Don't Think Googling Candidates is Fair? A Cautionary Tale...

I know, I know.  I should be concerned about Googling candidates.  After all, as many of you have pointed out to me, there are privacy issues, and dammit, what a person does elsewhere in their life shouldn't matter if they can do the job.

So, I Google anyway, and many of you disagree.  I'm a pig - I'll own it. There's just this little thing that I can't get over.  YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING EVERYTHING YOU CAN KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE YOU BRING INTO THE COMPANY.  And if you don't know things you should, you'll suffer the consequences.  Consider this cautionary tale via a conversation I had with an executive friend at another company:

KD: Rob, what's up?

Rob: KD, you'll never believe what just happened.

KD: Educate me, brother.

Rob: We had a Controller candidate in today.  I was the last guy up to interview him, and I had a resume, but I had a couple of minutes before the interview and no time to start anything else.  So I Googled the guy...

KD: <Bracing for contact> And?...

Rob: Turns out the guy was embroiled in a Sarbanes Oxley cluster scandal at his last company. First Google entry returned when I pressed "search".  WTF?  So I march down to the guy who's running the search, and say, btw, did you bother Googling Finklestein?  The guy tells me no, and since it's a retained search, the big search firm is responsble for fully vetting, etc.  I tell my guy that he might want to Google Finklestein.  He declined, but I insisted.  So he did and within 15 seconds let out a noise like he had just been kicked in the groin by a pointy-toed country western boot.

KD: Wow.  What happened then?

Rob: The candidate was intereviewing with the CEO.  My guy calls down to see where it's at and is informed that the CEO requested another hour because it's going so well.

KD: Ouch.

Rob: The lesson my Capitalist friend?  Always Google before you buy that plane ticket for the candidate.

If I was defending the right to Google candidates in a court of law and told that story, I'd drop my microphone for dramatic effect after sharing that knowledge, like Randy Watson of the band Sexual Chocolate, leaving the stage in Coming to America.

Just Google people.  Decide how you bring it up later.

The NLRB: Now Extracting Ransom (for Unions) From An Employer Near You...

You have to love this one.  The National Labor Relations Board, traditionally in place to ensure union elections go according to the law and to sort through claims of unfair labor practices from both unions, employees and employers alike, is now in the ransom business.

Read this article related to the NLRB dropping from the New York Times.  Cliff notes appear below:

"In the Boeing case, Mr. Solomon asserted that Boeing’s decision to build its $750 million Dreamliner factory in South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against the machinists’ members in Washington for having exercised their federally protected right to strike. He cited public statements by Boeing officials about the machinists’ militancy in Washington State as one piece of evidence in the case, although Boeing officials said that lower costs were their major reason for choosing South Carolina.

After months of sharp rhetoric, Boeing and the machinists announced a surprise agreement on a new contract last week. Last week, Local 751 of the machinists’ union announced that 74 percent of its Boeing workers in Washington State had voted to ratify a four-year contract extension that included substantial raises, unusual job security provisions and Boeing’s commitment to expand aircraft production in the Puget Sound area.

The union then asked the labor board to withdraw the case."

Daaaaaamn.  Here are all the facts you need to know:

1.  The NLRB took action to tie up Boeing from opening a new plant in a non-union state.

2.  The claim existed until the union got a new contract.

3.  Once the union got a new contract, the NLRB withdrew its complaint.

Translation: The NLRB helped the union extract a ransom from Boeing.  The NLRB gave the union a bargaining chip to take to the negotiation table, then did what the union asked them to do once the new contract was released.

Winner:  The union.  Loser: Anyone who likes governmental agencies that are charged with enforcing the law not to overreach, pick sides or generally serve as a hindrance to the creation of jobs in a down economy.

You're not included in that description of who the loser is?  You're probably reading the wrong blog.

More Government BS: What's YOUR Batting Average For Getting Terminations Approved?

Not the batting average of line managers who want to term someone - YOUR batting average - the HR pro.

Once you decide that someone needs to go and pull it all together, I'm guessing that you are in the high 90's: 98, 99%, even if you have to deal with a corporate Attorney who approves all terms.

What if I told you there was a branch of government where the batting average for terminations was 60%?

Here's a snippet from BusinessWeek:

"Moments before a single-engine plane collided with a helicopter over the Hudson in 2009, the controller who should have been advising the plane's pilot was chatting on teh phone with an ariport worker, making crude jokes about cooking up a dead cat.  Nine people died.  Government safety investigators concluded that the controller was distracted and partly to blame for the accident, yet two years later he still has a job.  The FAA wanted to fire him, but he was ultimately reduced to a suspension, a transfer and a demotion.

That more common than you might think. More than 4 of every 10 air-traffic workers the FAA tries to fire ultimately keep their jobs or are allowed to retire to avoid being fired, according to goverment records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.  From 2009 to 2011, the FAA sought to fire 140 controllers, but in the end only 82 were forced to leave"

As you might expect, the government system and decades-old union provisions allow controllers to delay or block disciplinary action.  They get to challenge proposed penalties to something called the Merit Systems Protection Board and also buy time by demanding their case be taken to an arbitrator.

Termination Approval Batting Average.  Aren't you glad you don't have to deal with that?

NLRB Case Against Boeing Puts Obama on Defensive, Proves Power of Appointed Seats...

You probably missed this last April - first, some details of legal action against Boeing from the NLRB earlier this year:

"In what may be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to forceBoeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike."

Of course, Boeing wasn't shutting down its facility in Washington.  It was moving production capacity to South Carolina, as a hedge to being held hostage by future strikes:

"The labor board said that in 2007, Boeing announced plans to create a second production line that would make three 787 Dreamliner planes a month in the Puget Sound area to address a growing backlog of orders. That was to be in addition to a line already making seven Dreamliners a month there. In October 2009, Boeing said it would locate its second line at a new, nonunion plant in South Carolina.

The N.L.R.B. asserted that on numerous occasions Boeing officials had communicated an unlawful motive for transferring the production line, including an interview with The Seattle Times in which a Boeing executive said, “The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years.

Boeing criticized the timing of the N.L.R.B.’s complaint, saying it came when construction of the factory in North Charleston, S.C., was nearly complete and after 1,000 employees had already been hired there.

Boeing said on Wednesday that none of the production jobs in South Carolina had come at the expense of jobs in Washington. It noted that its unionized employment in the Puget Sound area had increased by 2,000 since it announced its decision to expand in South Carolina.”

That's right kids - two existing production shops.  One union, one not.  The company decides to move some production to a non-union plant and in the time the company announces its intent, employment at the union plant grows by 2,000 jobs.  And the NLRB files this suit - after construction is almost complete.

What's wrong with spreading production of a product out across two plants, one union and one not, so you don't run the risk of not being able to deliver product if a stirke comes?  President Obama started ducking and weaving on the issue last week:

“As a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate -- they have to follow the law, but that's part of our system,” Obama said. “What I think defies common sense would be a notion that we would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can't come to a sensible agreement.

“And obviously, the air -- airplane industry is an area where we still have a huge advantage.  I want to make sure that we keep it,” the president added.

That's some official fence-sitting gibberish.  What's it all mean?"  My wife was a prosectutor for over a decade, and anytime I'm lukewarm about voting, she pushes me to remember that those elected have a lot of power to appoint Federal judges - who are the source of a lot of policy power.

The NLRB case against Boeing is a good example.  You can beat back the Employee Free Choice Act, but never forget - the people appointed by your elected officials control a lot of the power related to policy.

Be interesting to watch this one unfold in South Carolina...

 

 

 

BAWITDABA: Workplace Perception is Reality - Should The NAACP Honor Kid Rock?

I once walked into an office in rural Louisiana as a VP of HR for a Fortune 500 company after we did an acquisition to do some meet and greet - you know, kiss some hands/shake some babies.  

Of course, the goodwill tour had to have a major employee relations issue.  The local manager had a picture on the wall behind the desk of himself.  He was mounted on a horse in an outfit that looked like he was a Klan member.

"What is that picture?" - said the struggling artist known to the world as KD.

Plant Manager - "Oh, that's from the Mardi Gras parade last year.  I was the marshall of the parade, and we go around town and collect the stuff we need to make a stew, everybody drinks and has a good time." (note: Rural area, different traditions. Killing chickens by hand was also involved.)

KD: "Does everyone from the company walk in the parade?"

Plant Manager: No.  Some of the folks stay away from the parade, they say it's a voodoo event, blah, blah, blah."

KD: "Voodoo's not your problem. The picture needs to come down.  You look like a Klan member whose car is broken down and has chosen alternative transportation to get to a meeting".

<silence>

The point?  You can be a swell guy or gal with limited bias and no racism of note, but if you've got relics from the past in your wardrobe or lifestyle, you might want to check yourself.  Perception is reality, especially if you're managing a diverse workforce.

The NAACP is getting a taste of this related to an honor it recently bestowed on Kid Rock.  More from Billboard.com:

"Critics felt it was inappropriate for the NAACP to honor Rock since he uses a Confederate flag in his stage shows and videos. Outside of Cobo Hall, where the dinner was held, a couple of dozen protesters marched with Say No To Kid Rock signs and at one point burned a Confederate flag over a garbage can. Adolph Mongo, a Detroit political consultant who was outspoken in his opposition to the award, said that the flag "stands for hatred, bigotry, racism, murder. "Every bigot and racist in this country loves that flag." He added that, "If Kid Rock was alive in the 50s in Selma (Ala.) he would have beaten up John Lewis and waving the Confederate flag." Lewis, a leading Civil Rights activist and now a U.S. Representative from Georgia, was one of the night's other honorees. 

During his brief remarks, Rock -- who attended the dinner with his son, Bob Ritchie, Jr., brother Billy Ritchie and production manager Eric "Shakes" Gryzbowski -- told the crowd that "I've never flown that flag with hate in my heart, not one ounce." He explained that his use of the image was an "homage" to Southern rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd, who he's name-checked in his songs and whose "Sweet Home Alabama" was an ingredient in his 2008 mash-up hit, "All Summer Long." Rock explained that he made the donations to "turn a negative into a positive," and concluded his speech by saying that, "I love America, I love Detroit and I love black people!" 

In presenting the award to Rock, Detroit NAACP President Wendell Anthony acknowledged the controversy as well as his organizations opposition to what the Confederate flag represents and noted that Rock "has stirred the pot" by using it. But he added that "we are not saluting the flag. We are saluting the works" that Rock has done in the community. "

Maybe that Lynyrd Skynyrd poster in your office isn't such a great idea.  I'm just saying.   I've been to a Kid Rock concert, he's diverse enough to have a black female on drums.  Look around and see if you find that anywhere else.

Of course, that's not really the point.  That Plant Manager actually told me he loved black people as well.  I told him, "Great!  Show your love by taking down the picture".

As far as Kid Rock goes, give me the classics. (email subscribers click through for video)

Legalities? Here's How References Work in the Real World....

Want to know why I write about sports a lot on an HR blog?  Because it's the most transparent place in the world for talent decisions of all types - by far.  Tune into tonight's espisode of the HR Happy Hour with Steve Boese, Lance Haun, Tim Sackett, Matthew Stollak and myself as we talk about the connection.

Example:  Lots of HR pros wring their hands about whether a manager can provide any negative information on a reference.  They also wring their hands about providing a positive reference that doesn't get into the negative.  To control all the bad stuff, many HR pros tell their people that they can only do name, title and dates of employment.

Meanwhile, your managers are blasting away on people they don't like - just play the game and don't ask them for an official reference.  Just say, "what did you think about working with XXXX?", or my backup favorite, "Can you give me a personal, not professional reference?"

Case in point:  The recent reference it appears Maryland hoops coach, Gary Williams, gave multiple candidates on NC State Athletic Director Debbie Yow.  The two used to work together at Maryland (Yow was the boss) and across time, Yow wasn't happy with the often profane Williams.  So she started trying to raise money among prominent boosters to buy him out.  I actually had drinks with a booster who told me the backstabbing story about 6 months ago.

Williams, like your managers, has a long memory.  Yow was recently in the market to hire a new hoops coach at NC State.  Candidates reportedly called Williams for the 411.  More from the World Wide Leader:

"The frosty relationship between North Carolina State athletic director Debbie Yow and Maryland's Gary Williams took a nasty turn during the introduction of the Wolfpack's new men's basketball coach.

Yow -- who spent 16 years as Maryland's athletic director -- called out the Terrapins coach, who won the 2002 NCAA championship working under her, of interfering with the search.

It happened during North Carolina State's news conference introducing Mark Gottfried, who replaced Sidney Lowe. Yow responded to a reporter's question to Gottfried about whether she had a reputation of being difficult to work with.

"I don't have a reputation across all men's basketball of being difficult to work with," she said Tuesday. "I have a reputation of not getting along with Gary Williams, who has tried to sabotage the search. Come on, we all know that. OK, so whatever.

"It's not a reputation. It's Gary Williams out there doing his thing. Whatever."

Boom.  That's why I use sports.  Where else are you going to get that type of info on reference checking gone horribly wrong?  Check out the video below for the venom.  Also, it's an onboarding issue as well.  What can Mark Gottfried (the new coach) be thinking as his boss publicly tries to hurt someone's career in such a direct fashion?

PS - your managers are giving mind-blowing opinions on references every day.  Someone is doing it right now...

Fortunately, managers in the private sector don't have access to a camera and media outlets to document their feelings on how they've been wronged (or wronged others).  

Thank whatever God you pray to for that.

I'm Harassed By Your Affairs With Others: A New Legal Threat Emerges (Gender Plus)...

Mark Hurd... David Letterman... <Fill in the Blank>...

What do all those guys have in common?  They all made choices related to relationships in the workplace that were ultimately leveraged against them.

I'm a big advocate of avoiding workplace relationships of any kind if you're a manager of people.  I know, many of you met your former spouse at your company.  I get it.  It worked well for you and I'm happy for you.  The thing is, for every you, there are 5 people it doesn't work out as well for.  Especially if they're managers of people...

Here's what I've traditionally told managers about workplace relationships starring them:

1. If you choose to have a relationship in the workplace, you at least need to ensure it's not with someone on your team.

2. Even if the workplace relationship you choose to engage in isn't with someone on your team, you're still held to a higher expectation of judgment than employees without direct reports.  You represent the company.

3. Your willingness to have a relationship with someone in your company always presents greater risk that you'll be held hostage at a future date.

How could you be held hostage, especially if your fling was with someone from another team?  

Repeat after me.... Down economy + Employees worrying about their jobs = Complaints against your behavior...

BECAUSE.... Complaints against your behavior = Job protection because your company wants to avoid the expense and drama of a retaliation claim.

It's called leverage, and it's been around since cavemen were grunting instead of having 3 martini lunches.

Third party claims - meaning those filed by employees who weren't even involved in the relationship in question - are on the rise.  Take a look at the logic behind the "Gender Plus" claim now on the rise related to office romance:

"Third party discrimination claims have helped further the rise in retaliation and develop the legal theory of "Gender Plus." Regarding the latter, courts have ruled that when a romance enters the office, an employee can prove discrimination based on gender "plus" another particular characteristic. If a manager's failed office romance forces him or her to focus more heavily on the work, his increasing demands on, for example, a pregnant underling could give her the grounds for a lawsuit. Under Gender Plus, the pregnant woman could allege that the office romance had provided an underlying basis for a separate act of discrimination. "When the courts find in favor of the client, then interpretation of the law gets expanded," says Dr. John A. Pearce II, an endowed chairman at Villanova School of Business. "We're seeing the emergence of more and more third party cases. Attorneys go to court and say, 'Following the logic of these laws, we think that you ought to find in favor of our client in this particular new twist.' And that's exactly what's happened."

Did your head explode after reading that?  It's like 6 degrees of separation to follow, but there you have it: "Gender Plus" claims.  One more way that managers of people who elect to engage in workplace relationships can cause themselves pain.

As for you HR pros out there who now have something else to worry about?  You're welcome.  I'm a giver....

You're Absolutely Right to Be Self-Righteous... Now, Let's Do a Reality Check...

In the world of HR, bad stuff happens all the time.  That's what you get paid to deal with, right?

But sometimes, bad stuff happens, and you know you (and your company, that manager, etc.) were RIGHT.  At that point, if the bad stuff in question is legal in nature, your first reaction is to fight.  After all, you're right in what you did.  Why would you or your company give in to settlement or mediation if you were absolutely right in the actions you took in an employment matter?

It's an emotional response heard often in the halls of corporate America, in companies both big and small.

Why wouldn't you fight if you were right? (apologies to the Beastie Boys, who encourage you to fight for your right) Because the meter is always running when it comes to legal matters. Which is to say you can be 100% right and someone still has the right to sue.

I've got a favorite saying when it comes to legal matters related to employment: "Allegations are Free".  They don't cost anything and anyone has a right to file a claim.

Unfortunately, defending yourself from allegations isn't free.  Which means the meter is always running when it comes to legal fees.  Which means you get paid not only to deal with the bad stuff, but to control your rage/self-righteousness/indignation when it comes to bogus claims.

You get paid in those situations to ensure the meter doens't run in a way that costs you 4X what it should have.  What it could have.  That means you probably spend money to close the claim, even if you were right.

The meter always runs. You get to decide all the probabilities and the best place to stop the meter.  It's like Vegas without the lights, fun and free buffets. 

HP and the HR Pro: Watch the Agendas, People...

I need to spend some time soaking through the whole firing of Mark Hurd thing at HP.  For those of you who haven't been following the story, here's what I think we know (Read this article for a deeper dive):

1.  A "D" level actress did some work for HP at tradeshows and became friendly with CEO Mark Hurd.

2.  It appears that Mark Hurd took a liking to this actress and wanted to hang out with her.

3.  Hurd apparently made some poor choices related to expense reports, using the name of others to cover up her presence at dinners and perhaps her presence at shows/locations, etc.

4.  The actress hit HP with a sexual harassment claim.  HP went into investigative mode.

5.  HP found no basis for the sexual harassment claim, but found the expense report issues, which it labeled as indicative of trust and integrity issues related to Hurd.

6.  Hurd settled with the actress for an undisclosed sum before he was fired.

7.  Both Hurd and the actress say there was no intimate relationship.

7.  HP fired Hurd for integrity issues.

8.  The actress, who had hired one of the biggest guns available to litigate, came forward after the firing and said, "It wasn't my intention to get Mark Hurd fired".

9.  Public opinion remains split on this one.  Lots of folks are applauding HP for having a zero tolerance policy on any type of integrity issues, while people like Oracle CEO Larry Ellison looks at HP's actions as proof they won't stand behind a high performing CEO in the face of a bogus harassment claim.

Wow.  That's a lot.  There's probably a lot we don't know about this case and why HP made the call it did, but one thing is crystal clear.

When you field a harassment claim as a HR executive or HR pro in the field, it becomes complex quickly.  Agendas are plentiful, clarity is fleeting.

That's why you're the HR pro.  Good luck out there.

The Non-Compete Sliding Scale: Degree of Talent vs. Quality of HR Pro...

Got a call from a good friend who had been presented with the first non-compete of her career to sign.  Her questions were good ones - what should I do? - and more importantly - Am I allowed to ask questions?  How is asking questions perceived by HR?

Non-competes are shrouded in mystery to many.  I won't debate the merits or enforceability of non-competes with this post, but I will shed some light to the uninitiated on how asking questions regarding a non-compete you've been presented with is perceived in the HR community.

Like all things in life, how asking questions about a non-compete is perceived depends on who's asking... and who's listening.  The reaction to your questions is based on a sliding scale of how talented you are, and how the HR Pro fielding your questions views the world:

1. The more talented you are, the more it's expected that you'll have questions.  Early career or commodity talent usually doesn't have a lot of questions about non-completes, and that's because they're not thinking too much about their next step.  Conversely, the more talented an individual is in their field, the more they've thought about their next step, including possibilities outside their company.  Smart companies and managers understand this, so the more talented or highly regarded you are in your field, the more questions are expected.

2. The quality of the HR Pro fielding your question also matters when attempting to work through non-compete issues.  If you're dealing with an HR Pro who views the world as a pure administrator, it's likely he or she will simply be trying to check the box (got all the non-competes signed) and nothing more.  However, if you're dealing with an HR Pro who views the world from a talent perspective (actively recruits, interested in things like performance management, succession planning, etc.), they expect a talented person is going to have questions.

The sliding scale described above is alive and well in organizations when you're presented with a non-compete.  If your company presents you with a non-compete, it's likely you need to sign it to remain employed, but the more talented you are, the more it's expected that you'll ask questions.  If you're talented (and you need to look inward on that one), and if you run into a HR Pro who doesn't really seem interested in discussing the specifics, the advice is pretty simple:

Escalate it to your line manager for discussion.  Odds are your manager will understand your questions where the administrative personnel FTE did not.