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.

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.

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…

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?

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.

Anyway, in the modern era where employees use Facebook, My Space, Twitter and personal blogs frequently, it would be strongly advisable to have a blogging policy.

For instance, at my company, if an employee has a personal blog, we have several requirements that they must agree to as a part of our policy:

• Make it clear to the readers that the views expressed are the employee’s alone and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the company
• Do not disclose any information that is confidential or propriety to the company or to any third party that has disclosed information to the company.  Consult the company’s confidentiality policy for guidance about what constitutes confidential information.
• Uphold the company’s value of respect for the individual and avoid making defamatory statements about company employees, clients, partners, affiliates and others, including competitors.
• Be careful not to let blogging interfere with the employee’s job or client commitments.

Of course, this is only if they choose to identify themselves as an employee of ours somewhere in their blog.

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.

• 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.

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…

But today there is no rhyme or reason.  Some facilities have union campaigns occur and some do not.  That’s the scary part.  You might be doing everything right and still have a problem.  Plus, with legislation like EFCA lingering out there and the Senate being on the verge of a filibuster-proof super majority, I suspect that we haven’t seen the last of pro-union efforts.

But just remember, it’s like I’ve always said…  If you’re not pro-union, it’s not that you’re anti-union; you’re just pro-company.  There is a difference you know.