Many years ago, payday in the Army required me to stand in line, salute the paymaster and have my pay counted out in front of me. In an HR program on compensation a few years, I created and suggested that once a year, this practice should be implemented in organizations, paying out "gross pay" than taking deductions and adding organization contributions -- simply to make employees aware of their real compensation, etc.
The WSJ (7/25-26/09) had a story about the Detroit School system which was tragic in many ways, but had an interesting note related to paydays.
In attempting to get control over "out-of-control" costs and spending, the Detroit school system required employees to pick up their June paychecks in person. 257 paychecks for suspected "ghost" employees went unclaimed.
Comments: The story speaks for itself!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Monday, July 06, 2009
HR: WARN Act Complications
According to the WSJ (6/6/2009), organizations are facing new complications with the economy, layoffs, and the WARN Act. The article provides an interesting perspective on the issues -- and some very relevant information to the understanding of the act. The number of WARN act related cases have "tripled" according to attorneys. But it gets much more complicated. Organizations are stating the complications of today's economy are making it more difficult to "comply" with the WARN Act -- and in some cases counter to good business decisions.
Interestingly the WARN Act does provide several key exceptions which apply. One of them is that a company that is "faltering" does not have to provide notice if it believes the warning will hurt its efforts to raise new capital. Certainly applies in many cases today. There are also exceptions for "natural disasters" and for changes in business circumstances that weren't "reasonably foreseeable." We could have an interesting debate about that last part -- but it certainly applies to some things today.
Interestingly the WARN Act does provide several key exceptions which apply. One of them is that a company that is "faltering" does not have to provide notice if it believes the warning will hurt its efforts to raise new capital. Certainly applies in many cases today. There are also exceptions for "natural disasters" and for changes in business circumstances that weren't "reasonably foreseeable." We could have an interesting debate about that last part -- but it certainly applies to some things today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
