A friend of mine over at Training Time (http://www.trainingtime.com/) published this article and I had to share it. It is funny but way too true!!
There are countless articles and books that promise to tell employers how to boost employee morale. They may or may not be right, but there is something we all can be certain about. There are easy ways to kill employee morale. Thoroughly. Some of them are simple; some take time. But they all work.
So with some levity and a lot of truth, here are 8 great ways to destroy the spirit of even the most dedicated of employees:
8) Start new hires with promises of raises, promotions and other perks, and then “forget.” One of the best ways to destroy morale from the start is to make promises to your new hires, and then never mention them again. Truly creative morale-smashers may want to extend this technique to existing employees, so even seasoned workers can share in the disappointment.
7) Make rules that defy logic and then enforce them – harshly. If your employees don’t come within miles of a customer, ban jeans and make them dress up for work. Prohibit personal decorations on desks. Send out a memo limiting the time in the restroom to five minutes. Whatever it is, make sure the consequences of these performance-related violations are severe – letters of reprimand, docked pay – anything to make them fear for their jobs.
6) Play favorites. Everyone remembers the teacher’s pet – bring that dynamic into the workplace. A great way to destroy employee morale is to make it clear that a few people can get away with anything, while the rest must toe the line. Or consider the reverse scenario… selectively enforce the rules with a few employees while letting the rest off the hook. Morale is certain to take a nose dive.
5) Skimp on necessary tools, equipment or technology. Invite employee discontent by maintaining a tight hold on the purse strings when it comes to the tools employees need to do their jobs well. Dole out pens, paper and other office supplies like they were the items about to tip the company over the financial edge. Create a make-do attitude, and then hold employees to standards unachievable given the lack of good tools and equipment.
4) Maintain an atmosphere of fear in the workplace. This technique can take many forms, but one of the most effective is to keep employees wondering whether their jobs will exist tomorrow. Dwell on declining sales, especially if you can do so in several contexts. Ask them casual questions about their spouse’s job security. Drop small but favored perks such as water bottles, good coffee or the annual company picnic. Productivity and employee attitude will fall simultaneously.
3) Show employees you don’t trust them. Make sure employees know they are not at all trusted. Double and triple check their paperwork, logs and products. Listen in on conversations. Hide behind cubicle walls and eavesdrop on employee discussions. Search them as they leave, even if they have no access to anything of value. The impact on morale and work quality will be noticeable almost instantly.
2) Make it an us and them atmosphere. Demand that staff- level employees take cuts in pay, hours or benefits. Postpone or cancel promotions. Delay replacement of worn-out but needed equipment and furnishing. Then give the executive staff new 22” flat panel computers. Talk about how hot it was on your trip to Italy. Complain about how your Porsche is always in the shop. After all, they should be happy to have a job, any job. Right?
1) Wherever possible, reinforce the idea that they are replaceable. This is the number one way to kill employee morale. For every person employed in your company, there are at least a dozen applicants eager to take their position. Let your current employees know that, whether through words, deeds or environment, that they could be replaced tomorrow.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Holiday Pay Practices
I came across this informative artlicle and thought I would share. Please note the authors information at the end.
The end of the year is a good time to review your company’s holiday pay practices. This article answers common questions regarding holiday pay-related issues in the United States.
Must an employer provide employees time off on holidays?
No. There is no Federal law that requires an employer to provide time off, paid or otherwise, to employees on nationally recognized holidays.
Must an employer accommodate an employee’s observance of a religious holiday?
An employer is obligated to provide reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees, unless it can show that the accommodation would result in undue hardship for its business. Many employers offer a “floating holiday” in addition to the regularly scheduled holidays. This allows an employee to take time off for religious observances that are not covered by the employer’s established holiday schedule.
Courts addressing the issue of religious accommodation generally agree that unpaid time off can be a reasonable accommodation, as can allowing an employee to use a vacation day to observe a religious holiday. Generally, employers require that floating holidays be taken in the same year they are granted and do not allow these days to be carried over into the next year. Employees usually are required to give adequate advance notice of their intention to take a floating holiday.
Must holiday time off be paid?
For non-exempt (hourly) employees, no. An employer does not have to pay hourly employees for time off on a holiday. An employer is only required to pay hourly employees for time actually worked. On the other hand, exempt employees (salaried employees who do not receive overtime), who are given the day off, must be paid their full weekly salary if they work any hours during the week in which the holiday falls. This requirement for exempt employees did not change under the new federal overtime regulations.
Must paid time off be counted as hours worked in determining whether an employee is entitled to overtime?
No. If an employer provides paid holidays, it does not have to count the paid hours as hours worked for purposes of determining whether an employee is entitled to overtime compensation. An employee must actually work 40 hours in a week before he/she is eligible for overtime. Paid time off (holidays, vacation, sick leave, etc.) is not considered time worked. Note, however, that many collective bargaining agreements include additional provisions for determining overtime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Muskovitz is an attorney who represents employers about labor and employment matters in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. He also assists his clients to avoid legal problems by preparing or reviewing employee handbooks, conducting training, and advising on appropriate preventative measures such as employee discipline. He assists employers to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He can be reached at Dykema Gossett PLLC, Phone: (734) 214-7633, FAX: (734) 214-7696, or by Email.
The end of the year is a good time to review your company’s holiday pay practices. This article answers common questions regarding holiday pay-related issues in the United States.
Must an employer provide employees time off on holidays?
No. There is no Federal law that requires an employer to provide time off, paid or otherwise, to employees on nationally recognized holidays.
Must an employer accommodate an employee’s observance of a religious holiday?
An employer is obligated to provide reasonable accommodation for the religious practices of its employees, unless it can show that the accommodation would result in undue hardship for its business. Many employers offer a “floating holiday” in addition to the regularly scheduled holidays. This allows an employee to take time off for religious observances that are not covered by the employer’s established holiday schedule.
Courts addressing the issue of religious accommodation generally agree that unpaid time off can be a reasonable accommodation, as can allowing an employee to use a vacation day to observe a religious holiday. Generally, employers require that floating holidays be taken in the same year they are granted and do not allow these days to be carried over into the next year. Employees usually are required to give adequate advance notice of their intention to take a floating holiday.
Must holiday time off be paid?
For non-exempt (hourly) employees, no. An employer does not have to pay hourly employees for time off on a holiday. An employer is only required to pay hourly employees for time actually worked. On the other hand, exempt employees (salaried employees who do not receive overtime), who are given the day off, must be paid their full weekly salary if they work any hours during the week in which the holiday falls. This requirement for exempt employees did not change under the new federal overtime regulations.
Must paid time off be counted as hours worked in determining whether an employee is entitled to overtime?
No. If an employer provides paid holidays, it does not have to count the paid hours as hours worked for purposes of determining whether an employee is entitled to overtime compensation. An employee must actually work 40 hours in a week before he/she is eligible for overtime. Paid time off (holidays, vacation, sick leave, etc.) is not considered time worked. Note, however, that many collective bargaining agreements include additional provisions for determining overtime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Muskovitz is an attorney who represents employers about labor and employment matters in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. He also assists his clients to avoid legal problems by preparing or reviewing employee handbooks, conducting training, and advising on appropriate preventative measures such as employee discipline. He assists employers to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He can be reached at Dykema Gossett PLLC, Phone: (734) 214-7633, FAX: (734) 214-7696, or by Email.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The ADAA 2008
On September 25, 2008, President Bush signed into law the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which will amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and directly overturn several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting that landmark law. The ADAAA sends an unmistakable message to the courts that the concept of disability is to be more broadly, rather than narrowly, construed. The primary consequences of these amendments to employers are that far more people will fall within the definition of disability under the ADA. Specifically, the measures will increase coverage and strengthen employee protections under the ADA by:
1. Rejecting the strict interpretation of the ADA that defines disability to be an impairment that prevents or severely restricts an individual from doing activities that are of central importance to one’s daily life;
2. Prohibiting the consideration of almost all measures that reduce or mitigate the impact of an impairment in the determination of whether an individual is disabled (i.e. hearing aids, prosthetic limbs);
3. Allowing persons who are discriminated against on the basis of a perceived disability to pursue a claim under the ADA regardless of whether the perceived impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
The ADAAA Rejects the Supreme Court’s Strict Interpretation of the ADA As Setting a High Standard to Qualify as Disabled
The major goal of the ADAAA is to undo current case law that, for the most part, creates a restrictive interpretation of the statute’s definition of disability. The amendments
specifically direct courts to instead construe the law in favor of “broad coverage of individuals under the ADA.”
Congress Tells the Courts How to Interpret the ADA
For example, in the Murphy case, Murphy had severe high blood pressure, but with medication, could function normally and engage in a full range of activities. Before the ADAAA, the law did not consider him to be disabled under the ADA because the use of medication controlled the effects of his high blood pressure. Murphy was prevented from pursuing an ADA claim after UPS found him unfit for his driver position because of his high blood pressure. The ADAAA now mandates that in determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA, the person must be evaluated as if untreated, without considering the ameliorative effects of high blood pressure medication.
As a result of this change, the ADA will protect people whose cancer is in remission, whose diabetes is controlled by medication, whose seizures are prevented by medication, and who can function at a high level with learning disabilities. Employers will need to concentrate less on the threshold issue of disability, and focus more on their duty to provide reasonable accommodations. The ADAAA makes an exception for those who wear ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses to correct vision to full acuity. These devices are not to be ignored in considering whether a person is disabled. Rather, they are to be taken into account, in all but rare cases. The purpose is to exclude from the definition of disability persons who simply need ordinary glasses to read, drive, etc.
The Scope of “Regarded as” Claims Has Been Both Clarified and Broadened
The ADAAA further expands the ADA’s definition of disability, specifically the “regarded as” prong of that definition, by now including persons that have been discriminated against because of an actual impairment or a perceived impairment “whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” This is in stark contrast to the previous requirement expressed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Sutton that the perceived impairment must, like any actual impairment, substantially limit a major life activity. If a person is treated adversely (in regard to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment) because of an actual perceived impairment, that is a violation of the law, irrespective of whether the impairment actually limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. However, the ADAAA excludes from the “regarded as” definition of disability those impairments that are transitory and minor. Transitory is defined as impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.”
The ADAAA, however, limits the application of the ADA by clarifying that an employer’s duty to accommodate does not extend to those individuals who make discrimination claims under the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability. Before the ADAAA, there was a split among the federal courts as to whether the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement applied to the “regarded as” category of disabled individuals. The ADAAA makes clear that employers have no duty to accommodate these individuals.
In short, the ADAAA clearly prohibits adverse employment actions based on myths, fears and stereotypes when the person being discriminated against may not actually have impairment, but is simply perceived to have one. As it is logically inconsistent to require reasonable accommodation of a misperceived impairment, the ADAAA clarifies that employers need not engage in the reasonable accommodation process with persons regarded as impaired, who are not actually impaired.
The ADAAA Clarifies Other Aspects of the Definition of Disability
To further the goal of broadening the definition of disability, the ADAAA adopts several other provisions to guide the interpretation of the term disability. These include:
The ADAAA specifically adds a nonexclusive list of examples of major life activities to the language of the statute, and, in addition to the activities recognized in the regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it adds the following: eating, sleeping, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking, and communicating.
The ADA is also amended to now include a listing of examples of major bodily functions, which are considered major life activities. The ADAAA specifically rejects the restrictive interpretation of major life activity used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
The ADAAA specifically includes as disabled those persons who have an impairment that is episodic or in remission, if the impairment would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
The ADAAA rejects the definition of “substantially limits” in the • Toyota case, and in EEOC regulations that define “substantially limits” as “significantly restricted,” and directs the agency to revise its regulations to be consistent with the amendment’s goal of broadening the class of persons covered by the ADA. However, unlike some initial proposals regarding the amendments and at least two current state laws, the ADA does not apply to persons who are simply “limited” due to a major life activity.
There Is No Reverse Discrimination Under the ADA
The ADAAA states that there can be no claim of “reverse discrimination” under the ADA. Specifically, the ADAAA states that the ADA does not provide for a claim that an “individual was subject to discrimination because of the individual’s lack of disability.” “Reverse discrimination” claims have arisen in the context of an employer providing reasonable accommodation. This means that non-disabled persons cannot claim discrimination because they were treated less favorably or were not given the same accommodations.
Practical Steps for Employers
The ADAAA will be effective January 1, 2009. Overall, this law will not require major changes by most employers, but some practical steps for employers to take are listed below.
Employers should:
1. Review their policies to make sure any definitions they use track the new law. Any handbook changes made should be communicated clearly to all employees. Most of the changes made in the amendments are legal clarifications of points that had been sources of controversy among lawyers, so it is unlikely that employers will need any major rewrites of policies.
2. Make sure that those in the organization who make decisions about accommodations, and human resources executives in particular, receive training to educate them about the changes in the ADA. These individuals need to understand the implications of the change in the definition of disability, and they should be highly aware of the “regarded as disabled” source of liability, so they avoid behaviors that might fall into this category.
3. Train persons in the company or organization who will be involved in the interactive discussions with employees potentially covered by the ADA. Those persons need to understand the comparative ease under which many additional people may now be covered by the law. They also need to know more about reasonable accommodations as many additional employees and applicants will have to be accommodated due to the amendments.
3. Expect more lawsuits to be filed. The ADAAA makes it easier for applicants and employees to make claims of disability discrimination. The defense of these suits will be more difficult, as the more expansive construction of the meaning of disabled will limit some frequently used defenses available to employers.
4. Discuss the effects of these legal changes with legal departments and/or outside counsel. Through early discussion, inadvertent problems can be avoided. Time is of the essence as these amendments become effective January 1, 2009.
Stated simply, planning avoids lawsuits.
1. Rejecting the strict interpretation of the ADA that defines disability to be an impairment that prevents or severely restricts an individual from doing activities that are of central importance to one’s daily life;
2. Prohibiting the consideration of almost all measures that reduce or mitigate the impact of an impairment in the determination of whether an individual is disabled (i.e. hearing aids, prosthetic limbs);
3. Allowing persons who are discriminated against on the basis of a perceived disability to pursue a claim under the ADA regardless of whether the perceived impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
The ADAAA Rejects the Supreme Court’s Strict Interpretation of the ADA As Setting a High Standard to Qualify as Disabled
The major goal of the ADAAA is to undo current case law that, for the most part, creates a restrictive interpretation of the statute’s definition of disability. The amendments
specifically direct courts to instead construe the law in favor of “broad coverage of individuals under the ADA.”
Congress Tells the Courts How to Interpret the ADA
For example, in the Murphy case, Murphy had severe high blood pressure, but with medication, could function normally and engage in a full range of activities. Before the ADAAA, the law did not consider him to be disabled under the ADA because the use of medication controlled the effects of his high blood pressure. Murphy was prevented from pursuing an ADA claim after UPS found him unfit for his driver position because of his high blood pressure. The ADAAA now mandates that in determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA, the person must be evaluated as if untreated, without considering the ameliorative effects of high blood pressure medication.
As a result of this change, the ADA will protect people whose cancer is in remission, whose diabetes is controlled by medication, whose seizures are prevented by medication, and who can function at a high level with learning disabilities. Employers will need to concentrate less on the threshold issue of disability, and focus more on their duty to provide reasonable accommodations. The ADAAA makes an exception for those who wear ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses to correct vision to full acuity. These devices are not to be ignored in considering whether a person is disabled. Rather, they are to be taken into account, in all but rare cases. The purpose is to exclude from the definition of disability persons who simply need ordinary glasses to read, drive, etc.
The Scope of “Regarded as” Claims Has Been Both Clarified and Broadened
The ADAAA further expands the ADA’s definition of disability, specifically the “regarded as” prong of that definition, by now including persons that have been discriminated against because of an actual impairment or a perceived impairment “whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.” This is in stark contrast to the previous requirement expressed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Sutton that the perceived impairment must, like any actual impairment, substantially limit a major life activity. If a person is treated adversely (in regard to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment) because of an actual perceived impairment, that is a violation of the law, irrespective of whether the impairment actually limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. However, the ADAAA excludes from the “regarded as” definition of disability those impairments that are transitory and minor. Transitory is defined as impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.”
The ADAAA, however, limits the application of the ADA by clarifying that an employer’s duty to accommodate does not extend to those individuals who make discrimination claims under the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability. Before the ADAAA, there was a split among the federal courts as to whether the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement applied to the “regarded as” category of disabled individuals. The ADAAA makes clear that employers have no duty to accommodate these individuals.
In short, the ADAAA clearly prohibits adverse employment actions based on myths, fears and stereotypes when the person being discriminated against may not actually have impairment, but is simply perceived to have one. As it is logically inconsistent to require reasonable accommodation of a misperceived impairment, the ADAAA clarifies that employers need not engage in the reasonable accommodation process with persons regarded as impaired, who are not actually impaired.
The ADAAA Clarifies Other Aspects of the Definition of Disability
To further the goal of broadening the definition of disability, the ADAAA adopts several other provisions to guide the interpretation of the term disability. These include:
The ADAAA specifically adds a nonexclusive list of examples of major life activities to the language of the statute, and, in addition to the activities recognized in the regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it adds the following: eating, sleeping, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking, and communicating.
The ADA is also amended to now include a listing of examples of major bodily functions, which are considered major life activities. The ADAAA specifically rejects the restrictive interpretation of major life activity used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
The ADAAA specifically includes as disabled those persons who have an impairment that is episodic or in remission, if the impairment would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
The ADAAA rejects the definition of “substantially limits” in the • Toyota case, and in EEOC regulations that define “substantially limits” as “significantly restricted,” and directs the agency to revise its regulations to be consistent with the amendment’s goal of broadening the class of persons covered by the ADA. However, unlike some initial proposals regarding the amendments and at least two current state laws, the ADA does not apply to persons who are simply “limited” due to a major life activity.
There Is No Reverse Discrimination Under the ADA
The ADAAA states that there can be no claim of “reverse discrimination” under the ADA. Specifically, the ADAAA states that the ADA does not provide for a claim that an “individual was subject to discrimination because of the individual’s lack of disability.” “Reverse discrimination” claims have arisen in the context of an employer providing reasonable accommodation. This means that non-disabled persons cannot claim discrimination because they were treated less favorably or were not given the same accommodations.
Practical Steps for Employers
The ADAAA will be effective January 1, 2009. Overall, this law will not require major changes by most employers, but some practical steps for employers to take are listed below.
Employers should:
1. Review their policies to make sure any definitions they use track the new law. Any handbook changes made should be communicated clearly to all employees. Most of the changes made in the amendments are legal clarifications of points that had been sources of controversy among lawyers, so it is unlikely that employers will need any major rewrites of policies.
2. Make sure that those in the organization who make decisions about accommodations, and human resources executives in particular, receive training to educate them about the changes in the ADA. These individuals need to understand the implications of the change in the definition of disability, and they should be highly aware of the “regarded as disabled” source of liability, so they avoid behaviors that might fall into this category.
3. Train persons in the company or organization who will be involved in the interactive discussions with employees potentially covered by the ADA. Those persons need to understand the comparative ease under which many additional people may now be covered by the law. They also need to know more about reasonable accommodations as many additional employees and applicants will have to be accommodated due to the amendments.
3. Expect more lawsuits to be filed. The ADAAA makes it easier for applicants and employees to make claims of disability discrimination. The defense of these suits will be more difficult, as the more expansive construction of the meaning of disabled will limit some frequently used defenses available to employers.
4. Discuss the effects of these legal changes with legal departments and/or outside counsel. Through early discussion, inadvertent problems can be avoided. Time is of the essence as these amendments become effective January 1, 2009.
Stated simply, planning avoids lawsuits.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Free Form I-9 Tutorial!
With immigration law heating up, it is imperative that businesses small and large alike understand their responsibilities. This video tutorial gives an overview of the history, proper completion, storage, and destruction regulations, of the Form I-9.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Sexual Harassment Investigation Quiz
I presented to a group a while back and used some scenarios to prompt discussion about best practices in dealing with Sexual Harassment complaints. The result was a very fun and engaging conversation.
Many people from the group asked for a copy of the quiz to use in their trainings. Here is just one of the scenarios with the discussion points.
The “He Said-She Said” Sexual Harassment Scenario
Jane works for Bob. After successfully completing a project, Bob tells Jane he will treat her to lunch. The next day, Jane sends an email to Bob's supervisor: “Yesterday, Bob asked me to go to lunch with him. I was not sure that was right, but he’s my boss. At lunch, he propositioned me. I want something done about this.”
The supervisor knows Bob to be a dedicated family man. He does not know Jane very well, but has no reason to believe she is a liar. He calls Bob, and tells him what Jane said. Bob is outraged, and denies everything. The supervisor then calls Jane and tells her that Bob denies the accusation. He asks if there were any witnesses. Jane says there weren’t, but swears that what she said is true.
Faced with a “he said-she said situation", the supervisor puts a memo in their files, and tells them both to act responsibly, and avoid any future situations that might cause problems.
Was Bob’s supervisor correct in conducting the investigation?
YES NO
The story states that the supervisor knows bob well but does not know Jane very well. It is always best to have someone who is unbiased conduct the investigation. He should have either went to the HR department or (if no HR) hired an outside consultant to investigate.
Did Bob handle the investigation properly by only speaking to Bob and Jane?
YES NO
Even though the story states that there were no witnesses to this particular incident it is always a good idea to conduct interviews with various people who have contact with the people involved. This may just be a symptom of a chronic problem that needs to be addressed.
Since the case turned out to be a “he said-she said” and no harassment was proven, was the supervisor correct in only documenting the claim and results of the investigation?
YES NO
Both parties are clearly uncomfortable at this point. In order to avoid retaliation against Jane or further issues, I would try to move Jane under a different supervisor or into a different department….Although, one would have to be very careful that Jane was onboard with the move and would not be losing anything as it could be construed as retaliation if she viewed it as a demotion of any sort.
Remember that these are just the best answers in my opinion and should not be looked at as legal advice as I am not a lawyer. I designed this quiz to create conversation around best practices…not really to be a step-by-step guide. Every situation is different and you should always consult with an HR professional or an attorney on a case-by-case situation.
If you run into this type of situation or want to conduct a preventative training, People Wise can help. www.pwhrm.com
Many people from the group asked for a copy of the quiz to use in their trainings. Here is just one of the scenarios with the discussion points.
The “He Said-She Said” Sexual Harassment Scenario
Jane works for Bob. After successfully completing a project, Bob tells Jane he will treat her to lunch. The next day, Jane sends an email to Bob's supervisor: “Yesterday, Bob asked me to go to lunch with him. I was not sure that was right, but he’s my boss. At lunch, he propositioned me. I want something done about this.”
The supervisor knows Bob to be a dedicated family man. He does not know Jane very well, but has no reason to believe she is a liar. He calls Bob, and tells him what Jane said. Bob is outraged, and denies everything. The supervisor then calls Jane and tells her that Bob denies the accusation. He asks if there were any witnesses. Jane says there weren’t, but swears that what she said is true.
Faced with a “he said-she said situation", the supervisor puts a memo in their files, and tells them both to act responsibly, and avoid any future situations that might cause problems.
Was Bob’s supervisor correct in conducting the investigation?
YES NO
The story states that the supervisor knows bob well but does not know Jane very well. It is always best to have someone who is unbiased conduct the investigation. He should have either went to the HR department or (if no HR) hired an outside consultant to investigate.
Did Bob handle the investigation properly by only speaking to Bob and Jane?
YES NO
Even though the story states that there were no witnesses to this particular incident it is always a good idea to conduct interviews with various people who have contact with the people involved. This may just be a symptom of a chronic problem that needs to be addressed.
Since the case turned out to be a “he said-she said” and no harassment was proven, was the supervisor correct in only documenting the claim and results of the investigation?
YES NO
Both parties are clearly uncomfortable at this point. In order to avoid retaliation against Jane or further issues, I would try to move Jane under a different supervisor or into a different department….Although, one would have to be very careful that Jane was onboard with the move and would not be losing anything as it could be construed as retaliation if she viewed it as a demotion of any sort.
Remember that these are just the best answers in my opinion and should not be looked at as legal advice as I am not a lawyer. I designed this quiz to create conversation around best practices…not really to be a step-by-step guide. Every situation is different and you should always consult with an HR professional or an attorney on a case-by-case situation.
If you run into this type of situation or want to conduct a preventative training, People Wise can help. www.pwhrm.com
Friday, October 3, 2008
Five Quick Hiring Tips
I recently came across an article titled “30 Interview Questions You Can’t Ask and 30 Sneaky, Legal Alternatives to Get the Same Info” on HR World, which caused quite a stir. Check out the article and the comments at http://www.hrworld.com/features/30-interview-questions-111507/.
Why all the outrage in the HR community? The article, although filled with good information, was presented as a way to use legal questions in order to try to trick the applicant into revealing information that we can only assume would allow the interviewer to make a hiring decision based on discriminatory criteria.
The bottom line is this, the EEOC does not mandate what questions can be asked in an interview. The interview (and its questions) is not the issue; it is what criteria you use to make the hiring decision that matters. You should hire the most qualified person for the position using only criteria that makes sound business sense for the position in which you are hiring.
Here are five quick tips to keep your hiring legal and to get the right person for the job.
1. Take the time to create a detailed job description. This should include the physical requirements for the job, the hours and travel needs, the required skills, experience, and education needed to perform that job, and the personal attributes that are aligned with the business’s desired value and culture (to ensure organizational fit).
2. Use the job description to create a structured interview. A structured interview simply means one in which every applicant is asked the same questions. This is a best practice because it ensures consistency which can help to keep the interviewer on the right track, and gives you consistent criteria to compare in order to make the best decision in the end.
3. Take notes. These notes should be kept for one year. If you are ever questioned about a hiring decision it is imperative that you are able to look back at the notes from every candidate for that position to show why you made the decision that you made, again, based on business need. One word of caution – only write notes that have to do with the business criteria. Do not jot down things that could be construed as discriminatory such as; has three kids, will be ready for retirement in three years, overweight, etc.
4. Don’t go it alone. Always have more than one interviewer present during an interview. This will not only protect you in a he-said/she-said situation but can also negate the affects of stereotyping or hiring from your gut. The other person will help to balance you out by giving you another perspective.
5. Don’t stereotype. Everyone does it to some extent or another but in an employment decision it can get you in trouble and will not yield you the best employee for the job in the end.
Here’s an example: you are hiring an account supervisor who needs to be available to travel with very little notice. You interview Sue who mentions her six kids during idle chit-chat with the receptionist and you overhear. Next, you interview Bob who is a 20 something bachelor. You assume that Sue might have a hard time picking up at the drop of a hat where Bob will be available whenever you need him. However, the reality is that Sue’s husband is a stay-at-home dad and Bob is responsible for his elderly mother and can not travel overnight.
If a job has a particular requirement such as travel, heavy lifting, long hours, physically challenging environments, or whatever. Make them clear during the interview and ask (every applicant) if they can meet that requirement. When they answer, take them at face value.
Remember, interviewing is not easy. Even the most seasoned of HR professionals makes a bad hiring decision from time to time. However, by taking a systematic approach and using tools such as the job description, structured interview questions, pre-employment tests, and background and reference checks you can increase your chances of a good hire by up to 80%.
People Wise is here to help. Check out these tools and more on our website at http://www.pwhrm.com/.
Why all the outrage in the HR community? The article, although filled with good information, was presented as a way to use legal questions in order to try to trick the applicant into revealing information that we can only assume would allow the interviewer to make a hiring decision based on discriminatory criteria.
The bottom line is this, the EEOC does not mandate what questions can be asked in an interview. The interview (and its questions) is not the issue; it is what criteria you use to make the hiring decision that matters. You should hire the most qualified person for the position using only criteria that makes sound business sense for the position in which you are hiring.
Here are five quick tips to keep your hiring legal and to get the right person for the job.
1. Take the time to create a detailed job description. This should include the physical requirements for the job, the hours and travel needs, the required skills, experience, and education needed to perform that job, and the personal attributes that are aligned with the business’s desired value and culture (to ensure organizational fit).
2. Use the job description to create a structured interview. A structured interview simply means one in which every applicant is asked the same questions. This is a best practice because it ensures consistency which can help to keep the interviewer on the right track, and gives you consistent criteria to compare in order to make the best decision in the end.
3. Take notes. These notes should be kept for one year. If you are ever questioned about a hiring decision it is imperative that you are able to look back at the notes from every candidate for that position to show why you made the decision that you made, again, based on business need. One word of caution – only write notes that have to do with the business criteria. Do not jot down things that could be construed as discriminatory such as; has three kids, will be ready for retirement in three years, overweight, etc.
4. Don’t go it alone. Always have more than one interviewer present during an interview. This will not only protect you in a he-said/she-said situation but can also negate the affects of stereotyping or hiring from your gut. The other person will help to balance you out by giving you another perspective.
5. Don’t stereotype. Everyone does it to some extent or another but in an employment decision it can get you in trouble and will not yield you the best employee for the job in the end.
Here’s an example: you are hiring an account supervisor who needs to be available to travel with very little notice. You interview Sue who mentions her six kids during idle chit-chat with the receptionist and you overhear. Next, you interview Bob who is a 20 something bachelor. You assume that Sue might have a hard time picking up at the drop of a hat where Bob will be available whenever you need him. However, the reality is that Sue’s husband is a stay-at-home dad and Bob is responsible for his elderly mother and can not travel overnight.
If a job has a particular requirement such as travel, heavy lifting, long hours, physically challenging environments, or whatever. Make them clear during the interview and ask (every applicant) if they can meet that requirement. When they answer, take them at face value.
Remember, interviewing is not easy. Even the most seasoned of HR professionals makes a bad hiring decision from time to time. However, by taking a systematic approach and using tools such as the job description, structured interview questions, pre-employment tests, and background and reference checks you can increase your chances of a good hire by up to 80%.
People Wise is here to help. Check out these tools and more on our website at http://www.pwhrm.com/.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Employee Wellness on a Shoestring.
Top companies realize the affects of employee wellness on their bottom line. This is evident by the billions of dollars spent on wellness initiatives by larger corporations every year.
Think you can’t start a wellness program for your small business? Think again. There are literally hundreds of ways to work on wellness at any budget. Here are just a few ideas to help you get started.
Spark People – SparkPeople’s mission is to SPARK millions of PEOPLE to reach their goals and lead healthier lives. They offer nutrition, health, and fitness tools, support, and resources that are 100% free! On their site a company can start a “Spark Team” where employees become members. They earn points by reading articles and meeting the health goals that they define for themselves. A small business could easily create some excitement about a program such as this by offering a small prize to employees who earn a certain number of points. Check them out at www.sparkpeople.com.
Purchase health and wellness magazines to leave in the break room.
WELCOA.org is another great place to start. They offer numerous resources to get a wellness program started. My favorite is an eight-page monthly publication that costs as little as .29 per issue.
Walk or Build for Charity – This will not only improve your employee’s health but can also be a great team-builder, marketing event, and will boost employee morale. There are numerous opportunities in every city. Habitat for Humanity is just one. Don’t forget to involve your employee’s family and friends for added work/life balance!!!
United Way 2-1-1 – I have mentioned this before, but what a great resource! You can now offer your employees assistance in all sorts of areas for free by using this resource. In the Kansas City area check out their site at http://www.unitedwaygkc.org.
Think you can’t start a wellness program for your small business? Think again. There are literally hundreds of ways to work on wellness at any budget. Here are just a few ideas to help you get started.
Spark People – SparkPeople’s mission is to SPARK millions of PEOPLE to reach their goals and lead healthier lives. They offer nutrition, health, and fitness tools, support, and resources that are 100% free! On their site a company can start a “Spark Team” where employees become members. They earn points by reading articles and meeting the health goals that they define for themselves. A small business could easily create some excitement about a program such as this by offering a small prize to employees who earn a certain number of points. Check them out at www.sparkpeople.com.
Purchase health and wellness magazines to leave in the break room.
WELCOA.org is another great place to start. They offer numerous resources to get a wellness program started. My favorite is an eight-page monthly publication that costs as little as .29 per issue.
Walk or Build for Charity – This will not only improve your employee’s health but can also be a great team-builder, marketing event, and will boost employee morale. There are numerous opportunities in every city. Habitat for Humanity is just one. Don’t forget to involve your employee’s family and friends for added work/life balance!!!
United Way 2-1-1 – I have mentioned this before, but what a great resource! You can now offer your employees assistance in all sorts of areas for free by using this resource. In the Kansas City area check out their site at http://www.unitedwaygkc.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
