According to a "Headlines" post in Scientific American Mind (November-December, 2009), there is further prove concerning our inability to truly multi-task. The latest MRI-based research pinpoints that the roadblock is the prefrontal cortex which can simply handle only one task at a time. While we're able to speed up how fast we can switch from one task to another (with training and practice), it appears the goal is simply to become very quick at "switch-tasking."
For more observations and insights into the thinking skills related to logical thinking, problem-solving, brain research, and "unanticipated consequences," check out www.theucfile.blogspot.com
Monday, November 02, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
HR: Home Depot Fires Employee for "Under God" Pin
According to a Fox News report (10/26/09), Home Depot in Florida terminated an employee for wearing an American Flag pin that said "one nation under God, indivisible." The 20 year old employee had worn the pin for 19 months since he started working at the Home Depot.
According to a Home Depot spokesperson, "The company's dress code policy states that we do not allow non-company buttons, regardless of their message or content."
Comment: Way too many directions to go with this... The company's policy -- not its rules? Unenforced for 19 months? Religious accomodation?
Then again, it started my thinking: should we be looking for Home Depot to ban cash? We certainly can't continue to allow all that money with "In God We Trust" on it to be used in the store!
According to a Home Depot spokesperson, "The company's dress code policy states that we do not allow non-company buttons, regardless of their message or content."
Comment: Way too many directions to go with this... The company's policy -- not its rules? Unenforced for 19 months? Religious accomodation?
Then again, it started my thinking: should we be looking for Home Depot to ban cash? We certainly can't continue to allow all that money with "In God We Trust" on it to be used in the store!
HR: Hotel Owner Demands Name Changes
According to a Yahoo News report (10/26/09). a hotel owner in Taos, NM demanded that his Hispanic employees 1) not speak Spanish in front of him and 2) that the Anglicize their names. The result was an uproar from most employees and a number of community organizations. The owner justified his actions by stating among other things it was based on customer preferences and that he wanted to make it easier for guests and potential guests to understand his employees on phone calls, etc. Several employees were terminated because they were "hostile and insubordinate." The owner with a long standing track record of taking unsuccessful hotel properties and turning them around has taken a strong stand like this in several other situations.
According to local authorities, he's done nothing illegal -- but the uproar has created picketing across the street from the hotel and continued dissatisfaction among employees.
According to local authorities, he's done nothing illegal -- but the uproar has created picketing across the street from the hotel and continued dissatisfaction among employees.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
HR: Intexticated?
The term "intexticated" apparently landed in the language in mid 2007, but it has now, according to a Workforce Online posting (October, 2009), made into the list of issues for Human Resource professionals. As a major student of communcations in the workplace, I am always watching -- closely -- the technologies and trends in communications. The safety issues of texting while driving (with my own three children in mind) has always concerned -- as have the stories of the tragic accidents that have occurred recently because a driver has been texting.
According to a variety of workplace experts, this issue is quickly being elevated to a new level of importance, with all the accompanying safety, legal, policy, and training issues.
Comment: Too often, certainly from a communications viewpoint, we adopt the newest technology as the "best" and it can easily become the dominant method of communications. There have been articles recently that proclaimed that "e-mail is dead." These communications issues have always been very important to me professionally.
This latest issue, "intextication?" has another possible implication -- it's being viewed -- perhaps correctly -- as an addiction. Are we going to see, at some point in the future, "intextication" being treated through Employee Assistance Programs -- is it going to be addressed by ADA? I'll repeat my favorite arguments: correct policy, training for managers and employees, clear expectations!!
According to a variety of workplace experts, this issue is quickly being elevated to a new level of importance, with all the accompanying safety, legal, policy, and training issues.
Comment: Too often, certainly from a communications viewpoint, we adopt the newest technology as the "best" and it can easily become the dominant method of communications. There have been articles recently that proclaimed that "e-mail is dead." These communications issues have always been very important to me professionally.
This latest issue, "intextication?" has another possible implication -- it's being viewed -- perhaps correctly -- as an addiction. Are we going to see, at some point in the future, "intextication" being treated through Employee Assistance Programs -- is it going to be addressed by ADA? I'll repeat my favorite arguments: correct policy, training for managers and employees, clear expectations!!
HR: Debate on New Discrimination Law
A debate over the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is heating up as Congress continues its hearings over the potential legislation. The proposed legislation would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The focus of the debate appears to be on whether the measure would generate a rash of lawsuits and create confusion and undue hardships for employers.
Opponents of the legislation say the bill is a "radical departure" from U.S. Civil Rights laws because it would create a legally "protected class" based on perceptions and subjective criteria. Critics argue it would create an explosion in litigation and inconsistent judicial decisions. On the other hand, several have argued that the perception is not new with many cases involving religious discrimination involving a company's "perception" of some one's religious beliefs.
There are two other complications in the proposed legislation. The current bill contains a provision that prohibits plaintiffs from filling "disparate impact" claims, only allowing for disparate treatment. In addition there is and exemption for religious organizations. It is apparently unclear whether this exemption would be consistent with current legislation under Title VII.
Comment: One of the bills supporters argues that we "need this legislation because individuals are being denied employment or are being fired for completely non-work related issues." This is absolutely true -- but the question is whether or not legislation will resolve the problem. There are proven methodologies in the Human Resource Profession for effective hiring based on performance issues alone -- there are proven methodologies for ensuring managers treat employees in a non-discriminatory culture. The legislation is likely to become law -- similar laws already exist in 21 states -- so for consistency alone.... But the legislation is just another example of putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. I will always argue for the implementation of practices that prevent the issues from occurring in the first place. Optimistic -- with an attitude.
The focus of the debate appears to be on whether the measure would generate a rash of lawsuits and create confusion and undue hardships for employers.
Opponents of the legislation say the bill is a "radical departure" from U.S. Civil Rights laws because it would create a legally "protected class" based on perceptions and subjective criteria. Critics argue it would create an explosion in litigation and inconsistent judicial decisions. On the other hand, several have argued that the perception is not new with many cases involving religious discrimination involving a company's "perception" of some one's religious beliefs.
There are two other complications in the proposed legislation. The current bill contains a provision that prohibits plaintiffs from filling "disparate impact" claims, only allowing for disparate treatment. In addition there is and exemption for religious organizations. It is apparently unclear whether this exemption would be consistent with current legislation under Title VII.
Comment: One of the bills supporters argues that we "need this legislation because individuals are being denied employment or are being fired for completely non-work related issues." This is absolutely true -- but the question is whether or not legislation will resolve the problem. There are proven methodologies in the Human Resource Profession for effective hiring based on performance issues alone -- there are proven methodologies for ensuring managers treat employees in a non-discriminatory culture. The legislation is likely to become law -- similar laws already exist in 21 states -- so for consistency alone.... But the legislation is just another example of putting the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. I will always argue for the implementation of practices that prevent the issues from occurring in the first place. Optimistic -- with an attitude.
Friday, October 23, 2009
HR: Laws > Court Cases > Laws = ???
In the ongoing challenge of HR professionals dealing with increased legislation and changing demands, it just keeps getting even more challenging.
There are two acts currently before the Senate that would overturn Supreme Court decisions, one from 2001, another from 2009. The Senate Judiciary Committee stated that the hearings related to these bills would be discussing "how the decisions of the Supreme Court affect Americans in their everyday life."
The first case involves the mandatory use of "arbitration" as part of employment contracts to resolve disputes. The Supreme Court decisions supported the employer's position that arbitration can cover resolution of employment discrimination cases. The second case ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not specifically provide that an employee may prove discrimination by showing simply that age was a motivating factor. The ruling acknowledged that other factors may be more relevant.
Comment: The "plethora" of regulations, legislation, and court precedents are now being further challenged -- and confused -- by legislative efforts to overturn court decisions. Without taking a specific position on either of these cases, my argument is that the overall lack of clarify and consistency in the original pieces of legislation, the lack of coordinated oversight, leads to continued levels of confusion and escalating challenges for HR Professionals.
There are two acts currently before the Senate that would overturn Supreme Court decisions, one from 2001, another from 2009. The Senate Judiciary Committee stated that the hearings related to these bills would be discussing "how the decisions of the Supreme Court affect Americans in their everyday life."
The first case involves the mandatory use of "arbitration" as part of employment contracts to resolve disputes. The Supreme Court decisions supported the employer's position that arbitration can cover resolution of employment discrimination cases. The second case ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not specifically provide that an employee may prove discrimination by showing simply that age was a motivating factor. The ruling acknowledged that other factors may be more relevant.
Comment: The "plethora" of regulations, legislation, and court precedents are now being further challenged -- and confused -- by legislative efforts to overturn court decisions. Without taking a specific position on either of these cases, my argument is that the overall lack of clarify and consistency in the original pieces of legislation, the lack of coordinated oversight, leads to continued levels of confusion and escalating challenges for HR Professionals.
HR: Benefit Communications - Again
According to an Employee Benefit News posting ( 10/19/09). communication about benefits again makes the biggest difference in successful implementation and utilization of benefits. According to a MetLife survey, only one in three employees "felt they have the information they need about their coverage to help them select a plan that is best for them."
According to the study, "this suggests that employers are not providing employees with the full range of communications."
Comment: This is so repetitive of other posts, other stories. One of HR's primary responsibility is communications. I would state that all HR professionals should become involved in extensive training on many, many aspects of effective communications. It's a weakness that is not being met at the level required by the profession.
According to the study, "this suggests that employers are not providing employees with the full range of communications."
Comment: This is so repetitive of other posts, other stories. One of HR's primary responsibility is communications. I would state that all HR professionals should become involved in extensive training on many, many aspects of effective communications. It's a weakness that is not being met at the level required by the profession.
HR: Recruiter Use of Background Checks
According to a Workforce Online post (10/20/09), the increasingly common practice of routinely running background, credit, and criminal checks of candidates is coming under fire, including new legislation. HireRight's 2009 survey of practices reveals that 93% of companies reported that they run criminal background checks -- up from 85% in 2008.
The problem is that this is frequently leading to decisions based on information that has nothing to do with the job -- and to discrimination. One recent case had an African-American refused employment because of a felony admission while a Caucasion candidate with the same admission was hired a year earlier. The EEOC in November of 2008 heard expert testimony that the results of screening practices are not good predictors of employee behavior or performance.
Comment: Human Resource professionals too often seize perceived "legal" arguments, the latest fad or the latest technology -- particularly when it's inexpensive and fast. The problem is that it clearly violates the professional view of good HR practices. The goal is hiring the best person -- the person who can do the job. When are we going to learn?
The problem is that this is frequently leading to decisions based on information that has nothing to do with the job -- and to discrimination. One recent case had an African-American refused employment because of a felony admission while a Caucasion candidate with the same admission was hired a year earlier. The EEOC in November of 2008 heard expert testimony that the results of screening practices are not good predictors of employee behavior or performance.
Comment: Human Resource professionals too often seize perceived "legal" arguments, the latest fad or the latest technology -- particularly when it's inexpensive and fast. The problem is that it clearly violates the professional view of good HR practices. The goal is hiring the best person -- the person who can do the job. When are we going to learn?
HR: Health Benefits - Cuts and Communication
According to a Employee Benefit News post (10/22/09), a recent U.S. District Court decision supported a company's decision to reduce and restructure the health benefits of retirees. The key in the judge's decision was that the company's plan documents made it clear that the benefits could be "amended, modified or terminated."
Comment: Equally in good times and bad, communications is critical. It's becoming clearer and clearer the one of the most important responsibilities of Human Resource professionals is complete and clear communication on all issues.
Comment: Equally in good times and bad, communications is critical. It's becoming clearer and clearer the one of the most important responsibilities of Human Resource professionals is complete and clear communication on all issues.
Monday, October 05, 2009
HR: Retaliation Lawsuits
According to an article in the WSJ (10/05/09), the EEOC is reporting that retaliation lawsuits have become the biggest and fastest growing area of their caseload. Reasons appear to be multiple, including the economy but also because of a Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that broadened the definition of retaliation.
Given the number of organizations forced to cut back staff, sometimes dramatically in today's economy, this trend is not surprising. Unfortunately it also raises the challenge (again) for human resource managers to address issues -- and comply with the potential of greater legal challenges.
Given the number of organizations forced to cut back staff, sometimes dramatically in today's economy, this trend is not surprising. Unfortunately it also raises the challenge (again) for human resource managers to address issues -- and comply with the potential of greater legal challenges.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
HR: Employee Theft
According to an article posted on Talent Management (September, 2009), there has been a "stark rise in the number of employees who steal or lead confidential company information and trade secrets for personal gain." The major reasons for this increase are stated as economic hardship and an unforgiving job market.
Motivations seem to be many, including people starting their own businesses and wanting to use the information, simple revenge from a feeling that the employer had 'screwed them," or the strange belief that providing information to a potential employer would enhance their job opportunities.
The article provides quick insights into the very logical strategies to prevent these occurrences: clearly addressing the employer-employee relationship via contracts, a secure physical environment, and managing secure electronic access to information.
Comment: Certainly this is not surprising, but the thought that someone thinks this would give them a head up on getting a new job. Wow!!!
Motivations seem to be many, including people starting their own businesses and wanting to use the information, simple revenge from a feeling that the employer had 'screwed them," or the strange belief that providing information to a potential employer would enhance their job opportunities.
The article provides quick insights into the very logical strategies to prevent these occurrences: clearly addressing the employer-employee relationship via contracts, a secure physical environment, and managing secure electronic access to information.
Comment: Certainly this is not surprising, but the thought that someone thinks this would give them a head up on getting a new job. Wow!!!
HR: Mayor and HR Manager -- Sexual Harassment
According to a variety of sources, the most comprehensive being the Sheboygan, WI press, www.sheboyganpress.com, the city's Mayor, in addition to be embroiled in a controversy over a YouTube video, has been accused of sexually harassing, then terminating, the city's Director of Human Resources.
In another case of 21st century information, the complete detail of the accusations are available in the letter from the victim/accuser's attorney to the City Attorney. The letter very specifically details what would clearly be a significant pattern of harassment. The HR Director has filed a complaint stating a willingness to "discuss an amicable resolution," if not a discrimination charge, under the Civil Rights Acts of both 1964 and 1866 (Yes, 1866).
Comment: Because of the information about this case, I suggest examining it in detail. There are some interesting details about the behavior of the city's Mayor -- and how the HR Director responded. I suspect this will be a much discussed case for some time.
In another case of 21st century information, the complete detail of the accusations are available in the letter from the victim/accuser's attorney to the City Attorney. The letter very specifically details what would clearly be a significant pattern of harassment. The HR Director has filed a complaint stating a willingness to "discuss an amicable resolution," if not a discrimination charge, under the Civil Rights Acts of both 1964 and 1866 (Yes, 1866).
Comment: Because of the information about this case, I suggest examining it in detail. There are some interesting details about the behavior of the city's Mayor -- and how the HR Director responded. I suspect this will be a much discussed case for some time.
Friday, September 25, 2009
HR: "Twitter" Recruiting Update
Interestingly, just a day after the Best Buy "Twitter" requirement story, Workforce (9/24/09) posted a story putting a "discriminatory" warning very clearly in front on the "Twitter" and "LinkenIn" recruiting strategies. The article cautions that employers who "rely heavily or even exclusively on Twitter or LinkedIn to fill open positions...may skew applicant pools and trigger discrimination lawsuits."
According to data from Quantcast, only 5 percent of LinkedIn users are black and only 2 percent are Hispanic.
The article also raises issues related to recordkeeping -- citing potential difficulties in compliance with OFCCP requirements.
Comment: For reasons that can be both easy and difficult (yes, there's a paradox here) to understand, we quickly leap to the latest technology for communication. This is often good to some extent -- bad from others. Here again, we have a situation where specifically HR has leaped to use technologies like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. But the much bigger, and much more important question, is to we understand the "unanticipated consequences" of the actions.
Note: It is important to note why I used the term "unanticipated consequences" instead of the much more popular but very inaccurate term "unintended consequences." Check out www.exploringthefuture.com for a detailed exploration of this issue.
According to data from Quantcast, only 5 percent of LinkedIn users are black and only 2 percent are Hispanic.
The article also raises issues related to recordkeeping -- citing potential difficulties in compliance with OFCCP requirements.
Comment: For reasons that can be both easy and difficult (yes, there's a paradox here) to understand, we quickly leap to the latest technology for communication. This is often good to some extent -- bad from others. Here again, we have a situation where specifically HR has leaped to use technologies like Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. But the much bigger, and much more important question, is to we understand the "unanticipated consequences" of the actions.
Note: It is important to note why I used the term "unanticipated consequences" instead of the much more popular but very inaccurate term "unintended consequences." Check out www.exploringthefuture.com for a detailed exploration of this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
