From Business Wire

:Hotel workers walked off the job this morning at the Grand Hyatt Union Square in San Francisco, announcing a 3-day strike against the property, according to Unite Here Local 2…The work stoppage comes two weeks after members of Unite Here Local 2 voted by over 92% to authorize strikes at any of 31 upscale hotel properties in San Francisco. Workers at the Grand Hyatt will return to work on Sunday, November 8, but have called for customers to honor an ongoing boycott at that property. Workers at other San Francisco hotels remain on the job, though job actions remain a possibility elsewhere..”

It seems that the workers have accepted lower raises over the past few years in order to maintain their health insurance plans. This year, however, management has stated that the employees need to pay a larger share of the health care costs.

From SFGate:

Management says premium costs have tripled in the past 10 years, requiring monthly outlays of $1,080 per month, per employee. It wants workers to pick up a share of future costs through higher contributions and co-payments.

Hyatt negotiator Bill Dritsas said co-payments for visits to the doctor or emergency room have been pegged at $5 for 30 years, as have the cost-per-day for hospital stays. He wants a five-year contract that will cap the Hyatt’s health care outlays at $1,235 at the end of that period, and force whatever benefit or co-payment changes are necessary to keep payments under that.

[Union President Mike] Casey said the union is not opposed to higher emergency room co-payments to hold down rate increases but will fight to keep doctor’s visits and hospitalization costs as low as possible so workers don’t forgo routine medical care. He said the union has proposed a one-year contract that would cost the Grand Hyatt just $250,000 to maintain current benefits and provide small raises for its unionized workers while the two sides work on a longer-term fix. Dritsas said the Hyatt wants a multi-year contract that addresses the health insurance issues now rather than later.

Talks resume next week. I really do hope that they can get it settled, but something tells me that this is just the tip of the health care iceberg.

In what I find to be a wonderful self-examination piece on bnet, Mr. Conley takes a look at how his personal use of social media can affect his workplace.

Today, Joie de Vivre is a $230 million company with more than 3,000 employees and 38 properties. From the luxury spa resort in Big Sur to the urban chic hotel in San Francisco and a surfer-inspired hotel in Huntington Beach, our mission statement is simple: to celebrate the joy of life. And that’s precisely what I was doing at Burning Man, which, incidentally, I have attended twice before in the past decade, before this social media problem existed. I went with a close friend. She took a ton of pictures, and when I got home to San Francisco, I posted six of them, two of which show me shirtless. In one I’m wearing a tutu; in the other a sarong.”

Well, it seems that several employees objected to these pictures so much to the point that the HR Chief (per Mr. Conley) asked him to take the pictures off of his FB profile. Evidently a number of employees had friended him and looked up to him as a father figure. A father figure whom they didn’t want to see in a tutu. Mr. Conley’s response was not atypical of some who hold leadership positions.

My reaction was swift: “Screw that,” I said. “People who don’t like it can go work at Marriott.”

but then…

And yet, I’ve begun to see her [HR Chief] point. I don’t want to create tension at the company or be viewed as a hypocrite.

And while I appreciate that he took the time to look at things from an HR point of view, I actually think Mr. Conley has a very refreshing view of what the company can/cannot do in terms of an employee’s private life.

If Jimmy Carter or Megan Fox stays at one of our hotels, I want to make sure the staff knows not to post photos on Facebook or blab about it on Twitter. The policy applies to the employees and their own behavior, but that’s less of an issue, so long as they’re not damaging the image of the company in public.

This viewpoint is similar to the content of my very first blog post where I stated that employee blogging should not in itself get someone fired, but “…your employment can be terminated…for revealing company secrets or representing yourself as an employee of a company and acting in a manner which would violate the company’s policies”.

It’s something that I believe to which all employees (including the CEO) should be held accountable. In this case it sounds like Mr. Conley understands the difference between personal and professional life in regard to social media, not only for himself, but for his employees.

What if pictures emerge of a desk host drinking from a beer bong at a football game, or decked out in an S&M getup at an underground club? I’d have no problem with that, although I know plenty of CEOs who would. To me, that’s an employee’s private life.

I think this kind of open-mindedness can take a company a long way. Especially for a company whose mission statement is “to celebrate the joy of life”.

Good for him.

What they really mean when they say . . .

“COMPETITIVE SALARY” We remain competitive by paying less than our competitors.

“JOIN OUR FAST-PACED COMPANY” We have no time to train you.

“CASUAL WORK ATMOSPHERE” We don’t pay enough to expect that you’ll dress up.

“MUST BE DEADLINE-ORIENTED” You’ll be six months behind schedule on your first day.

“SOME OVERTIME REQUIRED” Some time each night and some time each weekend.

“DUTIES WILL VARY” Anyone in the office can boss you around.

More found here.

It made me laugh. I must be tired.

Out of the mouths of babes.

This was sent to me by Eve Batey, the brilliant Editor and Publisher of the San Francisco Appeal . It seems that a San Francisco marketing company is making quite a bit of out-of-state money on an anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine. Never mind that the campaign itself is absolutely offensive, it just amazes me that a company based in San Francisco is focusing their business on anti-gay marriage measures.

From SF Appeal :

Hey, remember all the frustration voiced in the wake of Prop 8’s passing, when folks talked about how much of its support came from people who didn’t even live in California? Maine’s the next battleground for the right to marry, and the “out of town support” argument’s apparently rising again — this time, by a group that’s paying a San Francisco based company over half a million dollars to in an effort to take that right away. That’s right, this time, the call’s coming from inside the house…This company is listed 4 more times in that section [In the filings, released yesterday, from Stand For Marriage Maine], and has been paid nearly $360K. They’re also listed 12 more times in the “unpaid debts” section, billing about $240K more. So, so far they stand to make at least $600,000 off the deal. Coincidentally, this is just slightly higher than the extra tax burden shouldered by many gay couples due to discriminatory tax penalties.

Now I realize that every company should be able to make money in any way they want, as long as it’s legal, but in San Francisco? REALLY? And on Maiden Lane nonetheless? Talk about being a mouse in a cat house.

It gets even weirder though. The company has now taken down its YouTube page, its Facebook page and its own website.

When The Appeal tried to contact the company, they were told, “no one was available …they were “traveling for business.”

If one didn’t know any better, one would think that this company is ashamed of what it’s doing. Not that they shouldn’t be, but if you’re a marketing company and you’re taking the money, shouldn’t you be getting the word out?

Just a thought.

Ms. Talley was killed while working at The Dollar Tree when man came in to the store and killed Ms. Talley solely because of the color of her skin. Then, to add insult to tragedy, The Dollar Tree refused to pay workers compensation benefits to her family, despite the fact that she was on the job when her murder occurred, because they stated it was a hate crime and such crimes are not work-related. After much publicity, Dollar Tree and its workers comp insurer, changed their minds and settled the claim on January 9, 2009.

Today, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 1093 into law. This new law would make it illegal deny claims on the basis of a perpetrator’s motives when an employee is injured and/or killed on the job.

AB 1093, as introduced, Yamada. Workers’ compensation. Existing workers’ compensation law generally requires employers to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, including medical treatment, for injuries incurred by their employees that arise out of, and in the course of, employment. This bill would provide that no workers’ compensation claim shall be denied solely because the motivation behind what caused the employee’s injury or death was related to an immutable personal characteristic of that employee.

This is ground breaking stuff. According to the insurer in Ms. Talley’s case, “Workers compensation death benefits can be denied if there is a personal connection between the attacker and the victim, meaning, the crime is not related to employment.” While Ms. Talley’s case was very public, I’m sure that there are many, many more employees out there who have been denied WC benefits because the issue was considered to be “personal” rather than work related.

Not anymore. At least not in California.

I personally don’t believe that any question is illegal, per se, but rather ill-advised. Though it is perfectly valid to state that certain questions shouldn’t be asked because the answers could put the company in a position of potential liability, particularly if the candidate is not hired.

From HRHero:

When conducting job interviews, it’s important to ask the right questions to get the information you need to see if the person you’re interviewing is a good fit for the job. But it’s also important to know what not to ask. In other words, what the various employment laws say you can’t ask or what might suggest to an outsider that you’re considering an impermissible trait in evaluating candidates.

As a general rule of thumb, all of your questions should be directly related to the job in question and the job duties the applicant would be required to perform if hired. Of course, you need to steer clear of asking applicants about their age, race, color, sex, disability, religion, national origin, pregnancy, and other protected classifications.

One would like to think that common sense would come into play during interviews, but as we all know, that doesn’t always happen. Questions are asked about last names, families, age, among many others. These types of questions are awkward, inappropriate and definitely sends the interview down a very slippery path, but there is nothing illegal about asking them. Making decisions solely on the basis of the answers to these questions can definitely cross legal lines, but the questions themselves do not.

The best way to avoid these questions popping up in interviews is to train your hiring managers on how to conduct a constructive interview. Using tools such as prepared questions, rating scales, 80/20 rules and behavioral interviewing, to name a few, can help the interviewer truly determine if the person in front of them is the right person for the job.

If done correctly, there won’t be any room for “questionable” questions.

I can’t believe I’ve never come across this before now.

This is the comic book for HR Geeks like us. Unfortunately, issue #1 is sold out, but luckily it’s online. You can also download it to your iPhone.

YIPPEE!

From Cincinnati.com

INDIANAPOLIS – WellPoint Inc., the largest U.S. insurer, dismissed a “small number” of workers last week and announced cuts to employee health benefits Friday, in its latest attempt to deal with the recession’s toll on enrollment.

WellPoint eliminated the positions last week and expects to let more go before year’s end, though the number will be “relatively small,” Kristin Binns, a spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. The company will also raise deductibles and premiums for some of its employee health benefits, the Indianapolis-based insurer told workers in a memo obtained by Bloomberg.

Cutting benefits in itself is not so unusual but for some reason, this seems so wrong. Maybe it’s because the CEO, as stated by the Huffington Post and verified by Forbes.com, brought home nearly $10 million in compensation in 2008.

And because of their questionable business practices and the allegations of using their employees for their own political agenda.

Then again, it seems that all of the healthcare companies are behaving badly these days.

Shame on all of them.

What’s so amazing is that the offer packet has the same look and feel of the company’s most recognizable products. I’m duly impressed.

[photos by glyph]

To quote: “…any company that can give this much attention to detail just in their HR paperwork should be fun to work for. I am looking forward to this new adventure.”

Congrats on your new gig! I couldn’t agree more!

Thanks to Scott for the tip.

That lead me to to think about severance pay. What is it and why do companies give it? It’s not required, neither federally nor statutorily. Yet many employers have severance guidelines, if not full-blown policies.

Well, I think I know. Severance pay seems to really be “Here’s some money so you don’t sue us.” Yet, the naif in me really wants to believe that severance is an effort of good faith to recognize an employee’s service to the company, and to assist a person financially while they seek other employment. But all of us know that you never, ever let an employee walk away with that check unless they’ve signed an official “Release of Claims” that basically tells the employee that they give up their rights to sue the company.

From Yourlegalcorner.com

Typically, the employer will seek to have the employee release all non-waiveable state and federal claims the employee has, or may have, whether known or unknown, against the employer (including but not limited to claims of discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, breach of contract, privacy violations, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress). An employee’s waiver of a federal claim of age discrimination, however, is NOT valid, unless: 1) the release specifically mentions the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 2) the release is written in clear understandable language; 3) the employee is advised to see an attorney before signing the agreement, 4) the employee is given a full 21 days to consider the release (45 days in some cases), and 5) the employee is given a 7 day “cooling off” period during which the employee can change his or her mind after signing the release.

An employee may also be forced to waive “unknown” claims against the employer, which will be valid as long as the employer has properly inserted the language required under California Civil Code 1542 into the release.

In other words, everything. Except cases regarding overtime, Workers Comp, and, unless specifically cited in the Release, Age Discrimination. It seems like an awful lot to give up for a payment that’s usually 1 week per 1 year served (or some close facsimile thereof). Yet in the case of the 64 year old worker who was let go with nary a cent, I’m sure that 12 weeks of compensation in exchange for a lousy release would probably be a no-brainer.

Stuff like this breaks my heart. How difficult would have been to offer something to recognize loyalty, good work and many years of service (along with a Release of Claims)? I realize that there are financial implications here, but even a token gesture of some sort would have been better. There’s the right thing to do and then there’s the RIGHT thing to do.

It sounds like Wilkes Bashford did neither in this case.

Besides, many employers already do offer various forms of maternity leave in order to stay competitive as an employer of choice. And I am truly a fan of that.

That being said, the blatant ignorance of the following statement by Sen Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in defense of an amendment to the health care plan that he proposed is just, well, baffling. Thankfully, Sen Debbie Stabenow (D – Mich) was quick with a response.

As they say, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. And the more credit to her. The amendment was defeated 9-14.

From CNN:

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) — Angry workers beat to death a human resources vice president after he laid off 42 employees at an auto-parts manufacturing company in southern India, police said Wednesday.

Roy George was vice-president for human resources at Pricol, the auto-parts company. Some four to five workers, belonging to a union not recognized by the company, barged into his office and beat him up with iron rods, said N. Kannan, a police superintendent of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state. George, 47, died from his head injuries Tuesday, Kannan told CNN.

Police have arrested nine people and are expected to round up more.

My heart goes out to Mr. George’s family.

There but for the grace of Mr. George, go all of us.

Evidently, it sets a bad example if you bring lunch from home to work. In doing so, you indicate that you are more concerned about feeding yourself than working, you isolate yourself and you violate all sorts of etiquette rules.

Per HR Strange But True [via Just Sell]:

Is your lunch of leftovers holding you back from job advancement? It could be, says e-columnist Helena Echlin on her blog at justsell.com. She believes that toting Tupperware “is like wearing an old cardigan to work; there’s nothing wrong with it, but it doesn’t project power and success.”

So in other words, in these days where everyone is trying to save a few bucks, having leftovers for lunch is equivalent to committing career suicide. Better you should go grab what Echlin calls a the ultimate power lunch – a take out sandwich (usually costing between $5 – $10). It shows that you are decisive and will eat quickly enough to get back to work, you go getter, you.

Personally, to me it shows that a person is paying way to much money for something that can be made at home for half the price (not that there’s anything wrong with that). What ever happened to cost consciousness being a good thing?

But pizza, according to Echlin, pizza is the hero of at work lunches. It promotes teamwork and camaraderie and shows that you’re one of the team.

Personally, I don’t buy it. I like bringing my lunch to work, particularly since I’m a vegetarian, and if a company is going to judge me on whether or not I bring my lunch, then maybe the company is focusing on the wrong things.

Yum, nothing is better than leftover spaghetti for lunch the next day. I should do this every day.

From the LA Times:

Cal/OSHA officials declined to comment because the complaints have not yet been filed. They said they continue their own investigation into the most recent HIV case, as well as 18 additional HIV cases since 2004 reported to them by the Southland porn industry’s primary health clinic. The state has subpoenaed patient records, but that access is being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has alleged a violation of patient privacy.

My dear friend, Violet Blue , wrote about this situation in depth in today’s Chron and guess which HR expert she consulted?

This is an issue that I feel very strongly about and I was very happy (and honored) to be consulted about this issue. I truly believe that it is the duty of employers to create a safe workplace environment for each and every employee for whom the employer is responsible. As with all articles, comments are edited. I’m very happy with the way my words were portrayed in the article, but I would like to present the full context of my comments because…well, I can.

It is the duty of every employer to provide a safe working environment for employees. Whether you work in a bakery or in porn, you have failed your employees if you expose them to dangerous situations if you don’t provide the proper protective equipment. Still using the bakery as an example, would it be right for the bakery owner to require that his employees remove hot items from the oven without heat resistant protection? Most people would laugh and say, of course it’s not right. So why is it okay for porn studios to put their employees in the same position (really, no pun intended!).

I realized that many people may look at this as a matter of personal rights because they are being told to wear a condom. But I think what gets lost on many people is that you do give up a number of rights when you are at work. There’s an old joke in HR that states that there’s no such thing as free speech at work. Well, I suppose you can say what you want, but you may not stay employed for long if your speech is offensive to others, for example.

Going back to requiring condoms, I prefer to think it more a matter of a safety uniform, similar to that which fire personnel wear. There’s no way in hell anyone is going to let a fireman into a burning building without his fire retardant clothing, his oxygen and yes, his hose. Nor should that fireman want to enter that burning building without his gear. It’s suicidal. And having unprotected sex with someone who has had unprotected sex multiple partners, going in without protection is also suicidal. And the employers should not only be aware of this, they should require it.

There are reasons why OSHA has regulations in place. It’s nice to buck the system, but when it comes down to it, OSHA is there to protect the individual from the potential abuses of an employer. Prior to OSHA, workplace injuries were out of control because jobs were few and many employers cut corners. I present “The Jungle” for anyone who disagrees.

I should also say that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was founded in 1970 to protect workers from harm on the job. This was the first time that a nationwide program was put into place to protect all US workers from job-related death, injury and illness. The history of OSHA is very rocky, and we know what bureaucracy can be, but it’s mission to provide a safe workplace for employees is hard fought and hopefully won.

As an HR professional, I pride myself on creating and maintaining a safe workplace for any/all of my employees. This should be the mission of every HR professional and of every employer.

Okay, I’m off my narcissistic soapbox now. But I do think it’s an important message that should be shared.

BTW – I’m posting this at 37,000 feet on my flight to NY on Virgin America. I love it!

It seems a very angry woman on her way to work (she’s in scrubs) decided that it was appropriate to yell homophobic slurs at a fellow rider that upset her. This was during peak commute time in San Francisco and you can hear a number of riders responding to her tirade with their own about being late for work.

Check out the comment on SFist where someone states, “Let’s just hope this video ends up in her HR file. If she works for UCSF, it will be there until the sun swallows the earth.”

Yes, let’s hope that this shameful behavior does go down on her permanent record.

[via SFist]