Politically Incorrect Human Resources Management

Christmas Time

2009-12-22T21:45:00.002-06:00

That time of year is upon us, where running to and from party and spending quality time with family....

Best wishes for you and your family.

I hope that Santa brings all you good little HR folks everything you wished for this year.

Politically Incorrect HR.

Half the workforce leaving ????

2009-12-06T16:13:00.012-06:00

Business and Legal Reports (BLR) reports "most workers say their job's stagnant" on December 3rd, 2009. BLR re-states a survey conducted by Development Dimension International (DDI) which found "44 percent of workers will look for another job when the economy improves."

Wow ! 44 percent that would mean about one half of my current organization's workforce of 1,800 will become active job seekers (about 800 employees). Beyond the fact that the "n" for the survey was not reported(really don't know how many employees were surveyed (100?)) and whether or not this survey was a national, regional or local survey (New York City?), I believe there are some nuggets of information we HR professionals can use to continue to improve our respective organizations.

So, what should HR professionals be doing to reduce that number in our own organizations? Should HR care? What are the underlying issues for those employees?

I think some simple tactics can make a difference reducing the effects of a mass exodus of the most valuable

resource an organization has.

Active MBWA (Management by Walking Around) by HR staff.
Engage the staff in solutions to real business issues.
Challenge other HR professionals to influence decision-makers.

You all may be thinking these actions are simple and that I am being too simplistic in my assessment of the

concerns raised by the DDI survey. I probably am, but I am a simple person.

But, how else do you engage your workforce? You be out in their workspaces you ask them for their input

and then you use their thoughts and ideas to influence those who are making the decisions.

Senior leaders will listen to what you have to say if you are representing the workforce's ideas. REMEMBER..

You are the conduit for your workforce to your senior leadership team and if you are not willing to be out

there with the workforce and be there to represent them, no wonder they want to leave your organization.

For what it's worth... Politically Incorrect

Thanksgiving - Things to be Thankful for...

2009-11-28T15:17:00.002-06:00

I hope everyone is having a great Thanksgiving this year. I have been sitting around thinking about what I am thankful for.....

I am thankful for the opportunity to work in a profession that allows me to see people at their best.
I am thankful my family who is supportive of my endeavours, as crazy as they may be.
I am thankful for an employer that allows me to be creative.
I am thankful to work with a GREAT group of people who amaze me with their abilities daily.
I am thankful for our screwed up society which provides me with bloging opportunities.
I am thankful for all of you who choose to read my blog.

Politically Incorrect

HR - Multiple Personality Disorder ???

2009-11-21T09:03:00.003-06:00

So, as you can tell from my last few posts I have been actively reading the Wall Street Journal. I am not sure if many of you spend much time reading the Wall Street Journal but sometimes the placement of stories is quite interesting and the November 16th edition was one such time.....

In the "Marketplace" section (section B) on page 5 the editors decided to place the following articles on the same page under the heading "Managing" ....."Businesses Mount Efforts to Retain Valued Employees" AND "Job Cuts Kept Eaton on Track, Allowing CEO Cutler to Focus on Growth."

Who's the genius to put those two articles together??

To me, this demonstrates an overall lack of respect for the value employees and human resource professionals bring to workplaces throughout America and the world. What this says to me is we value employees so long as we can make a lot of money, buy large sums of property or cool new equipment, and/or acquire other companies.

The BIG question is SO WHAT? This epitomizes the two worlds HR lives and works in AND what our peers and superiors expect from us

We do a great job of working inside this "multi-personality-disorder" profession. But as I like to say the work we do is like walking on the edge of a knife, lean too far either way and you get cut sometimes badly.....

So, go out there and be careful.......

For what it's worth... Politically Incorrect HR

Unions Vs. Union - Employee Free Choice???

2009-11-13T17:46:00.003-06:00

On Thursday, November 12, 2009, I was taking the time to read the Wall Street Journal prior to my oldest daughter's band concert in an attempt to keep up-to-date on what is going on in the world of business. I ran across an op-ed by Matthew Kaminski entitled "California Labor Wars" on page A25.

This editorial discusses the current issue of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and the NUHW (National Union of Healthcare Workers) battle to capture about 10,000 home-care workers in the state of California. FYI, the NUHW leadership consists of ousted members of the SEIU affiliate UHW (Union of Healthcare Workers). I know too many freakin' acronyms but I think you can get through it.

Apparently, UHW with SEIU's help "shipped in 950 or so staff and spent an estimated $10 million" to help hold on to the 10,000 members who were attempting to de-certify the union and vote in a new union.

There are many accusations from illegal immigrants voting, threatening members, pressuring to spoil ballots, etc. AND this is between unions NOT management and the unions.

So, if we dissect this 'tiff" as outlined by Mr. Kaminski the SEIU and the NUHW are clearly utilizing tactics which management has been accused of in the past. But with the dust settling we can see how the unions truly act. As a good friend and mentor of mine always says, "the best predictor of future behavior is past performance," WOW that rings so true in this case.

Don't forget fellow HR com padres, in an effort to gain support for a federal mandate for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) unions and their foot soldiers (the democratic leaders in the House, Senate and White House) have used inaccurate and unsubstantiated documents such as Representation Without Intimidation: Securing Workers' Right to Choose Under the National Labor Relations Act to 'highlight' managements boorish behavior during unionizing campaigns in an attempt to push the legislation through.

I believe this union vs. union campaign going on in California, fully epitomizes how unions work and behave in a unionizing campaign. We must not forget unions can and do promise the potential members many things they cannot deliver on, they threaten potential members, they use scare tactics, they interfere with the balloting process and they want to say all of the intimidation in unionizing campaigns is from management.

If we allow our socialist leaning federal representatives to pass ANY legislation which removes the ability of an individual to have a secret ballot election we have failed our organizations as well as the employees it employs.

For what it's worth...... Politically Incorrect.

Sexual Harassment and Cheesecake

2009-11-11T20:41:00.006-06:00

Tuesday, November 10, 2009, Reuters reported "Cheesecake Factory Inc. will pay $345,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit stemming from actions at the restaurant chain’s Chandler, Arizona location (outside of Phoenix).

Six (6) male employees were subjected to repeated sexual harassment. The suit with the EEOC alleges The Cheesecake Factory knew about and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against the employees by a group of male kitchen staffers. According to the EEOC, the evidence showed the alleged abusers directly touched victims’ genitals, made sexually charged remarks and forced victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape."

Ok, six guys were sexually harassed and they really couldn't handle it themselves. What is up with that ????

Leaving THAT alone.....

*** DISCLAIMER**** I know, I don't know all of the facts surrounding the case and I am just responding to a potentially one sided news report from Reuters....

BUT if it was reported to the kitchen manager and/or the general manager and they did nothing about it shame on them. We have to believe HR did it's job to ensure and protect the organization from the risk associated however, the operations managers failed to heed or actively chose to ignore the warnings of HR.

Why did it happen? What could have been the reason the management at that restaurant didn't think that type of behavior was inappropriate let alone unprofessional?

We as HR professionals want to "have the seat at the table" and spend time attempting to prove to the world that we "deserve" that seat. Just think, in this case, if management would have listened to HR, the company would not have had to cough up 345K to settle this case out of court money on the bottom line... an expense which didn't need to happen.

This is not only an issue of risk avoidance but just think about the employee morale at that location if not the entire chain. I can just hear it around the water cooler (a.k.a the Cheesecake Factory bar) "did you hear about the 'bagging' going on in the kitchen? Did the managers do anything about it? Nope, they didn't, I even heard they were involved." It reminds me of the somewhat obscure movie with Ryan Reynolds titled "Waiting" where the kitchen staff were always trying to get other male employees to look at their manhood through various means.

It continues to amaze me that HR has to 'sell' the idea that professional behavior make good business sense in 2009, but apparently we have more work to do if this kind of behavior is ignored by operations managers.

Do you think the Cheesecake will taste as sweet at the Chandler, AZ location as other locations?

For what it's worth.....Politically Incorrect.

Democratic House Passes Healthcare

2009-11-08T18:53:00.002-06:00

WTF... Our democratic House of Representatives decided in their infinite wisdom on Saturday that government provided healthcare is something that should be included in this trillion dollar spending spree of Comrade Obama's!

COME ON, the government runs so many things so well (e.g. postal service, social security, medicare, etc)

Healthcare continues to be a hot button topic for all but no one seems to have a silver bullet to take care of all of the ills that plague the United States healthcare environment.

I see it simply as this... personal responsibility.

We have become accustomed to having our health insurance providers pay for our visits to the 'doctor' (which includes all healthcare providers). If we as Americans truly believe in a capitalist system and not communism/socialism, we should eagerly embrace a healthcare system that WE pay for day in and day out. When we have to pay for something, we can make huge changes/advances.

I suppose we could have the option to insure ourselves and our families for catastrophic situations (e.g. claims in excess of $10,000, $15,000, etc) almost like life insurance or car insurance which is adjusted annually for inflation.

The "market" will then work itself out.

Gearing up for the Holidays

2008-11-15T10:44:00.002-06:00

With Thanksgiving and Christmas happening within the next month and a half. Things are really picking up and getting busy at work and in my personal life.

What can I say about the United States and world economies.... not much that already hasn't been said or written?

The only thing I would like to say is what ever happened Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand"? Apparently our national political leaders and leaders of our largest corporations need a little lesson in capitalism and economics. We should not be intervening in the markets, they will take care of themselves as Adam Smith hypothesized. When the government artificially modifies market forces, only bad things can happen.

For what it's worth....... Politically Incorrect.

Taxing Fat Employees ????

2008-09-04T20:11:00.009-05:00

Recently Fox NewsOnline reported Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs which will charge "fat" state employees an addition $25.00 per month for their health insurance (currently, single workers pay nothing, nada, zip, family plans cost $180 a month).

"But there's a way to avoid the fee: Get a check-up at an in-office "wellness center," where nurses will check for diabetes and hypertension and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and Body Mass Index (BMI).

The idea is to encourage employees to act responsibly, lose weight and lower their health care needs. But critics say it will humiliate and stigmatize obese employees and amounts to nothing short of a "fat tax."

A BMI test uses height and weight measurements to calculate the percentage of body fat in adult males and females. Alabama is using a BMI threshold of 35 — 30 is considered obese, by most medical standards — to determine who doesn't have to pay the automatic $25 deduction."

Just where do you fall in the BMI test - click here.

As you can probably guess, the critics are calling it: a punitive "fat tax" designed to stigmatize the obese by inappropriately — and possibly illegally — bringing weight into the workplace. PLEASE !!! they don't pay anything for single health insurance and if they can't control what they are eating and exercise a little they have to pay a whole $25 a month for their health insurance.

Before I get too many comments from some of you, I fully know the potential global or wide spread issues that decision could mean for all workplaces. But, is that a bad thing? We have allowed health insurance plans to charge smokers more for their coverage and life insurance and is some case we have even not allowed them to participate in the health plan because they smoke.

Often, obesity is a choice. If someone is obese, 9 times out of 10 it is not because they have some freakin' disease that has made them that way... it is a personal choice of not exercising and not eating right. Now, I am not a very healthy person nor am I a skinny person (as some of you know). However, I do believe in personal accountability and it is about time this nation and its residents start taking responsibility for their own actions.

For example, if you eat fast food three (3) days a week AND you sit your ass in front of the TV every-night you are making a CHOICE !!!! a choice NOT TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. You deserve to pay more for your health care because it has been proven that obesity leads to Type II Diabetes, which leads to more and more healthcare dollars being spent. Check out the information from the Centers for Disease Control, specifically the obesity trends !

I applaud the Alabama State government for having the balls to take this action and I hope we see more health insurance providers taking similar actions. Maybe if we get hit in our pocket books we will start paying attention to what we do and what we eat.

For what it's worth.... Politically Incorrect HR

Immigration Raid - Largest in History

2008-08-26T20:11:00.006-05:00

Have you hear the news??? The Federales have arrested nearly 600 illegal immigrants working in the United States.

In Laurel, Mississippi population of 18,393.."The largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history has caused panic among Hispanic families in this small southern Mississippi town, where federal agents rounded up nearly 600 plant workers suspected of being in the country illegally." Fox News Online reports.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed by everyone, the government, industry and we, the people.

Who in the HR department at the plant was asleep at the wheel? I could understand 1 or 2 illegal immigrants slipping through the cracks of the current "I-9 Employment verification process" but 600 ???? Even the newly proposed E-Verify system the federal government pushing down our throats would catch at least 100.

This is just one reason HR departments get a bad rap. Apparently this organization has hired a "secretary" and given him or her the title of Director of Human Resources. The Operations managers then push hiring the illegal workers. The HR "director" hires the illegals without validating their appropriate documentation or he/she is easily getting duped by forgeries. All for in the guise of lower labor costs.

This is one of the type of legal risks HR departments can keep organizations from experiencing.

The article discusses that other employees were "applauding" the arrests.... It appears like everyone knew it was going on but no one in management did anything about it. I believe this organization is totally responsible for their actions and the HR director/manager should be hung up by his or her thumbs and beat with a stick like a pinata....

For what it is worth.... Politically Incorrect HR

HR Urged To Put More Emphasis on Reference Checking

2008-08-12T20:37:00.006-05:00

The Society for Human Resource Management website, posted an article by summer intern Eric Reed, entitled "HR Urged To Put More Emphasis on Reference Checking" in which he regurgitates information from CEO and founder of the Mill Valley, California, performance management and assessment tools firm Checkster,Yves Lermusi's recent webcast:

“A reference check can be one of the best ways to gain insight on a candidate’s true performance,” Lermusi said during the webcast, titled “How to Turn Reference Checking into an Effective Assessment Tool.” Depending on when and how the reference check is handled, he said, “It can be used to help determine why an individual should be hired”—unlike background checks, which are “usually conducted to determine the reasons not to hire an individual.”

In fact, “when” and “how” to conduct reference checks are the two critical questions that employers must focus on to increase the importance and effectiveness of the process. Lermusi said that most companies typically conduct reference checks by phone, letter or e-mail near the end of the hiring process and focus on verifying work experience, which is one of the least accurate screening factors, according to recent research findings. These methods of obtaining the references also are the most time-consuming and costly of the options available to employers.

“Many companies confuse performance with experience,” he said. Human resource departments can supply relevant employment verification information, but HR often hasn’t worked directly with the candidate so it can’t supply relevant job performance information even if asked.

Reference checking is supposed to increase the quality of the hire, he said. But to achieve this, the process should begin earlier in the hiring process and automated to maximize time and cost savings.

“Best practice reference checks are more peer-review evaluations,” said Lermusi, noting that they incorporate diverse opinions from multiple sources that focus on the job performance of the candidate, as well as aspects such as teamwork or cooperation.

“It is way better to obtain collective feedback from more people who’ve worked with or know the candidate than it is to rely on one expert, like an immediate supervisor, to make a well-informed hiring decision about a job candidate,” Lermusi said.

But not all references are created equal, he added. The four most important criteria for selecting references are:
• Freshness of relationship.
• Length of relationship.
• Closeness of relationship.
• Nature of relationship.

Not all reference checking questions are of equal importance either, he said. “One critical question is, ‘Would you rehire (or advise to rehire) the individual?’ And follow up by asking, ‘If not, why?’”

So, as a common HR professional, you might think... maybe you could gain some "golden nugget" of information from our "professional organization" which might help you improve your reference checking process. But...NO, what you get is an infomerical for Mr.Lermusi's company. Can we sell out a little more????

And... Mr. Lermusi provides such a big revelation regarding reference checking. We all know that open and honest feedback from a former co-worker / employer is the best possible reference an organization can obtain.

However, what he fails to address or even acknowledge is the difficulty in obtaining that "open and honest feedback." He also doesn't address the legality surrounding the release of employment related information.

Beyond the task of checking references, HR professionals have a role to protect the organization from potential risks included but not limited to employment-related legal liability.

For what it's worth.... Politically Incorrect HR

Raise Age for Full Social Security Benefits????

2008-08-07T18:58:00.006-05:00

The Social Security system is expected to have cash flow problems beginning in 2017, and the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2041 at the current rate.

The American Academy of Acutaries during an August 4th, 2008 meeting with federal lawmakers, proposed three options for increasing the retirement age, as reported by Sara Hansard of Investment News:

"The age at which full benefits could be received would be raised to 67 for all workers born in 1949 or later, which would reduce the expected deficit by 10 percent.

Increase the full-benefits age to 67 and increase it by a month every two years until it hit 70, thus eliminating 35 percent of the expected long-range deficit.

Increase the schedule for full benefits by two months every year until age 70, eliminating half of the long-range deficit, the academy said."

As I see it, why do we need to have this organization of number crunching nerds, tell us that we need to increase the "age of attainment" or "retirement age" seems moronic.

Most of use realize that since the implementation of the Social Security entitlement, life expectancy at age 65 has increased by almost 4.5 years for men and over 5.5 years for women.

I am further interested that the number nerds didn't also propose an increase in the social security wage base from $102,000 (2008) to no upper cap. Think about the potential increase influx of money from those wage earners producing above the $102,000 per year.

It is amazing to me that for the past 30 years this has been an issue of concern (since Gerald Ford was President !!!!) Holy Cow !! This just shows me how freakin' inept our elected officials really are. They have continued to add more and more people to the government teet and have failed to fix the obvious long-term issue with the program.

Honestly, in 2018 or 2019 I believe we will still be struggling with how to pay for Social Security, because no one wants to take accountability for the real issue. There is no doubt in my mind that unless someone is willing to make some tough decisions and piss some people off, this situation will not be corrected.

Think about this, in 1937 the first payroll taxes were collected by the government, the first monthly payment from the "social program" was issued in 1940 and in about 80 years we have depleted the money allegedly set aside for retirement by stealing from it to pay for other governmental pork programs.

For what it's worth.....Politically Incorrect HR

Lies on Resumes ????

2008-07-31T20:09:00.008-05:00

According to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey of more than 3,100 hiring managers and over 8,700 workers nationwide conducted from May 22 to June 13, 2008, nearly half (49 percent) of hiring managers reported they caught a candidate lying on their resume.

The survey identified the most common embellishments on resumes were:

Embellished responsibilities (38 percent)
Skill set (18 percent)
Dates of employment (12 percent)
Academic degree (10 percent)
Companies worked for (7 percent)
Job title (5 percent)

CareerBuilder.com went on and asked hiring managers to share the most memorable or outrageous lies they came across on resumes. Examples include:

1) Claimed to be a member of the Kennedy family

Why in the world would you claim to be a member of that family? Unless, you were trying to get into politics, wanted to die at a young age or were attempting to work in Boston at the Boston Brewing Company for all of the FREE Samuel Adams !

2) Invented a school that did not exist.

Because claiming you went to the community college in town was not prestigious enough.

3) Submitted a resume with someone else's photo inserted into the document.

He/she was really freakin' ugly or fat.

4) Claimed to be a member of Mensa

Didn't feel like they were a big enough of a geek, wanted more pressure.

5) Claimed to have worked for the hiring manager before, but never had.

The old adage, it's not what you know, but who you know.....

6) Claimed to be the CEO of a company when the candidate was an hourly
employee

WTF, this person really thought very highly of themself or they really were the CEO of themself. This is really taking Tom Peters' "Brand You" or "Free Agent" concept to a whole new level.

7) Listed military experience dating back to before he was born

It was really a previous life, he help conquer Rome back in the day

8) Included samples of work, which the interviewer actually did.

Those who can do apparently interview and those who can't steal shamelessly (and get caught)

9) Claimed to be Hispanic when he was 100 percent Caucasian

Why? because of affirmative action quotas

10) Claimed to have been a professional baseball player

Well, who the hell knows about this one. Isn't professional baseball player an oxymoron anyway?

As long as we have resumes and applications, we will have applicants trying to fool the hiring managers because they want jobs. Hiring managers, need to work closely with their HR partners to catch these lies through the interview process and appropriate reference checking.

If the hiring managers don't ask for help, caveat emptor !!!!

For what it's worth..... Politically Incorrect HR

Starbucks Closings..... Huh? What Happened?

2008-07-28T20:28:00.003-05:00

The Chicago Tribune reported on July 14th of 2008;

"Starbucks said July 1 it intended to close 600 company-operated stores in the U.S. to help deal with a slowing economy. The stores make up 8 percent of the company's 7,250 it operates. The shutdowns will run through March 2009 and reduce the company's global workforce by as many as 12,000 jobs.

Before listing the stores it plans to close on its Web site, Starbucks is giving its employees a 30-day warning notice. The company wants to relocate some of workers to other stores, if one is nearby. The stores, opened from 2006 through 2008, were located close to other Starbucks outlets. As a group, the sites weren't profitable.

Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz, who returned to the post in January to spearhead a broad turnaround plan, has admitted the coffee-shop chain made "poor real estate decisions." He said closing the 600 stores was the "most angst-ridden decision" Starbucks has made in his 25 years at the company.

The company also was hurt by the subprime-mortgage crisis, especially in California and Florida. The states account for one-third of the company's U.S. retail revenue. The faltering economy has triggered weaker profits and less traffic at its locations.Separately, Starbucks this week is unveiling a new line of protein smoothies and a sweet cold beverage with Italian roots. The drinks will make a debut in some markets as early as next week."

I think we all would call this oversaturation of their markets. Who was asleep at the wheel here, was it the HR professionals? the marketing professionals? the operations folks?

How about the whole crew at Starbucks Central?

Although it is very easy for someone like me (on the outside) to criticize what I see as poor decision-making after-the-fact.

This problem would seem to be basic management theory. So, let's analyze this at a very high level........

Coffee is a commodity, easy to obtain and roast.
Entry into the coffee-selling market is realtively easy.
Product differentiation has continued to decline
Starbucks has placed a store on every corner of every major metropolitan city.

For the past five to seven years, we have seen Starbucks grow and their competition grow. In this timeframe McDonald's has entered the "premium" coffee market at lower prices than your basic coffee at Starbucks. Small town coffee shops are roasting their own coffee beans and selling their coffee products at prices equal to or less than that at your local Starbucks. Starbucks own model created cannibilization of their markets where one store might be taking customers and profits from another.

Furthermore, haven't you seen Starbucks coffees at your regional grocer? at your local Wal-Mart? at your Staples or Office Depot??

It would seem to me that Starbucks management began to believe that their products were invinceable. Well, as we all find out sooner or later, no matter who we are, we are not invinceable. The unfortunate part of this whole ordeal, is that employees, as well as customers, are being impacted.

These types of decisions are not easy to come to and I am sure that Mr. Schultz is struggling however, he and the management team at Starbucks central are the same people who made the decisions to add these stores in the first place, have they been impacted financially by this??? have they seen their salaries reduced or lost entirely? I doubt it. They must not have done their homework or looked at the global marketplace before making the decision to add these stores that are now being closed.

If you have read anything in the main stream media about Starbucks, the writers discuss the "Starbucks Experience." If Starbucks wants to continue to grow and enlarge their market share, it is my personal belief they need to focus on that "experience" whatever they believe that it is.

For what it is worth...... Polictially Incorrect HR

Returning from Vacation

2008-07-27T19:06:00.003-05:00

Well, I just returned from vacation with my family. This summer we went to explore the Badlands and the Black Hills of South Dakota. We had an extremely enjoyable time and we also spent some time with friends who have moved around the country but now are residing in Omaha, Nebraska.

I have decided to attempt blogging and sharing my thoughts and comments on any Human Resources related current events, comments and/or questions from the masses.

Until then..... enjoy !