Saturday, November 15, 2008

Gearing up for the Holidays

With Thanksgiving and Christmas happening within the next month and a half.  Things are really picking up and getting busy at work and in  my personal life.  

What can I say about the United States and world economies.... not much that already hasn't been said or written?

The only thing  I would like to say is what ever happened Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand"?  Apparently our national political leaders and leaders of our largest corporations need a little lesson in capitalism and economics.  We should not be intervening in the markets, they will take care of themselves as Adam Smith hypothesized.  When the government artificially modifies market forces, only bad things can happen.

For what it's worth....... Politically Incorrect.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Taxing Fat Employees ????

Recently Fox NewsOnline reported Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs which will charge "fat" state employees an addition $25.00 per month for their health insurance (currently, single workers pay nothing, nada, zip, family plans cost $180 a month).  

"But there's a way to avoid the fee: Get a check-up at an in-office "wellness center," where nurses will check for diabetes and hypertension and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and Body Mass Index (BMI).


The idea is to encourage employees to act responsibly, lose weight and lower their health care needs. But critics say it will humiliate and stigmatize obese employees and amounts to nothing short of a "fat tax."

A BMI test uses height and weight measurements to calculate the percentage of body fat in adult males and females. Alabama is using a BMI threshold of 35 — 30 is considered obese, by most medical standards — to determine who doesn't have to pay the automatic $25 deduction."

Just where do you fall in the BMI test - click here.   

As you can probably guess, the critics are calling it: a punitive "fat tax" designed to stigmatize the obese by inappropriately — and possibly illegally — bringing weight into the workplace.  PLEASE !!! they don't pay anything for single health insurance and if they can't control what they are eating and exercise a little they have to pay a whole $25 a month for their health insurance.  

Before I get too many comments from some of you, I fully know the potential global or wide spread issues that decision could mean for all workplaces.  But, is that a bad thing?  We have allowed health insurance plans to charge smokers more for their coverage and life insurance and is some case we have even not allowed them to participate in the health plan because they smoke.

Often, obesity is a choice.  If someone is obese, 9 times out of 10 it is not because they have some freakin' disease that has made them that way... it is a personal choice of not exercising and not eating right.  Now, I am not a very healthy person nor am I a skinny person (as some of you know). However, I do believe in personal accountability and it is about time this nation and its residents start taking responsibility for their own actions.  

For example, if you eat fast food three (3) days a week AND you sit your ass in front of the TV every-night you are making a CHOICE !!!! a choice NOT TO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF.  You deserve to pay more for your health care because it has been proven that obesity leads to Type II Diabetes, which leads to more and more healthcare dollars being spent.  Check out the information from the Centers for Disease Control, specifically the obesity trends !

I applaud the Alabama State government for having the balls to take this action and I hope we see more health insurance providers taking similar actions.  Maybe if we get hit in our pocket books we will start paying attention to what we do and what we eat.

For what it's worth.... Politically Incorrect HR



Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Immigration Raid - Largest in History

Have you hear the news???  The Federales have arrested nearly 600 illegal immigrants working in the United States.


This is an issue that needs to be addressed by everyone, the government, industry and we, the people.

Who in the HR department at the plant was asleep at the wheel?  I could understand 1 or 2 illegal immigrants slipping through the cracks of the current "I-9 Employment verification process" but 600 ????  Even the newly proposed E-Verify system the federal government pushing down our throats would catch at least 100.

This is just one reason HR departments get a bad rap.  Apparently this organization has hired a "secretary" and given him or her the title of Director of Human Resources.  The Operations managers then push hiring the illegal workers.  The HR "director" hires the illegals without validating their appropriate documentation or he/she is easily getting duped by forgeries. All for in the guise of lower labor costs. 

This is one of the type of legal risks HR departments can keep organizations from experiencing.  

The article discusses that other employees were "applauding" the arrests....  It appears like everyone knew it was going on but no one in management did anything about it.  I believe this organization is totally responsible for their actions and the HR director/manager should be hung up by his or her thumbs and beat with a stick like a pinata....

For what it is worth.... Politically Incorrect HR


Tuesday, August 12, 2008

HR Urged To Put More Emphasis on Reference Checking

The Society for Human Resource Management website, posted an article by summer intern Eric Reed, entitled "HR Urged To Put More Emphasis on Reference Checking" in which he regurgitates information from CEO and founder of the Mill Valley, California, performance management and assessment tools firm Checkster,Yves Lermusi's recent webcast:

“A reference check can be one of the best ways to gain insight on a candidate’s true performance,” Lermusi said during the webcast, titled How to Turn Reference Checking into an Effective Assessment Tool.” Depending on when and how the reference check is handled, he said, “It can be used to help determine why an individual should be hired”—unlike background checks, which are “usually conducted to determine the reasons not to hire an individual.”

In fact, “when” and “how” to conduct reference checks are the two critical questions that employers must focus on to increase the importance and effectiveness of the process. Lermusi said that most companies typically conduct reference checks by phone, letter or e-mail near the end of the hiring process and focus on verifying work experience, which is one of the least accurate screening factors, according to recent research findings. These methods of obtaining the references also are the most time-consuming and costly of the options available to employers.

“Many companies confuse performance with experience,” he said. Human resource departments can supply relevant employment verification information, but HR often hasn’t worked directly with the candidate so it can’t supply relevant job performance information even if asked.


Reference checking is supposed to increase the quality of the hire, he said. But to achieve this, the process should begin earlier in the hiring process and automated to maximize time and cost savings.

“Best practice reference checks are more peer-review evaluations,” said Lermusi, noting that they incorporate diverse opinions from multiple sources that focus on the job performance of the candidate, as well as aspects such as teamwork or cooperation.

“It is way better to obtain collective feedback from more people who’ve worked with or know the candidate than it is to rely on one expert, like an immediate supervisor, to make a well-informed hiring decision about a job candidate,” Lermusi said.

But not all references are created equal, he added. The four most important criteria for selecting references are:
• Freshness of relationship.
• Length of relationship.
• Closeness of relationship.
• Nature of relationship.

Not all reference checking questions are of equal importance either, he said. “One critical question is, ‘Would you rehire (or advise to rehire) the individual?’ And follow up by asking, ‘If not, why?’”

So, as a common HR professional, you might think... maybe you could gain some "golden nugget" of information from our "professional organization" which might help you improve your reference checking process. But...NO, what you get is an infomerical for Mr.Lermusi's company. Can we sell out a little more????

And... Mr. Lermusi provides such a big revelation regarding reference checking. We all know that open and honest feedback from a former co-worker / employer is the best possible reference an organization can obtain.

However, what he fails to address or even acknowledge is the difficulty in obtaining that "open and honest feedback." He also doesn't address the legality surrounding the release of employment related information.

Beyond the task of checking references, HR professionals have a role to protect the organization from potential risks included but not limited to employment-related legal liability.

For what it's worth.... Politically Incorrect HR

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Raise Age for Full Social Security Benefits????

The Social Security system is expected to have cash flow problems beginning in 2017, and the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted by 2041 at the current rate.

The American Academy of Acutaries during an August 4th, 2008 meeting with federal lawmakers, proposed three options for increasing the retirement age, as reported by Sara Hansard of Investment News:


  1. "The age at which full benefits could be received would be raised to 67 for all workers born in 1949 or later, which would reduce the expected deficit by 10 percent.

  2. Increase the full-benefits age to 67 and increase it by a month every two years until it hit 70, thus eliminating 35 percent of the expected long-range deficit.

  3. Increase the schedule for full benefits by two months every year until age 70, eliminating half of the long-range deficit, the academy said."

As I see it, why do we need to have this organization of number crunching nerds, tell us that we need to increase the "age of attainment" or "retirement age" seems moronic.

Most of use realize that since the implementation of the Social Security entitlement, life expectancy at age 65 has increased by almost 4.5 years for men and over 5.5 years for women.

I am further interested that the number nerds didn't also propose an increase in the social security wage base from $102,000 (2008) to no upper cap. Think about the potential increase influx of money from those wage earners producing above the $102,000 per year.

It is amazing to me that for the past 30 years this has been an issue of concern (since Gerald Ford was President !!!!) Holy Cow !! This just shows me how freakin' inept our elected officials really are. They have continued to add more and more people to the government teet and have failed to fix the obvious long-term issue with the program.

Honestly, in 2018 or 2019 I believe we will still be struggling with how to pay for Social Security, because no one wants to take accountability for the real issue. There is no doubt in my mind that unless someone is willing to make some tough decisions and piss some people off, this situation will not be corrected.

Think about this, in 1937 the first payroll taxes were collected by the government, the first monthly payment from the "social program" was issued in 1940 and in about 80 years we have depleted the money allegedly set aside for retirement by stealing from it to pay for other governmental pork programs.

For what it's worth.....Politically Incorrect HR


Thursday, July 31, 2008

Lies on Resumes ????

According to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey of more than 3,100 hiring managers and over 8,700 workers nationwide conducted from May 22 to June 13, 2008, nearly half (49 percent) of hiring managers reported they caught a candidate lying on their resume.

The survey identified the most common embellishments on resumes were:

  • Embellished responsibilities (38 percent)
  • Skill set (18 percent)
  • Dates of employment (12 percent)
  • Academic degree (10 percent)
  • Companies worked for (7 percent)
  • Job title (5 percent)

CareerBuilder.com went on and asked hiring managers to share the most memorable or outrageous lies they came across on resumes. Examples include:

1) Claimed to be a member of the Kennedy family

Why in the world would you claim to be a member of that family? Unless, you were trying to get into politics, wanted to die at a young age or were attempting to work in Boston at the Boston Brewing Company for all of the FREE Samuel Adams !


2) Invented a school that did not exist.

Because claiming you went to the community college in town was not prestigious enough.


3) Submitted a resume with someone else's photo inserted into the document.

He/she was really freakin' ugly or fat.


4) Claimed to be a member of Mensa

Didn't feel like they were a big enough of a geek, wanted more pressure.


5) Claimed to have worked for the hiring manager before, but never had.

The old adage, it's not what you know, but who you know.....


6) Claimed to be the CEO of a company when the candidate was an hourly
employee

WTF, this person really thought very highly of themself or they really were the CEO of themself. This is really taking Tom Peters' "Brand You" or "Free Agent" concept to a whole new level.


7) Listed military experience dating back to before he was born

It was really a previous life, he help conquer Rome back in the day


8) Included samples of work, which the interviewer actually did.

Those who can do apparently interview and those who can't steal shamelessly (and get caught)


9) Claimed to be Hispanic when he was 100 percent Caucasian

Why? because of affirmative action quotas


10) Claimed to have been a professional baseball player

Well, who the hell knows about this one. Isn't professional baseball player an oxymoron anyway?


As long as we have resumes and applications, we will have applicants trying to fool the hiring managers because they want jobs. Hiring managers, need to work closely with their HR partners to catch these lies through the interview process and appropriate reference checking.

If the hiring managers don't ask for help, caveat emptor !!!!

For what it's worth..... Politically Incorrect HR

Monday, July 28, 2008

Starbucks Closings..... Huh? What Happened?

The Chicago Tribune reported on July 14th of 2008;

"Starbucks said July 1 it intended to close 600 company-operated stores in the U.S. to help deal with a slowing economy. The stores make up 8 percent of the company's 7,250 it operates. The shutdowns will run through March 2009 and reduce the company's global workforce by as many as 12,000 jobs.

Before listing the stores it plans to close on its Web site, Starbucks is giving its employees a 30-day warning notice. The company wants to relocate some of workers to other stores, if one is nearby. The stores, opened from 2006 through 2008, were located close to other Starbucks outlets. As a group, the sites weren't profitable.

Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz, who returned to the post in January to spearhead a broad turnaround plan, has admitted the coffee-shop chain made "poor real estate decisions." He said closing the 600 stores was the "most angst-ridden decision" Starbucks has made in his 25 years at the company.

The company also was hurt by the subprime-mortgage crisis, especially in California and Florida. The states account for one-third of the company's U.S. retail revenue. The faltering economy has triggered weaker profits and less traffic at its locations.Separately, Starbucks this week is unveiling a new line of protein smoothies and a sweet cold beverage with Italian roots. The drinks will make a debut in some markets as early as next week."

I think we all would call this oversaturation of their markets. Who was asleep at the wheel here, was it the HR professionals? the marketing professionals? the operations folks?

How about the whole crew at Starbucks Central?

Although it is very easy for someone like me (on the outside) to criticize what I see as poor decision-making after-the-fact.

This problem would seem to be basic management theory. So, let's analyze this at a very high level........
  • Coffee is a commodity, easy to obtain and roast.
  • Entry into the coffee-selling market is realtively easy.
  • Product differentiation has continued to decline
  • Starbucks has placed a store on every corner of every major metropolitan city.
For the past five to seven years, we have seen Starbucks grow and their competition grow. In this timeframe McDonald's has entered the "premium" coffee market at lower prices than your basic coffee at Starbucks. Small town coffee shops are roasting their own coffee beans and selling their coffee products at prices equal to or less than that at your local Starbucks. Starbucks own model created cannibilization of their markets where one store might be taking customers and profits from another.

Furthermore, haven't you seen Starbucks coffees at your regional grocer? at your local Wal-Mart? at your Staples or Office Depot??

It would seem to me that Starbucks management began to believe that their products were invinceable. Well, as we all find out sooner or later, no matter who we are, we are not invinceable. The unfortunate part of this whole ordeal, is that employees, as well as customers, are being impacted.

These types of decisions are not easy to come to and I am sure that Mr. Schultz is struggling however, he and the management team at Starbucks central are the same people who made the decisions to add these stores in the first place, have they been impacted financially by this??? have they seen their salaries reduced or lost entirely? I doubt it. They must not have done their homework or looked at the global marketplace before making the decision to add these stores that are now being closed.

If you have read anything in the main stream media about Starbucks, the writers discuss the "Starbucks Experience." If Starbucks wants to continue to grow and enlarge their market share, it is my personal belief they need to focus on that "experience" whatever they believe that it is.

For what it is worth...... Polictially Incorrect HR

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Returning from Vacation

Well, I just returned from vacation with my family. This summer we went to explore the Badlands and the Black Hills of South Dakota. We had an extremely enjoyable time and we also spent some time with friends who have moved around the country but now are residing in Omaha, Nebraska.

I have decided to attempt blogging and sharing my thoughts and comments on any Human Resources related current events, comments and/or questions from the masses.

Until then..... enjoy !