|
|
I’m sorry for my extended absence from this blog. I plan to be much more active on here moving forward.
CNN ran a great quiz this week that I thought was worth mentioning on here. It’s the “Is Your Boss a Psychopath” quiz. LOL. And what better way to get back into posting! They ask you ten questions about your boss, to which you can answer: Always, Sometimes or Never. I won’t spoil it here, but the questions are great!
It’s funny; they always say that employees leave their jobs because of their bosses. And while that’s true in many cases, I certainly had some fun running my past and current bosses through the quiz. And some of the results were very interesting! You can take the quiz here and enjoy!
When recruiting, it never ceases to amaze me how job applicants will lie right to my face. Here’s a recent example… After we make a conditional offer of employment, we have applicants take a pre-employment drug screen and we conduct a pre-employment criminal background check and a pre-employment motor vehicle record (MVR) check – with the latter being required if they’ll be driving for company business.
So we interviewed a guy and made him an offer. He would need to be driving for work, so we advised him that the MVR was one of the checks that would be required. He laughed it off and made a joke about how he had a clean driving record and was not worried whatsoever about any background check that was required. However, the MVR came back as a mess and he was not insurable under our fleet insurance policy. So we couldn’t hire him
As a side-note, it’s always entertaining when they want to call and want to debate their MVR with you. I just direct them to the “Summary of Rights” form that they were sent. But it’s a shame that people can’t be honest when they are faced with the fact that you’re going to check their background. I mean, you’re sitting there, knowing that I’m going to be looking at your driving record, you have multiple occurrences and points on your it…and yet you sit there, smile and joke that there’s nothing to worry about. It’s pretty pathetic and a waste of everyone’ time if you ask me.
Is it me…or when the Federal or a State Government extends unemployment benefits…does it just cause people to want to stay at home longer? Allow me to explain…
I realize, in this economy, that a lot of people have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. And I have no problem with them receiving unemployment benefits while they look for a job. And, for example, in Ohio (where I live), you are supposed to be forced (ongoing) to look for a job and submit spreadsheets to the State in order to qualify for unemployment benefits.
But in the same breath…I could tell you 1M stories about people I know who never submitted the necessary reports to the State of Ohio and never looked for a job, but still received their unemployment benefits. And I could tell you 1M stories about people who heard that the Government was extending unemployment benefits and said, “Well, I guess I’ll just sit at home for a longer period of time now.” Bottom line – that is just not right.
Unemployment, just like worker’s compensation, should be for the ones that really need it. Not for the people who want to “sit at home.” And it seems like various branches of the Government are set on continuing to extend it – thinking they are helping the people who have been laid off – and to some extent, they are. But they’re also encouraging this same group to not look for work, especially if their state of residence is set up like Ohio – with no accountability. More and more of my HR colleagues seem to think it’s the latter these days. So in an economy where you’re supposed to be able to recruit top-notch talent – you find more and more people putting their job searches on hold. And then…because employment isn’t up, unemployment is extended. Ah, the circle of life…
It isn’t too often that I can tell you a story like this. So enjoy it, because in this economy, situations like this are far and few. For one of the vendors that my company works with, I’ve had the same account representative for six years. She does a very good job. She is high performing, quick to respond, thorough, goes above and beyond and most of all – I can count on her.
Well, out of the blue a few weeks ago, I received a letter from the vendor company’s CEO stating that they had to do a few layoffs, including the woman I mentioned above. Now…I’ve done hundreds of layoffs in my career, and understand why and when it needs to happen. But this one was difficult to swallow, because of my high respect for the woman who was my liaison. After thinking about it, I decided to write a personal letter to their company’s CEO. I explained who I was and that I 100% understood why difficult business decisions like this need to be made. But I expressed despair over the unfortunate layoff of one of their best employees. Again, their business needs and/or decisions are none of my business…I just felt it was a shame that someone who did such a good job had to go. Again, I know it happens, but I felt better after telling them how awesome she was.
Well…apparently I wasn’t the only one who contacted the CEO. Due to the responses they received about this woman’s layoff, they decided to rehire her. She called the other day to thank me for taking the time to speak out. In hindsight, sending the letter was a risk, because they could have told me to mind my own business. But at the end of the day, it’s a happy ending for all involved. And I’ll take that over someone losing their job any day of the week.
As an experienced and proven recruiter, I’ve often said that some of the best hires I’ve ever made have been people who I went out of my way to recruit, because they weren’t looking for a new job at the time. But that doesn’t mean that someone who directly applied for the position was more or less qualified. It was just a theory that I had.
But given the current economy, the number of layoffs that have occurred and the number of people currently out of work, I have changed my philosophy. Now I’m telling people that this is the best time to be recruiting and hiring, because there are some significantly qualified individuals who have been laid off through no fault of their own. But it seems that I might be in the minority with that opinion…
The Huffington Post has featured several articles examing employers who are basically practicing discrimination by saying that “the unemployed will not be considered.” Companies such as Benchmark Electronics and Sony Ericsson have actually advertised that way in writing. You can read the full article here.
So is it true to say that “the best people are already working?” In my mind, absolutely not! A second article, which you can read here, continued the discussion about the unemployed and how some companies may consider a recently unemployment candidate, and how those companies weakly tried to defend their decision by saying candidates need to be current with knowledge in their fields. So apparently if I just got laid off, I may have lost my experience and education…
I’m glad The Huffington Post named the companies that are doing this, the job boards that are allowing these postings and quoted (by name) the recruiters who were supporting this approach. Our company has done some downsizing – not because we wanted to – but because we had to. And I know many other companies have had to do the same. And for lack of a better description, I think it’s extremely short-sighted for recruiters (and the companies they work for) to subjectively decide that if you got laid off, it was your fault and you’re not a worthy job candidate as a result.
If you ever travel to Oregon, you might want to stay at the Markum Inn. Then again, you might not… The owners of the Inn, Ward and Julie Frederick, have been served with in a federal harassment lawsuit by a former employee.
The former waitress, Jessica Webber, claims that the Wards “created a hostile workplace” in which she “was solicited for sex advice, was asked to rub lotion on the husband’s penis, guess the man’s “measurements,” and participate in a “ring toss game on his penis.””
According to an October 11th story from The Smoking Gun, the waitress’ complaints came after a staff party. Basically, “when partygoers arrived, Ward Frederick, 46, “stripped down to thong underwear” and began giving lap dances to employees and guests, Webber claimed. “A few minutes later, Mr. Frederick removed his thong, and became completely nude.” At that point, Julie Frederick “began asking the guests and employees to guess the measurements of Mr. Frederick’s penis and asked employees to rub lotion on Mr. Frederick.” Ward Frederick then allegedly “began masturbating in front of the guests and employees so the measurements of his erect penis could be taken, and so others could play a ring toss game on his penis.””
Even as a seasoned HR Professional, it amazes me to hear or read about stories like this. Quoting Bill Murray from the movie “Wild Things” a few years back…“They’ll settle. They will. Trust me; they’ll be begging to settle.” He’s right. And the Fredericks should probably start looking for a new liability insurance company…
For some reason, I found myself thinking back to my first day in the corporate world today. I was a young 22-year-old who knew nothing about HR, other than what I had read in a textbook. After a few minutes of getting settled at my desk, my boss asked to see me.
When I walked into her office, she looked at me and said, “I’m going to give you some advice. This is the best advice I can ever give you. This advice was once shared with me too.” She went on to say, “Don’t touch the money. Don’t touch anybody. And if you’re going to sleep with someone, sleep up.”
I’m sure the look on my face was priceless. But in thinking back, that advice was pretty accurate! LOL. To be honest, even in 2010, those comments would probably be solid advice to a new hire, wouldn’t they? Ah, memories…
The-below story was obtained from SHRM’s web site, and was written by their manager of workplace law content. “The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Office of Homeland Security Investigations announced Sept. 28, 2010, that a settlement for more than $1.04 million had been reached with Abercrombie & Fitch for violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The settlement resulted from a November 2008 Form I-9 inspection of Abercrombie & Fitch’s retail stores in Michigan. The audit uncovered numerous technology-related deficiencies in the company’s electronic I-9 verification system. No instance of the knowing hire of an unauthorized alien was discovered.
The settlement is the highest ever for a technical violation, according to Robert Loughran, an attorney with FosterQuan LLP in Austin, Texas. He said Abercrombie & Fitch used home-grown software that left out a key component – having individuals attest to their immigration status.
The settlement should prompt employers to make sure they do due diligence when selecting I-9 software, he added. He described the settlement amount as shockingly large for a company that appeared to do everything right except for a mistake in the software that it used.” The moral of the story – always have home-grown programs legally vetted before they are implemented.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of companies out there that have HR people, but don’t use them. For example, I often hear stories about companies who have Operations, not HR, handle the employee complaint process.
Here’s a recent example that I encountered. An HR friend was interviewing for a job and called to ask my opinion about it. As she reviewed the responsibilities, I thought the job sounded OK, except for the part where they told her that she wasn’t going to be handling employee relations. Keep in mind that she was interviewing for the company’s sole HR job. She was smart enough to ask who handled employee complaints. Their response – the CEO or the Controller. My advice – run like the wind! And interestingly, the EEOC agrees with me.
HR Morning featured the recent EEOC v. V&J Foods, Inc. case. You can read more about the case here. Basically, the judge in the case said that “the company was at fault for not making it clear that the first option for a victim should be to contact the company’s human resources department with the complaint, and that the company should have had such a process in place, including contact info for HR.”
With no disrespect to the CEO’s of the world, there are too many people out there who think they can “also do HR.” And too many things get brushed under the rug and/or covered-up when HR is not involved. Lawsuits, like the one mentioned above, will continue to be the result. So if you’re the company’s sole HR person and they tell you that you’re only going to recruit and handle the benefits – it might be time to start asking some questions…
|
|
