|
|
I took this picture in Avon, OH, at the City Centre of Avon. It is a new development where a Marc’s store just opened.
As we sometimes see, there are union picketers on the public sidewalk protesting near the entrance to Marc’s. Their signs say “Don’t Shop Here” and “Anti-Union Marc’s.”
But what does anti-union really mean? Could it mean that perhaps Marc’s is just pro-company? Many times, that’s what it boils down to. There is a difference between being anti-union and pro-company. That’s an entire post in itself. But it never ceases to amaze me – as the unions are pretty quick to show up on site, blow up their inflatable rats and hold up their signs. Sometimes it’s because non-union contractors were used during construction. Sometimes it’s because they disagree with something the company has done.
Regardless, this whole spectacle is just an attempt to attract horn-honking from cars passing by. The only people who probably even care about what the picketers are saying are the hard-core-union-lovers, which is understandable. I certainly wish Marc’s the best of luck in dealing with their dilemma. What’s your opinion of anti-union vs. pro-company?
It’s always interesting when companies make decisions that we all know will come back to haunt them. Below is a great example. This story was shared with me about a local company.
There was a male department head who was assigned to a cross-functional team with a female department head from a different division. They were both married and ended up having an affair together. The spouses found out and there were divorces, but the two department heads continued their relationship. They eventually got engaged and had plans to marry. On a side-note, I guess they forgot about the “once a cheater, always a cheater” philosophy.
Anyway, at this point, the company stepped in. They created a new policy saying that spouses would not be able to work together if either of them was in a management role – even if they were in different divisions and wouldn’t report to each other. So the HR person and the CEO met with the two adulterous department heads and told them that one had to quit – they left it up to the couple – but one had to quit. The woman quit.
I question this policy. It goes a step further than most nepotism or reporting relationship policies. Also, I felt it could be seen as discriminatory if the company later had a qualified spouse (of a current employee) who applied for work there. If they wanted to weed out the adulterers, I think there are better options than hobbling themselves from being able to hire potential star recruits down the road.
To whom does your organization’s top HR executive report? That is the current poll on SHRM’s web site. You could choose from the CEO, CFO, COO, legal counsel or “other.”
This has always been an interesting debate for me. Very early on in my career, the HR Department (for the company I worked for at the time) was told that the HR Director (my boss) would now be reporting through the COO (the COO reported to the CEO). The HR Director was furious and went through an epic battle over the fact that she felt HR should report directly to the CEO. At the time, I asked her why. Her advice made sense; I’ve never forgotten it and still give the same advice to this day.
HR should not report through operations because normally, HR and operations are at odds. Working in HR, sometimes you’re the hero and sometimes you’re the thorn in the side. But it’s HR’s job to help operations accomplish what they want to, while protecting the company and/or serving as the conscience of the organization at the same time. And you can’t have the top HR executive reporting to operations because that could then become a conflict of interest if the two sides aren’t agreeing. Besides, most times, operations managers don’t have any HR knowledge anyway, so that in itself is reason enough. The HR boss needs to report to the CEO, who has oversight of everything.
I honestly just shake my head when I hear about an HR Manager or HR Director reporting through Accounting. It’s defeating the HR Department’s purpose without even realizing it.
Harry Dahlstrom of Dalhstrom & Company wrote and published a guide which I found to be very informative. It’s called “Surviving a Layoff – Your Guide to a Soft Landing and a Smooth Re-entry.” So I decided to give Dahlstrom a free plug.
As an HR Professional, I will tell you that this book is an example of the many tools and resources that can be provided in outplacement packets to people that are being laid off.
Additional information can be obtained on Dahlstrom’s web site. For a while, they were also advertising with SHRM and offering free copies of this book to HR Professionals. If you’re a SHRM member, you could also check out the banner ads on their home page to see if it’s still being offered.
Here’s an example of a political situation where I disagree with how both sides have handled it. This weekend, President Obama indicated that he was going to fill several top federal jobs through 15 recess appointments (vacancies that can be filled without the Senate’s confirmation when the “legislative body is in recess”). You can read one of this weekend’s articles by CNN here.
I disagree with this in its most basic terms. The Senate should not be holding up Obama’s nominees for political reasons. And the President shouldn’t have to resort to this method in order to push through controversial nominees, like Craig Becker to the NLRB.
Based strictly on reputation and writings, many on both sides of the aisle are concerned that Becker will try to influence the law (through his position) to be more pro-union (without actual legislation being passed – a unique ability the NLRB has). CNN reported that “the chamber’s 41 Republicans asked Obama in a letter last week to refrain from making Becker a recess appointment.” I would have to agree. If Becker is blinded by the union’s marching orders, it would become nearly impossible to have any type of even-close-to-being-fair ruling (or interpretation) come out of the NLRB. While I agree that the NLRB cannot operate with the two-member staff it currently has, if there was one position I wouldn’t appoint through a recess appointment, this might be it.
It’s like the age-old saying… I’m not anti-union, I’m just pro-company. But I doubt I’m in the minority with my thoughts on this one…
I was in Washington, DC most of last week for SHRM’s Employment Law & Legislative Conference. As a part of the conference, you can sign up to go to Capital Hill to meet with and lobby your legislators.
But here’s something strange. It was amazing to me how many of the conference attendees were complaining after their visits to “The Hill.” The most common complaint I overheard was, “I wanted to actually meet with my legislator. Who was the kid or the aide I just met with?”
Even though this conference offered several preparatory sessions before the lobbying event, they must not have attended. I’ve lobbied on several occasions and there’s one thing you have to understand. Sometimes you’re lucky enough to actually get in front of your elected official. But many times you instead have to meet with one of his/her aides. And in many cases, those aides are younger than you – sometimes they’re recent college graduates or even still in college. But that’s part of lobbying. It doesn’t matter how old the aide is. They might be a subject matter expert or in charge of the research for that area. Or better yet, they might have your Senator’s ear. So be prepared, share some compelling information and get on their radar. And that, my fellow HR colleagues, is lobbying 101.
In Ohio, there are several levels available to claimants during the unemployment process.
- Initial Level
- Appeal Level
- Unemployment Hearing (usually conducted over the telephone)
- Appeal to the Commission (they won’t even touch it unless it’s a precedent-setting opportunity)
- File it into court
In 13 years in HR, I have never seen a former employee file an unemployment claim appeal into court. I never lose claims, so normally the claimants give up after the hearing level, or the Commission denies their appeal anyway.
But I actually had a former employee call me yesterday and tell me that he intended to file an appeal into court. My thought – we won at the initial level, we won when he appealed, we won the hearing and the Commission denied his final appeal. Oh, I forgot to mention that he resigned in writing with notice. I’m sorry, but that’s not a winner in the unemployment world. So I told him he’d probably be better served looking for a job.
Every morning at work, I have the same routine. I turn on my computer and go to SHRM’s web site to see what the news of the day is. Below was one of today’s lead-in stories:
“After nearly three months of behind-the-scenes maneuvers, a bipartisan summit and numerous speeches, the final vote by Congress on health care reform legislation appears imminent. According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the vote could come as early as Saturday, March 20, 2010, which at least one observer said was setting up a showdown of “epic proportions.” If you’re a SHRM member, you can read the full article here.
Admittedly, it’s been interesting to hear the arguments on both sides leading up to this. Personally, I have gone on record as saying that I don’t think the final legislation will look like what’s being proposed now. And I cannot imagine an insurance world where people can pick up coverage and/or drop it at any time without being responsible for any back-premiums or pre-existing conditions. So needless to say, this weed could be historic and I, for one, will be curious to see what happens…
Did you see the story on TV about Nathaniel Brown, or did you read it in the newspaper? He was the janitor from Ohio State who shot and killed his supervisor, injured another man and then killed himself – all over a “bad job evaluation.” You can read the Associated Press’ article here.
Workplace violence unfortunately does happen, and in some cases, there is little (or nothing) that could have been done to prevent it. But in this case, Ohio State royally screwed up. They let this guy know in advance that he was going to be terminated. That’s a rookie mistake….
HR 101 tells you that you never discipline an employee at the “company’s convenience.” And you sure as heck don’t let an employee know that they’re being terminated, until you’re literally sitting down to do it. How the University responds to this one should be pretty interesting…
|
|
