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