The corporate mobility industry has for a long time done some things that many people consider strange at best. Back in 2005, Daniel Bloom and Associates, Inc, wrote and published the history of the relocation industry from 1955 to 2004 under the title "Just Get Me There: a Journey through Corporate Relocation." It explains some of the reasoning on why the relocation industry acts as it does.
The book is now available through Google Books.
Hirecentrix (http://www.hirecentrix.com) posted a notice today regarding a decision by a federal judge regarding candidate lists
Last week, a United States District Judge in New York approved the report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge holding that a headhunter’s contact lists were not protectable trade secrets because the information therein was readily ascertainable on social networking sites. Sasqua Group, Inc. et al. v. Lori Courtney et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93442 (Aug. 2, 2010) (report and recommendation).
If the recommendation is followed in other Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) cases, businesses may have to rethink the ways in which they protect their contact lists. The case also highlights the value of utilizing employment agreements containing non-competition or non-solicitation covenants.
Sasqua Group, an executive search firm for the financial services industry, sued its recently departed employee and her new firm claiming that use of Sasqua’s contacts lists constituted misappropriation of trade secrets. The contact lists identified decision-makers at financial services firms and traders who might be looking to change firms. Sasqua relied on cases from the 1980s and 1990s affording protection to seemingly comparable lists.
Defendants argued that because the information was known outside of the plaintiff’s business and was readily ascertainable from public sources, it did not constitute a trade secret. During the evidentiary hearing, Defendants walked the Magistrate Judge through how the data could be tracked down in only a few minutes on the internet. Having obtained the names of potential customers (financial institutions) by Google searches, Defendants would use LinkedIn and other social networking sites such as Bloomberg and Facebook.
The Magistrate Judge agreed with the Defendants, acknowledging in a detailed analysis that the world has significantly changed:
The Nation's Report Card results have been released and it tells us that our students are not making the grade in Science and Math. The Pacific Rim countries are graduating students fluent in English and with better scores then we are.
Every time I turn around someone is saying how we are the source of innovation in the world and that might have been the case in the past. But to be able to be innovative in what we do, our citizenry must be able to think through problems. They must be able to think through the ramifications of their decisions. They must be able to dissect a problem to identify the root causes behind why it is a problem.
Instead we are turning out students who do not have the elementary skills to critically think through possible solution scenarios. We are turning out students who get into the workplace and can't function because they do not understand what the problem is in the first place.
I periodically offer my time as a substitute teacher in the middle and high schools and have seen first hand students are given an assignment as simple as finding locations on a map, tell me that it is either too hard or they do not know how to do the assignment. What we are confronted with is an educational system which teaches to the test not teaching to develop critical analytical processes. I used to teach full time as a middle school science teacher and part of my lessons plans involved lengthy lab assignments to get my students to think through the results they were gaining. We don't do that today we no longer challenge the students to think through scenarios.
So what does this mean to our human capital utilization. We have employees who flounder in our organizations, not because they are bad employees. The flounder because they do not know the right track to be taking. They flounder because as discussed in the book "The M-Factor" by Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman, they have not had the same training we did when we were in school. For example, the book discusses an employee who was not able to complete a project because the manager's notes were in handwriting and she could not read cursive handwriting.
Innovation and collaboration are critical for us to regain our place in the world marketplace. We can not do that if we do not provide coming generations with the required skills to achieve that goal. We need to forget teaching to the test. We need to challenge our students to become viable parts of the global workplace. We need to provide them with the necessary skills to critical look at the problems in the workplace and seek new and innovative ways to solve those problems. We need to prepare our next generation to be able to compete with the Pacific Rim countries on an even keel. We are not doing that now.
The result are organizations that are forced to expend valuable resources to train the new employees when they join an organization, to gain the ability to exercise the skills the organization requires but were not given to them in their educational environment. We need to work as a team on both side sof the equation to solve this critical dilemma.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
| INEO RELOCATION TECHNOLOGIES MERGES WITH RELOCATION TAXES, LLC.
Merger positions Ineo Relocation Technologies and Relocation Taxes for strategic growth of its domestic, international and government business. |
| Centennial, CO (PR WEB) January 25, 2011 - - Ineo Relocation Technologies, the leading provider of enterprise level relocation software and expense management services, announced today the merger with Relocation Taxes, LLC the leading provider of federal and multi-state personal income tax preparation, gross-up audits/tax reconciliations and related relocation tax and consulting services for individuals, corporations and third party providers.
This merger will reunite industry innovators Robert F. Sherrill, founder of RMS and co-founder of Ineo, with David S. Oltman, co-founder of The Hessel Group and Relocation Taxes, LLC. Together they possess over 50 years of industry experience and were each instrumental in the origination of technology for the relocation gross-up and home sale accounting process, with hands on experience dating back to the early 1980's.
"This strategic merger is one that will enhance our private and public sector business as well as broaden our global operations. We will continue to offer our clients an ever expanding platform of additional professional resources each vital for compliant navigation in today's complex realm of relocation", said Robert F. Sherrill, Chairman and Ineo Relocation Technologies Co-Founder.
"This merger allows us to bring together two of the most experienced providers in the relocation services industry," said Jason Arnold, Ineo Relocation Technologies President and COO. "The assembly of such well known and experienced management talent continues to demonstrate our commitment to bring the best and brightest in the industry within The Ineo Family, offering our clients the most extensive array of innovative technology and tax services". |
| "Culturally this is a great fit, as both firms take immense pride in their extensive industry experience as well as their commitment to delivering superior customer service," said David S. Oltman, CRP, newly appointed Ineo Chief Compliance Officer and Relocation Taxes co-founder.
Debbie Gioiella, Relocation Taxes, LLC co-founder, has been Relocation Taxes Director of operations since 1998. She will continue to lead and expand Relocation Taxes operations and will be responsible for all client relationship functions. Debbie believes that offering unparalleled customer service is the key to success. Her broad knowledge in taxation, relocation, and association with a diverse client base has given her the expertise to advise clients, keep them compliant and guide them through the demands placed upon them through the ever changing economic and compliance environments.
"We look forward to working together to make this a smooth transition for both our employees and our clients. "We are truly excited to offer the industry such a broad array of proven products and services" said Gioiella. |
| About Ineo Relocation Technologies At INEO, our business is relocation software, expense management and tax services that are instrumental in providing our customers focused solutions that meet their specific business needs. Our history in developing relocation solutions exceeds 27 years. It is our experience and unmatched expertise that positions us as the industry leader in relocation software development and tax services.
Our name, Ineo, is Latin for the term 'to begin'. The name is indicative that, although rich in history and experience, the company is commencing on a whole new way of doing business. We are committed to our customers with an approach to doing business where Exceptional Service is the norm.
For more information on Ineo Relocation Technologies solutions and services, visit www.ineotech.com or contact: Ineo Relocation Technology, Corporate Headquarters, 7340 East Caley Avenue Suite 215W Centennial, CO 80111; Email: info@ineotech.com; Tel: +1 (908) 735-7196 or Fax: +1(303) 308-1874.
About Relocation Taxes
Experienced tax professionals prepare all tax returns in complete confidence. Each return goes through a review process to insure quality and accuracy. Special attention is given to multi-state (old & new, live & work) taxation issues along with gross-ups including tax equalization and tax protection.
For more information on Relocation Taxes, LLC visit www.relocationtaxes.com or contact: Relocation Taxes, Corporate Headquarters, 372 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897: Email: relotax@relotax.com: Tel: +1 (203) 209-7123 or Fax: +1 (203) 529-3021.
|
The US Suprme Court has released its secod employment related decision of the curret term in Thmpson vs. North America Stailess, LP
After petitioner Thompson’s fiancée, Miriam Regalado, filed a sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against their employer, respondent North American Stainless (NAS), NAS fired Thompson. He filed his own charge and asubsequent suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that NAS fired him to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge. The District Court granted NAS summary judgment on the ground that third-party retaliation claims were not permitted by Title VII,which prohibits discrimination against an employee “because he has made a [Title VII] charge,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a), and which permits, inter alia, a “person claiming to be aggrieved . . . by [an] alleged employment practice” to file a civil action, §2000e–5(f)(1). The en banc Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Thompson was not entitled to sue NAS for retaliation because he had not engaged in any activity protected by the statute.
The Supreme Court Held:
1. If the facts Thompson alleges are true, his firing by NAS constituted unlawful retaliation. Title VII’s antiretaliation provision mustbe construed to cover a broad range of employer conduct. Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53. It prohibits any employer action that “ ‘well might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a [discrimination] charge,” ’” id., at 68. That test must be applied in an objective fashion, to “avoi[d] the uncertainties and unfair discrepancies that can plague a judicial effort to determine a plaintiff’s unusual subjective feelings.” Id., at 68–69. A reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired. Pp. 2–4.
2. Title VII grants Thompson a cause of action. Pp. 4–7.(a) For Title VII standing purposes, the term “person aggrieved” must be construed more narrowly than the outer boundaries of Article III. Dictum in Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U. S. 205, suggesting that Title VII’s aggrievement requirement reaches asfar as Article III permits, is too expansive and the Court declines tofollow it. At the other extreme, limiting “person aggrieved” to the person who was the subject of unlawful retaliation is an artificiallynarrow reading. A common usage of the term “person aggrieved” avoids both of these extremes. The Administrative Procedure Act, which authorizes suit to challenge a federal agency by any “person. . . adversely affected or aggrieved . . . within the meaning of a relevant statute,” 5 U. S. C. §702, establishes a regime under which a plaintiff may not sue unless he “falls within the ‘zone of interests’sought to be protected by the statutory provision whose violationforms the legal basis for his complaint,” Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 883. Title VII’s term “aggrieved” incorporates that test, enabling suit by any plaintiff with an interest “ ‘arguably [sought] to be protected’ by the statutes,” National Credit Un-ion Admin. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U. S. 479, 495, while excluding plaintiffs who might technically be injured in an Article IIIsense but whose interests are unrelated to Title VII’s statutory prohibitions. Pp. 4–7.(b)
Applying that test here, Thompson falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII. He was an employee of NAS, and TitleVII’s purpose is to protect employees from their employers’ unlawful actions. Moreover, accepting the facts as alleged, Thompson is not anaccidental victim of the retaliation. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which NAS punished Regalado. Thus, Thompson is a personaggrieved with standing to sue under Title VII. P. 7. 567 F. 3d 804, reversed and remanded.
Strategy: While it is ever good policy to take out your frustrations on other employees this case plainly tells you to watch out for taking what looks like good actios whe they are not. The federal laws are very clear that you can not take certain steps becuase an employee or member of their families have filed a grievance against the orgaization. This rulig makes it increasingly crucial that you train your maagers to protect the rights of all your employees as well as creating a evironment where these kinds of situations do not arise i the first place.
Giant-Vac, a producer of leaf and debris control equipment, is moving manufacturing to Tennessee from Connecticut and could bring in 75 new jobs.
I recently received a request if I would consider using some outside collaboration on the blog. As many of you who have been following this blog since 2006, know I rarely take advantage of this route for content. But with the tough economic times we are facing, we are all experiencing added stress in our lives and so the content was right on for the times. Read what Amy K Hutchens has to say about stress
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Short Circuiting Stress
By: AmyK Hutchens <http://www.amyk.com/>
For every six minutes you experience a high state of negative stress it takes your immune system six hours to recover. That doesn't stress you out does it?! Experiencing a rotten, lousy, no good, stressful day creates a chronic cycle that wears your immune system down, leaving you exhausted, sick and feeling even more stressed. The goal, however, isn't to get rid of stressŠ our brains are hard-wired for it, and we actually need some stress (called eustress) in order to function. The goal is to short-circuit the negative cycle.
Stress <http://brainrules.net/stress?scene=> has been around since the first human tried to light a fire and failed, only to have his girlfriend show him how it's done. Telling your brain that "not having enough time in the day" does not equate to "being eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger" doesn't work. Attempting to convince your brain that the wooly mammoth in front of you is really just your boss or your mother-in-law is next to impossible.
Your brain doesn't distinguish the difference. You've got better odds teaching your brain that the saber-tooth tiger is actually a house cat and that your mother-in-law really doesn't care that you can't cook.
Seems simple. It is simple, it's just not easy, especially when your mother-in-law sighs every time you look at your cookbook.
Stress starts in the brain and then spreads throughout your body. The part of the brain that processes your emotions also controls your immune system.
Ever experience a stressful week and then get a chance to take a few days off only to find yourself nursing a cold while on vacation? Within seventy-two hours of a significantly stressful event your body manifests some type of physiological symptom. It's as if you internally vent on your way home, your brain hears you and empathizes with you, and then gives you a migraine, or acne, or both! Really, your brain was just trying to prove you right, you are stressed, so voila, your body now proves it too!
Twenty percent of the oxygen of every breath you take goes straight to your brain. When we¹re stressed, one of the first things that changes in our bodies is our breathing - it gets shallower and we take in less oxygenŠso right now just breathe <http://www.yogajournal.com/> . Take a deep breath Šinhale slowly, exhale slowly and repeat. Your brain thanks you, and, it will think more clearly for you, more rationally, thus preventing you from throwing that cookbook at a certain someone.
The mere thought of the holidays sends some people straight into stressed-out orbit.
The ubiquitous themes of time, not enough of it; money, not enough of that; food, way too much of that; and relationships, pleasing everybody, can cause extra anxiety.
This year, give yourself a present first: the ability to stop the stress cycle early, before it sends you to bed. And while it may seem like a great place to escape your boss and mother-in-law, there are better ways to spend the holidays.
Short Circuit the Stress Cycle
1. Prioritize & Simplify
Reducing stress is not about creating balance it's about getting focused.
Balance is a myth. Let¹s get real - when it comes to life activities there is no such thing as balance, only priorities. If you strive for balance you¹ll only add to your stress levels, not reduce them, but if you change your priorities, your focus, you will immediately start reducing your stress and feel more in control of how you utilize your time.
Successfully dealing with life¹s pressures, demands, and hassles means you need to appropriately respond and manage the tasks at hand in order of priority. Create a list of what you value and need to accomplish over the next two days. (Don¹t forget that YOU should and need to be on that list.) Assign each priority a chunk of time and then live within the parameters of that scheduled list. Follow up that time-framed list with another list of new priorities or re-prioritized activities. Every two days (or week) you can create a new list that outlines and accounts for all your responsibilities.
Simplify 1 thing each day. It may be a priority that you serve your family dinner tonight. It's not a priority that you cook it. You can pick up take-out, or pull something out of the freezer. Choose 1 activity each day and find a way to reduce the time it takes, or the energy it requires of you to complete it.
2. Place yourself in time-out.
The purpose of putting a toddler in time-out is to re-set her attitude and improve her behavior. (If only we could use that with our colleagues.) Take some time to be silent and reflective, even if it's just 3-5 minutes. There is scientific proof that doing so can decrease blood pressure, pulse rate, and improve blood circulation. By removing yourself from a stressful environment or giving yourself a moment to biologically shift, you aid your immune system in getting back to healthy. A few deep breaths while you're in time-out is an added bonus
3. Get a giggle.
Laughter reduces your stress hormones and literally changes your body chemistry. Humor releases endorphins and antibody enhancers which aid your immune system. Schedule 30 minutes to watch a funny sitcom or read a humorous book. If 30 minutes just doesn't exist today, then give yourself a five minute giggle and watch a youtube <http://www.youtube.com/> video.
There are many short clips of truly funny comedians and silly people who will definitely give you a smile that will last awhile.
4. Put it in perspective.
Changing your perspective, your thoughts, is the most effective tool we have for reducing our stress and it¹s the least used tool by people when they¹re experiencing stress. When stressed out individuals scream, "I don't have five bleep-ity-bleep minutes to watch a YouTube video!" there is one thought, one shift in perspective that helps a lot. "It's only five minutes.
Big bleep-ity-bleep deal." There are 10,080 minutes in a week. Take 5 of them, so the other 10,075 minutes are more peaceful, more positive, more meaningful. Typically, upon hearing this news, these frenetic, time-obsessed totally stressed out individuals stop holding their breath and suck in a large volume of oxygen. It's a great start!
The objective isn't to fight circumstances. You're not insane, just stressed. Sane people know that arguing with reality only creates more stress because reality always wins. Let it win, and let it go. The goal is to change your perspective to less painful thoughts. Your boss may still growl and snarl, your mother-in-law may still sigh, but wouldn't it be wonderful if you handed her the spatula and said, "I'm so glad you're great at cooking. Please, by all means, my kitchen is su kitchen." And with that, you have not only changed your perspective, you've simplified your life, and given yourself a thirty minute time-out to go watch that sitcom you've been wanting to watch all week. Life is good.
About the author
Amy K Hutchens, Founder and Intelligence Activist, AmyK Inc., is a speaker, trainer and business strategist. She is best known for helping business leaders capitalize on how the brain and human perception filters work to help them be more effective in business and their personal lives
In the first decision of the term, the US Supreme Court handed down a rulig involving whether an employee had the expected right to privacy of their persoal information in requests from employers for background checks:
In two cases decided more than 30 years ago, this Court referred broadly to a constitutional privacy “interest inavoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600 (1977); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 457 (1977). Respondentsin this case, federal contract employees at a Governmentlaboratory, claim that two parts of a standard employmentbackground investigation violate their rights under Whalen and Nixon. Respondents challenge a section of a form questionnaire that asks employees about treatmentor counseling for recent illegal-drug use. They also object to certain open-ended questions on a form sent to employ-ees’ designated references.
We assume, without deciding, that the Constitution protects a privacy right of the sort mentioned in Whalen and Nixon. We hold, however, that the challenged por-tions of the Government’s background check do not violatethis right in the present case. The Government’s interests as employer and proprietor in managing its internal operations, combined with the protections against public dissemination provided by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U. S. C. §552a, satisfy any “interest in avoiding disclosure” that may “arguably ha[ve] its roots in the Constitution.” Whalen, supra, at 599, 605.
The challenged questions on SF–85 and Form 42 are reasonable,employment-related inquiries that further the Government’sinterests in managing its internal operations. SF–85’s “treatment or counseling” question is a followup question to a reasonable inquiry about illegal-drug use. In context, the drug-treatment inquiry is also a reasonable, employment-related inquiry. The Government, recognizing that illegal-drug use is both a criminal and medical issue, seeks to separate out those drug users who are taking steps to address and overcome their problems. Thus, it uses responses to the drug-treatment question as a mitigating factor in its contractor credentialing decisions. The Court rejects the argument that the Government has a constitutional burden to demonstrate that its employment background questions are “necessary” or the least restrictive means of furthering its interests. So exacting a standard runs directly contrary to Whalen. See 429 U. S., at 596–597. Pp. 16–18.
(3) Like SF–85’s drug-treatment question, Form 42’s open-ended questions are reasonably aimed at identifying capable employees who will faithfully conduct the Government’s business. Askingan applicant’s designated references broad questions about job suit-ability is an appropriate tool for separating strong candidates from weak ones. The reasonableness of such questions is illustrated by their pervasiveness in the public and private sectors. Pp. 18–19.
(b) In addition to being reasonable in light of the Government interests at stake, SF–85 and Form 42 are also subject to substantial protections against disclosure to the public. Whalen and Nixon recognized that a “statutory or regulatory duty to avoid unwarranted disclosures” generally allays privacy concerns created by government“accumulation” of “personal information” for “public purposes.” Whalen, supra, at 605. Respondents attack only the Government’s collection of information, and here, as in Whalen and Nixon, the information collected is shielded by statute from unwarranted disclosure. The Privacy Act—which allows the Government to maintain only those records “relevant and necessary to accomplish” a purpose authorized by law, 5 U. S. C. §552a(e)(1); requires written consent be-fore the Government may disclose an individual’s records, §552a(b);and imposes criminal liability for willful violations of its nondisclosure obligations, §552a(i)(1)—“evidence[s] a proper concern” for indi-vidual privacy. Whalen, supra, at 605; Nixon, supra, at 458–459. Respondents’ claim that the statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act’s disclosure bar, see §§552a(b)(1)–(12), leave its protections too porousto supply a meaningful check against unwarranted disclosures. But that argument rests on an incorrect reading of Whalen, Nixon, and the Privacy Act. Pp. 19–23.
530 F. 3d 865, reversed and remanded.
Strategy - Understand I am not an attorey and am not making a legal opinion here.
Having said that when you ask questions on your applications or in interviews be sure that you can substantiate that the questions are asked for a legitimate business operational perspective. Be sure that the question is based on the question does a response to a question impede the candidate from delivering the responsibilitites of the position. Ay question asked of employees or candidates needs to be in compliance with all applicable laws both state and federal.
Citizens dropping drywall customers MIAMI -Florida's public insurance company has again reversed course on its coverage for homes with tainted Chinese drywall, telling some owners it will suspend such policies, an attorney for the victims said Monday. Attorney David Durkee, who represents about 300 people with homes containing the defective materials, said Citizens Property Insurance Corp., a state-backed insurer of last resort, has begun issuing notices to alert policy holders their coverage will be dropped. Citizens did not respond to a phone message and e-mail Monday. If the insurer is issuing such notices en masse, it would mark a return to its earlier attempt to not cover homes with Chinese drywall. Thousands of homeowners nationwide bought houses built with the defective drywall.
Taken from the Tampa Tribue Business Breifs January 18, 2010
While I am not a believer, I found it interesting this week to see the reaction from the individuals who swear by their daily hroscope. Just as they were firm in their feeling sabout the characterisitics about their sig, alog comes the power at will and announced that due to the magnetic shift in the global cosmos, we now have to learn new signs and new characterisitics. This made we think about how we present the need to change the labels or processes within our workplace. Do we suddenly without notice tell our employee base that we are changing the ir titles or the way we do things? or do you lay out the change over a time, guiding the employees along the way?
I understand that change is inevitable. I understand that as organizations evolve we have to modify how we execute various processes. But there is a good way to do it and there is an adverse way to do it. I would suggest to the readers of this blog that you look at the following startegies to achive the anticipated change:
1. Communicate - Management needs to take what ever means are available to explain to the employee base what has brought about the need to change the organization. This should be through every means possible including social media outlets.
2. Brainstorm - Your floor personnel know your business better then you do, whether you want to admit it or not. Get them involved by providing them with a vehicle to help the organization plan out the change. Let them suggest the best ways for you to implement that change in an orderly and timely manner.
3. Team Implementation - Set up cross-functional teams to help you take the suggestions from the organization and implement the necessary change within the organization.
4. Feedback - Akin to the communication piece, keep the employees informed of the change process and how it has or will affect their responsibilities on a daily basis.
Change is important however it is also necessary that everyone be shown the path to an improved business operation.
I would be interested in hearing how you go about introducing change within your organizations.
The Society for Human Resource Management posted this helpful resource this morning:
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Inclement Weather Pay Practices
What to do when Mother Nature decides to interfere with your well-laid operating plans? Regarding pay practices, the Department of Labor opinion letters provide guidance for employers to follow in paying exempt employees during periods of inclement weather. Closings - Employers who elect to close during such periods must pay the weekly salary for an exempt employee during the closure. Thus, regardless of whether an employee was at work for the entire week, the employee should receive their non-fluctuating salary for the week. An employer may require an exempt employee to use accrued leave for days of absence during such a closure but the employer continues to be obligated to pay the full salary of the exempt employee, regardless of whether the employee has a leave balance. Thus, in the latter case, an employer may be required to advance leave. Continuing operations - Employers who remain open during such periods must pay an exempt employee for any partial or whole day the employee reports to work during such periods; however, for days where an exempt employee elects not to report to work, the employer is free to deduct accrued leave for such absences from the employee’s leave bank. If the exempt employee is not yet eligible for accrued leave or has exhausted such leave, an employer may make reductions from pay for whole day absences. An employer may not make partial-day deductions from exempt employee pay for less than a full day absence regardless of whether the employee has any accrued leave.
We are following the events that are unfolding in Tucson. It brings us poise and consider what kind of environment we are fostering from our dialogue. Based on the era when I grew up we have a citizenry which was able to enter into a dialogue with consideration for the value of differing views on the issues that we are confronted with. We understood that there was a wide breadth of sincere beliefs on these issues.
In the current climate we are in we can have fundamentalists who openly target those who differ in our views. We are in a climate where if you do not believe there is a place for views that are not our own. This creates a very dangerous environment as shown in Tucson.
Move for a moment from the streets of Tucson to the halls of our workplaces. When we create or update our policy manuals it is mandatory that we include statements regarding workplace violence. Do we want to? Probably not. Do we have to? This course of events dictates that we have no choice.
I am uncomfortable having to make the suggestion, but it is critical that as human resource professionals, we need to do everything we can to influence management and the employee population to appreciate that we are a nation of ideas. That while discourse is vital, lack of patience and respect for the other views is should not ever tolerated and needs to be explicitly stated in corporate visions, missions, policies and attitudes
The presence of anyone who purposely enters into a dialogue aimed at singling out anothers views should not be tolerated . HR must be absolutely steadfast in removing any employee who would disrupt our workplace by inferring either directly or indirectly that either you think like they do or there is no place for you within the organization. There should be no tolerance for anyone, no matter what the position within the organization who displays this behavior. It should be grounds for immediate dismissal and reported to the appropriate law enforcement.
I am probably going to get some pushback, but during my lifetime I have seen too much senseless violence within our workplaces. Violence in the workplace whether it is the innocent victims in Tucson or the likes of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King or Ronald Reagan is plain wrong. While I believe in the basics of our democracy, including the right to bear arms (not that I own any) the fundamentalists that believe that this right is infinite should take the time to reconsider the affect that these views have on our lives. They need to take responsibility for fostering an environment where this violent events is tolerated with out control. Their views spread into our workplace and jeopardize the sanctity of that environment.
My final thoughts is that we need to begin a dialogue in our personal relationships and the workplace to begin to understand the diversity of ideas. Begin to recognize that we only become enriched when we realize that the wide expression of views of the issues before us lead us to be better people and organizations. The time when we can directly go out and dismiss those alternate views should end.
I got up this morning and turned on the Today Show. On the show was a segment devoted to a sixth grader in New Jersey who has been charged with vandalism for of all things, writing her name in wet cement outside her school. The parents offered to pay the cost of repair and dole out punishment to their daughter. The town Police Department instead has decided the daughter must go through a trial and be punished by a judge. Some of you might be saying , what;s the deal I did that as a child. As a matter of fact it was considered a rite of passage that we all did at one time or another.
Switch the picture to something closer to all of us. How do we react to minor violations of policy? What would you expect if you work for UBS whose dress code is contained in a 43 page manual? While I would not condone blatant violations of our policies and procedures which for the most part are designed to protect the afety of our employees and th eorganization, there could be situations where a minor infraction could be nothingmore than a chance to coach an employee on why what they did was not in the best interests of all. That in most cases would be enough to resolve the issue. But if we instead play autocrat, and throw the book at each and every one who violates our rules, we are asking for chaos in the workplace.
How do you handle minor infractions of corporate policies?
One of my connections in the social media world posted yesterday that she was watching one of the reality TV shows --namely The Apprentice. Any one who has watched the show knows at the end of each episode Donald Trump turns to one of the contestants and says "You are Fired."
Now here was the question posed by my connection. If Donald Trump says you are fired does that mean that the contestant was servin gunder an employment agreement and was thus gainfully employed by the Apprentice Show. Take this into consideration since the Department of Labor is cracking down on the classification of employees. Do you have independent contractors that you have called into your office and instead of saying that their contract has run its term, tell them they are fired?
I opened my local newspaper this morning and there was a report on the latest analytics regarding the graduates of the state colleges. The result to say the least were contrary to what I hear HR professionals telling me all the time. According to the Florida State Board of Education during calendar 2009 if you graduaed from a state college with a Bachelor's Degree your average earnings were $36,552. On the other hand if you graduated from a community college during the same time period your average income was $47,708, A difference of $11,000. If this holds true across the country what does that say about our job requirements.
In talking to educational officials, the paper stated that many of the associate degree holders were trained specifically for high level science related positions , most inthe medical field. This means they were coming out of school with marketable skills designed for the market. Do we need to change our curriculum for advance degerees to match the AS outcomes?
