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!!

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?

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...

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...

Employees Who Play "Grand Theft Auto" - Good or Bad Thing?

We've been watching the NBA playoffs over the past couple of days, and here's the challenge.  It's PRIME TIME, and when the games go to commercial, my 7 and 4 year-old sons get exposed to programming clips and ads the networks view as acceptable at 7pm.

Case in point - On the video game front, Grand Theft Auto 4 is set to be released, featuring all the vices  you can name, set to a drug running culture where shooting cops is an afterthought.  Here's a taste of what the game entails from the London Free Press:

"Grand Theft Auto IV -- or simply GTA IV -- tells the story of Niko Bellic, a recent immigrant to the U.S. from an unrevealed Eastern European country. He's come to Liberty City, the game's through-the-looking-glass version of New York, lured by his cousin Roman's promises of wealth and opportunity.

Niko soon realizes his cousin has twisted the truth like a stoolie's arm: Roman lives in a fleabag apartment, runs a failing taxi company and is in trouble with several shady people. He's summoned Niko, an ex-soldier and all-around capable character, to help extract him from some sticky situations.

So begins Niko's pursuit of the American dream, a chase that will follow the Grand Theft Auto template of having players undertake dozens upon dozens of missions to advance the core storyline, while also pursuing any number of sideline activities, like going to the bar, playing darts and driving home drunk."

Of course, if I can't change the channel quick enough (where is the @#@* remote!?), my 7 year old ultimately see the shoulder fired missile going at the police chopper and asks if we can get that game for our Xbox.  Nice.

Here's a bigger question - are employees who band together at night via networked groups on the Xbox or Playstaion to play "shooter games" good things or bad things for your business? 

On the minus side - your employees are exposed to a steady range of violence via the normal shooter games like "Call of Duty".  Add drugs and poor treatment of women to the mix for games like Grand Theft Auto.  Is there a carry-over of aggression to the workplace?  I can't say that I see it, and it's not like we have the ability to stop what's going on in society.

But here's the big plus side - for every group of 5-10 employees you have that band together at night to save the war (or Niko), you get built-in teamwork.  That group is getting together after work, and doing team-based activities that require cooperation, leadership, accountability to the team and more - they're just exploding things while they do it.

That's got to be good for retention, right?

I think the group gamers are a good thing for your company.  It's also an area that's full of opportunity from a recruiting standpoint for those willing to step outside the box - what better way to recruit the gamer generation than to invite them to join the "Call of Duty" team for an evening of fun?

Of course, you would have to accept that your recruits are going to be exposed to cursing, violence and overall aggressive behavior. 

And that will keep most of us from capturing the promise - we can't accept the liability that goes along with it from a HR standpoint.... 

Dealing With Employees Who Are "Strapped" - Guns in Cars...

Guns in the workplace.  Interesting topic among HR pros, in that everyone agrees you can't bring one on your person into the building, but there's a lot of confusion on whether you can enforce a policy that says employees can't have a firearm in their car while on company property.

Here's what I hear when I talk to other HR pros about the topic:

1.  "We have the right and need to ban firearms on company property, including in employee vehicles in our parking lot."

2.  "You can't ban it - they have the right to have that firearm in their car as long as it is not on their person."

3.  "You could ban it, but then to enforce it you would have to do an illegal search and seizure of their car if you had suspicion they were packing."

4.  "I know I can ban, but if I clarify the policy, I'm going to upset a lot of people who are currently packing in their cars.  So I'm going to leave it alone.

My take has always been you need a policy that says firearms are never OK on company property, including locked, parked vehicles.  I always figured I would work through all the issues related to a search if I got to that point, which I hoped I never did.

Now comes Florida Governor Charlie Crist, signing a law that protects the right to keep a loaded gun in your car, as long as it's locked up:

"With the stroke of a pen, Governor Charlie Crist has made it legal for Floridians to take their guns to work and keep the weapon locked in their car.

Crist signed the bill into law Tuesday, and it will go into effect July 1st.

The law says businesses cannot stop employees or customers from keeping a gun locked inside their car.

Some places, like schools and prisons, are still off limits."

Welcome to America.  I'm a big constitutional rights guy, but clearly businesses need to have the right to require workers to leave the guns at home . . . if for no other reason than to diffuse the crazy situations that come up at any business. 

Candidate Profile on MySpace - "Smoke #@$@ All Day"....

By now, we know there's a lot of information, some of it very damaging, about candidates on social networks like Facebook and MySpace.  If you want to see a decent legal rundown, check out this recent article from The Alabama Lawyer.  The article does a pretty good job of establishing some talking points about all the legal issues (candidate selection - and how you can use it - to reject candidates being the biggie) and what's still to be resolved legally.

Didn't click through, did you?  That's OK, it's tough to muster the energy to read the legal eagle's take.

Still, two legal friends referred me to the article (one being my wife), so I thought I would share.

If you didn't click through, then check out this story from another friend of the Capitalist, regarding research he did on a youngster who rear-ended him on a vacation trip:

"Here is an example. I got rear-ended on the way to my daughter's sports competition in Florida. I was hit in FL by a 21 year old girl who had insurance. She did not report it to her insurance company like she was supposed to, so I had to do it. She was very nice and apologetic last Friday, so I was a bit surprised that she failed to do what she was supposed to do.

As a result, I thought that I would check her out on the Internet by running a google search on her full name, <Name Redacted> all in quotes. What I got was her younger, 16 year old sister's myspace page that is titled "Smoke Weed All Day." According to the myspace page, all the family kids do is drink and smoke all day. My driver is listed as her sister's "hero" on the page..."

Quick - the 21 year old sister is a great candidate who you're getting ready to hire, and you googled her as part of your reference check.  What do you do?

OK - maybe throwing the article in a folder is not such a bad idea....

CEO's on the Cursing, Yelling "Straight Talk" Express - Leaders or Liabilities?

A lot's been written about the rantings of Sam Zell, the real estate billionaire who recently became a media magnate when he bought the Tribune Co.   If you're late to the game about who this guy is or what he's done, here's all you need to know:

1.  Zell became a media tycoon when he bought the Tribune Company, which means he bought a bunch of newspapers and assorted media companies.

2.  Zell went on a straight talk express, where he did a tour of the newspaper newsrooms and tried to shake things up.

3.  Zell's approach includes, a) cursing, b) yelling, c) telling people to stop spending time on being politically correct, and d) challenging a lot of conventional wisdom in the newspapers he owns.

Which begs a question.  Are CEO's and owners who engage in a profane, animated discourse with employees leaders or liabilities?  Is it possible they can be both, with the scales tipping one way or the other based on the overall circumstances before them and facing the companies they manage?

I'm conflicted on when the approach is warranted, although there are certainly industries and workforces that are more open to the message than others.   The rationalization is usually the need for a "sense of urgency".  Is that a good reason?

Take a look at this latest clip (running time - 5 minutes, warning PG-13), where Zell explains his approach to some folks at the Chicago Tribune, and decide for yourself.  If you want more Zell, go to YouTube.  It's not hard to find...

(Hat tip on video to Erik Berggren at Success Factors)

When You're Ugly But Digital - The VisualCV

I've been on record for not being a fan of video resumes or any depiction of your physical prowess when it comes to your initial resume going to a company.  The reason?  Simple...  All the momentum you can create with a kickin' resume or initial phone screen can come to a screeching halt when someone sees what you look like.

If you aren't attractive, that hurts your chances.  You can fall victim to what I call the "visioned" approach to hiring.  The hiring manager can't really say what they expected (along the lines of, "I was looking for someone who looked more like John McCain"), but they can say that you just don't look to be a fit for the position in question.  Vague, but you're out. 

If you can wait to spring your looks on them until after you've done the phone interview with them, you're usually in better shape.  Once they've fallen in love with your qualifications, project work and rapport-building skills, it's easier for them to get past your glass jaw. Or big feet.

One approach that might change my mind is VisualCV.  It's a resume that becomes a live Internet document with built-in company and university research from your background.  More importantly, it allows you to deliver the equivalent of a portfolio of your work to the employment/networking targets of your choice by enriching your resume, making it a proxy for that first interview. You can add video, audio, charts, graphs, work samples, presentations, scanned documents and much more.

And yes, it has a picture of you as a part of the platform.  It's going to look weird without it, so you probably need to include it.

I'm on record as saying the leave-behind portfolio of your work is a great idea, and that idea is something only about 1 in 100 candidates actually do.  With VisualCV, you've got the chance to do that before the game even begins, which is very cool.

And that game changer, my friend, can even overcome looks like mine.....

(PS - Check out Guy K's VisualCV here.....)

The Fanny Slap - Not Everything in Sports is Transferable to the Workplace...

You know you wanted to read this when you saw the title - that's OK - it's my job to make the title appealing enough to get you to click through...

So here's the connection to HR - I've been accused in the comments of my recent post about salaries in baseball for being too sports-focused (my average is a post tying sports and HR once every two weeks).  The commenter in question threw up the following quote:

"The sports references are interesting to sports fans, but unfortunately more than 60% of HR professionals are women, many of whom don't know what you are talking about when you, for example, reference Dick Vitale, cross-over dribbling and moneyball.

In my diversity training classes, we were advised to not use sports references to avoid alienating women. And women were told to limit the conversation about Dooney & Boorke handbags to avoid alienating men."  (from "Ed")

My response was pretty predictable.  I politely told "Ed" that a blog is a blend of professional development and personal style. I'm not trying to be everything to everyone and water the product down - I'm just being me.  I also told "Ed" that I didn't think he was giving my female readers enough credit..

Here's where it got interesting.  I gave a hat tip to the person who referred me to the article in that post - and that person happened to be female.  As you might expect, she came in and dismantled "Ed", in a nice, workplace-appropriate fashion.   I guess "Ed" doesn't speak for women everywhere.

So "Ed", if you're out there, sorry you got knocked down on your way to the hoop in the comments section.  While I'm sure I can't water down the site enough for you to be comfortable using it in your diversity sessions, I'm still enough of a teammate to give you some encouragement after getting knocked down.

Just imagine that I'm Roberts and you're Green in the picture below .  Keep sliding with the cleats up, big guy.

P.S. - for anyone who hasn't been in "Ed's" diversity sessions, this is a sports-related reference that doesn't transfer well in the workplace.  Don't be like Roberts in the hallways today, or as people leave your training session.

Recognition and teamwork - Good... Recognition involving non-handshake touching - Bad...

I'm out... Have a great weekend....

Skycaps - Now earning 60K at an Airport Near You....

A couple of weeks ago, Starbucks was in the news, ordered by a California judge to cough up a bunch of cash related to practices surrounding tips.  The hits keep on coming for companies who compensate a portion of their workforce related to tips.

Today's jury verdict related to tips?  American Airlines was ordered to pay 9 skycaps in Boston 325K for lost tips when the airline imposed a $2 per bag surcharge for curbside check-in.  From the Boston Globe:

"A federal jury yesterday ordered American Airlines to pay nine skycaps at Logan International Airport a total of more than $325,000 for tips they lost when the airline began charging passengers $2 a bag for curbside check-in service in late 2005.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of baggage fees imposed by several airlines in recent years, the jury in US District Court in Boston found that American Airlines violated the state's tips law by keeping the $2 fees. The jury also found that the airline had made it harder for skycaps to earn a living.

"We're very pleased that the jury saw what American Airlines is doing here, which is digging into the pockets of some of its lowest-paid workers to boost its own profits," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented the skycaps, several of whom hugged one another and brushed away tears after the verdict.

Since the fee went into effect in September 2005, skycaps testified, daily tips have plunged because many customers mistakenly thought the workers keep the $2 fee charged for handling bags at the curb and were reluctant to tip on top of it. One of the skycaps testified that his daily tips fell from about $200 to about $70 or $80."

Interesting verdict.  Solid comp professionals keep an eye out for the impact of business decisions on total comp, but this is the first decision I can recall that questions a company's ability to establish prices for services.

Also - by my math a skycap earning $200 a day in tips with a $5.15 hourly rate is earning about 60K a year.  WOW - I didn't expect that.   Shout out to all my peeps with multiple degrees who aren't earning that... Once you cut it to $80 a day, I come up with total comp in the 34-35K range, which still seems OK... But $60K?

My standard for the skycap tip was always a buck a bag, minimum of $5.  That's how I roll.  Of course, I never saw the surcharge....

Who's next?  Doormen?  The Valet? 

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...

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!!

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....

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.

Dr. Seuss - Enabler of Everything That's Wrong In The Workplace?

A week or so back, I riffed on the report that 42% of Tampa bus drivers were certified/approved for Intermittent FMLA Leave.  42%.  That's a big number - back when I had large scale call centers as part of my client group, a number like 3-4% would have brought a call center to its knees from a scheduling consistency standpoint. 

Who's to blame for the mess involved with the use of Intermittent FMLA Leave?  The government for tweaking the original FMLA regs?  Maybe.  Companies who aren't as aggressive as possible to push back on interpretation?  Sure.  Employees who don't have conditions needing flexibility, but certify under FMLA anyway, so they can't be held accountable for taking Friday and Monday off in the packaging of a 4-Day weekend?  You bet.

Me?  I'm blaming Dr. Seuss. 

I've got a 7 and a 4 year old, so I've got the books, and I've done some research.  It's all right there, if you look for it, in a book entitled "I Am NOT Going to Get Up Today".  From the children's book now serving as the guide on how to beat company attendance policies:

"I don't care if the kids are getting up right now all over town.  I'm the kid who ISN'T getting up.  I'm staying down.

All around the world, they're getting up.  And that's okay with me.  Let the kids get up in Switzerland... or Memphis, Tennessee (or Tampa - editor's note...)

In bed is where I'm going to stay.  And I don't care what the neighbors say!  I never liked them anyway." (editor's note - absenteeism hurts everyone, but isn't it typical that those who are taking unnecessary time off are the the last to care?)

WOW.  With propaganda like this, is it any wonder our workforce is in shambles?  That Gen Y would rather go hiking than work as a part of your important, yet somewhat tedious, audit team?

If you're reading this in 2028 and are managing one of my kids, you're welcome.  I threw out all of the propaganda by this anti-capitalism, anti-entrepreneurial, poisoner of minds.  He was even encouraging kids to read with their eyes shut.  That's been pretty productive around my house.

(PS - Happy 104th Birthday, Dr. Seuss)

Tom Brady - Posterchild For Why Video Resumes Are A Bad Idea...

If you are thinking about doing a video resume as a candidate, stop.  You're not George Clooney or Jennifer Anniston.

If you are thinking about using video resumes as a hiring manager, stop.  You'll limit yourself by seeing what the talent looks like WAAAAAY too early in the process.

When you are early on in the recruiting process, it's a stack of resumes.  The possibilities are endless, and you'll carve your 100 resumes down to 15 viable candidates.  You'll get excited about the talent as you pick up the phone to have initial phone screens with the candidates.  Some you'll click with, others you won't.

That's OK.

You'll bring the ones with whom you click in for interviews.  As you go out to your lobby to greet them, at least half will suprise you by not looking like whatever you had in mind.  Here's the cool part - the fact that you have already dug into their resume and heard the communications skills/energy over the phone will allow you to give them a chance, even if they don't look the part.  That's how folks who aren't models get hired and thrive in organizations.

If you started with the video resume, those folks never make it in the door.

Case in point, the picture below of NFL megastar Tom Brady before he was drafted.  If you were recruiting for a NFL star and were presented with this snapshot, would Brady have been called in for a live interview?

I thought not. 

All I'm saying is give every candidate a chance - just say no to video resumes and photographs......

42% of Tampa Bus Drivers Have Signed Up for Intermittent Leave..(!)

WOW.  It's been a few years since I supported a big consumer call center as part of my practice, so I had really forgotten about the pain that Intermittent Leave under FMLA can cause employers. 

The desire for maximum flexibility and at times, the avoidance of accountability, can cause Intermittent Leave to spread like a virus through an operating unit of a company.

For me, I thought bad news in this area would be about 3-4% of all employees in a division or company being approved for Intermittent Leave (10-12 employees in a call center of 300 would cause a big impact to scheduling, etc.).

But 42% of all employees?  You're kidding me, right?  Apparently not - from the Tampa Tribune:

"...Case in point is HARTline, the county's(Tampa metro) public transit service. Forty-two percent of the bus drivers have signed up for a benefit the federal law calls "unscheduled intermittent leave." Many of them are using the law to extend weekends and go home "sick" to avoid unwanted assignments.

The law designed to cost nothing is costing HARTline and other employers many millions of dollars. The family leave act was intended to cost little or nothing while providing 12 weeks of job security to help workers through challenges (sic) times - such as bringing home a new baby, recovering from illness, or helping an incapacitated relative.

Some workers, including many HARTline drivers, have discovered that minor ailments also qualify, such as back pain and headaches. A one-time doctor's certification can give a worker a perpetual excuse for going home early, sleeping late, or not showing up at all.

Lawmakers were wrong in thinking that two features would minimize employee abuse and employer expense: One, the worker on leave under the act gets no pay and thus has no incentive to malinger, and two, the law applies only to organizations with 50 or more workers, which seems to be ample manpower to make up lost productivity."

But employers like the bus agency can't make up in the afternoon for a bus that doesn't run in the morning. In many businesses, schedules must be kept.

To keep its buses on time, HARTline is spending $2 million a year on overtime, an agency spokesman says, and 39 percent of that cost is attributed to FMLA absences."

42% of all employees.  Maybe it would be easier for that HR Team to certify the people who don't need intermittent leave....

Ralph Kramden would never approve...

Pimpin Ain't Easy - But Managers and Commentators Can't Say That...

In the 678,976th example of why you can't simply say anything you want as a manager, I present the recent example of MSNBC news reporter David Schuster, who recently accused the Clinton campaign of "pimping out" Chelsea Clinton.  From the Baltimore Sun:

"David Shuster, the television news anchor who suggested on air the other day that the Clinton family had "pimped out'' daughter Chelsea in its campaign for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination, has been temporarily suspended from all NBC News broadcasts.

MSNBC announced that it had temporarily suspended anchor Shuster from all NBC news broadcasts — except to offer his on-air apology for what he said about Chelsea Clinton.

Shuster had outraged the Clinton campaign by saying that the campaign had "pimped out" the Clintons' daughter when they had her place phone calls to party superdelegates on her mother's behalf. In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated Shuster and called the comment "beneath contempt.''

Here's the lesson for managers, HR pros and yes, commentators.  Words like "pimp" have been mainstreamed to a large degree.   That doesn't mean you won't be judged harshly if you choose to use them. 

Sure, MTV can offer up fare like "Pimp my Ride", but that's a media company pushing the envelope using the term to describe a vehicle - not a person. 

As a manager, HR pro or media personality, every time you get edgy with others listening, watching, or filming, there's a high likelihood you'll be judged critically.   

Maybe you deserve it, maybe you don't. 

Doesn't matter.  Especially in the digital age, where flippant remarks one morning in the parking lot can end up on youtube by noon....

When Employees Sleep and Harass in the Homes of Customers....

Your employees represent your company's brand with every interaction they have with customers.

True?  Great!  We agree...

Now close your eyes and imagine the following scenario.  You work for a service company, and as a part of the service offering, your employees have to go into the homes of your customers.   And interact... Without you or a manager there....

As a HR pro that has supported businesses with this model, I can tell you lots of bad stuff happens when employees have to go into the homes of customers.  Based on my experience, here's the leading things that cause customer and employee relations pain when someone like Larry the Cable Guy knocks on the door of a customer, then enters the home representing your brand (listed in ascending order based on severity)

Larry can kill your brand by:

• Leaving mud on the carpet
• Helping himself to a glass of Dr. Pepper
• Being rude
• Being dressed inappropriately (regardless of what your dress code is)
• Cursing
• Sleeping in the customer's home
• If doing computer work, using the customer's PC to look up objectionable content
• Making inappropriate remarks to the lady of the house, thereby freaking her out that she is going to be assaulted
• Making inappropriate remarks to a child in the house, thereby freaking everyone out...

Of course, sometimes the employee gets accused of something and is totally innocent.  In a morality play acted out numerous times, we used to see allegations from customers currently in collections, demanding their past due bill be waived or some free service offered, in exchange for dropping the claim that Larry made a pass at them inside their home.

Kind of made you want to assume the fetal position in the corner and start crying as a HR pro.  The customer's always right, but then there was that "advocate for the employee" thing in the back of your head...

What's got me thinking about employees in the customer's home?  I was reading Meatball Sundae over the weekend (Seth Godin's new book), and he mentioned a Comcast installer that had been videotaped asleep on the customer's sofa.  The point?  In the age of the long tail, an interaction that might have cost you customers on one street can now damage your brand globally.

Which means if you are sending employees into a customer's home, you should think differently about the hiring model, both from a compensation and behavioral perspective.

Enjoy the video, and if your employees aren't required to go into customer homes with zero oversight, be thankful....

Use This Handy Girl Scout Template to Sell To Your Co-Workers and Drive Your HR Person Insane!!!

A couple of weeks ago, I riffed on the difficulties of maintaining a balance between enforcing your non-solicitation policy and not being a buzzkill as a HR person.   The line is even more important based on the recent NLRB decision related to email.

Last week I was walking to the school bus stop with my son and did a quick check of my blackberry.  Guess what was waiting on me?  That's right, a blast email solicitation from someone I know asking me to buy Girl Scout cookies.  Oddly enough, I have never received one of these from an employee in a company I work for.  I guess those that blast the emails away are probably smart enough not to copy HR people on their marketing blasts.

Still, I didn't recognize the name and had a momentary increase in my heart rate wondering if one of our employees had used the "All Employees" distribution list to conduct their marketing campaign.  After further review, it was someone outside the company, but they were using their work email to conduct the campaign, including a bunch of people at their company.  So that's someone else's problem to deal with.

Message appears below with names and email address changed to protect the guilty... Plus if you ever want to mix it up with the non-solicitation policy, it's a nice template, good product positioning...

Once again people, verbal/casual conversations GOOD, email and bulletin board postings BAD when it  comes to ye old Non-Solicitation Policy....  HR people like organizations like the Girl Scouts, but trust me - 70% of all the people who got this email didn't want it.....

___________________________________________________________________________

From: Smith, Rhonda [mailto:rsmith457@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:58 PM
To: List removed by KD

Subject: Girl Scout Cookie ordering time is here!!!

If you haven't placed an order with a Girl Scout, please consider ordering from my daughter, Sally.

The cookies are $3 per box and payment due upon delivery the week of 2/11/08 - just in time for Valentine's Day!!!  For those of us dieting...these do well in the freezer for very long periods of time...hint...hint...

Your choice of cookies are:

Thin Mints: The most enduring and universally familiar Girl Scout cookie. These round, mint-flavored cookies covered with dark chocolate perennially sell the most boxes of any cookie. Thin Mints have never changed their name. Little Brownie Bakers and ABC Bakers both make Thin Mints.

Do-Si-Dos® or Peanut Butter Sandwich: A sandwich cookie. The round, bumpy perforated oatmeal cookie top and bottom surrounds a peanut butter-flavored layer inside. Do-Si-Dos® (formerly Gauchos) are baked by Little Brownie Bakers. ABC Bakers calls them Peanut Butter Sandwiches.

<List Ended early by KD - 9 other choices were listed, all with pictures.....>

Please let me know if you want to place and order and thank you in advance for your support for Sally and Troop 745!

Rhonda
___________________________________________________________________________

The Boss's Pool Party - Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Since this site is geared towards HR pros and others charged with the responsibility for managing components of human capital , I generally don't do a lot of Q&A from employees.  I'd rather focus this site on dialog with HR people and others charged with managing workforces.

But there's always an exception to the rule, and I found it at Workplace Management Strategies over the holidays, where Nick recently fielded a question from an employee about whether he/she should go to a pool party at their boss's house.  It's a scream - here's a clip:

"A prestigious physician organization is having a pool party at his home on a weekend. I am relatively new with this organization and manage one of the dept. I am finding myself in the middle of a values debate. There are staff who (like myself) feel it is inappropriate to socialize on personal time with subordinates and co-workers. There are other staff who are very excited about going to the bosses’ house and talk about the bikinis they are going to wear, etc.

While I have declined the invitation on the premise that I have other plans, I think this is a sexual harassment lawsuit waiting to happen. In addition, I have worked so hard to have a professional image at work that I cannot imagine either seeing my subordinates, co-workers, and boss in swimming “attire” or having them see me in such a personal state of undress. (Yes, I am modest, but have my share of swimming suits that I wear around friends and family ). How can I assist those staff who are feeling pressured to attend a function they feel is inappropriate or makes them uncomfortable?"

I can't think of a worse combination - a party involving alcohol at the boss's house, requiring people who are already uncomfortable with the shape of their bodies to make decisions about whether to wear a swimsuit, get in the water, drink while swimming, etc.    It's just a nasty combination.

I won't wax poetic too long on this one.  If I were giving advice to a single employee, I would tell them there are three options:

1.  Go and be fully engaged - (break out the speedo).

2.  Don't go and provide a real reason that's acceptable - (schedule a function with the kids or family so you can explain there's a conflict - no one needs to know which was scheduled first).

3.  Do a "drop-in" and then provide the same reason for why you can only stay 30 minutes, and won't be getting wet (no speedo - you're fully clothed with threads that suggest no one should push you into the pool).

If you are repulsed by the idea of the pool party (and I can't stop chuckling about the poor judgment of the manager), whether you choose option #2 or #3 depends on the personality of the manager.  Some managers will hold this type of shindig and respect the fact you aren't coming, comforted by the fact that you are a top performer who's simply opting out of the speedo and belly-fest.  Others (and I think this is more rare) will be upset that you aren't coming and it might impact your professional standing, to which I provide the drop-in option.

So choose carefully.  Go and do a back slap if necessary, but be headed to a wedding or something formal.  I just hope the back you slap is relatively free of hair/suntan oil....

New York Rangers Learn From Knicks, Settle With Fired Cheerleader....

There's a well-known phenomenon in organizations that impacts how future risk is viewed.  Once an organization takes a very specific path on an issue or a strategy and then has that approach blow up in their face in a very public way, they learn from the experience.  That usually means they pledge never to make the same decision again.  At least, not in public.

Enter the New York Rangers from the NHL (professional hockey to all of you that don't get the Vs. channel).    They had a sexual harassment claim that was pending since 2004, and they were widely reported to be prepping it for trial.

A funny thing happened on the way to the courthouse.  The parent company got DRILLED in another harassment lawsuit. 

The Rangers are owned by Madison Square Garden, the same corporate entity that brought us the car wreck that was the Knicks/Isiah Thomas Sexual Harassment Trial, featuring the coach of the Knicks pontificating that race plays a role in whether derogatory references to women are OK or not, and the point guard for the Knicks hooking up with a company intern outside of a "gentleman's club" (among other highlights).

Madison Square Garden thought that one was good for trial.  Thousands of negative articles and a $11.5M finding for the plaintiff later, they're taking a different approach to harassment cases with lots of nastiness involved.

It's called seeking settlement or, based on your reading of what's been reported, exercising prudent judgment.

Details of the harassment charges against the Rangers from the NY Daily News:

"Courtney Prince (former captain for the Ranger's cheerleading squad, known as the Rangers City Skaters) filed suit in 2004, claiming the Garden was a virtual frathouse where male executives treated cheerleaders like sex objects.  The Garden vigorously fought the allegations, rejecting an $800,000 deal proposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and questioning Prince's mental health in court papers.

Two weeks after the Garden agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle a suit by former Knicks exec Anucha Browne Sanders, arena honchos also bit the bullet in the Prince case. By settling, the Garden avoided a public trial that would have been chock-full of explosive testimony about sexually charged shenanigans off the ice.

Prince claimed she was canned after complaining that a Rangers public relations man and a former New York Times reporter propositioned her for a threesome.  She also charged that brass grilled her about the skaters' sexual habits, ordered skaters to stuff their bras and lose weight and bought booze for underage cheerleaders.

The Rangers launched a vicious counterattack, alleging in court papers that Prince suffered from bipolar disorder and was prone to "hypersexuality."  The Garden's lawyers charged that Prince was obsessed with the skaters' looks, groped them and used crass language to get them to act sexier."

Wow - don't lawsuit's just bring out the best in everyone?   Nothing like these kinds of notes to make you brace for the grind of the new year. 

Here's to the poor trainer that's delivering the sexual harassment class to the MSG execs.  Can you imagine a more surly group?  Would you put a male or female trainer in charge of that class?

Think about that question for awhile...

Why the Girl Scouts Think HR People Hate Them...

Stop me when you've heard one of these scenarios before:

-HR Team huddles to determine what to do about Mary, who has posted a flyer in the break room touting the fact she's now selling Amway on the side, and her prices are great...

-HR Managers debates how to handle the request by a local credit union to come in and do a workshop on the benefits of Credit Unions....

-HR Team gets a complaint from the floor about Fred, who is selling Girl Scout Cookies out of a suitcase located in his cube and actively approaching employees and asking for their patronage.

Why are we forced to think long and hard about these situations?  Everyone say it with me - NON-SOLICITATION POLICY!!  Everyone has one in their handbooks, and I'm always surprised that a lot of HR people don't fully comprehend why those policies are there.

Still, the execution of the non-solicitation policy is more art than science.

First up, of course we don't want employees to face a daily barrage of closet entrepreneurs selling stuff in the workplace.  More importantly, the non-solicitation policy is grounded in a desire to remain union-free.  If you have a non-solicitation policy in place and enforce it, the NLRB will generally uphold your ability to prevent unions from being on your property to solicit support from employees.

If you don't have that policy, or more common, don't enforce it, the NLRB will likely allow unions to come on your property to solicit employees, since you are allowing others to solicit your employees on site as well.

The scope of the non-solicitation policy has been expanded to include email based on a recent court decision. From CBS4.com in Miami:

"Employers can prohibit workers from using the office e-mail system for union activities, so long as they prohibit solicitations from any outside organization, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.

The board said its 3-2 decision sets a new labor relations standard that allows employers to prohibit union activity through the company's e-mail system while at the same time permitting office chitchat and personal messages.

The decision, released Friday, upheld the management of the Eugene Register-Guard newspaper in a case involving e-mail messages sent by Suzi Prozanski, a copy editor and Newspaper Guild leader, during contract negotiations in 2000 and the warnings the company gave her.

The board said two of the messages were "solicitations to support the union," and the company was justified in enforcing a policy that forbade the use of e-mail for "non-job-related solicitations." It ruled against the paper on a third message, saying it was "simply a clarification of facts surrounding a recent union event."

I hate saying no to the sale of girl scout cookies, school sales, etc.  I'm usually a "no-harm, no-foul" type of person, but every time I see one of these cases it always perks up my sensitivity to solicitation in the workplace.

I won't come out against girl scout cookies, lest I get blown out in the workplace version of the Iowa caucus.  I prefer to say yes to informal bumps in the parking lot between employees with business that gets done verbally, and no to posted flyers, the use of email to solicit, etc.      

You have to say no to some organizations you like (credit union, formal girl scout cookie marketing?) to keep the ones you don't want around your organization at bay.  That kind of stinks.... 

Christmas Eve Notes - Hug Your Family as You Read About This CIGNA Claim Denial....

I'm not very political when it comes to the topic of Universal Healthcare.  Like Mongo from Blazing Saddles, I'm just a pawn in this game of life...

But as a media/news consumer, I know a potential tipping point when I see one.  And a sad story that makes you value a lot of the things you take for granted.  Especially during the holidays.

Here's the headline - "Health Insurance Company Denies, Then Belatedly Approves Liver Transplant That May Have Saved The Girl".   Here's a clip from CBStv in Los Angeles:

"A 17-year-old girl from Northridge died Thursday night, just hours after insurance giant CIGNA reversed itself and agreed to approve a liver transplant for the cancer survivor.

CIGNA originally declined to pay for the transplant for Nataline Sarkisyan because her plan does not cover "experimental, investigational and unproven services," her doctors said.

The reversal was announced at the rally attended by a crowd estimated by organizers at 150. Hundreds of telephone callers also clogged lines at CIGNA offices around the nation Thursday on Nataline's behalf.

"This is an incredible turnaround generated by a massive outpouring around the country that proves that an engaged public can make a difference and achieve results," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee, one of the rally's organizers."

Unfortunately, the reversal came too late:

"Nataline was diagnosed with leukemia at age 14. After two years of treatment the cancer went into remission but came back this summer, Sarkisyan told the Daily News.

When doctors said Nataline could use a bone-marrow transplant, the Sarkisyans discovered that her only sibling, Bedig, 21, was a match, and he donated his bone marrow the day before Thanksgiving, the newspaper reported.

However, Nataline developed a complication from the bone-marrow transplant and, because her liver was failing, doctors recommended a transplant, according to an appeal letter sent to CIGNA earlier this month, the Daily News reported.

The Sarkisyans filed an appeal with the California Department of Insurance, which sent a letter this week saying it needed more information."

So hug your family over the next couple of days as you celebrate Christmas or whatever holiday your faith recommends. 

A nice gift idea for you last minute shoppers?  How about a Carpe Diem T-Shirt to remind you and your loved ones that tomorrow isn't guaranteed?

CompUSA Closings - WARN Letters, One-Week Stay Bonuses and More...

Headline - CompUSA To Close All 103 Stores After the Holidays....jeesh...

After the wear-it-out coverage of the Circuit City fiasco, I should write about more uplifting stuff during  the holidays.  But from a HR standpoint, notif