Workplace Friends - Occupational Hazard for HR Managers...

Dateline - Any workplace in the U.S. with a HR Department
Topic - Can HR people have good friends in the workplace?
Capitalist Conclusion - You should be able to, but it is tough.  Proceed at your own risk...

If you've worked in a HR position at the same company for more than 3 years and opted to have a normal set of good friends in the workplace (the kind you are repeatedly seen at lunch with), you fall into one of three categories:

1.  You've felt the sting of a co-worker friend ask for, or allude to, confidential information in their day-to day conversations with you (testing..1..2..3..).

2.  You've felt the sharper sting of co-worker friends a) attributing confidential information they share with others to you, or b) sharing confidential info and having the recipients of that information assuming they got it from you, since the co-worker in question is widely believed to be your best friend (just as dangerous).  PS - you may not know this is occurring as in 2b...

3.  Employees outside your circle of friends have a lower probability of coming to you with concerns or items they need your help on, either because they don't like one or all of your workplace friends, or they feel out of the loop.   You won't likely know this one is occurring either...

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.  If you don't have friends in the workplace, you don't get what you need socially from work and you may be considered aloof and unapproachable.  If you do have friends in the workplace, you can get scorched worse than Fire Marshall Bill (pictured above) by the rumors and undercurrent of alleged favoritism in the organization (the Fire Marshall Bill skit would go like this - "let's just say...you're a HR Manager with friends who like to gossip.. You go to lunch and let it all hang out about Tommy in accounting, and BAM!!! Destruction!!)

So what's the best solution for you, the HR Pro?  Take care of yourself, but take care of your reputation.  Have a small group of workplace friends that you can trust, and treat their reputations as seriously as you do your own.  Let them know your concerns and expectations.  If an employee outside of that circle comes to you with an issue, give them 2x the service and urgency you would give to your friends, to show you're above and beyond reproach.  And if your friends violate the trust, eliminate the visible affiliation with them in the workplace.

I know, I know, it shouldn't have to be like that.  But it is.  HR people have access to a lot of data, and as a result, you're held to a higher standard.  Welcome to your personal version of Employee Relations.  The goal?  To advance your career without looking like Fire Marshall Bill after a chemical explosion... 

If You Don't Have a Meaningful Answer to this Question From Your CEO, Update Your Resume...

My latest article is up at Workforce.com, entitled "7 Ways to Reduce Benefit Costs Without Decreasing Coverage", so go out and take a look if you have a chance.  Here's the intro:

"By now you’ve read the latest yin and yang of benefits news. Health care premium increases rose at their lowest rate in eight years. But the increase is still more than 6 percent, and that’s still more than twice the rate of inflation. It far exceeds the average annual increase (3.6 percent) for employees in the U.S.

With that data in mind, the reality remains the same. Your benefit cost structure is increasing, and it remains difficult to shift some, much less all, of the increasing costs to employees. The crunch continues, and you’re in the middle. Your CEO is looking to you, the HR pro, to squeeze dollars out of the overall plan structure without causing a riot. So much so that she walks into your office and asks the following question:

"You follow these things: What can we do to reduce our benefit costs without dropping coverage levels significantly or increasing employee contributions?"

Yikes! That’s a credibility call for HR—an opportunity to be at the table. Or to clean the table after the meeting if you don’t have a meaningful response."

Click over to get my cliff notes for the top seven strategies to drop benefit costs without decreasing coverage.  Let me know ideas I've missed as well...

$25 for a Fake Excused Absence? Do You Take Visa?

There are lots of opportunities out there, my young jedi.  All you have to do is sell out to the dark side...

A couple of days ago, I riffed on the single worst example of human behavior I had witnessed as a HR professional.  The winner?  Some dude who was faking funeral programs on fictional deaths in his family to get a couple of extra days off from a call center.    That's just wrong...

So that guy got fired, which is what you would expect..

What you wouldn't expect is that he might be cashing in on his brainstorm via a web business called the Excused Absence Network, which, for about $25, provides students and employees excuse notes that appear to come from doctors or hospitals. Other options include a fake jury summons or an authentic-looking funeral service program complete with comforting poems and a list of pallbearers. 

My former employee seems to have landed on his feet.  From a CNN report:

"Millions of Americans work dead-end job, and sometimes they just need a day off," said John Liddell, co-founder of the Internet-based company Vision Matters, which sells the notes as part of its Excused Absence Network. "People are going to lie anyway. How many people go visit their doctors every day when they're not sick because they just need a note?"

The company's customers receive templates so they can print the notes after typing the name and address of a local doctor or emergency room. Those who choose jury duty as an excuse to miss work enter their county courthouse information on the form.

Though the company's disclaimer advises the notes are "for entertainment purposes only," its Web site shows pictures of people sunbathing and playing golf using the fabricated excuses. One testimonial says: "I've managed to take the nine weeks off using these templates! It couldn't be any easier!"

Actually, for one New Jersey woman it wasn't so easy. She was arrested this year after using one of the company's notes to support her claim she was too injured to appear in traffic court for a speeding ticket. She was caught after court officials called the chiropractor listed and he told them he never heard of the woman."

The founder started the business for $300 and currently runs it off a laptop in a small Oklahoma town.  The site gets about 15,000 hits a month.

Somewhere out there, a HR Manager who subscribes to the Capitalist has just turned to the dark side as they were reading this.  Like Darth Vader, they've thought up a money making idea, but one that uses their powers for bad, not good.

Resume' doctoring and fake absence notes are taken.  What's next?  Maybe fully-faked employer references that reverse engineer the background check process?

(hat tip to Capitalist reader Scott for the link...)

Fantasy Sports Leagues At Work Are Good for the Workpace, Yo...

...if you're a guy.  Not many females playing that I can see.  Workforce recently ran an article that focused on the down side of fantasy sports leagues in the workplace (guys going over the top, resulting in solidifying cliques and confrontations).  Can't say that I've seen that in our workplace NFL league, as it's provided a unified topic for those who participate, without the negative aspect highlighted by Workforce. 

If I could change anything, it would be to level out the gender participation (way more males than females), but finding females who want to act like a pro sports GM, via ESPN on the web, is rare indeed.

So, I'll take what I can get, and keep the good times rolling with the guys.  Our NFL fantasy league at work is half over.  This week, we start a NBA fantasy league.

The participants claimed that the "smack talk" feature on Yahoo Sports NBA was weak.  So what did I do?  I created a blog for the league complete with chat and comment features at the top of the page so the good-natured smack talk could roll.

Plus, having a blog for the NBA league means I can take full advantage of YouTube.  First up?  This classic commercial series, from Fox Sports, from a couple of years ago, featuring a couple of Vanilla Ice/Eminem wannabees. 

Classic....

Do Companies With the Lowest Healthcare Burden Just Have Heathier Employees?

A couple of days ago I featured the 2008 Towers Perrin Annual Health Care Cost Survey, which summarized that next year's gross health care expenditure is expected to rise by an average of $577 per employee, to an average total cost of $9,312 per employee.

Here's a nugget buried towards the bottom of that report.  The TP survey divided respondents in its annual health care cost database into three categories -- low-performing, average-performing and high-performing companies. Performance designations were based on relative costs and cost increases, as well as whether an organization is meeting its health benefit objectives in such areas as efficient purchasing, employee engagement and managing health risks in the employee population.

Here's the TP findings related to high performers and low performers:

"Among high performers, 45% have cost increases of 5% or less -- evidence, in Towers Perrin’s view, that active management of program performance is an exercise in the “art of  the possible,” and an increasingly urgent mandate for companies still experiencing double-digit growth rates. The cost spreads between high-performing companies and low performers can be significant and can have a tremendous impact on an organization’s profits and positioning in the marketplace. And if left unchecked over a number of years, the competitive differential can become a significant business threat to the organization.

Here's what the TP report identified as behaviors separating the high performers from the low performers:

"Commitment to employees -- High-performing companies are highly committed to employees -- supporting employees’ ability to make sound health care decisions, taking steps to motivate employees to manage their health care purchases responsibly, and working to manage health risks and conditions in the employee population overall.

Managing by measuring --  High performers are far more rigorous than low performers in developing and documenting their health care strategies. They also manage by fact. For example, the vast majority of high-performing companies conduct extensive measurement of program costs versus less than half of the low-performing group.

Ensuring critical success factors are in place -- While the 2008 data show that all companies are doing more than ever to ensure that critical success factors -- such as senior leadership involvement, support from managers and supervisors, and disciplined execution processes -- are in place, high-performing companies are much more committed to these program pillars.

Increasing accountability -- High-performing companies design their programs to make the true costs of care visible to employees, and hold them accountable for the decisions they make at the point of care, using, for example, coinsurance rather than copays to share costs with employees

Engaging employees -- High-performing companies require employees to be more accountable for their decisions, and take steps to help employees do that by expanding communication initiatives and providing a variety of tools and resources to support employee awareness, understanding and action.

Building a culture of health -- High performers are much more likely to say they’re committed to building a culture of health in their organizations and to report that their employee education efforts are succeeding. For example, a strong majority of the high performers say employees accept their roles and responsibilities under their health plan, are comfortable with the level of risk under the plan, and understand and use decision support tools."

So those are drivers that allow companies with the lowest heathcare burden to keep costs down.  It's a good list, and I need to dig in a little bit more to ensure we are doing everything we can at our company.

Only one thing bothers me.  Look at the graph above.  The companies with the good cost structures have a cost per employee that is 20% cheaper than the high cost companies.  Yet on average, the annual cost increases of the low performers is 7%, vs. 5% for the high performers.

Is it possible the companies with the lower cost structure just have healthier employees?  Average age, blue collar vs. white collar, geography, etc. all come into play. 

The truth, as it always does, probably lies somewhere in the middle.  The factors above are things we should all pursue, but at the end of the day, the overall health of the employee base is what it is.  That takes years to change...

Anti-Social Employee Behavior and the Company Elevator

Face it.  You've had one of those weeks, one of those days, or one of those mornings.  You don't want to talk to people.  It's OK, that makes you human...  Sometimes people aren't the best choice to hang out with.

But don't start the day avoiding the faces you know (if not love) by evading elevator time with others at work.  Here's a chronology I got one morning this week in the walk from the parking lot to the building, then to the elevator.  Bad karma.  Check and see if this is anyone you know:

1.  I park.  Jim (not the real name) has already parked and is 20 seconds ahead of me walking up to the building from another area of the parking lot.  Jim looks intense/troubled/slightly anti-social in his body language.

2.  As I am walking up to the building, I don't give it the old "Hi Jim!" from 30 yards out since he looks peeved.  My first thought - "Let's give Jim some space and not do the fake pleasantries".  After all, he'll have to force some small talk out in the elevator (we're on the 3rd and 4th floor of our building) in close quarters.  I don't want him to peak to soon, because nothing's worse than uncomfortable silence in the elevator.  I'm all about taking care of Jim at this point.

3.  Jim sees me out of the corner of his eye and decides to turn the corner to the building doors without saying "Hi Kris!".  That's cool - he's probably doing me the solid of allowing me to save my best stuff for the elevator as well.  Nice.  What am I going to ring up with him in the elevator?  Weather?  Kids?  Red Sox?  Who knows - I'll figure it out in the next 40 yards.  I'm best under pressure...

4.  Jim enters the building.  Through the glass windows as I walk up, I see Jim punch the button for the elevator, then get really close to the doors to make it come quicker.  Can an elevator be willed to come sooner than the national average?  Some would say no, Jim says "yes".  A battle of wills ensues as I make my way to the doors.  At stake?  Jim's ability to ride the trolley up solo, without having to deal with me being all chipper and engaging.

5.  I come through the doors.  I can't see Jim at the elevators since he's locked in the battle of wills, but suffice it to say there's only a 5% probability he's riding the box without me on his shoulder, making small talk.  I've decided to talk about the Democratic presidential hopefuls, just to take Jim's heart rate up a few.  Always thinking about wellness and aerobic health.

6.  I turn the corner and NEWMAN!!  No Jim.  Up button to the elevator still illuminated, with Jim nowhere to be found.  I hear the door to the stairs slam shut.  Jim's decided that climbing the stairs is better than making small talk.  That's 60 small steps for Jim, hopefully a lifestyle change for mankind and wellness.

Could it have been me?  Surely not.  Well, maybe.  More than likely, Jim didn't want to make small talk with anyone, espeically those voted most likely to tweak him on topics where his views are polarized and he's easily agitated. 

So here's my new parking lot/elevator rule for decency.  No eye contact or small talk required when separated by more than 20 yards in the parking lot, however, you have to the take the elevator when you've been spotted.

Especially when you've already pushed the button.  Have you no shame?  Do I have to send the guys from a martial arts movie, pictured in the elevator photo above, to straighten this out?

But as I make the rule, I give the olive branch - Dude, we've all been there..  Honk if you've ever avoided human interaction at work...   

The Sting of Pay for Performance - Joe Torre and the Yankees

By now, you know that the Yankees are out of the playoffs, and Joe Torre is out as their manager.  Torre said no to a one-year extension that guaranteed him less ($5 million versus the $6.4 million in 2007), but an opportunity to make $8 million overall, if he led the team to the World Series next year.   He called the $3 million in bonus incentives “an insult.”

Pay for Performance sure can suck from an employee's point of view, especially when "the man" is trying to down your base and dangle an increased total comp target at you..

Here's the best analysis - first from John Hollon at Workforce:

"Pay-for-performance plans only work when someone is both motivated to perform by the amount of the performance bonus and believes that the performance plan is constructed in a way that is both fair and achievable. But as a Harvard Business School report stated back in 2003, commitment and company culture are also variables that enter into the mix. Pay for performance doesn’t work as well in a company culture that places more emphasis on building “commitment rather than on monetary incentives.”

Joe Torre seemed to make this same point Friday when he said: “If somebody wanted me to manage here, I’d be managing here. That’s my feeling. Yes, it was a very generous offer, no question about it. It still wasn’t the type of commitment that we’re trying to do something together as opposed to what can you do for me. … It’s not the money that’s going to be the determining factor. It’s the commitment and trust. You can’t have one without the other.”

Pay for performance versus commitment and trust—does one exclude the other? Joe Torre thought yes, while the Yankees’ management thought no. There may not be a right answer here, but one thing is certain: Torre’s decision will fuel more discussion on how compensation systems can be better designed to get both workers and managers to work and sacrifice together to achieve a common goal."

Next up - Jack and Suzy Welch at BusinessWeek:

"We agree that Joe Torre is a star: Who else can claim four World Series rings and 12 straight post-season appearances? He also happens to be a high-integrity, good-hearted, first-class human being, deserving of all the admiration he receives.

But did the Yankees stick him with a raw deal? No way. A very reasonable deal is more like it. The offer accurately reflected the marketplace; with a $5 million base salary, Torre would still be the highest-paid manager in baseball. And with a $1 million bonus for every playoff series won, it reflected the ownership's priorities. If the Yankees won the World Series in 2008, Joe Torre stood to receive an $8 million payday, more than any other manager by a factor of two.

Sure, you can debate the Yankees' choice of performance metrics, given the role luck seems to play in a short play-off series. But in the cold light of day, you really cannot call the Torre deal any of the epithets it inspired, from "raw" to "insulting" to "cruel."

Most of the public outcry in favor of Torre is based on the reputation of George Steinbrenner and the perceived high integrity level of Torre.  Put both of those to the side, and it's obvious this was a fair deal, one with a base that remained the highest in baseball, close to the previous base, and gave him an at-risk opportunity to earn more than 2M more than he did in 2007.

Pay for performance sounds great (to Hollon's point), but it's tough to get employees to accept.  Especially when you are reducing base pay in any way.

Would you take a 10% cut in base pay for a shot to earn up to 25% more in total comp?  That's the question you have to ask yourself to put it in a personal context...  Would you do it if your team had unlimited resources and could spend more than 3X than most of your competitors?  Hmm.....

Tale of Two Performers: The Warrior and the Continuous Learner (and why Motivational Fit Rules)

I'm a NBA fan, so it's no surprise that I read Henry Abbott over at True Hoop, a blog that was recently acquired by ESPN.  Henry does a great job at weaving what's going on in society into the daily grind of the NBA, and was one of the people who inspired me to take a shot at a similar mission with The HR Capitalist.  NBA/HR, it's all about dollars and bling in our field as well.. :)

Last week, Henry reminded me about a book entitled The Hero Within: Six Archetypes We Live By, authored by Carol Pearson.  The book's content will seem familiar to those of you sipping the Myers-Briggs kool-aid (myself included), as it breaks down six "types" that lurk in all of us, with dominant traits emerging and defining who we are and how we handle the world. 

Henry's recent post focused on two of those types - the Warrior and the Wanderer (I dubbed it Continuous Learner above), and he wondered aloud if you can be a Wanderer/Continuous Learner in the shark-infested NBA and emerge with a championship.  His target for the analysis?  The super-skilled, super-nice and super-diverse Dirk Nowitzki of the Dallas Mavericks.  From the True Hoop breakdown:

"One archetype is the wanderer. The wanderer, essentially, seeks new experiences, trying on some level to figure out what's different about him or her from everything else going on. The wanderer, as you can imagine, is an open-minded learner.

Another archetype is the warrior. Whereas the wanderer walks into a room and says "hmm ... what's going on here, and is there a place for me?" the warrior walks into a room and says "let's rearrange this joint." It's about realizing there's something different about yourself, and remaking the world in your image. This is single-minded.

I was learning about this when Michael Jordan was a young NBA player. People were talking about Jordan "imposing his will on the game." Think about the many anecdotes of Jordan telling his teammates, essentially, to be more like him. Warrior. Straight warrior.

And ... not so much of a wanderer. Jordan cast a famously narrow net in search of expertise -- Tim Grover, David Falk, Phil Jackson, people Jordan knew in high school or at college. (Hiring from a narrow pool of friends is one of his weaknesses as an executive in Charlotte.)

One of my favorite Jordan stories is about the fact that when he was getting to know Abe and Irene Pollin, who were courting him to become part of the Wizards' organization, they served him salmon. He had spent decades in the finest restaurants in the world, and had even owned restaurants. Yet, reportedly, this meeting in January 2000 was the first time Michael Jordan ever ate salmon.

Single-minded warrior, check. Wanderer? Not really.

Now, compare that to Dirk Nowitzki, who just spent a good chunk of the summer literally wandering remote Australia. Here is Nowitzki, interviewed on NBA.com, preaching the gospel of new experience:

Best piece of basketball advice you received was...
It wasn't really basketball advice, but just keep your eyes and ears open, always learn. It is a good lesson for life too. You always want to improve. You can never think you learned it all in life. There is always something else coming. That is the same with basketball. You can always work on your game and be a better player and person.

Later in the same interview, Nowitzki talks about his parents (don't we all wish we had these parents?) who essentially encouraged him to wander.

How proud is your family that you made it to the NBA?
You can't really describe it. My whole family is my biggest fans. I could go 0-20 one night and my mom will still call me and be like "hey you did this and this good." They supported me from day one. They drove me around to practices all over when I played tennis, handball. They let me make my own decision. I was pretty decent in tennis and handball. When I said I wanted to stop, they didn't say a word, they said "hey it is whatever you want to do." Then I started playing basketball. They drove me to basketball practice, to the games. So they have been really supportive of my sport career. They come over here every year for like two or three weeks and they love to be here, love to see me play. With the National Team in the summer, they travel wherever I go and try to watch. I grew up in a very close family and it has been great.

As I recall, Pearson suggests success comes from balancing these and other archetypes in your own life. I suspect that's good advice. (I also suspect that you do best in life by playing the cards you are dealt. It's not like Nowitzki could or should just decide to become brutal.)

But in the particular and bizarre game known as being a basketball superhero -- and here being a team leader may differ from being a supporting player -- I am quite certain that rules of the game are tilted heavily in favor of warriors.

And that's where I can't help thinking back to how Dallas was booted from the playoffs in the first round of the playoffs earlier this year. No, it wasn't all Dirk Nowitzki's fault. Yes, Golden State (irony alert, they're called "the Warriors!") was inspired.

But when I was watching those games on TV, I feel like I could see Dirk Nowitzki saying to the Warriors: What are you going to give me? I have this move and that move and this other one, and I'll use whichever one you will let me use. And the Warriors essentially replied that he couldn't have any of those."

That's a golden performance management breakdown.  Two highly skilled, hall of fame players, but one will be remembered as the best of all time, and one will be remembered as a hall of famer - more than likely a hall of famer without a championship ring.

At the end of the day, finding the right candidate is all about motivational fit.  Your company, the available position, the market conditions - none of that is really subject to change to fit the candidate.  The candidate has to be the right emotional, motivational and type fit for the role.  If they aren't, then you'll likely feel like you missed in the hiring process later, if you decide to bring them aboard.

Which begs the question - why wouldn't the Mavericks trade Dirk straight up for Kobe right now, especially given the inflexible job requirements of a franchise player in the NBA?

So, when you're filling that customer service or sales role, ask these two questions.  And think about whether your open spot requires a warrior or a wanderer....

Break Out Your Slide Rules!! The Towers Perrin Annual Health Care Cost Survey is Out...

I always celebrate the TP Annual Health Care Cost Survey by going down to Circuit City to buy a new pocket protector.  Seems like no one is around to help me these days, but if someone is available, they haven't worked there long.  Go figure...

I jest, but the Towers Perrin Annuall Health Care Cost Survey (I'm calling it the TPAHCCS for short.. kinda like TPS reports) is always chock full of benchmarks that matter.  How much healthcare costs, what companies are paying on average on behalf of their employees, how much the same level of coverage is expected to increase in the next year, etc.    Good stuff, good times.  Let's dig in with these highlights:

--In flat dollar terms, next year's gross health care expenditure is expected to rise by an average of $577 per employee, to an average total cost of $9,312.

--Employers are expecting to subsidize 78% of next year's premium costs, and employees will have to cover the remaining 22%, plus usage-based copays, deductibles and co-insurance.

--Employee contributions, on average, will jump by $156 per employee per year to $2,040, an 8% increase that is roughly more than twice that of annual employee merit increases. The combined effect is that over the last five years, out-of-pocket costs for employees have essentially doubled, a clear indication of how pronounced the affordability issue remains, particularly for low-wage workers.

-Analyzing the data by coverage level, the average reported 2008 cost of medical coverage for active-employee-only coverage is $4,704 per year ($392 monthly), $9,660 per year for employee-plus-one-dependent coverage ($805 monthly) and $13,704 per year ($1,142 monthly) for family coverage.

So compare and contrast my friends, and sleep tight knowing you are doing what you can to keep coverage affordable for your employees.  Even if it means taking tough medicine like mandatory mail order, etc.   Sometimes you have to roll like that, to keep the benefit levels for all, where they are...

Facebook, Employees and HR - You Can't Handle the Truth...

Kobe Bryant lets the world know how he is feeling through the media.  There's even a cool Kobe Advisory System in the LA Times to help you know his mood.   Guess what?  Facebook can provide the same details about how your employees feel!

I've been digging into Facebook lately to evaluate it as an alternative communication platform to employees.  The goal?  To use a social networking platform as a means to serve employees.  At this point, I would include all the normal platforms (email, landline, cell, face-to-face) as well as some 2.0 technologies (blogs, text-messaging, IM) as methods we employ to serve and communicate to employees.

Pure social networking (Facebook) seems like the next step.  After all, got to go where the kids are and get straight on the technology, right?   After digging in, there's just this one little problem...

Employees can be WAY too candid about how they are feeling about their job, their co-workers, and even their boss on a social networking site like Facebook.   One of the features in Facebook is "Status Stories", which shows up in the user's main profile window called "My Feed".  Lots of Facebook users use Status Stories to tell the world how they feel on a given day, about light and serious issues alike.  The result is a self-reported chronology of the trivial, conversational and serious alike.  While I can't provide an actual thread, here's a hypothetical sample from an employee I'll call "Robbie":

-October 19 - Robbie just ended a bad relationship
-October 18 - Robbie thinks his manager is a #$@#
-October 17 - Robbie saw his manager looking in a lustful way at a female in the office
-October 16 - Robbie thinks his monitor smells like tuna

Nice... So work with me on this one.  You've made the decision to dip into social networking as part of your drive to become 2.0 and connect with employees, and this is how you are rewarded?  Now you've got to figure out your legal obligation to investigate the Status Stories included on the feed once you've seen them.   Imagine approaching John to tell him you checked him out on Facebook, and you would like to inquire more about the lustful looks from the manager...ugh...

Which indicates it may be better to let the dust settle a bit on the Social Networking sites until you can avoid that type of information.  Maybe someone will use the open development architecture on Facebook to develop an Employee Advisory System, which will give you a dashboard on how employees are feeling, similar to the graphic of Kobe above.  All without having to dig into individual profiles.  Now that would be sweet!!!!

Highway to Hell - Worst Employee Relations Moments for Humanity..

Work in a high volume HR shop long enough and you're bound to run into some bad human behavior.  Lies... Deceit... Job Abandonment... Dress code violations involving Spandex...

I was talking to a former teammate today (previous company), a HR pro who reported to me and supported a large call center (400+ seats).  We were talking about the good old days, and she asked me to recall the single worst example of human behavior we worked on together, from an employee relations perspective.

I thought about it for about 20 seconds, and immediately recalled this one:

Player - Customer Service Rep, Call Center

Issue - Poor attendance, was out on bereavement leave at least monthly, seemed to be from a family with a lot of aunts and uncles...

1st Step of Increased Scrutiny - We asked him to bring in a funeral program for the funerals in question, which he promptly and consistently provided upon returning from the days off associated with the funerals.

Brainstorm by HR Manager - Call the funeral home in question to make sure we had the spelling of the name right.  Side benefit - see what happens when we give them the name.

Unbelievable Outcome - Customer Service Rep in question had a family member on the "inside" at the funeral home.  She mocked up a new program for each fake funeral, complete with funeral home logo and pictures of the deceased.  It was a scam!

Outcome - Termination.  Awe of the employee's nerve.  Nausea.  Uneasiness for the future of human race.

Human nature exists, and HR pros get to the see the downside in employee relations issues that involve anger, ambition, lust, lies, etc.  But faking funeral programs to get a couple of extra days off?  That's taking your game to the next level.   The escalator's going down, and you won't be needing that fall jacket.  It's warm where he's headed....

As for me?  I've got my cynicism to keep me warm, complete with a mission of ensuring every employee handbook I work with has the "we may require documentation" clause in the bereavement policy.   

Dear Craigslist - Keep the Freaks Out by Charging Me For Job Postings...

Every tried to recruit on Craigslist?   It's like picking up the Saturday paper and hitting garage sales all morning long.  Results may vary by neighborhood, and it's less than predictable.   At one house, you pick up some new golf shirts still in the package, next stop - used socks in a garbage bag... for free...

Craigslist is the same dynamic in the employment space.  It's hit and miss, city by city, and also job by job.   I've had great success with posting certain positions in specific metro areas, then I run the same pitch in a different metro area - and nothing happens.  And I mean NOTHING...

If you've taken a spin around the job boards on Craigslist, you know one reason for this trend is there's a lot of junk posted there.  After all, the price is right in most metro areas - it's FREE.  The only barrier to posting is the effort - to take the time to list a position on the board.  That leads to a lot of multi-level marketing and work from home opportunities, most with a random-sounding hotmail address to reply to.    That drives a lot of professionals away.

Craigslist's response to the junk level?  Weed out the freaks by charging for employment ads.  From a recent Sacramento Bee article:

"The free ride on Craigslist is coming to an end.

The popular classified-advertising Web site -- and scourge of newspaper publishers everywhere -- said Thursday it will charge $25 for help-wanted ads in the Sacramento market starting Nov. 1.

Craigslist said it won't charge for odd jobs or "gigs." Nor will the fees apply to real estate, merchandise and other advertising categories.  A $25 fee for help-wanted ads is also coming to Orange County, Chicago and Portland, Ore. This will bring to 11 the number of markets where Craigslist charges for employment ads. In addition, Craigslist charges $10 for certain real estate ads in New York.

The fees don't represent a change in philosophy for Craigslist, which is a for-profit corporation but styles itself as a quirky nonprofit "community." Rather, the San Francisco-based site said the fees will weed out the "duplicate and illegitimate ads" and make the remaining listings more effective."

$25 is a bargain to remove the clutter.  I just wish Craigslist was more of a capitalist organization and charged for employment ads everywhere.  The result would be a more viable product and ultimately, a nice option in addition to the big boards like Monster.

A couple of weeks ago I was leaving the office and saw one of our managers sitting on the curb, waiting to make a transaction from Craigslist.  He was selling a leafblower, and had set up a time to meet a woman to trade cash for the aforementioned yard equipment.  I saw him the next morning and guess what?  Turns out the woman didn't show..  That's a shocker - a female leery of coming to a parking lot to pick up a leafblower from a free posting...  He's a good guy, but the lady probably thought about the child abuser stings on NBC and opted to pay full price at Lowe's.

Same deal with candidates.  Craigslist - charge me for postings, please!!!

 

Workplace Request - Don't Tase Me, Bro....

It had been over a month.  I kept waiting.  No one brought it up.

The phrase was destined to become a workplace classic.  Right up there with "Dude", "Where's the Beef?" and the best of the old school classics, "Word".

Finally, it happened today.  Someone uttered the words I expected a month ago.  What phrase am I speaking of?  You probably know, but if you don't, "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" is the phrase, spawned from the following circumstance:

"Here are the basics for the select few who haven't seen it on YouTube or aren't sporting a "Don't  Tase Me, Bro!" T-shirt. On Monday, Sept. 17, 21-year-old University of Florida telecommunications major, Meyer, attended a Kerry rally on campus in Gainesville, Fla. Meyer approached the microphone after Kerry stated he wouldn't accept any more questions but then agreed to listen to Meyer.

Meyer animatedly began asking about the 2004 election and why Kerry wasn't trying to impeach Bush. At that moment, the microphone was cut off and police began to escort Meyer out of the room. Meyer resisted the officers and ran back to the microphone, only to be thrown to the floor by six officers shortly thereafter.

Meyer continued to resist and the officers informed Meyer that if he refused to stop screaming for help, he would be Tasered. Meyer shouted, "Don't Tase me, bro!" in vain, and was Tasered. Meyers is being charged with resisting arrest with violence and disturbing the peace. He will receive a trial date in the near future."

I don't really care about the politics of the situation.  I just thought the phrase was cash money, and expected to hear it the next day.  Over a month later, I finally heard it in the office for the first time today, a throwaway comment as two conference call participants talked about fantasy football.

It had so much more potential.  T-Shirts, YouTube and mashups integrating MC Hammer all say so.  Why couldn't it have infected my workplace? 

Why Your Employees Don't Care About Company Results...

Of course, they should...

But do they?  If they don't think it impacts them?

As often is the case, sports provides a rare, unfiltered "window to the soul" when it comes to what is going through the minds of employees.  This week, Manny Ramirez, star outfielder for the Boston Red Sox, held court with the press and offered up the following calming words related to the "Sox" being on the verge of elimination, down 3-1 in the American League Championship Series (ALCS):

"Why panic?" Ramirez said. "If we don't do it, we'll come back next year and try again . . . If it doesn't happen, who cares? There's always next year. It's not the end of the world."

Nice... You can almost hear the Red Sox fan who drives a tow truck for 30K a year imploding...  First, the obvious observation - it's one thing to think it, another thing to say it.  But... a closer peek at Manny's situation indicates that apart from being covered 24/7 by the national media, he's similar in many ways to the ordinary employee:

1.  If the employee is getting paid and paid well, all must be OK in the world, right? -  Manny brings home about $20M a year, a reflection of his market value, and a solid indication when he goes to sleep at night that he can find employment elsewhere if this gig doesn't work out... If your employee is doing OK, there's no reason to think the world is ending...

2.  Employees focus on how they are doing first, without much thought to overall results - Ramirez is doing his part. He's batting .429 (9-for-21) with four home runs and 11 RBI in Boston's seven playoff games. He hit the third of the Red Sox's three consecutive homers in the sixth inning of Tuesday's 7-3 loss to the Indians.  If employees consider themselves the best at what they do, most of them sleep fine.

3.  Work/Life Balance means you can't be all hari-cari if you are doing your best - Like your most balanced employees, Manny has perspective on the results.  I'm not saying you should live like Manny - far from it.  But if you have a good family life, good health, etc., can you really be "do or die" every day?

Of course, there are a couple of key ways that Manny's situation is different from what we ordinarily talk about regarding employee engagement on company results:

1.  The series Manny is referring to isn't "do or die" - the Red Sox have great overall results - The ALCS that Manny is being flippant about is more like a RFP your company has out - it's an event in time that will help overall results, but won't likely be "make or break".   When you talk about your employees caring about overall results, you aren't talking about one RFP or project.  You're talking about the overall success of the company, profit/loss etc.

2.  Manny knows he's firmly tied to the bottom line with the Red Sox; your employees don't - All Manny has to do to know he is part of the financial success of the Red Sox is look in the stands and see the "24" jerseys (his number).   How does Fred in Finance know that his work on the 2008 forecast impacts the bottom line? 

Fred in Finance (and all like him) is the key for those of us wishing to make employees care about company results.  How can you link what he does to the overall results of the company and make him care, beyond the normal "will I have a job" and "is there room to be promoted" considerations?

For my money, we can publish financials, talk about trends, etc. in the hopes of engaging employees, but at the end of the day, only one thing matters - the ability of our managers and supervisors to identify and communicate the linkage between individual efforts and results.  Most managers can't do it.  Give it a try and role play the situation - it's ugly...

And that's why it's so hard to do.  And maybe why the Manny's of the world drive us crazy...

Can You Boost Team Spirit by Dropping the F-Bomb?...

I don't think I am the sensitive type.  If people are comfortable enough with me to get into their personal skin and start cussing like a sailor, I generally let it go.  Thanks for trusting me with that profanity-laced monologue about traffic or your ex-spouse.  We're good, as long as the profanity isn't directed at me...

But can I project my tolerance for the conversational F-bomb across the rest of the workforce I support? H#@* No!!  Away from work, I'd love to throw up weekly clips of Ari Gold from Entourage on this blog, but I'm not HBO.  I'm a HR blogger trying to build an online community, and there's no reason to lose 50% of my potential audience because they block my site at the first sign of a profane YouTube clip.

Some academics at the University of East Anglia (UK) think that makes me less than progressive.  The group recently published a study entitled "Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: when anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable".  The study focused on the use of profanity in the workplace and assessed its implications for managers.  From Yahoo's coverage:

"They assessed that swearing would become more common as traditional taboos are broken down, but the key appeared to be knowing when such language was appropriate and when to turn to blind eye. [sic]

The pair said swearing in front of senior staff or customers should be seriously discouraged or banned, but in other circumstances it helped foster solidarity among employees and express frustration, stress or other feelings.

"Employees use swearing on a continuous basis, but not necessarily in a negative, abusive manner," said Baruch, who works in the university's business school in Norwich.

Banning swear words and reprimanding staff might represent strong leadership, but could remove key links between staff and impact on morale and motivation, he said.

"We hope that this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to 'think differently' and be open to intriguing ideas.

If lawsuits (see words used by Isiah Thomas) have taught us anything, it's that people have dramatically different thresholds regarding what they think is appropriate in the workplace and what they believe constitutes unprofessional behavior.   It's OK to feel comfortable with a co-worker(s) and drop some profane science on them, but do it at your own peril.  If the person hearing it thinks you are a caveman/cavewoman for using that language, you're much more likely to have issues with that person as a result, including an increased probability of taking a lawsuit naming you as a harasser.

Now get your <insert profane reference or clean alternative> back to work. 

HR Blog Power Rankings - Moving to Monthly Frequency...

Thanks to all readers and bloggers for your support of the HR Blog Power Rankings!  It has been a blast to do, and I'm happy to do it.  There's just this one thing though - every two weeks is too aggressive on the frequency front.   Now that we've done a solid launch, time to make the feedback just a little more scarce...

To make sure you don't get tired of it (and to make sure I don't get tired of doing it), we're moving the frequency to monthly.  With that in mind, see you the in the first half of November with the next round.  Keep writing and remember - Google Reader is watching, like the neighbor you wish would just look the other way once in a while when you come out for the morning paper (in your flip flops and Bon Jovi t-shirt)....

Early Christmas Ideas - For the blogger in your life....

Available at www.despair.com

   

Hiring Probability - Recruiting Is Not Over Until the New Employee Has Logged Into Your Email...

We have a little game I like to play in our department.  It's called "hiring probability"...  It's like Liar's Poker, but no money changes hands...

There's talk about candidates all day, every day in our department.  Whether it's an initial phone screen, a round of face-to-face interviews or even a resume submittal, I have one question for myself and my peeps when it comes to the prospects of hiring the candidate in question - what's the probability?

Hiring probability is defined as the probability that you will get an accepted offer from the candidate and they'll start work for your company.  You can throw out a probability number when you see a resume for the first time, when you have a signed offer, and everything in between.  Is it 10%, 45%, 95%?  Only the shadow knows...

It's easy to get jazzed about a candidate.  It's easy for hiring managers to get jazzed as well.   I liked getting jazzed (who doesn't), but I've learned to curb my enthusiasm with a hiring probability check.  Here's some factors that can reduce the hiring probability for even the perfect candidate:

-Compensation issues.. (candidate wants too much)
-Manager Issues... (the thought the candidate will ultimately balk at a manager with personality traits that alarm them)
-The aggressiveness of their current employer to counter and get inside their head once they find out what's up...
-<Fill in the Blank> - there are hundreds of factors that can reduce your hiring probability...

My favorite time to get a reality check regarding hiring probability from my team?  During the offer stage and once the offer has been signed, sealed and delivered.  The reason to check hiring probability at the offer stage is obvious enough.  We're preparing to negotiate, and trying to figure out the best way to close the deal.  Lead with our best offer?  Hold something back because we think the candidate fancies themselves a negotiator?  It all depends on the situation, and we'll go a variety of directions with the offer to maximize the ultimate hiring probability.

The crazier time is when the candidate has accepted our offer, and we have everything back - the signed offer letter, background package, etc.  How could the hiring probability not be 100%?  counter-offers, guilt trips by current employers, promises to love the candidate more moving forward - they all conspire to reduce the hiring probability below 100%, even when everything is signed.

Harry Joiner at Marketing Headhunter said it best today - "an executive search isn't over until the winning candidate quits his current job and leaves the building.  Jump over to Harry's post and follow his trail of tears. 

I've experienced what Harry is describing, and it's a painful process.  I'll go one step further and say that any recruiting process isn't over until the new employee has logged into your email.  On-site, none of that fuzzy remote stuff...   

After the Interview, We'll Just Need You To Jump On The Treadmill....

I'll admit I don't have a lot of hard-core manufacturing experience.  That's why I had one of those "What the..." moments when I read that a Black and Decker plant uses their pre-employment screening package to determine, among other things, whether production candidates have a high probability to develop carpel-tunnel syndrome via the required job responsibilties.

From CNN's Coverage:

"Victor Breehe has filed a class-action suit against Black and Decker in Tennessee, claiming the  company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Breehne, who applied for a job last year at a Black & Decker plant in Jackson, Tenn., that manufactures Porter Cable brand power tools, said in a court filing that he was offered the job contingent on passing a medical exam.

A company doctor stimulated forearm nerves that control hand muscles and concluded it would be inappropriate for Breehne to work in a "highly wrist- sensitive job," the filing said.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also challenged the tests, which aren't uncommon in manufacturing settings, on ADA grounds. The agency lost a federal lawsuit in 2001 against Rockwell Automation Inc. (ROK) after that company denied jobs to 72 applicants at an Illinois plant.

The EEOC believes the test doesn't reliably predict the likelihood of developing carpal tunnel syndrome, or whether it would pose an imminent threat to the person's safety, Chris Kuczynski, assistant legal counsel and director of the ADA policy division at EEOC, told The Baltimore Sun."

Wow.  "Company doctors stimulated forearm nerves that control hand muscles" kind of caught me off guard.  My first thought is that, positioned the right way, this could be spun as some sort of spa treatment.  My next thoughts are the obvious ones for a HR person and more grounded in reality.   Is having weak hand and forearm muscles a disability and covered by the ADA?   If the employee can do the job today but is simply more probable to develop a condition down the road, can you eliminate them from consideration?  Should the companies using these type of tests conduct them pre-offer so it becomes one of 10-20 hiring criteria?

So, today, it's testing to limit liablity that can be caused by a specific job activity.  With health care becoming more and more expensive, does tommorrow bring testing to see if the company can afford to provide medical coverage to the candidate in question?

Just need you to get on the treadmill after the second round of behavioral interviews.  Don't worry, we'll do it last and then you can go.  If you break 20 minutes in the 5K, there's a signing bonus involved....

The Carnival of HR - Coming to a MLB Front Office Near You....

..."I walk into the clubhouse and it's like walking into the Mayo Clinic.  We have four doctors, three therapists and five trainers.  Back when I broke in, we had one trainer who carried a bottle of rubbing alcohol and by the seventh inning he had drunk it all"...

--Tommy Lasorda, former manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers (quote from 1989)

It's October, and that can mean only one thing - the World Series is right around the corner.  Most of the  high payroll teams are gone (bye Yankees, Angels, Phillies and Cubs!), and the last big dollar franchise is on the ropes (Red Sox).   The probable teams for the series at this point?  The Rockies and the Indians, with total payrolls of $54M and $61M respectively.  That's 1/3 of the money clip required to field the Yankees and Red Sox...

So I'll start this edition of The Carnival of HR by observing that money doesn't buy you championship rings.  Having a strategy to build teams and develop talent does.  But you still have to have smart people to help you figure out how to build that team.    What Lasorda observed in 1989 pales in comparison to the size of a Major League Baseball front office of 2007.  Specialists abound, hatching plots and strategies in every niche, from how to determine the overall value of individual players to how to minimize the likelihood of players saying something stupid in front of the media.

How's the Carnival of HR fit in?   The participants in the carnival have transferable skills.  They could easily plug into the front office of a Major League Baseball franchise.  Here's how:

The Lawyers - When you're dealing with issues like steroids, a strong union, and the liability presented by a wild card like Big Poppi blogging, you need some legal muscle: 

-The Connecticut Employee Law Blog reminds us that there is risk in allowing players/employees to blog.  Always good to have a strategy before it gets out of hand...

-The Ohio Employer's Law Blog encourages all organizations to document all performance issues.  After the Michael Vick voided contract, the sports world could learn something from his counsel...

-Michael Moore at The PA Employment Law Blog explores the prospect of boomers retiring and the cost burden for their healthcare being shifted back to employers.  Yuck!  Have to ensure Medicare picks up the tab for retired players, lest their medical bills eat into the profits of the franchise...

The Capologists - Capologists figure out the best way to structure the payroll of the franchise.  How much money do we have?  What's the best way to spend it?  Who's worth a new contract and who's not?  Here's the team:

-Ann Bares at Compensation Force riffs on the need to be flexible with your salary ranges based on your talent strategy.  Whether you are building through the minor leagues or acquiring free agents, Ann has a range strategy...

-Evil HR Lady acknowledges that all talent is not equal.  Sometimes turnover is good, sometimes it's bad.  Sometimes you have to let that average performer walk out the door rather than spending the money to retain.  Free agent nation, baby!!!

The Trainer - Need an ultrasound or an ankle taped?  We've got the team.  See the following staff member for assistance:

-Michael Wolfe at The Career Revolution runs a tight ship with one exception.  He can't guarantee all the folks hanging around the training room at the stadium won't know the details of your condition.  After all, it's hard to protect PHI when you can see a member of his team taping somebody's wrist.  Next thing you know, it's in the papers via some beat reporter on a deadline.

The Therapist - How are you doing?  Lisa at HR Thoughts has the right perspective, meaning she could easily make the transition to figuring out why Rick Ankiel can't pitch anymore.

The Minor League Director - Somebody's got to be the advocate for the new employees in the minors, and in this franchise that person is Ask A Manager.  Her secret to making sure the newbies are comfortable?  She conducts entry interviews to make sure the new recruits aren't shell shocked and subsequent retention risks.

Promotions - We like the stadium to be a happy place, and on this team the person who handles that is Stephanie West Allen of Idealawg.  Keeping the stadium "light" through promotions is a good idea, especially when the team stinks.  Just avoid "free-bat" night during a losing streak...

Media Relations - Nobody wants to see a messy locker (jock strap hanging behind a player being interviewed, anyone?) or a monotone interview, so our franchise has the following team:

-Jayna Wiesemann helps players balance the need for personal expression versus neatness in a clip on organization skills...

-The Career Encouragement Blog helps those being interviewed to develop better relationships with the media through a novel concept - actually being FUN to interview.   

General Manager - I'd love to put myself in the front office, but there are better candidates.  Among those more qualified:

-Wally Bock at 3-Star Leadership waxes on the need to hire the best managers and coaches for your organization.  After all, you can have ping-pong tables, flat screens and free beer, but your players are out of there if the manager is a #$#@.

-Michael Wade of ExecuPundit - To lead effectively and encourage others to lead, you first have to know the reasons why people don't practice good leadership.  Once you know these, you at least have a shot to effectively coach others...

And that, my friends, is a front office team even the Devil Rays could love and afford....

The October 31st Carnival will be hosted by HRO Manager at HRO Manager

When Does HR Owe Contingency Search Firms a Fee?

If you are like me as a HR person, you're always concerned about recruiting fees.  The organization that pays no attention to the level of contingency search fees being paid is destined to look up and find their cost of hires to be 2X, 5X, even 10X what it should be.   That's a call to fully outsource your HR team.

The solution?  Step one - everyone on your HR team is a recruiter, so have them working openings.  Step two - get a formal referral program in place and put a meaningful bounty on talent coming in.  Step three - centralize or have some form of coordination regarding when search firms get involved with searches.  If you don't have centralized coordination, you'll look up and have three hiring managers telling you they are ready to hire a candidate referred from a search firm.  That's not bad if the talent is rare and you needed the help, but it's bad business to pay 30-40K in fees if you could have sourced the talent on your own.

With that being said, there's a lot of good recruiters out there, especially the ones that can help you fill specific niches you have no shot at filling on your own.   Still, you have many recruiters that will flood you with resumes, hoping one sticks and you'll be on the hook for a fee.  Not exactly value-added. 

How about this scenario?  A recruiter sends paper on a candidate to a company, the company doesn’t consider candidate; but eight months later the candidate is hired through the efforts of the internal recruiting team.  Do you owe the recruiter a fee?

Karen Mattonen recently broke this down from the recruiter's perspective at Jim Stroud 2.0:

"Most importantly the courts have also decided that there are four criteria to determine if a recruiter is going to get a fee…

The Recruiter must have a discussion regarding the applicant with the employer (written, or verbal, and based upon the written terms of the contract)

The Employer and Recruiter agrees to interviewing the candidate

The Candidate agrees to the interview

The Recruiter must help facilitate the interview process with the candidate and company"

That seems reasonable, but there are plenty of volume-oriented recruiters out there that will still demand a fee if they emailed a resume to you and the candidate ends up being hired.  With this in mind, I'm a big fan of having your own agreement ready for contingency search firms to sign and then have the following components included:

--Candidates Referred From Multiple Sources – Search Firm agrees no recruitment fee is due regarding referred candidates, who have applied or were sourced, via other sources by company (examples include but are not limited to:  Careers website, Internet recruiting websites, employee referrals, professional networking, professional associations, etc.).   Company agrees to evaluate circumstances and timing regarding candidate submittal from multiple sources and make equitable determinations on a case-by-case basis.

--Lifespan of Referrals - All referrals are valid for a period of six months from the date of the referral.   All referrals are subject to the multiple sources provision outlined above for subsequent openings within company during this time frame.

Most of the search firms that approach your department won't have an agreement ready for you to sign - they don't want to spend the time haggling.  While they may be taken aback that you have one ready for them to sign, add these bullets to your agreement and you'll eliminate much of the fuzzy areas, and still give your team the ability to fully source the position in question.

HR Victim Making 101 - Do People With Kids Get Special Treatment?

You know it's a slow news month around SHRM when the best they can do for the cover of HR Magazine is the following headline "Are You Too Family Friendly?"  Seriously - that's the cover/lead story?  Deb over at 8 Hours and a Lunch riffed on this article last week.  For a deeper analysis on related issues, see the following employee relations breakdown provided by Evil HR Lady.

If there's one thing HR people (not Deb and Evil, they're cool) can do, it's pick a new victim.  This month's winner via SHRM?  Those with all the spare energy in the world, maximum disposable income and the time to outwork you if they put their minds to it.  They're called childless employees.  Apparently, Mike Brady (Brady Bunch reference for you youngsters - look it up) is workplace enemy #1 to this group.  Even with Alice helping out around the house and Ms. Brady at home, Mike was always cutting out for Peter's science project and Jan's therapy sessions revolving around her issues with Marsha.   What about the team at work, Mike?

The New York Times picked up on the topic this weekend, but couldn't really muster any real analysis:

"If the boss allows an employee to leave early to take his children trick-or-treating (or to the doctor, or so the employee can watch a school play, etc.) is the boss being fair to everyone else who still has to work a full day?

Is it fair to offer a working mother a flexible schedule but not provide the same option to a woman without children?

A growing number of childless workers are answering “no” to questions like these, prompting HR magazine to ask employers in a cover story “Are You Too Family Friendly?”

It’s an issue because of the changing nature of the population in the United States.

Slightly more than one in four households, 26 percent, consisted of a person living alone in 2006, up from 17 percent in 1970,” Susan J. Wells writes. “Unmarried and single U.S. residents numbered 92 million in 2006, making up 42 percent of all people 18 and older.” That’s up from 89 million in 2005.

As a result, “family friendly” benefits are starting to generate a backlash among those people who do not have children."

(Yawn)...  We can't possible be wasting our time on this analysis, can we?  Even the childless who see people playing the child card to the hilt recognize they are witnessing individual behavior, not macro trends.  Take Deb's own analysis: 

"i'm single. i'm single and i have no children. and i work in HR. and let me tell you, sometimes it just burns me up how many people get away with using the kids as an easy excuse to get out of work. and it happens. believe me, it happens. how do i know it happens? because not all the parents require all that much time off. it's strange how some parents seem to be able to make arrangements when their child is sick, or schedule parent/teacher conferences for before or after work. but some parents? they've got to be out every other week. but again, i digress...."

Solid observations.  Individual behavior, not macro trends.  Sounds similar to the c