The "Love Broker" - Making Your Employees Sign A Workplace Relationship Prenup...

This topic would have gotten ALOT more attention around Valentine's Day.  Hard to believe a "news" organization like Good Morning America didn't do a better job focusing their leads with national holidays - or at least what days Hallmark says are important...

Anyway, some lawyers have come up a with a product that might have some legs - a workplace hookup prenup.  From ABC News:

"Think of it in terms of a prenup," said Good Morning America workplace contributor Tory Johnson. "In this particular case, you're saying to the employer, 'We'll prevent you from being held responsible for employment issues in the event of a failed personal relationship.' The employer should not have that burden."

""It is documenting the relationship. You need to define the relationship. Is [it] welcome? It is not sex harassment," explained Stephen Tedesco, an employment lawyer, who said that it is important to make clear that whatever personal conduct has gone on is not harassment.

"It also defines how they are going to conduct themselves in the workplace going forward," he said."

Not a bad idea, but the heavy lifting is still left to you as the HR pro - you get to figure out what relationship rumors are real, and then decide based on what you think you know whether to intervene and have both parties sign something to say they won't hold you responsible for harassment claims, etc.

Once again, the heavy lifting is still yours.  I offer two rumor-based situations where it's very difficult to see your way clear to confront:

1.  The married employee who's having an affair with a co-worker.  Or is it an affair?  See John Hollon's notes on the office spouse...

2.  The guy or gal who is rumored to be having an affair with a co-worker 10-20 years younger than they are... Have fun with that one...

So, the workplace relationship prenup has some legs, and that's cool.  Don't let anyone fool you if you are a HR pro in charge of the employee relations environment.  You're still doing ALL the heavy lifting through the actual decision on whether to confront.

That's why you get $11.64 an hour.  Now move forward and rid our workplace of some ALL liability!!

The Best and Worst Cube Farms in America...

Admit it - you've daydreamed about doing something cool with your office.  Maybe you're thinking about painting that accent wall, or maybe you're thinking about doing something cool with your cube.  Something to spice it up.  Something to take it to the next level, way past where Les Nessman left it.

Before you do that, manage your expectations.  Most of you probably aren't in Silicon Valley, or working at Google.  That's OK, but it probably means you aren't getting the marble counter top for the juice bar coffee closet at work.

That's fine - you can still dream, and maybe even have a cooler workspace than Yahoo.

Here's a look at the best workspaces in Tech via Valleywag. In the snapshots, you'll find cool workspaces from Six Apart (they provide the software that runs this blog), Netflix and Digg.  Pretty cool.

Then, there are the worst workspaces in Tech via Valleywag.

Get ready, because the standard for a cool workplace in high tech is probably higher than what you are used to.  Case in point - I say "Yahoo Offices" and you automatically have an expectation for some cool stuff, right?   Well, maybe that exists somewhere in the Yahoo real estate portfolio, but the Valleywag feature ranks Yahoo as one of the worst workplaces in tech, featuring the picture to the right.

The good news - Yahoo still has some apparently highly motivated employees - note the guy taking five in his cube...

The bad news - Yahoo's workspace in that picture looks like about 98% of corporate America.

Manage ye expectations, you Peter Gibbons clones of the world.  And if you are sprucing up the cube, bring it with more strength than the guy shown napping here...

More on Not Stinking As a HR Pro...

Last week, I riffed on When People Say HR Stinks, It's Simple...Don't Stink as a follow up to the Vurv report that HR is weak.  The answer is really simple to me as noted by the title - be good.

Man - am I sick of all the hand wringing that goes on after these types of reports.  Of course, the hand wringing virtually guarantees that there will be 5 more reports like this in 2008...

Other HR voices checked in last week on the same topic:

-Frank Roche wonders aloud where all the diversity is in HR.  Not diversity related to EEOC issues.  Business skill diversity...

-Deb at 8 Hours talks about the fact that maybe devoting yourself to party planning might not be the best use of your time.

If I had a million dollars? I'd subsidize the effort to get every HR manager, Director and VP subscribed to blogs like these, as well as others that are relevant.

It's still shocking how many in our profession don't know what a blog is.  Low uptake on technology is part of the perception problem....

Help me....Help you....

Worst Benefit Idea of 2008 - The Gas Price Guarantee....

Gas prices are high.  Jeff Spicoli high.

With that in mind, companies are doing what they should - thinking about the burden carried by employees  who have long commutes.  For many, that means thinking about what, if anything, can be done to help employees out with the cost of fuel for the commute.

But there's a right way, and a wrong way.

First the right ways -

1.  Encourage car pooling.

2.  Find opportunities for telecommuting where possible.

3.  If you're up for spending some money, perhaps encourage car pooling or public transit with some mild incentives. 

Now for the wrong way:

1.  Provide a guarantee on the price of gas, creating a program that states the company will reimburse employees for gas prices that exceed $2.85 per gallon for travel on their normal commute.

You're kidding me, right?  While it's great for the employees, the program effectively discourages any type of car pooling or alternative travel plans and creates a burden for the company, when gas prices keep going up, and the company looks back and says the following - "Whoops - we thought this thing was going to top off at $3/gallon, now that it's at $5, the program's going away.  Sorry.."

Not to mention, the lovely employee relations issues that go with providing a greater benefit to employees with longer commutes, or those that choose to drive an Accord instead of an Excursion...

Show Me the Freaking Money - Sharing Pay Ranges With Associates...

Sharing pay ranges with your employees - do you do it?

Three schools of thought here:

1.  We share nothing.  Maybe we have nothing (by way of comp ranges, etc.)

2.  We have stuff, but don't share it broadly.  We'll share it with the individual employee if they are interested, during the merit review, and certainly if pay issues come up with an employee who feels underpaid, etc.

3.  We share it all.  Our range structure is published to all employees, and employees might even have access to know the grades for all the jobs in the company.

Ann Bares got me thinking about this with her recent post on the sad state of Pay Communication. 

Markets drive pay.  Companies value jobs based on those markets, and also make determinations about how much skills in a specific profession are worth, based on the ranges that are developed.  So for me, #1 (we have nothing, we share nothing, and we value jobs on the fly) isn't a practical solution, at least for companies with any size and scale. 

I don't think #3 (we share it all) is a realistic alternative either.  The problem with sharing it all is the loss of productivity and angst regarding OPR (other people's ranges).  I've worked for big companies that took this approach, and a significant amount of time is spent with the angst of knowing someone else's range.  No matter that the person with the angst doesn't know the salary or if the comp ratio is .8 or 1.2.  Their range is higher than mine! 

So for me, we're left with #2 - Share range information with the individual employee at natural times, like the merit review.  Tell them how the company creates and updates ranges, and tell them why they are where they are within the range.  Tell them the plan and the room to grow, if they stay in the same position.

Or go with Option #4 - just post a list of all the employees' salaries on the bathroom door.  I joke, but I'm sure that's happened somewhere, sometime, with a frazzled HR Pro ready to go on stress-related FMLA leave at the center of the storm.

Go with option #2....

To All You Hardcore Managers - Pay the OT Already!!

I'll say this again for the managers out there who read the Capitalist... You have to pay OT to hourly employees; it's never optional because of a policy or procedure violation...

If an employee is classified as non-exempt or hourly, you have to pay overtime for all hours worked past the normal 40 hour work week.  You can't withhold overtime because they didn't get it pre-approved.  Withhold overtime, even if it wasn't approved, and you're running the risk of legal action and you'll end up paying it anyway.

Seriously - the law doesn't care if you didn't approve it - you have to pay it... 

Here's how the scenario usually works at most companies:

1.  Non-exempt or hourly employee in question reports hours worked and includes overtime.  Supervisor/manager in question has limited desire/time to micro-manage hours reported, so lots of overtime gets paid over a multiple month period.

2.  Finance/Accounting runs reports, correctly communicates the overtime situation.  As a result, the edict goes out top-down that all overtime must be pre-approved moving forward.

3.  Managers do a "mixed" job of communicating pre-approval process to hourly employees in question.

4.  Employee who is used to working a lot of overtime continues to work the overtime, sometimes without approval.  Reasons for not gaining approval can range from "the customer demanded it" to "my supervisor's never around"...

5.  Since the need for pre-approval was communicated to employees, the first reaction of the manager in question is to not pay the overtime.

That's the natural reaction to that course of events.  But it's wrong.  The law doesn't care if you had pre-approval in place and the employee didn't follow it.  It just calls for all hours past 40 to be paid to hourly employees (note - I'm not digging in here on deep FLSA regs, and whether you can spread the hour count over a bi-weekly pay period, etc. - I'm just working the pre-approval objection I hear most).

So, what do you do?  Your only option is the following:

1. Pay the OT...

2.  Pay the OT... 

3.  Use your corrective action/progressive discipline policy to document the policy violation, and hopefully send a message to the employee that pre-approval for OT is required and not optional.

4.  Repeat as necessary.

That's it.  Pay the OT, document any policy violation to send the message and move on.  The employee either gets the message or they ultimately move out of the company.

Any questions?

Managers Who Suffocate Stars...

You've seen it before - the manager who likes to keep everything under their control.  They want to check off on all decisions and have a tendency to be the one to communicate all good news upward in the organization, which makes a lot of onlookers think they love to take credit for OPW (Other People's Work).

That might be true, but I usually think something else is at play.

I think that manager is scared.  Scared about the upward mobility of those they manage.  A little insecure about their abilities.  And most of all, unsure if they can compete in the marketplace of innovation.

Direct report showing some initiative and innovating?  For most of us, we celebrate, pushing the emails detailing the results and innovation around the organization as a means of recognition - and promotion.  It's our job to tell the world we have great people working for us who are capable of great things.

The scared manager?  No such communication happens.  Maybe it's been awhile since they viewed their business or function with a fresh set of eyes.  Maybe they're capable of innovation, but have decided to mail it in.   Maybe they're just scared that they don't have "it" anymore.

So they don't celebrate the success of their employees.  They don't promote.  They don't view themselves as a talent agent.  They're a bureaucrat.

And they're dangerous to any organization that wants to grow.   

Your Medical Plan is Doomed - Rx Companies Move to Guerrilla Marketing....

Everyone I know thinks the Viagra and related product ads are stupid, yet hilarious (Jam session with boomers singing "Viva Viagra", are you serious?  Guy throwing a football through a tire while his wife nods approval?  Priceless..)  Those seem harmless to a guy like me who watches the bills coming through for a medical plan...

But I still get paid to watch the trends...

For years, the pharma playbook has been to develop a drug, then create the market and cash it in as much as possible before it rolls off patent.

That usually meant tons of TV advertising.  Now, it seems as if Pharma may be getting even trickier in their marketing tactics.

The new way to get Rx market share?

Guerrilla marketing.  Make it look local, like someone trying to find a lost dog or give away a cat... From Fierce Pharma:

"A new guerrilla marketing campaign for over-the-counter Zyrtec proves one thing: If you want attention in the blogosphere, post a few drug ads on telephone poles. They're flyers designed to appear handwritten, saying, "Missing 2 Hours. Last Seen: While waiting for Claritin to start working. If found please call: 1-800-4-ZYRTEC"

That's bad news.  I know this is for a drug with an OTC option, but is there any doubt the guerrilla Rx campaign will be coming to an office park/hospital/clinic near you?

Can You Trust HR in Tough Times?

It's the age old question - can you trust HR?  With anything?

Lisa Takeuchi Cullen thinks you probably shouldn't; check out this post at Work in Progress, her blog at Time.com:

"Over the past few years, my employer has imposed a few rounds of layoffs. During the run-up, we were encouraged to visit with our human resources department if we wanted to inquire about taking a package. We were assured absolute, air-tight, witness-protection-program secrecy if we chose to do so. Who needs our bosses knowing we're entertaining an exit?

Quite a few of my colleagues did visit with HR. Then a funny thing happened. A few of them found that some management types dropped by to nonchalantly express their appreciation of the staffer's work.

Now, you have to understand my workplace culture to truly comprehend how completely weird that is. Where I work, bosses do not randomly drop in to tell you you're fab. My colleagues suspected an HR leak to management. I don't think they were being paranoid.

In these times of trouble, is HR your friend? Or can you ever trust a department that, after all, reports to the same master?"

The perception is sad but real, and at times, accurate.   After all, HR people are just that - people.  We have strong ones, weak ones, political ones, etc.   I think whether you can trust HR in any circumstance depends on the track record of the HR Pro you are dealing with.  What have you witnessed from them to that point?  As behavioral interviewers, we'll tell you straight up that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance.  It applies here...

For what it's worth, here's my approach with confidential information.  An employee comes to me and wants to have a confidential discussion about anything - a prospective job, their manager, etc., I let them know I'm happy to do it, but my ability to keep the information purely confidential is dependent on the topic.  I then give them an idea of the topics I couldn't keep confidential (harassment, etc.)

If they're still in, we have the conversation.  I try and help out any way I can.  We'll talk and I'll try to give them options, and tell them how I can help with their approval.

Then I lock the info down post-conversation.  It's what you have to do if you want to have credibility with a workforce.

Can you trust HR in tough times?  It's an individual question based on your HR Pro.  Just remember, past behavior is the best predictor of future performance...

HR Words That Mean Absoutely Nothing....

You know the words.  The ad copy for a HR or staffing firm meant to provide the sizzle, framing the fact that the firm in question IS Human Capital or Talent:

From Michael Habermann at HR Observations, who got this pitch in the mail:

"Superior talent matches for a customer's temporary, temporary-to-permanent and permanent job opportunities through a unique, team-based solution."

Ugh....I could accurately sketch the predictable clip art that invariably accompanies the words.  It looks like the picture on the right.  The picture is too perfect, and about 1,000 companies have it on their brochure...

How about this - "Pretty good people, fast.  Try before you buy..."

Be like Darrin from Bewitched (he worked for an ad agency) and give me your pitch for a tagline in the comments...

When People Say HR Stinks, It's Simple...Don't Stink...

If you're a HR blogger, you probably got the news early today from a PR type -the HR haters are out again, via a whitepaper called The Role of HR in the Age of Talent (based on research by Vurv and Human Capital Institute). 

More news that says HR isn't cutting it in the business world.  What else is new?  For a summary of what it says, I roll with Ann Bares of Compensation Force:

"This is a report that every one of us in the profession should read.  The news is not necessarily good.  It tells us that while talent management has become a top level concern for organizational leaders and boards, the HR profession has not yet made the necessary strides - in business acumen, prestige and influence - to earn the right to own this concern.  In the words of the study: "... its almost as if corporate leaders have made a collective, unconscious decision that talent management is too important to be left to HR."

I'm sure the study contains all the normal hand-wringing buzzwords, including Strategy, a Seat at the Table and not to be forgotten, Change Management.  The study probably says HR's not meeting the expectations in any of them.  Got it...

The answer?  Don't be angry - be different.  Be remarkable.  Every time you hear a study like this one, start a value added project and deliver the goods.  Make people say, "you're different from other HR people I've met"...

Let's stop wringing our hands and start acting like we belong.  Please.  Every time you comment on a story like this one, you guarantee five similar studies/articles will come along in the next year.

So, be different - don't comment, don't lash out.   Put your energy into cramming the stereotype down the world's throat by being a different type of HR pro.

Real World Stats - Cover Letters and Thank You Notes...

It's a digital world and, as a result, many candidates have forgotten all of their analog/1.0 skills.  Case in point - we are searching for an HR Coordinator to handle a good bit of the transactional load for our department, and I'd estimate that less than 15% of the 150-200 candidates who applied took the time to provide a cover letter when they submitted their resume.

This for a position with "HR" in the title?  What's the percentage for engineering positions?  5%?  1%?

Here's a better stat.  We interviewed six finalists from the pack of 200 applicants, and by my count, 4 provided a cover letter, one had a connection and called when applying, and one provided no cover letter.  Is it possible only the best candidates provide cover letters?  Or when we see a cover letter for a position requiring soft skills that naturally helps the candidate get to the next step?

I'd like to think so...

Others agree with the trend, and how it's easier than ever to differentiate yourself from the crowd as a result.  From Dennis Smith at The Fordyce Letter:

"Honestly, it’s intriguing. And really, I’m just curious…since when did “the experts” stop telling candidates to send thank you notes? Sure, I say that jokingly, because, even though I’ve only been at this for 12 years, it’s pretty much been like that since I joined the recruiting ranks. The Career Coaches instruct the job-seekers to follow-up with a well-written thank-you card, and, once-in-a-blue-moon somebody will walk the road less traveled and do something that blows me away.

In this case, the candidate followed up with an email within an hour of the interview, saying that she’d be delivering an appropriate thank-you. Sure enough, the next day she stops in the office with the likes of a thank-you card that, honestly, is likely the most well-written and appropriate card I’ve ever received.

Nicely done."

Here's a ray of hope from our search and the six candidates in question.  2-3 days after live interviews, 4 of the 6 candidates provided an email thank you note. 

One provided a written note as well, although it wasn't hand delivered.

We'll see who gets the job...

Should You Ditch the Second Interview and Have Candidates Work a Half Day For You?

If you've hired enough, you've felt the pain of what I call "missing".  You did everything you should have done in the hiring process, got feedback from others so you didn't make a hiring call in a bubble, ran the behavioral interview and probed.

Nice job.  So why did that new hire turn out to be a dud?

It's nothing personal.  Anyone who says they never miss has either only hired 1-4 people or is lying. Everyone misses.

So what can you do to reduce the number of times you miss?  You can make sure your interview attempts to measure what's important in the job, provide a realistic job preview, get more people involved, etc.

You could also have them do a live exercise with you to see how they react to real world conditions.  You could even have them work a full day for you in the role they'll perform before you make an offer.   

Is that possible?  Seth Godin thinks it is:

"There are no one-on-one-sit-in-my-office-and-let’s-talk interviews. Boom, you just saved 7 hours per interview. Instead, spend those seven hours actually doing the work. Put the person on a team and have a brainstorming session, or design a widget or make some espressos together. If you want to hire a copywriter, do some copywriting. Send back some edits and see how they’re received.

If the person is really great, hire them. For a weekend. Pay them to spend another 20 hours pushing their way through something. Get them involved with the people they’ll actually be working with and find out how it goes. Not just the outcomes, but the process. Does their behavior and insight change the game for the better? If they want to be in sales, go on a sales call with them. Not a trial run, but a real one. If they want to be a rabbi, have them give a sermon or visit a hospital."

Target practice with live ammo - I like it.  I've always included some type of inbox with a lot of the positions I've filled on my team.  Seth's thoughts take it to the next level.  Not role play, but live action.

To get there, you need to get yourself, your team and the candidate to understand that the work included in the process is a contracting/consulting opportunity.  For a 60K job, one day's work equates into about $250 in cost.  About the cost of a posting on Monster....

That seems cheap for what you get in return.

Headphones at Work - The Mark of the Individual Contributor...

Cheap observation from the workplace this week - Headphones are generally for individual contributors, and maybe even for those who want to remain individual contributors for the foreseeable future.

First up - I'm not anti-headphones or a member of the headphone Nazi party.  I get it - people can get into a groove with certain types of jobs (creative, transactional, etc.) with the vibe that music provides.  That's cool and I'm all for it.  I also get that headphones are often an attractive option for dealing with the noise intrusion that comes with living in a cube environment.

But here's the reality that goes along with headphones in the workplace:

1) Most managers I know don't use them.  Managers can't afford to not be aware of their surroundings and be approachable.  Managers take calls and walk-ins from other managers, external partners and their superiors who put them in the job in the first place.  More importantly, managers are expected to be available for the teams they lead.  Nothing says, "I'm not approachable" more than a manager wearing headphones. 

Well, maybe a closed door all the time says that to a greater extent.  But you get my point.

2) Employees who want to be upwardly mobile into the manager ranks typically don't take a lot of headphone time.  The type of employee who migrates into a managerial role is naturally available.  They thrive on the walk-in traffic and a service orientation to those who approach them.  For that reason, they usually don't wear headphones a lot.  The resulting service and approachability contribute to the organizational logic that they're good candidates to manage people.

So, if you are wearing headphones and are productive - ROCK ON.   It's all good and whatever makes you productive is a good thing.

Just be aware of what that says about your desire to lead teams if you have them on for 5-6 hours a day....

I'm just sayin'.....

Here Are Our Candidates for an Open HR Coordinator Spot - Who Would You Pick?

We're filling a HR Coordinator spot on our team to handle a good bit of the transactional load for the department.  Interesting selection, we really didn't have anyone in our networks, so of course we posted it to all the normal boards - Monster, local SHRM organization.

As a result, we got hit with 150-200 applicants.  It's a direct report to my HR Manager, so he's moved through the process.  We were down to six final candidates this week.  All are great candidates, now we just have to pick the best one...

Take a look at the profiles below and tell me who you would pick.  What's that?  You need to know more about the actual job?  You are such a pro - find the job description here. 

Here are the candidates - tell me who you would plug into the role:

-Candidate #1 - Banking Industry, mixture of coordinator type role and recruiting experience.  Great communication skills. 5 years experience...

-Candidate #2 - Mixture of industry experience, mixture of coordinator type role and recruiting experience.  A little more of an introvert than candidate #1.

-Candidate #3 - Current HR Manager, tough environment that includes recruiting, employee relations, etc.  Looking to get plugged into a broader HR community than she has access to now, willing to take a lateral move or half step back from a responsibility perspective to get that access. 4 years experience...

-Candidate #4 - New college grad.  All the behavioral markers are off the chart, but no experience...

-Candidate #5 - Currently in a coordinator role, has two years experience doing what they would do in our role. Good candidate, kind of on the shy side.

-Candidate #6 -  Banking Industry, mixture of coordinator type role and recruiting experience.  Great communication skills. 5 years experience...

OK - I know that's limited information, but based on the job description and profiles, who would you pick and why?  Hit me in the comments to let me know who you would choose....

Sometimes the Right Choice Is to Fire the Manager...

As a topic, firing a manager has easy scenarios and hard scenarios.  Just so we can be clear what we are talking about, let's first talk about all the times when it MIGHT be an easy call to fire a manager:

1.  When the manager is abusive to their team and is a walking liability;

2.  When the manager has had tons of ramp up time, but still doesn't understand the business and therefore can't generate the expected level of business results; or

3.  When the sales/stats aren't there over time, and you've done everything you can to allow them to address the performance issues for their function as a whole.

Are there other scenarios that make it an easy call?  I'm sure.  Is every situation different and, at times, more complex than these simple scenarios?  Absolutely...

Here's the harder scenario.  When do you make a call to remove a manager who has had great results in the past, but might be struggling recently to meet the bar/expectations they have created for themselves?

Case in point - in pro basketball, Avery Johnson of the Dallas Mavericks was fired after a first round loss in the 2008 playoffs.  A respected former player, Johnson actually took Dallas to the NBA Finals in 2006, had the league's best record in 2007 (but had a first round playoff loss that year), then worked to make the playoffs in a loaded Western Conference in 2008 before exiting in the first round again.

So Avery was successful, but got cut loose because he wasn't successful enough.  When is it the right time to cut loose a successful manager who has struggled recently?  Here's my working list:

1.  When the manager in question has a distinctive style that, over time, employees tune out.  I'm thinking the Bobby Knights of the business world.  The screamers, the object throwers, etc.  The intensity seems to work for awhile, but if that's all there is, employees ultimately get burned out over time.

2.  If business conditions change, but the manager's not flexible enough to change his focus.  In this scenario, the manager has lots of success early on with specific tactics, but then conditions change and new tactics are called for.  The manager had success with the old tactics, so he/she keeps using those and refuses to adapt.

3.  If the organization invests in a talent upgrade, but the manager can't motivate top tier talent to get to the next level.  In this scenario, the manager had great success with lower level talent.  To take the organization to the next level, the company provides a talent upgrade, but the results stay the same.   

4.  If the manager ceases to be motivated by the current opportunity.  Over time, interest in the current role can fade, even for a professional manager with a great track record.  Sometimes change is the best thing for everyone.

I think there are a variety of scenarios when a change is the best thing for a manager and a company alike.  To keep things fresh and have a long term career with a single company in today's world, managers have to stay alert and reinvent themselves every 2-3 years - to show value to the company, but also to keep the current opportunity fresh from their own perspective.

And that's easy to say, hard to do.

When "The Sopranos" Force an Employee To Sign a Union Card...

Just to be clear before I start this post, this isn't a political site.  It's a "HR/Human Capital meets the business world" type of site.  Remember that as the post starts below.

There's this little thing on the horizon called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).  Most pundits (Republican and Democrat alike) agree that if the Democrats take the White House, the act will pass both the House and the Senate - because it won't face a presidential veto.

If that happens, your life as a HR pro changes.  Once the EFCA is law, employees would no longer have the right to a confidential vote on whether they want to be represented by a union or not.  If you know how organizing works, you know that today employees express their interest in having a vote by signing what's known as an authorization card.  Once the union gets the necessary number of cards (30% of employees, but most unions shoot for 50% because that's what they need to win the resulting election), an election is called and employees then get the luxury of both unions and employers campaigning for their vote.  Then they vote via a confidential ballot, much like your presidential vote.

Even if an employee signs the card, they can vote the other way in the union election.  Many change their vote in the election because that's how they really feel.  Many sign the card because they don't want to be hassled/harassed/intimidated in the workplace.

If the EFCA passes, there's no vote.   Once the necessary number of cards are signed, the union's in.  No confidential election (like the one you get to elect the president), just a bunch of people coming up to you and asking you to sign a card.

And that's wrong.  That's not America. 

Here's the problem with that.  If the EFCA passes, Unions get authorized based on peer pressure.  Imagine a group of employees coming up to your work station/cube/desk/whatever and putting a card down and saying "you're with us, right?".. If you refuse, maybe the group starts to smear you in the workplace, maybe they start calling you at all hours of the night, etc.  Any type of pressure to get you to sign the card.  Your vote is public, and you're subject to harassment, not unlike the video below. 

Hat tip to Seth Borden of the Union-Free Employer for the video...Regardless of your political views, educate yourself on this bill and make your feelings known as a HR Pro to your representative/senator, etc...

Tribune Company Rescinds $100/month Penalty For Smokers, Keeps Spousal Carve Out...

I've talked a lot in the past about the future of wellness programs, medical costs and the potential for incentives/penalties related to living a healthy lifestyle.   While this area is rife with complexities, the cost trend of medical care seems to make it inevitable that companies will eventually reward those leading healthy lifestyles.

With that said, companies naturally migrate the lowest hanging fruit when approaching any issue.  In the area of wellness incentives/penalties, the low hanging fruit is smoking.  While family history and genetics are at play in areas like blood pressure and cholesterol, smoking is seen as a voluntary choice.  As a result, many companies are charging higher medical premiums for smokers, or refusing to employ them.

There hasn't been a highly visible company that had started penalties to smokers - until now.  LA Observed and John Hollon both recently highlighted that the Tribune Company, which started charging smokers an extra $100 per month in medical premiums on 1/1/08, reversed course in April and is refunding the charges to smokers.  Here's the Tribune memo to employees as reported from LA Observed (with a hat tip to John Hollon):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tribune Communications
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Message from Gerry Spector/Tobacco Use Fee Rescinded

Since the closing of the going-private transaction last December, we’ve been reviewing policies and practices across the company, including Tribune’s healthcare benefits. While well-intentioned, we think the tobacco-use fee implemented by the previous management team is inconsistent with the new culture we’re developing---we’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you.

This policy was a part of open enrollment last fall and took effect January 1, 2008. I’m pleased to tell you that we’re eliminating this fee effective April 28th.

If you successfully participated in the smoking cessation program, have quit and been reimbursed for all fees, then congratulations are in order. Quitting is one of the hardest things you’ll ever do.

If you’re still being charged the fee, it will stop and Tribune will reimburse you 100 percent for the fees you have paid. This reimbursement will occur in late May.

Tribune will continue to offer the smoking cessation program free of charge to all employees and their covered dependents age 18 and older.

The spousal medical fee, implemented at the same time, will remain in place. We believe that if an employee’s spouse has access to coverage through his/her employer, that employer has the primary responsibility to bear the cost of coverage. Our obligation is to take care of our own employees, first and foremost.

If you have questions about the tobacco use fee, contact the Tribune Benefits Service Center at XXX/XXX-XXXX (sic - phone number changed for publication)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting move.  Not sure it will be the norm with smoking...

Are Frontline Employees Fully Expendable? Isn't the "Same" really "Lame"?

If you've ever worked in a retail or consumer call center situation, odds are you've seen some employee turnover.  Depending on pay levels, the specific industry, and local economic conditions, it's not unusual to see annualized turnover at 100% in those sectors.

As HR Pros, we're conditioned that high turnover is never acceptable.  Most of us take it personally.

Is it possible, depending on the conditions you face (pay levels, industry and the local ecomomy), that you shouldn't take high turnover as a personal challenge as a HR Pro?  Additionally, if you don't invest much in the upfront training of those associates, have you made a business decision that high turnover is OK?

More on the value of high entry-level turnover from the Workforce Institute:

"Unless your Unique Selling Proposition (USP) or point of difference is Exceptional Customer Service (like Nordstrom, BMW, Ritz Carlton, and the Container Store), there’s no reason to sweat it when you lose frontline employees. Most likely, they were not that good anyway because, truth be told, you haven’t invested a lot of money in your hourly hires and even the training you provided, if any, didn’t cost much. In fact, their replacements will probably be just as good and may be even better than those you lose. New employees are excited about their new jobs and will probably have a better attitude and try harder - at least for the first three-to-six months. On top of this, employee turnover will probably reduce your labor costs because you won’t have to fund any benefit programs for a while. And there’s no need to worry if the new hire doesn’t know very much because the customers don’t expect them to know much when customer service is not your USP. You may even want to have new people wear a button that says: “I’m new. Please help me help you.”

It's an interesting take, and hard to deny the investment piece.  If you don't invest much in service-oriented new hires, have you already made your choice from business perspective.  Should you be pointing that out as an HR Pro?

Still, it's hard as a consumer, who is also an HR Pro, to let go of the fact that exceptional service is important.  Thoughts?  Should business be giving up on entry-level turnover, or should they be fighting to be memorable?

I guess it depends on the business plan - and how you plan to make money...

DNA Discrimination Bill set to go into Law.... Good News and Bad News...

People learning, through genetic testing, that they might be susceptible to devastating diseases wouldn't also have to worry about losing their jobs or their health insurance, under anti-discrimination legislation the Senate passed Thursday.

The 95-0 Senate vote sends the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act back to the House, which could approve it early next week. President Bush supports the legislation.  The measure bars insurers from denying health coverage or charging higher premiums based on a person's genetic information. Also, it bars employers from using genetic information to make hiring, firing, and other job-related decisions. The measure applies only to people who have a genetic makeup that carries the risk of a disease. It does not cover people who already have the disease.

As with everything, there's good news and bad news

First, the good news.  The law provides protection, which should encourage more people to be tested for a variety of things earlier, which allows people to change behaviors and seek treatment earlier.  That's a good thing, as the prognosis for almost every condition improves if people have the information they need to make better choices.

Now the bad news.  The legislation offers no protection for those who already have a disease.  Seems a little unfair if you're already battling something.  Additionally, I think this will limit the potential effectiveness of wellness initiatives down the road.

Not following me on why this may hamper wellness initiatives?  When trying to motivate people to live healthier lifestyles, companies usually focus on the following measurements as a basis for how healthy a person is:

1.  Blood Pressure
2.  Body Mass Index (BMI)
3.  Blood Sugar/Glucose
4.  Cholesterol
5.  Resting Heart Rate

With that in mind, how many of these factors do you think might ultimately prove to have genetic predisposition based on your family history?  4 out of 5?

These are the measurements that any wellness incentive program would hold employees accountable by.  Whether you use the carrot (rebates on employee contributions for good scores) or the stick (charging employees with poor scores and no efforts to improve), the DNA bill will likely ultimately limit your ability to economically motivate your employees to live healthier lifestyles.

If I have high blood pressure and there's a test that shows I am genetically predisposed to that condition, you won't be able to use the carrot or the stick.  It would likely be discriminatory under the law.

Even if the employee is eating 4 Grand Slams at Denny's a day.   File it under the Law of Unintended Consequences...