Monday, November 8, 2010

What's a couple more years?

(AFP/Remy Gabalda) copied from here

A hotly-debated pension reform bill has recently passed in France. One of the main provisions was changing the retirement age from 60 to 62, which happens to be Early Retirement age here in the U.S.

Public opinion in France was against the change, but the Government went ahead, citing the need to make the change because of increasing debt and people who just keep living longer.

What I find somewhat humorous is that some of the most vocal protestors are high school students. 60 must seem ancient to them, and 62 is like having one foot in the grave already!

In reading some recent research on work attitudes, specifically about retirement, it is interesting that a vast majority of workers do not actually retire when they are eligible to do so, even when they have sufficient funds to live comfortably without working. Many workers even choose to return to work after retirement because they need the structure, fulfillment and meaning that work brings to their lives.

But I suppose that even if most workers continue working past the age of retirement, they would prefer to have that choice of retirement, instead of being forced to work a couple of extra years.

Friday, September 17, 2010

Workers Compensation Can Be a Pain in the Butt


The Iowa supreme court overruled a lower court in the case of an employee in for a rural water district in Iowa who was injured after shaking his derriere as a greeting to a fellow employee.

The lower court had ruled that Norman Vegars was ineligible for workers compensation on the grounds that he was engaging in horseplay at work. Vegars waved his butt as a greeting to his coworker, Casey Byrd, and Byrd attempted to return the unusual greeting by bumping the booty with his truck window. Unfortunately, he was off the mark and somehow smacked Vegars in the backside with his truck bed, leading to the workers compensation claim.

While the Iowa supreme court did not rule in favor of Vegars, the court did overturn the initial ruling against him and sent the case back to the workers compensation board to determine whether the butt-shaking activity should be considered in line with the course of his employment.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

NY Jets Harassment Being Investigated


An accusation of harassment by players and coaches of the New York Jets football team against a female reporter is currently being investigated. The full story can be found here.

This story brings up an important point regarding harassment. It is not just something an organization needs to worry about between employees, or from supervisor to subordinate. Harassment can also be directed by an organization's employees toward an individual or group of individuals outside of the organization - such as vendors, business partners, customers or (in this case) a reporter. (An organization's employees can also be harassed by those outside of the organization.) The fact that Ines Sainz, the reporter in question, is both female and a minority representative (she works for a spanish-language Mexican TV network) adds further depth to the harassment claims.

The NFL and NY Jets are looking into the situation and Jets management has already apologized publicly for the perceived misconduct. But the situation and investigation are far from over.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Two Employees Terminated for Leaking Private Information


Two state of Utah employees are in hot water after they used a state government database to compile a list of 1300 names, addresses, birthdates and phone numbers of suspected illegal immigrants. The list was then distributed to multiple law enforcement agencies and new media organizations.

Leaders on both sides of the immigration issue have condemned the actions of the two state employees, as distributing protected information is against both federal and Utah state laws (and even harsher penalties can be assesed for stealing of state records).

One of the two employees has already been fired and termination of the second employee (a 15-year state employee) is currently in process. The state of Utah is also looking into whether criminal charges should be pursued.

More information on this story can be found here, here and here.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Purpose of HR


I am working right now to put together a training on the subject of effective HR practices, and one of the first questions I plan on asking the training group is this:

"In one sentence, how would you describe the purpose of HR?"

In my research (a.k.a. Google search), here are some of the answers that I came across:
  • HR's duty is to bring the best people into the best position.
  • HR exists to protect a company from its employees.
  • The purpose of HR is to fulfill organizational goals by implying tools which focuses on enhancing performance with concern for its employees.
  • The purpose of human resources is to live.
  • The HR department is to is there to guarantee that the right candidates get appointed to the right task at the right time and the job offered to them utilizes their capabilities to the maximum, adding to self-motivation and leading to better performance.
  • HR is there to hire and fire.
  • The HR function is to hire, train, motivate and support productive employees.
  • An effective Human Resource department facilitates the execution of your company’s mission within the boundaries of employment law.
  • HR's sole purpose is to take the fun out of work for everyone.
I have my own thoughts on the issue, which I will save those for another post. But I want to hear your perspective. Do any of the answers listed above ring true to you? Or is there a better way that you would describe HR's purpose?

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Ego Surfing


Have you ever "Googled" yourself because you were bored, or because you just wanted to see what you would find? If so, you are familiar with Ego Surfing, even if you may not be familiar with the specific term. Ego surfing, as describing in a recent SHRM article, is "performing an internet search on one's own name to see what pops up." And the same SHRM article suggests that it is a good move to do from time to time in order to know what current and prospective employers might find out about you (see this previous Bizarre HR post).

So, I've decided to give it a go. When searching "Chris Hartwell," here are the top hits on Google:
  1. The Music of Chris Hartwell - My (somewhat stagnant) music website.
  2. Hartwell Ministries - Pastor Chris Hartwell - A Christian Pastor in Texas . . . not me, but very interesting. 
  3. Chris Hartwell - LinkedIn - While I do have a profile on LinkedIn, this happens to be a different Chris Hartwell - a search engine marketing consultant.
  4. Chris Hartwell on Facebook - Again, I do have a Facebook page, but this happens to be a different Chris Hartwell (and different from the other two above).
So there you have it. I guess I am glad that my music website comes up first on the search and, after browsing the first few pages of results, I found that there is nothing incriminating about myself online that I would mind an employer finding out about me (it's mainly just more music sites and links).

But I was more interested on how many Chris Hartwells there are out there in the world. In addition to the three mentioned above, further down the Google search results are a CrossFit trainer, a patent seeker and an Englishman studying plumbing. Who knew?

If you haven't tried ego surfing recently give it a whirl and let me know what interesting things you find.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Leave It to California


The SHRM annual conference took place this year in San Deigo, California. The tag line in the advertisements leading up to the event was something to the effect of "In the evolution of HR, California leads the way," highlighting the signifcance of the site chosen for the conference.

Well, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest efforts to reign in government spending and balance the state's budget is certainly having an impact on HR. Unfortunately, state employees are being caught in the crossfire. Scharzenegger wants to reduce the pay of over 200,000 state government employees to $7.25/hour (federal minimum wage) until California's legislature reaches an agreement on the state's budget. The state controller has refused to honor the governor's request and it's all ended up in court.

It's a very bizarre scenario, made even more bizarre by the fact that Gov. Schwarzenegger is proposing a cut to the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr.), which is lower than California's minimum wage ($8/hr.), and some 30,000 governement employees that are exempt from minimum wage laws (i.e. doctors, lawyers, etc.) would not be paid at all.

Sounds like political games on both sides of the fence. The Republican governor is forcing the hand of the Democrat-controlled State Legislature, and the state controller (also a Democrat) is pushing back. And state employees are caught in the middle, wondering how it will all end up.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Technology in the World of HR


A recent article regarding the DOs and DON'Ts of using Facebook while maintaining your professionalism got me thinking about how technology (specifically the internet) has changed the business landscape for both employees (those currently employed and/or those seeking employment) and those who manage and hire employees. Here is a list of pros and cons that I quickly came up with.

JOB SEEKERS

PROS:
  • Access to numerous open positions through job search websites (i.e. Monster.com and CareerBuilder.com), company websites, and non-traditional job search outlets (i.e. Craigslist.com) make job seeking more effective.
  • The ability to develop your online profile can make you and make your resume available to those searching online in need of employees.
  • Search engines, company websites, newsfeeds, etc., offer the ability to quickly and thoroughly research potential job opportunities and hiring organizations.
  • You have access to countless online resources for effective job searching, writing your resume, and having a positive job interview.
  • The ability to utilize online social media networks can help you find otherwise unknown job opportunities.
CONS:
  • A lot of personal information may be avaialable online that you do not what prospective employers finding.
  • Getting into a habit of only searching for and applying for jobs through online channels can be a monotonous and ineffective job search.
  • Even with online professional profiles and resumes, it is hard to convey your true personality and professional motivations without face-to-face personal contact.

CURRENT EMPLOYEES

PROS:
  • Internet research can assist you in finding the lowest cost, most effective, and/or fastest solutions to the problems you face at work.
  • Utilizing online training, remote network meetings, etc., can cost travel costs and increase the effectiveness of long-distance work groups and organizations.
  • Computer and internet resources have aided employees in accomplishing more and being a more valuable asset to the company.
CONS:
  • From watching YouTube videos, to online shopping, to playing games, to reading online news, the internet can be a huge distraction at work.
  • Since most information is just a mouse click or online chat with a co-worker away, there is potential for reduced time being physically active at work.
  • Relationships with coworkers, customers and/or supervisors may suffer with reduced personal interaction.
  • Technology at times may make some employees obsolete, leading to job losses.

MANAGERS

PROS:
  • The ability to quickly disseminate information to your employees is increased through email, company intranet, etc.
  • Time and effort spent managing "paperwork" (i.e. payroll, contracts, employee records, etc.) can be greatly reduced through technology.
  • Recruiting is greatly facilitated through online job boards, websites and professional networks.
  • A quick Google search on a job applicant and/or current employee can uncover important information that otherwise would not be brought to light.
CONS:
  • Reduced personal interaction with your employees can decrease employee job satisfaction and can take a toll on your relationship with your employees.
  • Focusing too much on internet recruiting may increase the quantity of applicants without increasing (and potentially decreasing) the quality of applicants.
  • A quick Google search on a job applicant and/or current employee can uncover unimportant information that should probably not have been brought to light.
What are your thoughts? What are some of the positives and/or negatives that you have seen in your own experience with increased computer and internet technology?

Thursday, June 17, 2010

To Get a Job . . . You Need to Already Have a Job?



What if you lost your job, and when you start searching for a new one, you were repeatedly turned away from job openings because you were not already currently employed? Sounds a bit ridiculous, right?

Well, CNN Money ran a story recently about a new recruiting trend, where phrases such as "applicant must be currently employed" or "unemployed applicants will not be considered" are cropping up on job descriptions. And even when such explicit statements aren't spelled out, it seems that recruiters give preference to applicants who are currently employed over those applicants that are not.

To me, that's just a lawsuit waiting to happen. If you have a solid potential job applicant, and the only reason he/she is not considered is because he/she isn't currently employed, it feels an awful lot like discrimination.

What are your thoughts? Have any of you run into this kind of situation as a job seeker or as a recruiter/hiring manager?

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Some Things are Better Left Unsaid

I was recently directed to a post at PassiveAggresiveNotes.com, which included a number of signs posted at different businesses explaining why they were closed. Among those signs, these two caught my attention as an HR professional:



While these signs are undoubtedly funny for those of us looking at it from an outside perspective, "Tonya" would certainly have reason to proceed with a lawsuit, and the female employees at the Bang Bang Bar would have grounds to file a sexual harassment suit as well.

Always be sensitive as to what personal information you are sharing about your employees, and don't let your personal feeling get in the way of your professional role. Take a deep breath and a step back from the situation, and hopefully you can refrain from these types of situations.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Should You Really Take a Seat?



A recent article from Business Week has brought the ergonomics of the office chair back into the spotlight. It argues that the very act of sitting in your office chair for 8-9 hours a day can wreak havoc on your spine and cause permanent bodily damage.

Now, this isn't anything I hadn't heard before. But what I found interesting were the alternatives to sitting that were laid out in the article:
  • Perching: "a half-standing position at barstool height that keeps weight on the legs and leaves the S-curve intact"
  • The Swopper: "a hybrid stool seat" (more info here)
  • The HAG Capisco chair: described as "funky" and "high" (here's an image)
  • Treadmills: They suggest having employees walk on low-speeds while working or while in conferences.
I don't know if I buy into the argument that our chairs are going to kill us. Really, shouldn't we take responsibility for our own health? I mean, is a $400-$1000 chair or treadmill really going to solve your problem? If you sit/stand in any position for a long period of time, it's going to cause your body stress. (I do think the treadmill approach has some merit - minus the costs.) Once the novelty has worn off, my guess is that there will be just as many experts and research studies that condemn these new practices as dangerous/unhealthy as well.

I also think it's our sedentary lifestyle that harms us more than the chairs in which we sit.


I suggest simply taking regular breaks. Actually get up from your chair/perch/Swopper and walk around for a few moments throughout the day. It doesn't cost a thing, and helps you burn off some calories - as long as you don't stop at the vending machine.
 
What are your thoughts about these or other alternatives to the traditional office chair?

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Doing Things vs. Getting Things Done

Note: Every once in a while on this blog, instead of focusing on the weird and unique, I will actually try to offer tips and advice and make a genuine contribution, like with this post.


If you are like me, sometimes you feel like you are just spinning your wheels at work - always doing something, but not seeming to get anything done. It is a frustrating feeling that, if left unchecked, can sour your own perception of your work contributions and your job fulfillment.

In essence, it is important to understand that there is a difference between being busy and being productive. A recent blog post on The Happiness Project  refers to it as Fake Work and Make Work. In other words, sometimes it is easier to be busy than to be productive.

One model that I use to ensure that the work that I am doing is productive and effective is the 2x2 model of urgent and important work, as described by Steven Covey in his book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People:


According to this model, there are four quadrants where we spend our time:

Important & Urgent - These activities are important to you, to your job, and/or to the company for which you work. In addition, these are extremely time sensitive and need to be done soon, if not immediately. Examples might include rushed jobs on a tight deadline, serving in-store customers, trying to hire a new employee immediately because a recent employee quit unexpectedly, and work that has been procrastinated until near its deadlines.

Important & Not Urgent - These activities are similar to the activities above in that they are important to you, your job and/or your company. But unlike the activities above, they are not extremely time sensitive. Examples might include jobs and/or goals on a long-term deadline, preparing in advance for upcoming meetings, and modifying job descriptions for upcoming positions that will need to be filled.

Urgent & Not Important - These activities take precedence on your time, while they are not important for you, your job, or your company. Examples include coworkers stopping by unannounced, some phone calls, and getting roped into helping another employee at the expense of your own work.

Not Urgent & Not Important - These activities are not important at all to you, your job, or your company, and they are not urgent either. Examples include personal emails and phone calls, browsing the internet, online chatting, and playing games.

To me, the secret of getting things done is to spend as much time as possible in the Important & Not Urgent sector, where you are making progress and accomplishing tasks on your own time line and with a minimal amount of stress. The other three sectors may give you the illusion of getting things done, when in reality, you are merely doing things. Let me explain what I mean by breaking down each sector.

Important & Urgent: It is true that when you spend time in this category, you may actually be getting this done, but you do it at the expense of additional stress and a heightened likelihood of making mistakes. The more frantic and urgent you feel, and the more pressure to quickly complete the task, the more likely you are to miss some steps or make some mistakes along the way, which results in additional work and additional stress in having to do this work over again.

I have a co-worker that loves to live in this quadrant. He is always, in his own words, "putting out fires and running in a thousand different directions." I have to admit that, at times, it can be difficult working with this coworker because I am not called in until something is critical and needs to be done immediately. So, by being drawn in to his Important & Urgent quadrant, all of a sudden I find myself in my Urgent & Not Important quadrant - helping my coworker put out his fires, while neglecting my own work.

Urgent & Not Important: This is the sneakiest of all of the categories. Because the activities in this area are urgent, you get the impression that you are actually making a difference and getting work done. The problem here is that, while you may be completing these urgent activities, it is not making a dent to your important job-related tasks. This truly is "spinning your wheels," getting caught up in urgent work without getting important work done. And when you do that, then your Important & Not Urgent work starts moving closer and closer to that Important & Urgent category, creating more unnecessary stress.

Not Urgent & Not Important: Sometimes, you just need to take a break. Studies have shown that a quick walk, a healthy snack, and maybe even a quick game of solitaire can be beneficial to your productivity. Where you run into problems is when these activities become counterproductive. When you are overly stressed about upcoming deadlines or a heavy workload, it's tempting to just walk away or to ignore the work by escaping into internet browsing, online shopping or similar activities. But once those activities are completed, your important work is still there waiting, as the deadlines creep even closer. You have done nothing to help your situation, and may have even made it worse.

- - - The Bottom Line Tip - - -

Spend as much time as possible in the Important & Not Urgent quadrant. By focusing on your important tasks before they become urgent, you have more time and attention to give. You will be less prone to make mistakes, encounter less stress, be more productive, and get things done!

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Less Work, Less Pay . . . Less Stress?



You know how great three-day weekends can be? Taking a quick family getaway, check things of off your at-home "to-do" list, or just enjoying some lazy relaxation.

What if I told you that you could have a three-day weekend every weekend? The only catch is that you don't get paid for the extra day off. That kind of takes the fun out of it, doesn't it?

Not always, apparently.

A number states, most notably California, are requiring some workers to take Fridays off without pay because of budget woes. But the Wall Street Journal reports that some of these furloughed workers are actually enjoying the extra time to spend with family, go shopping or patronize casinos and theme parks.

In fact, some consumer businesses are taking advantage of the "Furlough Fridays" by offering special Friday deals or deals particularly for furloughed workers. Not a bad business tactic, me thinks. 

Of course, it does make me wonder where these employees are finding this disposable income when they're getting paid less. But who am I to judge? 


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Dust Off Your Jump Rope

 

 Remember recess from back in your school days? Climbing all over the jungle gyms, flying out of swings, picking teams for kickball or basketball, and 15 minutes of much needed freedom.

Well, why should kids have all the fun? UCLA Doctor Toni Yancey brought up the idea as part of a White House summit on childhood obesity. According to this article, Dr. Yancey's idea for bringing "short bursts of physical activity into the regular workplace" garnered a highly positive response from the attending audience.

It sounds like a good idea to me! Heaven knows I could use a little bit of physical activity during my workday.

I just hope I don't get picked last for office kickball.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Throwing Back a Cold One is Put on Ice


If you are like most people, when you think of the perks or benefits associated with your job, you might think about your 401k, insurance, bonuses, employee discounts or paid time off. But if you worked at Carlsberg Breweries in Denmark, you could add a unique perk to your list: the right to throw back a cold one at any time during the work day - at least until recently.

Workers at the brewery recently went on strike when company management unilaterally restricted the workers' right to drink beer on the job to only three pints per day, and only during breaks and lunch. I guess before that, the workers could enjoy a brewski pretty much anytime during their shift. And according to quotes from the Wall Street Journal article, this included forklift operators and truck drivers (who can still drink their three pints a day, as long as they can pass the Alcolock breathalyzer safety device for their vehicle).

Sounds to me like a non-stop party and/or accident waiting to happen. But representatives for the company claim that they have a low accident rate related to alcohol, and the change was made more because of recent studies that linked alcohol consumption with lower productivity.

For now, the workers have temporarily ended their strike, and management has agreed to revisit the restriction and negotiate with employees. Keep an eye on this story as it keeps brewing. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

You're Fired!

Imagine for a moment that you are called into the office of the Big Boss. When you show up, you see the rest of your team there.

After discussing with you the problems with your current performance, the Big Boss publicly proceeds to bring up your (arguably non-job-related) pending criminal charges, and then makes a couple of ill-advised racial, religious, lifestyle and cultural comments before finally finishing by stating those words we all dread: "You're fired!"

Think it would be difficult to convince a lawyer, or even a judge, that you've got a pretty compelling discrimination claim? Probably not.

But that's exactly what happened to former Governor Rod Blagojevich on the most recent episode of Celebrity Apprentice. Maybe being on a reality TV show and being Donald Trump gives you leeway that true reality doesn't.

Check out the third-to-last segment of the following video if you missed the show (or just check out my transcription below the video):


With the full team looking on (I know, that's just how the show is done) and while talking to Blagojevich, Trump states: "I think Rod is being extremely nice because, you know, you have some pretty big things to do when you finish this, right?" (referring to his pending charges)

Pointing at Michael Johnson, Trump goes on to say: "I think Rod doesn't want to get angry at you because, frankly, there may be some black jurors. And they may be angry that he got angry with you."

"He doesn't want to get angry with Goldberg," he continues, "because I assume you're Jewish. Are you Jewish, Goldberg?"

As Goldberg nods, Trump chuckles and continues: "Because otherwise you'd be the only guy with the name Goldberg that isn't."

"And he doesn't want to get angry at the rock star because he wants to keep . . . You know, it's a very . . . And I don't know what to say about Curtis. He's like a central casting WASP."

And then, a little while later, The Donald gives Blago the boot with the two by-now immortalized words: "You're fired!"

So, what do you think? If this really were reality, who would win the case of Trump vs. Blagojevich?