2005 until her termination. In the lawsuit, she alleged she was referred to as “Nappy Headed Mo” and “Queen Sheba,” by co-workers, was often told she worked on “colored people time,” and was frightened by one official who routinely made references to the Ku Klux Klan.

In addition, Grant said she was subjected to sexual advances from male co-workers, two of whom allegedly exposed themselves to her, and graphic and lewd jokes.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, lists 23 specific incidents of alleged sexual harassment and 34 specific incidents of alleged racial and gender discrimination beginning when she was hired in January 2005 through her October 2007 firing.

More…

Grant said she routinely complained to her supervisors. Two weeks after her final complaint, Grant said she was warned during the week of August 18, 2007 at Michigan International Speedway that she had engaged in “conduct unbecoming of a NASCAR representative” and would be fired unless she changed her behavior. She said the warning stemmed from a confrontation with a track official who stopped her as she passed through a gate to use the restroom.

Roughly two months later, Grant was fired, and NASCAR cited a poor work performance in ending her employment. The lawsuit claims other than a previous warning for using “street” language, Grant had never been disciplined for job performance and routinely received positive reviews.

On the surface, it looks like there were a lot of problems going on, and it looks as though they went unanswered and in the end she was terminated for complaining. Of course, we will let this play out and see what happens (unless the sides settle out of court).

On NASCARs behalf, they have done a lot of work to work on their old redneck image and have many diversity programs including Drive for Diversity and the Diversity Internship Program.

The Tampa Day Devil Rays have been a perennial last place team since its founding ten years ago, but appear to have turned things around this year. After 63 games, the Rays are 11 games over .500 and just a game back of the Red Sox for first place in the A.L. East.

The Devil Rays are doing this with what is considered a very small budget in today’s big money days. The teams combined salary is under $44 million. Now, let’s look at the New York Yankees. Probably the most famous sports team in the world, the Yankees have the money to get anybody they want. Want proof? Their combined team salary is north of $209 million.

The Yankees have many championships to show for their money, but none in the past seven years. And this year things are not much better. They are currently playing .500 baseball and are tied for last with the Baltimore Orioles in the A.L. East.

The Yankees have the ability to get anybody they want, because they have the money to back it up. However, this has left them with 9 all stars rather than 9 team players. The Devil Rays, on the other hand, have a limited budget and have relied on smart drafting, trades, and signings. They can’t go out and spend the big bucks like others.

To relate this to the HR world, it does not require the highest salaries to have the best team. Whether you lead a team of 5, 50 or 500, you need team members who work well with each other and concentrate on getting the project done, rather than being an All-Star or M.V.P.

The Baltimore Sun had a good article in their newspaper today that discusses the generation gap in today’s workforce.

From the Baltimore Sun:

Generation X workers rejected suits and ties for more casual attire. And now some workers are flip-flopping to work.

Some employees are calling in sick via text message.

And parents of young workers are calling managers and executives to complain about their children’s work evaluations.

Things are changing in our workplaces as four generations of employees work under one office: the so-called silent generation, who grew up during the Great Depression and World War II; the Baby Boomers, the post-war babies who grew up to be radicals of the 1970s and yuppies of the 1980s; Generation X, the so-called latchkey kids with an anti-establishment mentality; and Millennials or Generation Y, who are attached to their gadgets and parents.

We are all aware of these differences in the workplace, and while every stereotype associated with the different generations (good or bad) may not be true, it is important to stay informed of their needs. That said, you shouldn’t have a different set of policies for two different employees by any means. Just like blacks and whites, males and females, may want different things but you must come to a consensus to please them, the same approach should be taken to the different generations.

When you think of generation Y (which I am certainly a member of) you get the impression that they don’t want to work too much- at least that is the stereotype. So I was surprised to see this article on CNN.com about the potential for burnout from new grads.

In the next two to four years, retiring manager baby boomers will trigger a wave of new openings for high-responsibility jobs, says Levit. A lot of those jobs will be filled by less-
experienced workers - many of them millennials.

“Their sense of entitlement and their over-ambition are going to create a lot of stress for them,” Levit says. “They’re going to be given the responsibility they crave - because there’s no one else to take it.”

These young managers will have trouble getting their arms around their job responsibilities, says Levit. Their drive to succeed - typical among millennials - will be exacerbated by a world where technology makes work possible virtually anywhere, 24-7.

I think the most important thing here is for all employers to watch after their employees and see that they are not truly over-worked (we all say we are but in reality may not be). The work-life balance may be something that millennials crave, but it is important to all workers. The younger workers are less afraid to request it, and leave if they don’t get their way. In the end, everyone is hurt if you are pushing the employers beyond their capacity, have them checking e-mail at midnight, and calling them on vacation.

I recently came across this story detailing the on-going and growing trend of HR outsourcing. Most people, especially with HR, are very familiar with this, but it is becoming increasing common and popular according to sources from the article.

From the article:

Corporate human resources departments used to juggle tasks that included payroll, recruiting, hiring, employee training, compensation planning, and benefits administration – all while keeping companies in compliance with labor laws and regulations. But the demands of an increasingly global and diverse workforce require many HR professionals to shift toward strategic functions and outsource the rest.

More…

The HR outsourcing trend has steadily increased over the last 10 to 15 years, said Joe Sommers, a 25-year HR professional who serves on the Society for Human Resource Management HR Consulting and Outsourcing Special Expertise Panel. Now, he said, many organizations outsource payroll, benefits management, staffing and recruiting, and employee relocation to third-party vendors.

I use to think that the amount of outsourcing depended on the size of the company. You would think it would be cost effective for a large company to hire a third-party vendor, but that is not necessarily true. When I first came on with the company I am currently at, we had 230 employees locally and 500 statewide and the only thing we really outsourced was payroll (we used ADP). Earlier this year, we were acquired by a 17,000+ employee organization that has a presence in 37 states and the payroll is handled in house. They, however, outsource the benefits enrollment process.

I do think, regardless of your company size, outsourcing will continue to be a reality. For more administrative level HR jobs this may be a bad thing. However, HR’s future is making more strategic decisions that have do with the growth and profit of your company. Many times in college I learned that you need to adapt with change, and not fight it, and that is what wise HR leaders will do.

I have recently talked to a couple people who applied for a position, interviewed, but ultimately did not get the job. One person said they received a polite letter saying something to the tune of we were impressed with your qualifications, blah, blah, blah, but we have selected a different person- best of luck. I consider that pretty standard.

For certain positions, a phone call letting the candidate know they didn’t get the job is appropriate. I would recommend the call for managerial and higher up positions. The letter is fine for positions lower than managerial level (or something equivalent).

However, I strongly believe you have to let any candidate who interviewed know in some way. I mentioned how one person received a letter; well the other person heard nothing- and was just left wondering what was going on. The candidate called the employer once or twice and was told they are still deciding. A few weeks later, the candidate had all but given up since they hadn’t heard anything.

In my opinion, that is one of the most disrespectful moves a hiring manager can make. You don’t need to respond to every resume you get for an opening, but if someone takes the time out of their day to interview for a position you owe it to that candidate to let them know where they stand. You may think it doesn’t matter since you don’t want that candidate anyway, but people have a way of talking and may mention the way your company treated them. Just something worth thinking about…

It’s been said that as long as there has been offices, there has been office relationships. And I think it is also true that as long as there have been offices, there has been office gossip. After all, they don’t it water cooler talk for nothing.

Here is an excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor:

Just a year ago, the atmosphere in Sam Chapman’s small public relations firm was often tense.

“We had information leaks, we had disgruntledness, we had competitors finding things out, and we had sniping about senior management policies,” says Mr. Chapman, CEO of Empower Public Relations in Chicago. “People would stop talking when you walked by.”

A life coach identified the problem: gossip. Determined to elevate the tone, Chapman took dramatic steps. He fired three employees for gossiping. He also established a strict policy, turning the whole office into a no-gossip zone.

More…

To quash such talk, Chapman devised a policy for his staff of 17: “If I hear you gossiping about somebody, we send you back to the person about whom you were gossiping and you tell what you said. That dispels all the false information.”

There is no doubt in my mind that excessive gossip is bad for the morale and can lower office productivity. To me, office gossip is an issue like talking about compensation, you can discourage and work to reduce it but outright banning it is a little trickier.

You need to have a definitive employee communications process in line. Employees need to know whom they can talk to if they have problems (their supervisor, HR, etc.) related to something or someone at work. If they don’t know whom to contact they may just tell the guy or gal standing next to them.

And you need to weed out the bad roots. You can not ban talking (obviously), but can certainly discipline employee who are breaking the rules and hurting business operations.