Our Human Resources Blog

  There's no denying that the recession has negatively affected the credit ratings of many individuals and job applicants in the US. As a majority of employers use credit ratings as a tool in their hiring decisions, legislators are now trying to take steps to help the "out of work" constituents in their states.

Currently 16 states, including Maryland, are considering legislation that would ban or limit employers from checking the credit history of job applicants. Lawmakers believe the practice traps people that are in debt- as their past financial problems may prevent them from finding work. 

According to a recent survey by the Society of Human Resource Management, 60% of employers run credit checks on at least a percentage of their job applicants. A typical credit check allows companies to gain access to information about an applicant's debt load, late payments, liens and other financial glitches. (It doesn't show the applicant's overall credit score.) Employers believe the credit history provides valuable information about an applicant's sense of judgment and responsibility.

Of course, not all people with bad credit histories are irresponsible or lack judgment.  Many get into credit problems through little fault of their own. It's important for employers to exercise judgment and to take into consideration every aspect of an applicant's skill, education and character when making hiring decisions.

Credit reports should be viewed as only a small part of the screening process. They should be used in conjunction with other pre-employment background checks such as criminal records, education verification and reference checks. Focusing only on one aspect of an applicant's background can cause companies to miss out on good employees.

So- while banning credit checks may be a popular idea- I'm not sure it would have much impact on lowering the unemployment rate and it definitely would take away a valuable tool for employers.

                      This past week the Senate passed a bill offering tax breaks to companies that hire unemployed workers. The bill is aimed at providing private businesses with an incentive to hire some of the millions of Americans who have lost jobs during the recession. It's unclear, though, how small firms will benefit from this bill?

The bill contains two items of interest to small businesses. The first is a hiring tax credit that would waive the employer's share of Social Security payroll taxes (6.2%), for the remainder of this year, when they hire a worker who has been out of a job for at least 60 days. The tax exemption would be prorated for the year, depending on when the person was hired. The sooner someone is hired, the more the employer would save in taxes.  There is no cap on the plan, so theoretically a company could hire multiple workers and get the tax break for each of them.  In addition, the bill would provide a $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee retained for at least 52 weeks. Secondly, the bill would allow businesses to write off up to $250,000 in capital investments in 2010, rather than depreciating the costs over time.

While I'm sure most can appreciate the fact that this is a well intentioned proposal aimed at getting people back to work, I am left wondering if the Senators included any small business owners in their discussions?  I have a feeling they didn't, as I don't know any business that would hire an employee solely for the tax break. Most companies hire employees because they have work to do.  I may be missing something, but who would want to hire a $25,000 employee to get a $1,550 reduction in FICA or a $1,000 tax credit?

While I agree that if a company is already considering hiring someone and are sitting on the fence, the tax break may help in their decision.  In reality though, it seems to me that the result of this bill will be to give away federal tax money to companies that were already going to hire people in the first place?   Surely there has to be a better way to promote job growth?

Going for the gold is what Lindsey Vonn was doing in the downhill Alpine skiing event at this year's Winter Olympics in Vancouver. She achieved her goal and had this to say about it. "This is everything I wanted and hoped for. I gave up everything for this."

When you find your passion, it's not work, it's pure love. Unfortunately winning in business and in life isn't only about having passion, it usually involves a good deal of sacrifice.

About 30 years ago I saw an interview with a Texas billionaire. He was asked by a CBS reporter, what advice he would give to the graduating college seniors that year.

He didn't blink, he didn't bat an eye, and he didn't hesitate a nanosecond to respond.

He said, "You have to do three things. Determine what you want. Determine what you're willing to sacrifice to get it. Then just do it."

Most people have the capacity to dream big, but they lack the will to sacrifice anything to get what they want.

That's just too bad and so sad!

Back to Lindsey for a second. She skied showing no signs of any discomfort even though she skied with a bruised shin.

Think about these questions as you watch the Winter Olympics.

How successful do you really want to become?

What sacrifices are you ready to make today?

On a daily basis, are you doing what it takes to do what it takes to achieve your ultimate success - regardless what it might be?

Do you have to be twice as good as your best competitor? I don't think so.

Here's the proof.

In the women's downhill event these were the times:

Gold: 1:44.19

Silver: 1:44.75

Bronze: 1:45.65

In the business world, to win you need an edge, advantage, leg up, nose out, slip by, squeeze by - and all by the narrowest of margins.

While the margin of difference between gold and silver is slim at best, the difference in effort is probably humongous.

You have one life to live, and it's not a dress rehearsal is it?

Why not go for it.

Go for the GOLD!

 It's no secret that a growing number of employers are searching Facebook and other social media sites for information on potential hires during background checks. The availability of searchable data such as past employment, affiliations, schools, hobbies and pictures makes these sites extremely popular when investigating job candidates.

Recent studies have revealed that 1 in 5 employers have been influenced in their hiring decisions when searching social media sites.  That's a big number. While it's true that these sites can help employers gain additional information on applicants, employers should be aware of the potential minefield when using this information in hiring decisions.

Employers should keep in mind that a majority of these sites are vehicles for casually interacting with others in an informal, personal setting.  When companies use these profiles to find professional information on a potential hire, the data they find may be at a minimum--misleading.

Not only can the information be misleading, it may also be inaccurate or false. Contrary to popular belief, just because it's posted online- doesn't mean its true!  Few networking sites require verification of any kind or prevent users in making up a profile in someone else's name. Consequently, what you see is not always what you get. In addition, many people use the anonymity of the internet to be portrayed as they want to be seen, not necessarily as who they really are.

While there are no laws officially prohibiting employers from searching Facebook and other sites, legal experts warn that companies should be aware of the potential for discrimination or invasion of privacy claims.

So -while it might be tempting to use these sites, given all the potential pitfalls, it might make more sense to use "old fashioned" reliable systems and processes to perform these checks. Background checks that ensure employers are complying with federal and state laws and provide more reliable, accurate information.

As kids, most of us couldn't wait for a snow day. NO school, sleeping in late, sledding and hot chocolate! As working adults, "snow days" take on a new meaning-- juggling schedules, shoveling sidewalks and driving to work in sometimes dangerous road conditions.

As employers, dealing with the winter months can be even more complicated. Many employers struggle with closing and delay decisions due to inclement weather and the impact it will have on their customers and employees.

As the threat of major snow storms loom over the country, it's a good time for companies to review their policies on inclement weather to make sure a solid and up-to-date plan is in place. There are no laws that govern what businesses should or must do during bad weather. It's simply a matter of policy for each business to decide for itself - keeping in mind both employee safety and financial productivity.

Like all HR policies good communications and planning are key to ensuring operations run as smoothly as possible. As businesses review or implement an inclement weather policy, there are certain questions they may want to address.

Closing Decisions- What circumstances will dictate when your office will close?

Communications- How will employees receive notification that your office is closed or has a delayed opening?

Wages & Salaries- If the business remains open and employees are unable to report to work, will they be paid for this time?  What if the business makes the decision to close, will employees still be paid?

Special Considerations- Will telecommuting or bringing children to work, if schools are closed, be an option for employees?

Every company is different and developing an inclement weather policy that is safe and cost effective requires many variables be taken into consideration. Whatever policy you ultimately decide to implement-- communicating this information to employees so they know what to expect is essential in avoiding difficulties down the road.

 Most people know that texting while driving is dangerous and creates unsafe and potentially fatal scenarios on the roadways. Unfortunately, many continue to do it anyway.

According to studies done by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds, out of every 6 seconds, while texting. Traveling at a speed of 55 mph this is the equivalent of driving the length of a football field, including the end zones, without looking at the road. The results?  Drivers using cell phones are more than 20 times more likely to get into an accident and cause 28% of all crashes. (1.6 million a year)

Nearly 6000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver and more than 500,000 people we're injured. Two high profile accidents in 2009 include a California commuter train engineer who missed a stop signal while texting, 25 people were killed and a trolley operator in Boston who caused a collision while texting, injuring 62 people. 

In response to the recent data and accidents, legislators and business leaders have been busy evaluating the need for policies and legislation on "distracted" driving. On the legislative side 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed laws banning texting while driving. In addition, the President signed an Executive Order directing federal employees not to engage in text messaging while driving government owned vehicles or equipment.

The latest ban came from the Federal Transportation Department, this past Tuesday, when they announced that effective immediately drivers of trucks and buses are prohibited from texting while operating commercial vehicles. Violators will be subject to civil or criminal penalties of up to $2,750. 

Distracted driving in the workplace is a much bigger problem than with just truck and bus drivers and employers are beginning to examine their in-house policies. In any business where employees travel as part of their daily routine, inattentive driving can be a problem. These positions include account representatives, territory managers and administrative assistants- who run business errands.

So, what should employers be doing to protect their employee's safety and their company against liability?  There are certain steps that businesses should consider:

Review Policies- Determine appropriate level of risk and tolerance.

Implement a Policy- Spell it out in a written statement in your Employee Handbook.

Train & Educate Employees- Provide specific instructions and include training that covers state and local laws.

Enforce the Policy- Spell out disciplinary measures and make sure employees understand the consequences of violating the policy.   

By implementing and enforcing a zero tolerance policy -  you can feel positive in the fact that you will be helping to protect the well being of your employees, your customers, your communities and your business!

  Recently a dishwasher for a restaurant in Buffalo, NY open fired on his co-workers. The victims were a father and son. The father was the general manager of the restaurant. He was wounded. His son was killed.  In July of 2009, a mechanic for Penske Truck Rental in Atlanta was terminated from his job. He returned to his former place of employment last month and shot 5 people. Three of them were killed, 2 others remain in critical condition.

Workplace violence is a disturbing trend that appears to be on the rise. Many believe these horrific acts of violence can be blamed on the current economic environment? The downturn in the economy has caused many to lose their jobs, their homes and their savings.   Employees fortunate enough to survive layoffs have been faced with challenges related to reduced budgets and staff reductions. For some, these challenging economic times are enough to push them over the edge. Whatever the reasons - workplace violence is a growing concern for employers and employees a like.

Workplace violence takes many shapes and can vary in type from threats, intimidation & harassment to violence, physical assault and homicide.  Homicide, of course, is the most extreme form of violence and the most publicized.  No matter what the type of threat, it can happen in any organization and shouldn't be ignored.

So what should organizations be doing to address and promote workplace safety?  In many cases, investigators have reported that there were clear warning signs prior to workplace problems and violence that should have been noticed. Warning signs are important for employers to recognize, as they may signal that an employee is about to "lose it". Employees need a road map to identify the warning signs of a potential problem and techniques to diffuse them before they escalate. In addition to identifying potential problems, it's also critical to communicate to employees the importance of sharing any incidents or threats.  A "go to" person in the organization should be identified to communicate any problems.

Workplace violence is a very serious problem that employers need to identify, access, control and prevent. Organizations with both strong internal communications and supervisors who are trained to respond to inappropriate behavior are less likely to experience problems and will hopefully have healthier, safer workplaces.

 An apparel company in Vermont has an office staff of 33 employees-- 18 of them are currently pregnant.  A Baltimore, Maryland company had 10 babies born to women employees in the past 2 years. (Out of 93 total employees) Many would say that we are in the middle of an "office" baby boom!

The proportion of pregnant women in the labor force is on an upward trend. Currently 61% of new mothers are in the workforce. With this boom- comes a whole new set of challenges for employers. For companies that address these challenges in advance, though, there may also be rewards. Companies that deliberately try to retain their "new mom" employees with flexible polices are able to lure women back with minimal maternity leave time, foster company loyalty and heighten their ability to attract skilled recruits.

One of the challenges that businesses may want to address in advance, is to provide these "nursing moms" with a reasonable amount of break time for nursing or expressing breast milk. Recently there was much chatter in the news about the lawsuit against Isotoner for firing one of their employees for taking unauthorized breaks to pump breast milk. According to the lawsuit, the employee was fired for "failure to follow directions".  Four hours into her shifts, this nursing mom was taking much needed breaks to express breast milk. (Most moms need 15-20 minutes every 2 to 3 hours.) She sued for discrimination based on pregnancy or a related condition. She did not win her case. The courts ruled in favor of Isotoner.

Most would agree that the firing of this Isotoner employee was unjust, unreasonable and uncaring! (And a bad public relations move.) Unfortunately, it was not illegal. Although there are a few states that have adopted policies to accommodate breastfeeding women, there are currently no federal laws offering protection.  Breastfeeding moms often face difficult choices if unable to express milk at work. Some may have to choose to stop breastfeeding, some may have to take longer maternity leave and others may quit their job all together.

The good news is there is now proposed federal legislation on the books. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act (BPA) would guarantee working mothers the right to breast feed (or express breast milk) at their workplaces. The act would require employers (for up to one year) to provide reasonable breaks to lactating employees, as well a put forth reasonable effort to supply a private place to pump.

Lets' keep our fingers crossed that this legislation is passed so that new moms can get the support needed to more easily transition back to the workplace and employers can be rewarded with improved retention rates! 

Earlier this decade, there was great concern that the baby boomer's mass exodus to retirement would create a severe national labor shortage.  The latest statistics from the US Bureau of Labor show that this is no longer of immediate concern.  Those born between 1946 & 1964 are expected to remain in the labor force much longer than previous generations.

Previous generation's retirements were much more predictable and some would say - stable. The average worker was employed by 1-2 company's their entire career and lived in 1-2 houses their entire life. By age 55-64 they had paid off their mortgage, retired and began collecting their pension.  Times have certainly changed!

Statistics show that the number of people aged 55 to 64 is expected to grow by 33 % in the next 10 years and the number of people aged 65 and older by 78%. Shrinking retirement savings, financial needs and longer life spans are all explanations of why the baby boom generation will remain in the workforce longer and the definition of retirement will never be the same.

Projections are that the future workforce of people aged 65 & older is expected to grow 10 times faster than the total labor force- significantly changing the demographics. How employers prepare for and respond to this change may have a lot to do with their future success. Organizations must be willing to make investments in training and other benefit options.

A workforce composed of older workers will have much different benefit needs. Long term care insurance and adequate health care  coverage- that includes vision, hearing loss and arthritis are just a few examples of possible future needs. Legislatively, changes must be made to allow older workers to continue to or return to work without penalties (IRS).

Eventually though, the abundance of older worker talent and experience is going to dry up and businesses will need to fill hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. Hopefully businesses will be proactive and smart enough to think about the future and how best to pass this knowledge and information on to prepare Generation's X & Y & Z(?) to take over and perform these tasks!

                              As the economy starts to show signs of improvement and the recession gives way to recovery, more employers are planning to grant pay increases in 2010. According to a recent survey on pay trends, the number of organizations planning on freezing salaries has declined in comparison to last year. While many employers have been struggling for the past 18 months to cut costs and trim staffs- they are more optimistic about the economy in the coming year and plan to reward employees with raises.

According to the survey, that included responses from 350 employers across the US, company wide salary freezes planned for 2010 has fallen to 14%, compared to an estimated 30% of companies that had freezes this year. (An improvement of 16%) Of those employers planning on granting pay increases the average increase is expected to be 2.7% in 2010- down from an actual 3.2% in 2009.

Even with a smaller increase expected, overall it is still positive news for employees and definitely a much better outlook than this time last year. Increases of any amount are encouraging, especially after employees have suffered through not only salary freezes- but furloughs, pay cuts and layoffs.

As the economy gets stronger, many companies are once again focusing their attention on attracting and retaining employees and engaging top talent. Given the times though, it might be wise to be cautious with salary increases going forward. Workforce needs should be carefully evaluated as businesses continue to juggle selective hiring with selective cuts in staff.  In addition to incentive pay strategies- recognition programs, career development and training opportunities are all tactics that can help companies stay competitive as business begins to improve.