What a Social Media Policy Looks Like From Corporate Communications...

Couple of weeks ago, I gave you this social media policy for employees from the HR Capitalist.

Of course, for those of you with big, legal sounding handbooks (guilty as charged, I've written one like that before), that's not going to cut it.  You'll need more meat.  Maybe even multiple Social Media policies for different departments within your company.

It's not right or wrong, but it's a reality.  Corporate Communications departments are one stakeholder in big companies trying to figure out the real estate they need to grab, and the amount of control they need to assume, within the explosion of social media.  Thought I would share this policy from a company out west that was shared with me last week (company name removed and replaced with "____"):

1. Official ____ Social Media sites and applications are authorized only by Corporate Communications and are to be maintained only by ____  CorporateCommunications staff and/or CC designees.

2. There will be only one official social media site/page per application. Only ____ Corporate Communications may establish an application site. No ____ department, division or individual is authorized to create and maintain a social media application site on behalf of or in representation of _____.

3. Departments, Divisions and/or individuals wishing for specific communications to be posted to the official ____ social media applications should contact Corporate Communications for approval and posting. Exceptions will be made only for designated foundation and human resources representatives who are authorized to post only information of a fundraising/event or recruitment nature.

4. As with traditional media outlets and other communications vehicles, no ____ employee is authorized to speak (represent, post, tweet, etc.) on behalf of ____ other than officially designated ____ Corporate Communications Staff Members.

5. Employees utilizing social media personally should observe all laws and regulations. No personally identifying information or other information that otherwise could identify ____ customers should be included in any social media communications on employee’s personal social media sites.

6. All other _____ administrative and corporate communications policies apply to social media as with all other mediums. The policies include, but are not limited to, ____ logo usage, photos, media relations, employee relations and other public relations and marketing activities.

The clear message?  Don't act like you're speaking for the company because you aren't.  CYA like this is probably a requirement once your company reaches a certain size.  The same company is working to get an employee-focused social media policy up and running, this one is to plant the flag for all things corporate communications.

Again - not right or wrong, just an example as companies flop around looking for the right stance on this stuff.

Discuss among yourselves in the comments...

If You Try to Pimp Someone Into a Reference, You Should Get Drilled....

It's been said, many times, many ways - neutral is the new negative when it comes to references. 

We're all so worried about getting sued, we won't tell the truth when someone's a bad apple.  So we provide the following sell-outs:

1.  A neutral reference (you know, I really don't have an opinion, I really wasn't exposed to their work enough);

2.  A true sell-out - a moderately positive reference that means nothing (Bill has a way with people <read:a toxic way>); or

3.  We do the OJ, the Richard Scrushy, the Mark Maguire <plug in your favorite person who's pleaded the fifth> (I'd really rather not discuss....).

Why's this on my mind?  I recently had the pleasure of being contacted by a company who was trying to hire a former low performing employee at a company I worked at previously.  The former employee/candidate, who was on-site, knew he had a problem making the references work to his favor.  With that in mind, he took what I would call an aggressive approach - he stood in the HR pro's office while she called the references, presumably so he could hear the feedback and if negative, attempt to influence the HR Pro and perhaps even make the reference aware that he was standing there as the reference was being checked.

OK, you're right - that's a weak HR pro to let that happen, but the guy is a bully and she's not at the career level to say, "get out while I do this".

As you might expect, all the references in question were doing everything they could to be unavailable. Still, it goes without saying that for trying to game the system and bully the references and the reference checker, the candidate should get drilled.

Remember, it's only slander/libel if the information you provide is false.  The truth shall set you free.  

So, the next time someone calls you and says "Vandalay Industries", don't say the equivalent of "I'm not here to talk about the past, I'm here to talk about the future"; channel Kramer below and be real.

Costco - Locking Employees Up Without Pay... What Could Go Wrong?

If you keep your eyes on the media reports of best places to work, you couldn't help but notice the contrast that has been reported between Costco and WalMart.  Here's some comparisons that clearly suggest that Costco is an employer of choice from Slate:

"It's not hard to make a case that Costco pays employees more. The most relevant comparison is between Costco and Sam's Club, Wal-Mart's membership warehouse, since both business models rely on membership fees for a large percentage of revenues. A Sam's Club employee starts at $10 and makes $12.50 after four and a half years. A new Costco employee, at $11 an hour, doesn't start out much better, but after four and a half years she makes $19.50 an hour. In addition to this, she receives something called an "extra check"—a bonus of more than $2,000 every six months. A cashier at Costco, after five years, makes about $40,000 a year. Health benefits are among the best in the industry, with workers paying only about 12 percent of their premiums out-of-pocket while Wal-Mart workers pay more than 40 percent."

Of course, just because you treat employees well doesn't mean they'll appreciate it - or give you a break if you're in the margins.  Consider this recent lawsuit related to mandatory post-shift work at Costco with (reportedly) no pay.  More from Bloomberg News:

"Costco Wholesale Corp., the largest U.S. warehouse club, was sued for false imprisonment by a California worker who claims employees are locked in stores against their will for 15 minutes after they're off the clock.

Mary Pytelewski, a cash register clerk at a San Marcos, Calif., Costco warehouse, alleges the company violates wage laws by refusing to allow workers to clock back in and be paid for the extra time they're locked in while managers close stores, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in state court in San Diego.

"They've been locking people in at the end of the day, clocking people out and making them wait for a manager to let them out," David Sanford, Pytelewski's lawyer, said. "They claim it's because of loss prevention or security concerns. That doesn't make any sense. Even if you have loss prevention or security concerns, you still have to pay people."

The complaint, which seeks to represent several hundred Costco workers in California, asks for $50 million in back pay plus damages from 2005 until the present.

Pytelewski also claims she was retaliated against when she first complained about the alleged practice."

If it's true that this mandatory downtime is a company-wide thing backed by commonly held procedures (regardless if they're documented or not, I'm just talking operational norms), it's hard to believe that Costco wins this case, especially in the Peoples Republic of California. 

I'm betting this one settles.  And that you'll see employees paid for the 15 minutes, or walking out with customers at 10:01pm...

When CEOs Order Plastic Surgery for Non-Employees (on the Company Dime)...

These days, it's stylish to pile on to CEOs gone bad.  Still, not all executive perks are created equal.  Let's reel off some executive perks and see how you react:

A. Parking spot

B. Company Car

C. Jet Time

D. Expense Account

E. Personal Trainer

F. Ability to order plastic surgery for non-employees of choice, at the company's expense...

I know, I know... You're probably thinking, "I don't really like any of these in these days of post-AGI excess, but KD's just throwing in item F to have fun...

If it were only that easy.  There's a company CEO of a publicly traded company who recently thought he was king, to the extent that he actually ordered his company to pay for plastic surgery for a non-employee whose career he was sponsoring.  The name is Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth, a former Fortune 500 company before the FBI raided the corporate headquarters in 2002 due to evidence of accounting fraud.

Oh yeah - they're based in Birmingham, world headquarters of the Capitalist and Fistful of Talent.  Not exactly beaming with pride when I saw this list of stuff the "CEO as King" ordered up as part of his reign:

"Plaitiff’s lawyer John Haley argued in opening statements that Scrushy led a $2.64 billion accounting fraud at HealthSouth, a scheme that cost the company another $1.23 billion in fees and legal settlements once the fraud was discovered. Haley likened the case to an automobile accident, where someone has been hurt and the only witnesses are passengers in the car.

“He was the driver of the vehicle that caused the damage,” Haley said. The passengers in the car, Haley said, were the five former CFOs who have pleaded guilty to participating in the fraud.

Haley covered a lot of familiar ground. He described an accounting fraud that began relatively small in 1996 with a $7 million fudge on the books. By 2003, however, that fraud had ballooned to about $2.7 billion.

Haley blasted Scrushy for using the company for personal reasons. He told Circuit Judge Allwin Horn that Scrushy caused the company to do business with peripheral, related companies he’d set up. Often these ventures resulted in big payments to Scrushy and big losses for HealthSouth. The company wasted money on Scrushy’s music interests, Haley said, including more than $40,000 spent on breast augmentation for Scrushy’s girl band 3rd Faze.

In a flashback that seems surreal even in today’s business climate, the plaintiffs played for the court a clip from Scrushy’s music video, “Honk if You Love to Honky Tonk.” Scrushy paid the band out of HealthSouth funds and flew the band to events as far away as Australia on HealthSouth jets, Haley said."

Honk if you love honky tonk - and if you were the recipient of plastic surgery provided by King Scrushy without the express written consent of HealthSouth shareholders.

Huge Mistakes That Can't Be Recovered From - Allow Them to Resign or Fire Fast?

Employee makes a HUGE mistake, one that no one can recover from.  If you're a leader and everyone is watching, do you move quickly to fire the individual, or do you investigate and ratchet up the pressure for them to resign to make your job easier.

There are few mistakes in life that you can't recover from.  As reported last week, buzzing Manhattan with a jumbo jet chased by a fighter jet in a post 9/11 world is one of the things that meets the standard.  Just ask Louis Caldera of the Obama white house. 

More from the New York Times:

"The photo shoot of Air Force One soaring above the Statue of Liberty cost taxpayers $328,835. Now the incident, which incited panic among scores of people in New York City, has cost the director of the White House Military Office his job.

The director, Louis Caldera, who was appointed by President Obama to the White House post and had been a secretary of the Army in the Clinton administration, resigned on Friday for his role in approving the April 27 flyover. In a brief letter to Mr. Obama, Mr. Caldera said that the matter “has become a distraction for the important work you are doing as president.”

The White House released the resignation letter and a seven-page review of how the flyover was planned by several government agencies without anyone raising caution flags that the flight could spark fears of another terrorist attack in Lower Manhattan. A photograph of the plane, flying low above New York Harbor, also was released on Friday by the White House.

The president, who did not know about the flight before it took place and was described by aides as infuriated by it, directed his deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates “to make recommendations to him to ensure that such an incident never occurs again,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary."

So the question remains: Someone on your team belches one of those GROSS (all caps for affect) negligence decisions that explodes, what do you do?  Do you confirm that he's the guy responsible and fire fast, or do you pledge to investigate and maybe just turn up the pressure on him to resign, so you don't have to take action?

Pick one and hit me in the comments. PS - if we buzz Manhattan and spend 300 large, I need a better photo than a jet over New Jersey (the only photo from the shoot released appears above).  I better get Manhattan in the background for that amount of cash. Maybe even a big Aircraft Carrier in the harbor in front of the city for the trouble. 

Jersey?  Really?  Nice Light Industrial area in the background...

Fire Fast or death of a thousand cuts until the guy resigns? 

Employee Resigns - Walk Them Out the Door Or Let Them Work a Notice?...

It's a morality tale that's played out countless times across corporate America every day.  Employee resigns, and manager and HR figure out whether they'll honor the two-week notice or send the employee packing on the same day. 

Playbook as follows for most of us:

Employee stays to work out a notice if:  Transition needs are high, limited risk exists for them staying in the environment, company's feelings aren't hurt regarding them going to work for a competitor, employee won't spend two weeks telling everyone how cool the new gig will be compared to where they are...

Employee is walked to the door if:  They were a conduct/performance problem on the way out anyway, they're going to work for a cometitor that troubles the company, history suggests they'll be mailing it in, they're in a position where company policy/protocal is to walk them immediately.

You're not alone in trying to figure it out on a case-by-case basis.  Even Microsoft has to figure it out, especially with Google picking off their talent.  From Valleywag:

"Stuart Scott, Microsoft's former CIO, is not the only Microsoft employee unceremoniously being shown the door. Some staffers who are putting in their notice are being escorted off campus immediately. Why? Because they've put in their notice to join Google. In Microsoft's eyes, Google is Enemy No. 1. Anyone leaving Redmond for the search leader is a threat. Not because they'll scurry around collecting company secrets -- as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies.

Departing employees, however, might tell other 'Softies how much better Google is. If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer which doesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up. So if you're planning on leaving Microsoft for Google, pack up your belongings and say goodbye to friends ahead of time. There'll be no cake and two weeks of paid slacking for you. And, Microsoft, don't expect former employees who are treated like security threats to ever want to come back, even after their Google stock options have vested."

Of course, as a HR Pro you know where it REALLY gets interesting, if you decide to walk the employee out on the same day you receive the notice - the decision on whether to pay them for the two weeks notice you are waiving.  My experience suggests this is primarily a cultural call, and if you want the majority of your employees to work a notice when they resign, you don't want to withhold the notice pay.  If you have a history of doing that, ultimately folks will simply resign same day with no expectation they are going to work a notice.

But you probably have a provision in your handbook that withholds vacation pay if employees don't give a notice.  That's why employees call you Catbert...

It's a morality tale that's played out countless times across corporate America every day.  Employee resigns, and manager and HR figure out whether they'll honor the two-week notice or send the employee packing on the same day. 

Playbook as follows for most of us:

Employee stays to work out a notice if:  Transition needs are high, limited risk exists for them staying in the environment, company's feelings aren't hurt regarding them going to work for a competitor, employee won't spend two weeks telling everyone how cool the new gig will be compared to where they are...

Employee is walked to the door if:  They were a conduct/performance problem on the way out anyway, they're going to work for a cometitor that troubles the company, history suggests they'll be mailing it in, they're in a position where company policy/protocal is to walk them immediately.

You're not alone in trying to figure it out on a case-by-case basis.  Even Microsoft has to figure it out, especially with Google picking off their talent.  From Valleywag:

"Stuart Scott, Microsoft's former CIO, is not the only Microsoft employee unceremoniously being shown the door. Some staffers who are putting in their notice are being escorted off campus immediately. Why? Because they've put in their notice to join Google. In Microsoft's eyes, Google is Enemy No. 1. Anyone leaving Redmond for the search leader is a threat. Not because they'll scurry around collecting company secrets -- as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies.

Departing employees, however, might tell other 'Softies how much better Google is. If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer which doesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up. So if you're planning on leaving Microsoft for Google, pack up your belongings and say goodbye to friends ahead of time. There'll be no cake and two weeks of paid slacking for you. And, Microsoft, don't expect former employees who are treated like security threats to ever want to come back, even after their Google stock options have vested."

Of course, as a HR Pro you know where it REALLY gets interesting, if you decide to walk the employee out on the same day you receive the notice - the decision on whether to pay them for the two weeks notice you are waiving.  My experience suggests this is primarily a cultural call, and if you want the majority of your employees to work a notice when they resign, you don't want to withhold the notice pay.  If you have a history of doing that, ultimately folks will simply resign same day with no expectation they are going to work a notice.

But you probably have a provision in your handbook that withholds vacation pay if employees don't give a notice.  That's why employees call you Catbert...

After the Interview, We'll Just Need You To Jump On The Treadmill....

I'll admit I don't have a lot of hard-core manufacturing experience.  That's why I had one of those "What the..." moments when I read that a Black and Decker plant uses their pre-employment screening package to determine, among other things, whether production candidates have a high probability to develop carpel-tunnel syndrome via the required job responsibilties.

From CNN's Coverage:

"Victor Breehe has filed a class-action suit against Black and Decker in Tennessee, claiming the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Breehne, who applied for a job last year at a Black & Decker plant in Jackson, Tenn., that manufactures Porter Cable brand power tools, said in a court filing that he was offered the job contingent on passing a medical exam.

A company doctor stimulated forearm nerves that control hand muscles and concluded it would be inappropriate for Breehne to work in a "highly wrist- sensitive job," the filing said.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also challenged the tests, which aren't uncommon in manufacturing settings, on ADA grounds. The agency lost a federal lawsuit in 2001 against Rockwell Automation Inc. (ROK) after that company denied jobs to 72 applicants at an Illinois plant.

The EEOC believes the test doesn't reliably predict the likelihood of developing carpal tunnel syndrome, or whether it would pose an imminent threat to the person's safety, Chris Kuczynski, assistant legal counsel and director of the ADA policy division at EEOC, told The Baltimore Sun."

Wow.  "Company doctors stimulated forearm nerves that control hand muscles" kind of caught me off guard.  My first thought is that, positioned the right way, this could be spun as some sort of spa treatment.  My next thoughts are the obvious ones for a HR person and more grounded in reality.   Is having weak hand and forearm muscles a disability and covered by the ADA?   If the employee can do the job today but is simply more probable to develop a condition down the road, can you eliminate them from consideration?  Should the companies using these type of tests conduct them pre-offer, so it becomes one of 10-20 hiring criteria?

So, today, it's testing to limit liability that can be caused by a specific job activity.  With health care becoming more and more expensive, does tommorrow bring testing to see if the company can afford to provide medical coverage to the candidate in question?

Just need you to get on the treadmill after the second round of behavioral interviews.  Don't worry, we'll do it last and then you can go.  If you break 20 minutes in the 5K, there's a signing bonus involved....

Fired for Being a Vegetarian - And Running in Snug-Fitting Shorts...

Why would I make that up? More from the Kansas City Star:

"A Wall Street trader says his boss called him "gay" for refusing to eat meat.   And now, of course, he's suing. He alleges that his boss worked up a bunch of complaints to fire him, when he really disliked the guy for being a vegetarian. Which the boss reportedly considered the same thing as being gay. Snip from the Daily News:

Ryan Pacifico is suing Calyon in the Americas, charging that his one-time boss at the French financial firm presided over a testosterone-fueled trading desk, where he was mocked for avoiding meat and wearing snug-fitting shorts during triathlons."

Of course, the real issue is the term "gay", and this example serves to warm up some of the content in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is focused on expanding Title 7 to include sexual orientation as a protected class.  Here's a summary of the bill to get you warmed up:

"In an attempt to broaden Title VII, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”) proposes to add “actual or perceived sexual orientation” to the list. ENDA will affect HR professionals on several levels, including how to conduct interviews, hiring and firing employees, instituting policies and procedures, and ultimately creating a workplace that is heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual friendly.

Many of us (including me) have had sexual orientation language in the anti-harassment and discrimination policies for years, so I regard this type of legislation as a non-event in many ways.  Additionally, I've been fortunate to have worked for some great companies, with managers at all levels who didn't/don't judge or act based on someone's sexual orientation.

Here's the only problem I have with the bill.  It over-reaches by including an "associational discrimination" clause, which makes unlawful discrimination against persons who associate with others who are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, i.e., every human being on the face of the planet. Of course, the ENDA does not further define what association means but would very likely encompass such things as being friendly towards an individual or spending time with them outside of work.

You're kidding me right?  Friends of those with a "perceived orientation"?  That's overreaching in my eyes. 

Many folks that I've read are also wary of the "perceived orientation" language in the bill.  I'm not.  While more and more people are candid about their orientation, there are also many more who aren't, and the perception of their orientation is always in play in the workplace by managers, co-workers and vendors alike.  It's the reality.  Additionally, others are concerned about the act imposing on religious rights.  Most of the folks I know with strong religious beliefs in the workplace understand not everyone shares their beliefs, and as a result they have to be moderate in the workplace.

Of course, it sounds like Wall Street might have to be a little more careful of their treatment of vegetarians (as well as runners concerned with maximizing performance) if the ENDA becomes law.

Why the Girl Scouts Still Think HR People Hate Them (Nothing to Do With Smaller Cookies)...

Girl Scout cookies are smaller this year for the same price... THE HUMANITY!!!!

Of course, you're still probably micro-managing the scenarios under which the Girls Scouts can sell their cookies.  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 debate 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 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 entreprenuers 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 was expanded last year 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.... 

Girl Scout cookies are smaller this year for the same price... THE HUMANITY!!!!

Of course, you're still probably micro-managing the scenarios under which the Girls Scouts can sell their cookies.  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 debate 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 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 entreprenuers 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 was expanded last year 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.... 

You Think You Have Employee Handbook Issues? Enter the Strip Club Handbook...

You think you have a tough job in talent management?  You're a softie.  Take the HR Manager gig at a strip club.  That's a tough job...

From the land of strange but true, via my hometown newspaper, the Birmingham News.  Birmingham Circuit Judge Caryl Privett, this month, denied a request to toss out the suit Patsy Hamaker filed in 2008 against The Furnace strip club:

"That sets the stage for a possible Oct. 26 jury trial on her claims that mandatory on-the-job drinking led to a drunken crash on Oct. 18, 2007, that left her disfigured and with a broken back.  Among court documents is The Furnace's manual for dancers and a list of 46 house rules that cover how dancers should look, dress, act and do their jobs without running afoul of solicitation laws.

For example:

--House rules tell dancers they can't chew gum on the job or make a purse out of the blue felt bag sold with Crown Royal scotch.

--Dancers should make sure they have plenty of costumes for each shift, according to the rules. Their shoes should have no scuffs and their nail polish should not be chipped.

--They should be approachable and make sure every patron feels special, the manual says.

--"Remember you are here to entertain the customers," the rules say. "They are leaving their problems at home and coming here to escape."

--Dancers are told to enter the club from a side door -- never the main entrance -- and surrender their car keys when they arrive.

--"You must pass a breathayzer test before you can get your keys," the rules say.

--The dancers' manual takes a pep-rally approach, saying they are part of the "#1 team" in the nightclub business. It encourages the kind of positive and fun attitude the manual calls "Showtime."

--"We make the difference!" the manual says in all capital letters. "Not the tables, not the chairs, not the bars and not the lights . . . What time is it? It's showtime!"

Lots of possibilities for me to be snarky with this one, but I'll end with this.  Be thankful for the employees you have.  You don't have to take car keys and conduct sobriety tests at the end of every shift.

Well, at least, not every day...