Wal-Mart Asks Former Employee for $471M for Past Medical Claims...

One thing that most HR people aren't aware of is that medical plans can ask for documentation from any third party action (that's a lawsuit for all my plain English friends), related to settlements that might be used to pay medical expenses.

Why?  Let's say you are involved in a crash with a drunk driver, and as part of the insurance settlement, the drunk driver's insurance provides a settlement that includes $$ for your medical care. From the insurers point of view, if there are other funds available to pay your claims, it's in their best interest to force you to utilize those funds.

I see requests for documentation flowing through our plans at least once a month.  That type of process is alive and well in plans that are self insured, as well as fully insured. 

Of course, it's best to ask for clarification before the claim is paid.  If you try and go back after the claim is paid, it's like asking someone to dig into their own wallet to pay the claim, regardless of the terms of the settlement.  The Blue Cross networks I've worked with are pretty sensitive to the negative press that can go along with this.

Then there's Wal-Mart - for every step it takes forward to repair its image, it seems like it takes two steps back.  Like this one, where the big retailer is seeking 470K from a brain-damaged ex-employee's trust fund.  CNN.com has the details:

"Debbie Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit."

Good call on Wal-Mart's part?  I report, you decide.  Here's one stat I'll provide.  Wal-Mart earned about 348 billion in revenue in 2007.  So what's 470K come to as a percentage of revenue?  Maybe some of my economics friends can run the numbers in the comments. 

Now say you are running a HR shop at a company with 100M in revenue.   What would a proportional claim be to your plan? 

I'd say most of us would walk away from that because of the internal PR damage alone.... Especially if we had to go back to the employee after the fact, once the claim had already been paid...

Evaluate Your Street Cred at Work By the Size of Your Birthday Party...

Do your co-workers celebrate your birthday with the intensity of Mardi Gras?  Or do they mumble the birthday song in the morning and tell you they need to get back to the Penske file as you offer them cake?

According to this video by CareerBuilder, if the latter is true, your street cred in the workplace is at an all-time low....

Nice recovery on the promotional front by CareerBuilder after the Super Bowl ads that totally blew....

Hat Tip to Cheezhead...

Gen X vs. Gen Y - Who's Better?

When's the last time you read an article about the collective situation of Gen X? 

Right - because no one cares.  Nirvana, Eddie Vedder, the grunge thing, maybe a little bit of angst  thrown in - that was about it.  Then Gen X went to work.  No blogs talking about how much work is intolerable, no helicopter parents questioning our rejections - just plugging into working America and figuring it out. 

By the time everyone started talking about the Boomers retiring and how self-absorbed Gen Y was, we were part of the machine.  Looking a little bit like boomers, and ultimately a bit like Gen Y.

We're the middle children of history man... We are Jan Brady.. Compliant and serviceable, but not featured on the cover of the brochure... It's always Marcia, Marcia, Marcia....

What's got me thinking about that?  Ryan Healy has a post up called "A Message to Gen X" at Employee Evolution.  From Ryan's riff:

"Most of the questions I get from Human Resources and Recruiting professionals about Generation Y are the same. They are all about why this generation expects to get so much so fast, why we feel entitled to flexibility, why we think we deserve high pay immediately, and so forth. The thing that surprises me every time is that it’s not the Baby Boomers who are so upset with Gen Y, it’s the Gen Xers. The more I pay attention, the more obvious it is that it’s the Gen Xers who think we’re just lazy, entitled Millennials.

The problem is that Generation X did not get what they asked for, and Generation Y is seemingly being catered to like we are owed something."

Ryan's take includes the opinion that Gen Y is better positioned to take the reigns from the Boomers than Gen X - due to the following factors - 1) better demographics (raw numbers), 2) better use of technology, and 3) better teamwork.  It's an interesting read, worth your time.

Here's my take - numbers are numbers, so if Gen Y has more people, that's cool.  But I honestly don't know a Gen X professional who is upset about the attitude of Gen Y.   The coolest thing for me as a Gen X'er is that the Y's are focused on work/life balance, and that has a spillover effect to everyone in the workforce.  As for the technology piece, if an X is in trouble because they haven't kept up with technology or marketing trends that follow, that's an individual limitation you can't pin on our entire generation.

I'll leave the teamwork evaluation for another day.

When it comes to stereotypes about generations, see this post by John Hollon of Workforce.  It may have been obvious to you, but amidst all the talk about the Millennial, I forgot one very important fact.  Some of them aren't going to be very good.  Some will be great, some will be average, some are going to stink. 

The workplace sorts it all out on an individual level.  Big box stereotypes about entire generations are marketing hype.

Now - back to my Nirvana/Pearl Jam collector's business on eBay....

Do HR People Need a Resume?

The answer, unless you are some type of Tony Robbins wonder-kin, is yes...

Still, the question is an interesting one.  In a heavily linked post, Seth Godin recently presented a take that the best candidates shouldn't be concerned with having a resume.  Here's part of Seth's take on how top talent can differentiate themselves by not having a CV:

"This is controversial, but here goes: I think if you're remarkable, amazing or just plain spectacular, you probably shouldn't have a resume at all.

Here's why: A resume is an excuse to reject you. Once you send me your resume, I can say, "oh, they're missing this or they're missing that," and boom, you're out.

If you don't have a resume, what do you have?

How about three extraordinary letters of recommendation from people the employer knows or respects?
-Or a sophisticated project they can see or touch?
-Or a reputation that precedes you?
-Or a blog that is so compelling and insightful that they have no choice but to follow up?

Some say, "well, that's fine, but I don't have those."

Yeah, that's my point. If you don't have those, why do you think you are remarkable, amazing or just plain spectacular? It sounds to me like if you don't have those, you've been brainwashed into acting like you're sort of ordinary."

So what does the star HR Director/Manager use to market themselves if they aren't aren't using a resume?  Great question.  We aren't graphic designers, so we don't have items that seamlessly build portfolios.  Still, the portfolio model makes the most sense.   Some of the strongest candidates I have interviewed across all functional areas used the concept of a "leave behind" to win the job.

The leave behind is a portfolio of projects/initiatives that shows the depth of who you are professionally.  It transcends a resume.  Put together the right way (it's all marketing, all the time in the job hunt, my friend), the leave behind portfolio hits the hot buttons you want to hit (think employment branding, retention, development) by presenting the best of your work.  It might include project plans, presentations, recommendations/reactions, etc.

The goal?  To make those considering hiring you see that you are one DEEP personnel HR Talent Management professional.  In my experience, interviewing candidates for manager/Director level positions, about 1 out of 100 candidates brings a leave behind like this.  So if you do it, you're already seen as different.

You should create one the next time you're looking for a HR job.  Can't think of what to put in it?  Think of what you would like to have in it. 

Now you just figured out what to do at work for the next year...

Lose 2.7 Billion, Get a Bonus?

I'm just sayin.... You lose 2.7 Billion and give out bonuses?  From Workforce:

"Ford Motor Co. is paying every U.S.and Canadian employee a $1,000 bonus even though the automaker lost $2.7 billion last year.

In a company wide e-mail to all employees on Wednesday, March 5, CEO Alan Mulally said that although Ford fell short of its sales goals for 2007, the automaker “met or exceeded” its objectives in every other category.

The bonus also will be paid to managers outside the U.S. and Canada. Mulally said the “performance awards” are based on improvements in cost performance, quality, automotive cash flow and financial results."

I know the cash isn't a lot on the individual level but it's a nice gesture.  Still - bonuses when the loss is 2.7 Billion?   From where I come from, we'd be rallying around the barrel for heat, so we could save on the energy bill.

For my Austin Powers peeps out there - that's Billion, not Million.  Perhaps a recap is in order.....  Feedburner or Reader subscribers click through for the video tutorial...

Only in Cali - Hourly Team Leads at Starbucks Get Jobbed Out of Tips...

You know what's cool about having this site?  When readers, who could write for this site, chime in with more information than I can find in the mainstream media.

A great example?  The Starbucks article I posted from yesterday on the 100 Million Dollar tip judgment.  I struggled to find deeper information on the exact classification of the workers judged to have been taking tips illegally.  No sweat - because an attorney who is a reader of The Capitalist in SoCal pitched in to drop the following science/knowledge:

"Chou v. Starbucks is a great example of why no one would do business in California if the market weren't so darn large.  The class at issue are shift leads.  These are the folks who are responsible for making sure everyone shows up for their shift, calling the manager or assistant manager if there are any problems, making bank drops if the managers can't do so, and handling other administrative duties in addition to providing direct customer service.  Starbucks classifies these employees as non-exempt because they have no authority to do anything: they can't hire, fire, promote, or demote employees.  They spend most of their time making 1000 varieties of coffee, just like the baristas (some baristas are even paid more than shift leads). 

But the law regarding tip pooling in California says that "agents" cannot participate in tip pooling.  Judge Cowett decided, without legal, historical, or factual support, that if a store is open, someone at the store must be (sic) Starbucks's agent.  And because the leads were sometimes the highest ranking individuals, they must have been the agents.  So now, Judge Cowett has created a weird class of non-exempt employees who service customers but cannot share in tips.  They aren't managers, so they don't get the full manager perks or responsibility.  But at times they have more responsibility than Baristas so they can't be tipped. 

My bet is Starbucks and other coffee shops will do away with the "shift lead" title all together and assign administrative tasks based on seniority.  How Judge Cowett's ruling works in that case, I have no idea.  Either that, or Coffee shops will ban the tip jars (probably the safest way to go).  Also, Starbucks didn't get any advantages from allowing all their non-exempt employees from sharing in the tips.  Starbucks Corporate didn't see a dime, and neither did the store managers or assistant managers.  But the Judge has now ordered Starbucks to pay over $100 million dollars!  Only in California."

So here's the three possible outcomes I see regarding what Starbucks and others might do in the face of this strange, but true, court decision:

1.  Let the "leads" suck it up with no tips and watch this class of workers fade over the next three years as leads leave the company and no one will accept a promotion into this classification...

2.  Move the leads to exempt status, along with some type of adjustment (typically not dollar for dollar) to appease the group regarding the change.

3.  Eliminate tips altogether, which would be a stange outcome to all the baristas who were cheering on Friday.

#3 is unlikely since an uprising would result.  No one wants to see suburbia without their latte.  I'm guessing #2 is the play, if the ruling stands, since operationally you'll need the same approximate number of folks to get the administrative work done...

Only in California... Tips taken away from hourly workers!!

Quality or Quantity? Finding the Right Number of HR Contacts on LinkedIn

A couple of months ago, I profiled what appeared to be a LinkedIn recruiting spam campaign by Wachovia Bank.  As a part of that post, we talked a little bit about the "promiscuous" LinkedIn user, a person looking to get as many contacts as possible, to expand the power of their network, regardless of whether they knew you or not.

How many contacts are the right number to have in a social networking tool like LinkedIn or Facebook?  In the comments of that post, recruiting source Simon Meth from SittingXLegged correctly points out that the more contacts you have, the better your reach to find candidates in recruiting.  Hard to argue with that logic.

Other professionals who have dived into the social networking area, via LinkedIn and Facebook, appear to be in danger of becoming overwhelmed and disconnected from the tools, especially in the face of "requests" to introduce others to someone in their network.  From an article in the Washington Post titled "An Unmanageble Circle of Friends":

"Jason Calacanis wishes he could be your Facebook friend, but he just can't. The Internet entrepreneur loves networking; the New Yorker magazine once wrote a profile of him called "The Connector." When people want to get from point A to point B, he's A and a half. But Calacanis now has several thousand friends, with more requests streaming in daily. He's tired. So on his blog this summer, Calacanis, 37, declared a Facebook moratorium. In the future he'll outsource his friend management to an intern.

While Calacanis may have burned out early, he predicts he won't be alone: "Everyone's going to face a level of this, too."

And then . . . chaos? Isolation? Abject misery? When we each reach that point where a utility that is supposed to bring us closer to our friends actually makes us hate our friends -- and the death grip that managing them has on our time -- where will we go from there?"

If there is a critical mass to your LinkedIn and Facebook that makes you give up, the secret is probably figuring out the max number you can do while remaining engaged and stopping there.  The Post article cites anthropology wisdom as the key:

"Part of the problem is a numbers game. Oft-cited anthropological research puts the maximum effective group size at 150, known as the Dunbar number. Some groups -- religious congregations, book clubs -- splinter off when their numbers get too high for members to bond. Facebook does not. Facebook allows its users to spread their time and energy, like butter covering an increasingly larger piece of friend-network toast. Do you want a lot of toast? Or do you want a lot of butter on normal-size bread?"

Simon Meth can probably handle 1000+ contacts doing what he does for a living.  But, to maximize the power of his network (and yours), he and everyone else need you engaged.   So, figure out your appetite for invites and requests and manage your LinkedIn or Facebook account accordingly.

What's your number?  100?  1000?  10?

Valuing Human Capital - Do You Tip at Starbucks?

From the jump, allow me to reassure you that I am a pretty good tipper.  Rarely when I get good service do I lay down the minimum 15%.  Always more - that's me - gracious like the Dali Lama...

That said, one tipping situation gives me cause for pause.  Do you tip at Starbucks?  Even if you are just dropping by for a brewed coffee? 

Really?  Even for a brewed coffee?  Why don't you tip at McDonalds?  Or at Taco Bell?

Apparently, the tips you are laying down at Starbucks are incorrectly going to support the rich lifestyles of Starbucks supervisors, if you believe a recent court decision in that always interesting state of California... From the LA Times:

"Starbucks got caught with its hand in the tip jar and was ordered Thursday to pay California baristas more than $100 million.

In a San Diego County class-action lawsuit, a judge ordered the coffee giant to pay back tips, with interest, that the company had handed over to shift supervisors. Some baristas could receive more than $10,000, according to their attorney.

The ruling was met with cheers by California baristas. "I'm stoked," said Leekeisha Smith, who makes coffee drinks in the Starbucks at Sunset Boulevard and La Brea Avenue in Los Angeles.

Starbucks Corp. said it was outraged and vowed to appeal. In a statement, the company said the decision "is not only contrary to law, it is fundamentally unfair and beyond all common sense and reason.

Money collected in tip jars was put into safes at each Starbucks and apportioned weekly to each employee based on the number of hours they worked, said attorney Terry Chapko, who represented the plaintiffs. The average tip distributed to baristas and supervisors was $1.71 an hour, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett said.

Cowett's ruling said Starbucks' practice was a violation of a state law that prohibits managers and supervisors from sharing in employee tips. Her ruling Thursday on penalties followed her Feb. 28 decision in favor of the baristas in the class-action lawsuit."

From what I know about the restaurant industry, pooling tips is a common practice, but the real issue here seems to be classification.  Who are the hourly workers?  Can hourly workers be supervisors?   My guess is that Starbucks crossed the invisible line based on classification issues that are, at least, indirectly related to that statute you know and love - FLSA....

Here's my take - I know who the supervisors are at the 3 Starbucks I frequent, and they seem to be very active from a service perspective.  They work the register, they make drinks, they work the drive thru.  They need a piece of the pie, whether it is tips, an advanced wage compared to the other workers, or some type of bonus plan.  Since I don't know and can't seem to find out what they make on the base rate compared to other workers, I don't know if I support pulling tips from them.  It all depends on the differential of what they make versus the barista... 

As for the need to tip at Starbucks, I think I have figured it out.  The tips are the grease in the system that prevents your local barista from treating you like you just special ordered a Whopper...

Free Agents or Evildoers? Employees Who Post Their Resumes On Monster...

Your employees love you. Except when they don’t.

Like when you're trolling through a Monster or CareerBuilder resume database and there they freaking are.  They've posted their resume!!   The gall!  The nerve!

What's up with that?  What should you do?  Confront now?  Take two weeks off and quit?

A younger me would have said confront them all.  Man, would I have been wrong.  Good things weren't nearly as digital when I was coming up and trying to be the Clint Eastwood of HR. 

The old me broke this one down at Workforce in a recent column.  Is the resume poster a Free Agent, Reactionary, Disgrunted or Forgetful Analog?   The profile drives whether you confront, poke around quietly or do nothing.  Check out the article to get a vibe for the profiles and which once I would confront. 

PS - Hey Monster, if you want to carve a little revenue out of the candidate side, offer up a $5 per month service to keep the resume of the employee masked to their current employer.  If you pitch it right, that ought to let you squeeze another 100K a month out of the Matrix easy.... 

How Do You Know When It's Time to Get Out Of HR?

Frank Roche, the brains behind KnowHR, had a romp the other day called "10 Ways to Know When Its Time to Get Out of HR."  Here are my 5 favorites from Frank's list; click through to see the rest.  From Know HR:

1. You refer to the head of HR as Catbert, and there’s no hint of irony left.
2. Whenever anyone calls out, you think they’re taking a “psychological sick day”.
3. You don’t think that anyone can get a 5 in a 5-point rating scale.
4. You’ve never even seen the table, let alone have a chance of sitting at it.
5. You think that it’s just a matter of the right forms, no exceptions.

To quote a line from Swingers, Frank's money and he doesn't even know it.  Here's a few I would add to Frank's list:

1. You think the SHRM periodicals are "best in class".
2. You use the phrase "best in class".
3. Your medical plan is self-insured and when someone tells you the procedure they are going in for, you know what the plan will be billed within a $50 margin of error.
4. You no longer actively interview candidates, you simply "source".
5. You respond to every performance issue, by quoting, to the manager, your company's Progressive Discipline policy, without questioning whether the manager has tried informal coaching.
6. You have a prepped speech for why Viagra's not covered by the plan.

Frank - thanks for the great list!

The First One's Free - CBS Offers Equivalent of Crack Pipe to US Productivity....

In 2007, American businesses lost an estimated $1.2 billion in worker productivity during the NCAA tournament, mostly during its first two days.

That's a lot.  But you ain't seen nothing yet.  This year, CBS is streaming video for every game - Free....!

It starts today.  Your employees, with the best of intentions, are strolling along, and BAM!!! They're hit with this offer from CBS/NCAA:

"NCAA March Madness® on Demand allows you to watch LIVE game broadcasts of CBS Sports television coverage of the NCAA Championship on your computer for FREE!

This year, for the first time ever, you'll be able to watch every game* of the NCAA Championship live online for free. All 63 games, from the First Round through the Final Four including the Championship Game, will be available with NCAA March Madness on Demand — so you'll never have to miss a single shot.

NCAA March Madness on Demand is 100% free

Live games streaming on your broadband-connected computer

Enjoy Championship highlights, recaps, and archived video

640x360 widescreen video player

Exclusive halftime show

Includes The NCAA Basketball Championship Selection Show

Can't watch? Listen to live streaming audio from Westwood One's radio broadcasts of every game."

You'll need two methodone clinics and a multi-port EAP line to get productivity back to where it belongs. 

Actually, the hit to productivity is probably overstated.  Whatever happended to shared experiences causing higher level of engagment?

PS - I've got Kansas.  Or UCLA....

AC/DC as HR Philosophers - When It Comes to Salary Ranges, Money Talks, BS Walks...

Sometimes the best wisdom is found in AC/DC songs.  For example - If you rock, I'm going to salute you.  That's just the way it is..

Of course, money talks and BS walks.  Especially when it comes to compensation philosophies..

Ann Bares has a nice rundown up focused on the pros and cons of compensation broadbanding.  For those of you who haven't heard of the term before, broadbanding is defined by World at Work as "a pay structure that consolidates a large number of pay grades and salary ranges into much fewer broad bands with relatively wide salary ranges, typically with 100% or more difference between minimum and maximum."

I know - your eyes are glazed over already, right?  Who cares?  Where's the AC/DC clip?

Here's why I wanted to post a reaction.  I've been in one organization where Broadbanding was attempted.  Like cavier and classical music, broadbanding sounds very progressive and high-end, until you try and use it as a HR professional.  Then it all falls apart and you end up "fixing the system" to get the very tools you disposed of.  From Ann's rundown:

"By collapsing a pay structure into fewer, wider salary bands, at least in the "pure" sense of broadbanding, an organization effectively gives up the control point (midpoint) of a traditional salary range.  That is because the broad band does not represent appropriate pay for a job, but rather for an entire class of work (such as "managerial" or "advanced professional").  This is a critical shift to bear in mind because the result is a pay system that is no longer job-based, but rather person-based.  No longer do we set and manage pay opportunity by the level and attributes of a job, but rather by the skill, competency and performance of an individual - within a broader "range" established to represent the value of a broader class of work."

That sounds sweet - until you start to attempt to make value calls on candidates or value individual jobs in an organization.  As Ann points out, you need midpoints and specific ranges for both activities.  If you have an external candidate who is pushing the envelope regarding salary needs, the tradtional range and midpoint (as long as they are based on accurate and current data) give you a feel for what's real, and what's overvalued. 

The same holds true when it comes to valuing jobs in an organization.  As an HR Pro, or a manager running a division, you have to know what the market bears for the specific positions in your organization.  Otherwise you are going to look up in 3 years and have an absolute mess on your hands, with limited mobility for all, because entry points to an organization weren't based on market data.  As a result, you hired a VP of Marketing as a Marketing Rep.  Then the new boss arrived, only to find a subordinate two levels down was making more than her boss, and was uncomfortably close to the VP's.

So give me the standard "rock and roll" over the classical music that is broadbanding.  After all, Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution.

Ever Been Spammed By a Contingency Recruiter?

Admit it - you've been there.  You fought the good fight, then opened up a search on your chart to contingency recruiters, because it was obvious you weren't going to get it filled.  If you really, REALLY needed to get the job filled, you wondered aloud whether you should contact multiple recruiters.

Why did you ask that question?  Because you played the contingency game in the past, and it seemed like the people who were around to answer the bell slammed you with candidates that really didn't fit the bill.  Some of the candidates were duplicates to what you had access to in Monster or CareerBuilder.  So you play the odds and have multiples working the search.

So, you're jaded on contingency search.  That's OK, because so are the good recruiters.  From Harry Joiner's Marketing Headhunter:

"Recently I undertook a contingency-based executive search for a Chicago-based ecommerce company.  Without being long winded here, the client's standards were really high.  But mine were higher.

Throughout the process, the client asked me to "increase the flow" of candidates -- but I refused to exceed my limit of four A-players at a time.  Like Mt. Rushmore ...

It's not that I couldn't submit dozens of average candidates.  It's that I simply didn't want to, and on a contingency-based search, clients are going to get what I want them to have.  Contingency clients use multiple recruiters for their projects, and if I'm one of, say, three recruiters chasing a search -- then I know that the client can get average candidates from my competitors.  And it's not my job to build the hiring company's database.  After all, until I close a search and they pay my invoice, I'm working for free.

I realize this makes me sound difficult.

But it's just good business.  I can't build a stellar reputation by submitting candidates who are marginally better than what the hiring company could get through Monster or from an unspecialized recruiter.  I need to win each search in a total BLOWOUT, and I can only do that by working with highly specialized rock stars and then learning to tell their story in a way that engages the client."

Harry's a sharp guy who doesn't have to be everything to everyone.   He's got a micro-niche, and he tries to own it.  That's refreshing, and I'm guessing, lucrative once he got established.

So here's the litmus test.  I'm guessing Harry does quite a bit of retained search.  If you're a recruiter looking to draw a retainer or even an exclusive contingency search arrangement, here's the 64K question:

"What niche do you recruit for?"

If you said, "We place IT professionals in the software industry", or something like that, you're too broad.  When I need a .net developer with healthcare experience, you have to throw darts like the rest of us.   

But if you own a niche like Harry and can get established, I'm only too happy to provide you with an exclusive, because I know you have a network that can produce 4 "A" players.

Of course, you have to get through some pretty lean times from a biz development perspective to get there. 

But once you are there, life could be nice.... If you pick the right niche.... 

The Vortex/Sucking Sound you hear is "March Madness"...

In what has become an annual proclamation, the Dallas Morning News trots out stats on workplace impact of March Madness/the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament:

"As many as 37 million people are expected to participate in the wagering, according to an  estimate by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a job counseling firm in Chicago.

No reliable statistic exists on how much money is gambled on the tournament. An oft-cited FBI estimate of $2.5 billion was dismissed recently by bureau spokeswoman Denise Ballew, who said the FBI has never done a study of sports gambling.

Las Vegas lawyer Anthony Cabot, an expert on sports gambling, estimated that Americans bet up to $100 billion on sports annually – and the two biggest events are the Super Bowl and the NCAA men's tournament. "There's no question that both of them are huge".

"The annual distraction could cost employers as much as $1.7 billion in wasted work time over the 16 business days of the tournament," said the consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. That estimate is based on the amount of time spent on March Madness-related activities, including arguing with co-workers and watching games during business hours. It's also based on a conservative estimate that workers waste just 10 minutes a day on the tournament."

Also, see friend of the Capitalist Seth Borden pontificating on the issue at the New York Times.  So, what are your choices as the HR Lead for your company?  Three choices, with sub flavors, seem to be available:

1.  Police it, either directly or by shutting down access to search terms and sites known to host brackets (see ESPN and Yahoo for big volume plays);

2.  Embrace it, and run a pool (don't think you want to embrace betting on this type of thing, unless you are a HR pro in Vegas?) maybe with some prize money going to the non-profit organization of the winner's choice; or

3.  Ignore it and let nature run its course (which is what most people will do).

Many of you won't have a choice since you work for large employers who won't touch this with a ten foot goal pole.  As for me, with my Midwestern roots, I am pulling for the balanced Kansas Jayhawks to make a run.  I wouldn't bet on it though, especially using company resources....

How to Create Vacation Policies That Result in Jaded Employees...

John Hollon has a post up over at Workforce regarding the recent decision of Bob Nardelli to tell all Chrysler workers they would “be required to use two weeks of their vacation time in July, in a company-wide shutdown intended to improve the automaker’s efficiency and boost productivity".

That got me thinking.  Next vacation, I'm going to find a wood-paneled station wagon to rent, like the one pictured to the right...

It also got me thinking about time off.  Vacations, Personal Day, PTO banks - all good things for employees, right?  The answer is a strong "yes", unless companies over-define the way time-off can be used.

With that in mind, here's my top ways that companies can turn a positive (time-off with pay!) into a neutral to negative event:

--Use it OR Lose it with no cultural protection - Some companies like to have a policy mandating employees to use all of their vacation or PTO each year.  That's cool, but if the culture mandates face time or workloads dictate employees can't use their time off, it turns into a negative.

--Take your two weeks together - One of my favorites.  We want you to have some time off, but you have to take it all at one time.  You can't split it up or we'll crumble from the complexities...

--Take it when it's convenient for us - See the Nardelli example listed above...

--Over-defining when sick time can be used - As lame as it sounds, some companies still don't allow employees to use sick time for the care of children or other loved ones.  You're kidding me, right?

Notice that I didn't list scheduling your vacation vs. the needs of the business.  Lots of employees in structured environments get upset about having to schedule their vacation vs. how many other people are scheduled to be off, but that's business (and being a part of a team). 

I'm lucky to be working for a company believes that time off is important.  As a result, our leadership grants a lot of it, and also takes a real world approach to allow the banking of time within reason, thus managing the inherent conflicts between being busy and the use it or lose it camp.

Too Bad You Can't Use the the "Kissing Cam" to Pump Up Employee Engagement..

Getaway weekend for me and the family last weekend, featuring a NBA game on Friday, climbing a big rock on Saturday, and roller coasters on Sunday.  After that type of weekend, you have to come back to work to get some rest.   Takeaways from the weekend for the Capitalist:

1.  They build arenas really strong these days.  We were in Phillips Arena for a Hawks game, and apparently all hell broke lose early in the fourth quarter outside as a tornado hit the Georgia Dome and CNN Center.  I was in between both and didn't even know it was going on until we came outside.  I guess the razor-sharp basketball on display when the Hawks and Clippers get together makes you numb to what's going on around you...

2.  I'm getting old enough that my four-year old handles big roller coasters better than I do.  Seriously, the ones he could qualify for made me feel like I was going to hurl.  No impact to him.  Can the AARP card be far behind?

3.  Employees could be engaged, treaties would be signed, and wars would be avoided, if one promotion used during NBA games could be used in the workplace (or peace talks) - THE KISSING CAM.

The Kissing Cam is an entertainment feature used during various sporting events in which couples, usually one man and one woman - are shown on an arena's JumboTron and then encouraged to kiss by the rabid fan base. 

Here's the great thing about the Kissing Cam.  It brings people together, banding them together through a shared experience of cheering for others and laughing.  Engagement means a lot of things to a lot of people, but feeling like you're tied in to a mission bigger than yourself has to be somewhere in the equation.  Go to an arena, and you'll see 17,000 strangers, who won't get out of the way of each other in the concourse before the game.  Turn on the Kissing Cam, and suddenly they are cheering with each other, laughing and looking at each other to share the experience - engaged with the event and the people around them.

Of course, you can't use the Kissing Cam at your next meeting, or even your next retreat.  You'd lose your job, get sued and might even end up kissing Bob in Accounting as a result. 

So no Kissing Cam for you.  But, could you use video and humor to build the employment brand?  To actually put a little humanity and humor into your next internal communications program/promotion targeting your employees? 

Sure you could.  To give you a flavor, here's my favorite kissing cam segment from the NBA featuring Shaq and D-Wade at the end (from an actual NBA game...)

Neil Diamond and Will Ferrell Love Them Some Casual Dress Code Policy...

It's Friday and I work at a software company.  Is there any doubt I'm in jeans?  If you're in a button-up and wrinkled khakis, don't hate me because I'm casual...

Just do what Neil Diamond and Will Ferrell would do and change your dress code policies - to ALL CASUAL, ALL THE TIME....

Here's a clip to inspire you on casual Friday (readers and email subscribers - click on the title of the post to get the video)...

Is Ferrell hilarious or what? I wish I would have had this clip when we moved to the policy of wearing jeans anytime you want.  I guess there's still time to make it part of the employment brand...

EEOC Says Discrimination Charges Are Up - But What's It All Mean?

Among others, Jon Hyman at the Ohio Employer's Law Blog recently featured a breakdown of the latest EEOC Discrimination Claim statistics.  Claims are up, but it's hard to pinpoint one area as the primary issue needing focus.

According to this EEOC press release, discrimination charges filed with the EEOC increased by 9% in 2007. The total number of claims in 2007 represented the highest volume of incoming charges since 2002 and the largest annual increase since the early 1990s.

Race was the most frequently filed claim, with retaliation a close second and having the greatest percentage increase.  Here's the scoreboard with the stats:

Basis of Charge Filing	2007	2006	Percentage Increase/Historical Comparison
RACE	30,510	27,238	Up 12% to highest level since 1994
RETALIATION	26,663	22,555	Up 18% to record high level, double since 1992
SEX/GENDER	24,826	23,247	Up 7% to highest level since 2002
AGE	19,103	16,548	Up 15%, largest annual increase since 2002
DISABILITY	17,734	15,575	Up 14% to highest level since 1998
NATIONAL ORIGIN	9,369	8,327	Up 12%, above 9,000 for second time ever
RELIGION	2,880	2,541	Up 13% to record high level, double since 1992

When I see stat charts like this, I'm looking for one or two areas that seem to warrant more attention and focus, via training, awareness campaigns with managers, etc.  While it's never good to see claims go up, the across the board increases are likely driven in part by one imporant factor - the economy.  It slowed down in 2007, and if the first three months of the 2008 economic year are any indication, EEOC claims may be up again this year as well.

Why should you link EEOC claims to the economy?  While I don't have stats at my fingertips to back this up, most EEOC claims don't happen until someone is terminated.  Regardless of the reason for termination, all individuals protected by Title 7, and other laws enforced by the EEOC, have the right to file claims.  When the economy slows down, raw terminations go up - and more claims are filed.

In his post, Jon Hyman also points to EEOC Chair, Naomi C. Earp, explaining the number this way: "Corporate America needs to do a better job of proactively preventing discrimination and addressing complaints promptly and effectively. To ensure that equality of opportunity becomes a reality in the 21st century workplace, employers need to place a premium on fostering inclusive and discrimination-free work environments for all individuals."

Jon hit the nail on the head when he presented the following analysis: "Ms. Earp's statement would be more telling if the EEOC also released data on the percentage of charges on which the EEOC found probable cause as compared to how many were dismissed. This increase is much more likely the result of the economic downtown and more job losses, instead of companies avoiding their EEO responsibilities."

That statement is on the money.

The HR Director DNA Map - Strand #2 - The Interrogator

As promised, today we're continuing a little series I like to call the HR Director DNA Map.  Before you start talking about all that evidence (or lack thereof) with O.J., or your constitutional rights against search and seizure, just chill.  This series hopes to map out the behaviors/skills present in a successful HR Director in this century, not put you in jail.

At least not yet.

Here's my second entry for the HR Director DNA Map.  These aren't in order of importance right now, though I might rank them later on. 

DNA Strand #2 for the Successful HR Director in the 21st Century - Interrogation Skills

What is one of the hardest things for today's successful HR Director to get on the job?  The truth!   Today's HR pro has to deal with countless situations where the object of scrutiny has a vested interest to withhold some or all of the truth.  This manifests itself in employee relations situations, negotiations with vendors, interviewing candidates, etc.

With that in mind, a non-negotiable skill for any HR Director today is the ability to get to the truth in a variety of situations - an employee relations situation requiring multiple interviews, negotiations with vendors, an interview, etc.  Here's the tough part - you have to do it without waterboarding.  The only tool you have is your wits, plus your ability to float easily between the roles of being someone's friend, someone's agent, and when the situation calls for it - the detective who has turned hard. 

Most of us are good at being someone's friend.  That's the easy part of being a good interrogator.  The hard part comes when we have to turn on the edge to challenge what we are hearing, possibly to indicate that it sounds less than truthful, or that it doesn't represent the whole truth. 

Of course, even if a HR Director has the ability to turn on the edge, they still have to have the intelligence to sequence their questions with a combination of foresight, strategy and grace. 

The mix of edge and intelligence is what makes interrogation skills so rare in our business.  It sounds negative, and we can dress it up by calling it negotiation or arbitration skills.

Regardless of what you call it, at times it's perceived negatively.  But, it's still a requirement for today's HR Director.

Crazy #%! Job Statistic of the Week - Wal-Mart Replaces GM as Largest Employer in Ohio...

A while back I noted that the war on talent is zip-code specific.  If you are in a hot zip code, you are probably set to work for the foreseeable future.  If you're not, you may see your real wages actually going down.

I saw the stat of the week to illustrate this, in the most recent issue of BusinessWeek, which had an article on the decline of manufacturing in Ohio, and how that reality was driving presidential politics.

More on the decline in job quality in Ohio from Business Week:

"Ohio's plight is a vivid reminder that manufacturing still provides a livelihood to millions of Americans— and that the agony of U.S. manufacturing's decline is far from over.   

Since 2000 the state has lost 236,000 manufacturing jobs, a 23.3% drop. One sign of the times: In 1995, General Motors (GM) was Ohio's largest private employer, with some 63,200 employees, while Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) was ranked No.6, with 15,100. Today the discount retailer is the state's top source of jobs with 52,000 workers. GM employs just 12,300."

That's an ugly stat.  Automakers are among the best jobs that blue-collar, middle class workers (especially those without degrees) can hope to land.  To hear that GM has dropped 75% of its workforce in Ohio is a sobering stat.  Especially when you're confronted with the picture that the engine replacing those jobs is Wal-Mart.  Nothing against Wal-Mart, but last time I checked, it was hard to get health care as an employee there.

So what happened?  Globalization, poor quality, etc. all contributed. 

It's a sobering situation.   When I posted that the war for talent is zip-code specific, one of the conclusions I reached is that, as necessary, workers had to be mobile to relocate where the jobs are. 

The unfortunate part about that is that the workers least likely to relocate are the ones most impacted by the closings of major manufacturers like GM - less probable to have college degrees, grew up in the area in which they live, etc.

That stinks.  I'm a capitalist, but there's no other conclusion when you look at it from the eyes of the impacted family and as an individual with a family who loves where they live.

Pry the Blackberry From My Cold, Dead Hands...

There are basically two camps of thought on the web regarding the blackberry and similar digital tools that make us "always on":

-The tools have blurred the line of work/life to the extent that no one is ever away from work, therefore we must stage a revolt against the digital tools.  Viva Revolution!!

-I like my Blackberry, and if you try to take it away from me, you're going to get the beatdown.

Color me as leaning towards #2.  I'll check in my blackberry when you are giving the rest of my personal effects to my family and I have a toe tag on...

As with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  There's an interesting recent clip from Maureen Rogers over at Pink Slip on the perils of being a Weekend Warrior:

"On a recent Sunday morning, I checked my e-mail, and found one from one of the other consultants I'm working with on a client project.   I replied, and as I was hitting the "send" button, a message came in from one of the clients who was on the thread.

Five minutes later, one of other clients responded.

Of the six people on the e-mail list, four were working at the same time on a Sunday morning.

As a free-lancer, I don't so much mind the blurring of time and days, since my time is mostly my own. Working on a Sunday morning is an absolutely reasonable trade-off for staying in bed and doing nothing on a Wednesday.

But two of the four folks who weighed in on the e-mail are clients, who have full-time jobs.  What's with all of us?"

There's a high likelihood that I would have been one of the people that pinged Maureen back that Sunday.  But, here's the important point - I might not have.  The digital tools in life, like the blackberry, give me flexibility during the workweek, then I have choices to make at night and on the weekends.

Sometimes I opt in to work on night and weekends; sometimes I don't.   It depends on what color my mood ring is displaying.

What I value most about digital tools like the blackberry is that as a functioning member of corporate America, I am no longer tied to the office.  You think Ward Cleaver could leave the office 2 hours early for a baseball practice?  OK, maybe the Ward Cleaver (kids were older, one in high school, home at 4:30) we knew could.  What about the Ward Cleaver who was a younger middle manager, with kids who were 6 and 2 years of age respectively?  That Ward Cleaver probably hadn't arrived to the point where he could leave. 

He had to stick around - no cell, no blackberry.  Where the #@! is Cleaver?  Why can't I get my overheads reproduced, since I don't like the conjunctions he used? 

So give me the blackberry/digital leash.  It's good to be able to get to other things - baseball games, school plays, dental care - without being worried that I have to be in the office to manage the next crisis.

As for you revolutionaries, I won't even email you or call you over the weekend, to show you my respect for balance.

That's just how I roll... 

On Pressure to Sign an Organizing Card from the Perspective of Employees...

I'm probably the only HR site that consistently talks about the downside of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow unions to organize workplaces, without workers voting for unionization in elections with secret ballots.  Instead, under the act, unions could use the "card check" system, and once a majority of a company's employees signed a card expressing consent, the union would be automatically certified as the bargaining agent for all the workers.

It's easy to look at my posts on the EFCA and simply claim I'm an agent of business, not employees.  But, what pro-union types won't tell you is that most employees rely on the fact they'll have the ability to change their minds, if they sign an organizing card, via the secret election the law now guarantees.

Why can't they make that decsion before they sign the card?  Simple aspects of human nature called pressure and intimidation.  Check out the video below from The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation documenting the experiences of Dana Corporation employees in Albion, Indiana.  (Hat tip to Seth Borden for the clip.)

If the EFCA passes in 2009, there will be a lot of stranded employees.  Unfortuantely, if you are an HR pro, they'll be in your office telling you they signed the card but really didn't want to be represented.

What's that? Indian Outsourcers Account For 80% of Approved Visas in the U.S. in 2007??

I'm a big fan of bringing the best and the brightest to the U.S. to work - especially if part of their dream is to become an American citizen.  After all, isn't that part of almost everyone's heritage here?  I'm channeling Neil Diamond today. 

Not "Love on the Rocks", smarty-pants.  Think the Neil classic, "America"

Now that you're whipped up in a patriotic frenzy and supporting at least part of the immigration dream, what if I told you the slots usually reserved for the best and brightest from abroad were not being used to help American companies, that the vast majority of H-1B visas were being awarded to companies based in India that specialize in outsourcing.

You'd probably be like me - at first confused, then feeling a little dubious.  You can almost hear the music from the Neil Diamond LP coming to a halt, by dragging the needle across the vinyl.

From the Business Week article on the visa trainwreck:

"The controversy over visas for high-skilled workers from abroad looks like it's about to get even hotter.

The program for what are known as H-1B visas was originally set up to allow companies in the U.S. to import the best and brightest in technology, engineering, and other fields when such workers are in short supply in America. But data just released by the federal government show that offshore outsourcing firms, particularly from India, dominate the list of companies awarded H-1B visas in 2007. Indian outsourcers accounted for nearly 80% of the visa petitions approved last year for the top 10 participants in the program. The new data are sure to fuel criticism of the visa program from detractors such as Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "These numbers should send a red flag to every lawmaker that the H-1B visa program is not working as it was intended," said Grassley in an e-mail."

Take a look at the article for the pros and cons - there's a position on both sides of the equation.  Also, take a look at the scoreboard below in terms of the companies that received the most visa approvals in 2007. 

(Hat tip to Jim Stroud 2.0 for the graphic...)

 

Kermit the Frog Says - Forget the Prius and Start Kicking People Out of the Office...

Readers of my riff last week entitled "Are you working remotely or remotely working?" correctly identified the primary issue with managing teleworkers - if they are out of sight, they can't be out of mind.  Manage performance of the remote assets, and you shouldn't care where they are at any hour of the day.  Even if they are enjoying a long lunch in flip flops at Outback.

Of course, that's the main rub with telecommuting.  Managers should manage performance and not worry about the other stuff - but they're human.  They see someone out in public with shorts on, and the alarm bells go off.  Thus, my take that you play the game and not ruin telecommuting for everyone else.

Of course, the burden isn't simply on the employee.  Managers and companies will come under increasing pressure to get comfortable with telecommuting.

Not because they'll need it to attract talent, although that might end up being part of the deal.

Because like a great management guru once said, it's not easy being green.

If you buy into the fact that the US needs to become more independent and self-sufficient from an energy standpoint, then telecommuting is one of the silver bullets.  Here are the stats on the potential of you doing email in your bathrobe from a new blog called The Telework Journal:

"Telework ExchangeSM, a public-private partnership focused on telework in government, today announced the results of the “Telework Eligibility Profile: Feds Fit the Bill” study.

The study reveals that Feds are telework friendly, based on responses to the Telework Exchange Online Telework Eligibility Gizmo, a quiz-based calculator that helps employees determine telework eligibility. An overwhelming majority – 96 percent – of respondents should be teleworking, yet only 20 percent currently do.

Extrapolating from the Online Telework Eligibility Gizmo participants to the total Federal workforce, the study reveals that if all Federal employees who are eligible to telework full time were to do so, Feds could realize $13.9 billion savings in commuting costs annually and eliminate 21.5 billion pounds of pollutants out of the environment each year."

Now I haven't clicked through to see the study, so if you have a jones for detail, be my guest.  Regardless of the methodology of this study, it's hard to discount the fact that telecommuting holds some strong potential to reduce the corporate carbon footprint.  Think reduced gas usage and smaller real estate needs. 

Don't call me Al Gore - just call me Kermit.  It's not easy being green....

Dear Valued Employee - Your YouTube Video Habits Are Crashing Our Network....

Early this week, I riffed on a recent AMA study that showed many companies had fired employees for excessive Internet usage.  My take, which remains the same, is that excessive Internet usage is a performance problem - you have to manage performance if you think someone is spending way too much time on the web. 

If someone is exceeding expectations and spending three hours a day browsing the offerings of YouTube, you might have a job design issue there, Skippy....

So it's been established that I'm a proponent of freedom in the workplace.  However, there's an exception to every rule.

When are employee Internet habits no longer an individual performance issue?  That's simple - when the collective video appetites of your organization bring your network to its knees.  From a Wall Street Journal article on the impact of YouTube on corporate bandwidth:

"William Bailey, IT manager at Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County in San Jose, Calif., says he has to block video at the 400-person nonprofit to ensure that the agency's network will remain operational. "It's a real issue when a network can't handle demand, and too much media, particularly video, is usually the reason why," he says. For people like Shawn Birkett, such shutdowns can thwart both legitimate work and extracurricular video-watching. A sales executive with wireless equipment company Moonblink Communications Inc. in Sunnyvale, Calif., Mr. Birkett used to spend about an hour and a half a day looking at online video, often related to his company's customers. Then six months ago, Moonblink blocked all Internet video after IT managers found that streaming audio and video had slowed the company's Internet service.

Meanwhile, R.J. Griffin & Co., a subsidiary of J.E. Dunn Construction Group, says it plans to block employee access to Internet video over the next few months. The 600-person Atlanta company is grappling with the housing downturn and is looking for ways to conserve spending. But the company also wants to add capacity to its existing network. Jason Cunningham, IT director for R.J. Griffin, says blocking video could save the company from making a potentially costly technology upgrade.

Mr. Cunningham recently found that YouTube was the most popular Web site visited by R.J. Griffin employees, receiving 3,000 hits a month. To prevent any employee backlash, he plans to issue a report explaining the threat that video poses to bandwidth."

So there you have it.  Use the corporate pipe with respect or face the ultimate in sanctions - the blocking of YouTube.

Shout out to my IT friends who emailed me about bandwidth.  The HR Capitalist is an equal opportunity blogger.

Still, just to show I'm no stick in the mud, here's an unrelated, yet classic, clip from Caddyshack...  After all, the foundation of the employer/employee relationship is trust.... View it responsibly!!

The HR Director DNA Map - Strand #1 - "The Marketer"

As promised, today we're kicking off a little series I like to call the HR Director DNA Map.  Before you start talking about all that evidence (or lack thereof) with O.J., or your constitional rights against search and seizure, just chill.  This series hopes to map out the traits that converge to create a successful HR Director in this century, not put you in jail.

At least not yet.

Here's my first entry for the HR Director DNA Map.  These aren't in order of importance right now, though I might rank them later on. 

DNA Strand #1 for the Successful HR Director in the 21st Century - MARKETING SKILLS

I'm sure that seems like a strange choice to many of you.  After all, when talking about the skills necessary to be a world class HR Director, choices like Recruiting/Selection and Performance Management skills would be top of mind for many. 

I agree those are important and you'll see them soon, but here's why Marketing skills are top of mind for me and are key to the new world HR Director:

-You need marketing to "Sell What You Got", and the HR function is front and center in the efforts - Whether it's acquiring new employees or keeping the ones you have, you have to market the benefits to joining/remaining with your company.  The smart HR Director understands when the internal marketing collateral is stale, and when the message is tired.  When she sees fresh examples from other companies, she adapts and figures out a way to improve the employment brand, adding new techniques/media as they come online. 

-The world's a stage, and the new HR Director is expected to be a performer who can model the required behaviors better than the managers they serve - Think the art of presentation with this one.  In order for HR pros to have a lasting impact on an organization, they have to be role models for the skills necessary for managers to thrive in today’s organization. If they can’t display the skill more effectively than the managers they serve, they’ll fall short in grooming first-time managers.

-Tough decisions that impact employees require someone to be at the podium to explain "why" - The best HR people moving forward will be the ones who can effectively perform one of the toughest jobs in marketing/PR - damage control.  Change your benefit plan?  Have layoffs?  Have to term someone for poor performance?  The 21st century HR Director has to be able to take the podium, whether it's in front of hundreds or 1-on-1, and explain the logic behind the decisions that were made or the plan moving forward.

While it varies from industry to industry, marketing is a key part of any organization.

No reason for HR to be any different.  Start reading Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki and Marketing Headhunter to get into the groove.... 

Update - The Likelihood of You Being Forced to Provide Sick Time (in addition to PTO) in 2009 Just Increased...

Back in December, I riffed about the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

UPDATE - The District of Columbia just passed something called the Accrued Safe and Sick Leave Act.  That can't be a good precursor to what might happen with the HFA.  Details from the Washington Post:

"The D.C. Council voted unanimously yesterday to make Washington the second city in the country to require employers to grant their workers paid sick leave, but not before council members added several amendments that business leaders applauded and labor leaders said significantly weakened the legislation.

Under the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act, full-time employees at businesses with 100 or more workers will get seven days of paid leave, and employees at businesses with 24 or fewer workers will get three days.

Advocates say the legislation could affect 200,000 workers who don't have paid sick leave, but an amendment will require new workers to wait for the benefit. That measure will require an employee to be on the job for 12 months before becoming eligible for sick leave."

As far as the HFA, it's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the HFA as currently written, would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing, by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days, to reflect the legal requirement, for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new empl