Democrat to HR (you) and SHRM (us) on the EFCA - "I Can't Hear You"...

A couple of months ago I did an article on why SHRM should bail out HR.  Mildly tongue-in-cheek given the fact that bailouts are all around us and SHRM has a healthy cash position, the point was pretty simple - if anyone's going to bail out HR, SHRM's the one who has to do it.

SHRM's the Yankees, the Celtics and the Steelers all rolled into one.

As I look back on that article, I think what I need most from SHRM right now is hardcore "credible activist" activity at the national level.  Remember the credible activist tag from Ulrich?  If you’re seeking credibility as an HR pro, you not only need to know more about the competencies of HR than that blowhard VP of engineering at your weekly meetings, but you also have to be willing to engage him in front of others when it comes to talent topics. Dave Ulrich calls this the "credible activist" competency, and it means you step forward and advocate for your position on any topic related to your function. You’re the expert, so talk! Engage! Fight!

Flash forward to today.  Lots of stuff in Congress that impacts HR pros.  The one bill on my mind that seems especially toxic?  The EFCA.  SHRM has the right position on this one, which is to say that they oppose it.  Good.  Then I read the following (to be fair, it's attributed to the spokesperson, but not quoted) in Workforce Management from a SHRM spokesperson:

"the organization is not anti-union but that the so-called card check bill would potentially subject workers to strong-arm tactics".

Right position, but not strong enough.  Doesn't qualify for credible activist status.  What happens when you're not strong enough in your position?  People mistake you for being soft. From the reporting of Jessica Lee at Fistful of Talent, at the SHRM Legislative Conference:

"Here was an interesting bitty during the conference though. The keynote speaker was former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. who now chairs the Democratic Leadership Council - and I felt a bit confused by the pick. Awesome speaker, seemingly authentic fellow, but he chairs an organization that supports the Employee Free Choice Act which SHRM has stated they are not in support of. A bit of a dichotomy, no? But thankfully, before I could put my little hand up and ask a question, another attendee asked him about his opinion of the EFCA. Bam! I thought for sure we'd see some action at this point in the conference - something at least better than FMLA jokes. And without skipping a beat, Ford responded that he has some hesitations about it since he doesn't see how it will support job creation but quickly admitted that the DLC is in support of it. Okay, not so bad, I thought.

And then he hit me with something more. "If you're against EFCA, then you need to do a better job of talking about it. The unions and everyone else in support of it - you see their ads everywhere. They've got the PR game down. You're going to need to work on your PR and advertising around your stance on the issue."

Harold Ford Jr. was always one of my favorite Democrats. But here's the deal - he thinks the SHRM position is soft enough that he came into HR's house - a SHRM conference - and said we were soft!

WOW.  In hockey, they'd send in a goon.  In hoops, the 11th man would be sent in to guard the star and burn his fouls.  Not because we dislike Ford - but because we've been challenged.  I repeat, Ford came into our house and said we're soft.  Staggering.

To be fair to SHRM, they've got a diverse membership, so I'm assuming the reason for the "we're not anti-union" stance is the fact we've got tens of thousands of members who are from companies with organized units.  I get that.  The problem is that in order to offend no one, SHRM felt compelled to say they're not anti-union, which waters down the message.

And that allows Ford to come into the house and call the message soft.

What I'd love to see? I’d like to see someone from SHRM spitting fire on CNN and Fox News, a credible SHRM spokesperson who has been authorized to take the gloves off, and to show the membership that the aggressiveness and advocacy required by the credible activist role is OK.  A personality that can toe the line for what SHRM needs to be, but can push an aggressive message that tells the world SHRM has an opinion, and they're not afraid to go on the offensive.  Think Hannity and Colmes in the HR world.

SHRM's good enough to do that.  I'm betting they have the talent right now to pull it off, and the nice thing is that in the CNN/Fox News world, being a credible activist who turns up the volume is EXPECTED.  No one gets their feelings hurt.

They just have to be willing to go after people like Harold Ford Jr. when they call the organization soft. 

Comments

[Victorio]

This Gallup poll speaks to the point that Jessica and you are making: http://www.hrmorning.com/gallup-americans-favor-employee-free-choice-act/#more-1236.

[ExHR]

I couldn't agree more. I think that too many HR practitioners have a confused idea of their role in an organization. HR practitioners should not consider themselves to be ombudsmen or the voice of the employees to management. The HR function's role is to Manage the Human Resources of the organization and that means taking a stand against those things that do not aid in the management of those resources. The EFCA will not, under any circumstances, benefit the management of the human resources of ANY organization.

[John Hollon]

Good point Kris. And it makes me wonder -- why doesn't SHRM take the kind of money they put into those silly and useless television ads they bought during the presidential debates and channel it into an ad campaign against the EFCA? THAT would be a targeted use of their money for a very specific purpose that makes sense. But maybe that's the problem -- it makes TOO much sense for SHRM to get involved in.

[HRAdvocate]

What SHRM and other HR professional associations need to do is stop thinking that opposing this bill is anti-union. This isn't about pro/con unions -- it is about freedom of choice in private. The union reps are being very good at diverting the attention to say that if you are against this - well you are anti-union. We have to be just as good articulating that this is about choice and privacy. We vote for politicians in private - how would they like it if voters didn't have the individual privacy to make their personal choice and the voter had to make their selection in front of their opposition? Same thing here -- We aren't spinning this right and if we don't get on the ball we are going to be stuck with this law.

[Marit Brock]

Thanks for the insights, and thanks for being willing to speak up about SHRM's lack of activism lately. In fact, I was thinking that if I get one more whiny update about how new legislation should be opposed because it creates extra paperwork for HR then I may just have to cancel my SHRM membership.