Benchmaring: Clear Channel New Executive Relocation Policy

CLEAR CHANNEL has revised its corporate management relocation policy, notifying the SEC of the changes in a Form 8-K filing TUESDAY (10/12).  The changes, approved by the CC MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC. board Compensation Committee on OCTOBER 5th, involve a tiered policy providing different levels of benefits based on the employee’s organizational level.

The policy offers reimbursement for most expenses associated with relocating, including moving expenses, temporary housing expenses, closing costs for the sale of the old home and purchase of a new home, and other miscellaneous amounts, plus purchase of the old home by a third-party relocation company for the new CEO and those in a tier of "direct reports" to the CEO.  

The plan, a possible precursor to the hiring of a new CEO to fill the slot to be left vacant by MARK MAYS stepping down, would guarantee that the new hires can opt to take appraised value for the old homes from the relocation company and can also receive loss-on-sale protection for any losses on the sale of the old home after the first 10% of such losses.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Relocation Announcement

IMSI, the microchip consortium , is moving its operarions from Austin, TX to Albany, NY beginning in January 2011. This will shift the research and development centr of excellence from Texas to New York

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

New law ensures that American's with disabilities can enjoy technology

Today President Obama signed into law the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. This law will ensure that Americans with disabilities can more fully participate in society and enjoy all that new technologies have to offer--especially Internet-based and mobile services.

The new law will make it easier for people who are deaf, blind or have low vision to access the Internet, smart phones, television programming and other communications and video technologies. The law will also make sure that emergency information is accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision. In addition, $10 million per year will be allocated from the Interstate Relay Service Fund for equipment used by individuals who are deaf-blind. For more information read What S.3304 Does For Us from the Coalition of Organizations for Accessible Technology.

Today President Obama signed into law the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. This law will ensure that Americans with disabilities can more fully participate in society and enjoy all that new technologies have to offer--especially Internet-based and mobile services.

Title I – Communications Access

Section 101:  Definitions.

• Provides definitions for “advanced communications” (including interconnected and non-interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), electronic messaging, and interoperable video conferencing services); “consumer-generated media”; and “disability.”

Section 102:  Hearing aid compatibility.

• Requires telephones used with the Internet to be hearing aid compatible.

Section 103:  Relay services.

• Permits use of relay services to enable communication with anyone, not just between people with and without disabilities.  So, for example, a TTY user can use relay services to call a person who communicates in American Sign Language using a videophone.
• Requires Internet-based voice communication service providers to contribute to the Interstate Relay Service Fund.

Section 104:  Access to advanced communications services and equipment.

• Requires accessible advanced communications equipment and services, if achievable; and, if not achievable, then to make equipment and services compatible with devices commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if achievable.
• Requires access to Internet services built-in to mobile telephone devices, like smart phones, if achievable.
• Defines “achievable” as reasonable effort or expense, as determined by the FCC.
• Improves enforcement; requires regular reports by the FCC to Congress; and requires an enforcement study by the Comptroller General.
• Adds recordkeeping obligations for equipment manufacturers and service providers.
• Requires a clearinghouse of information on accessible products and services, and public education and outreach.

Section 105:  Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals.

• Allocates up to $10 million per year from the Interstate Relay Service Fund for equipment used by individuals who are deaf-blind.

Section 106:  Emergency Access Advisory Committee

• Establishes an Emergency Access Advisory Committee to recommend and for the FCC to adopt rules to achieve reliable and interoperable communications with future Internet-enabled emergency call centers.  

Title II – Video Programming

Section 201:  Video Programming and Emergency Access Advisory Committee.

• Establishes a Video Programming and Emergency Access Advisory Committee to make recommendations about closed captioning, video description, accessible emergency information, user interfaces, and video programming guides and menus.

Section 202:  Video description and closed captioning.

Video Description

• After 1 year, restores FCC rules requiring 4 hours per week of video description on 9 television channels (top 4 broadcast networks and top 5 cable channels) in the top 25 most populated markets.
• After 2 years, requires FCC to report to Congress on video description.
• After 4 years, permits the FCC to increase video description to 7 hours per week on 9 television channels.
• After 6 years, requires the FCC to apply the video description requirements to the top 60 most populated markets (not just the top 25 most populated markets).
• After 9 years, requires the FCC to report to Congress on the need for additional markets to carry video description.
• After 10 years, permits the FCC to expand video description to 10 new markets annually to achieve 100 percent nationwide coverage.

Emergency Information

• Requires video programming owners, providers, and distributors to make emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision.

Closed Captioning

• Requires captioned television programs to be captioned when delivered over the Internet.
• Requires the FCC to grant or deny requests for exemption from the closed captioning rules within 12 months.

Section 203:  Closed captioning decoder and video description capability.

• Requires devices designed to receive or play back video programming, using a picture screen of any size, to be capable of displaying closed captioning, delivering available video description, and making emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, except, devices with picture screens less than 13” must meet these requirements if achievable with reasonable effort or expense.
• Requires devices designed to record video programming (such as DVRs) to enable the rendering or pass through of closed captions, video description, and emergency information, so viewers can turn the closed captions and video description on/off when played back on a screen of any size.

Section 204:  User interfaces on digital apparatus.

• Requires devices designed to receive or play back video programming:

1. to make controls of built-in functions accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have low vision, if achievable; 
2. to make controls of built-in functions accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have low vision through audio output;
3. to provide access to built-in closed captioning and video description features through a mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon designated for activating the closed captioning or accessibility features.

Section 205:  Access to video programming guides and menus provided on navigation devices.

• Requires cable/satellite set-top box on-screen text menus and guides to be audibly accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, if achievable.
• To provide access to built-in closed captioning and video description features through a mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon designated for activating the closed captioning or accessibility features.

Section 206:  Definitions.

• Provides definitions for Advisory Committee, Chairman, Commission, emergency information, Internet protocol, navigation device, video description, and video programming.

HR Strategy: Review these new standards and ensure that your social media and technology venues do comply with the intent of the legislation.

 

 

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Are you safe in your HR practices?

OFCCP FY 2010 COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIANCE EVALUATIONS – THAT’S A WRAP

 

by David Cohen, President, DCI Consulting Group

OFCCP’s fiscal year ended on Thursday, September 30th, marking the close of the second year under the Obama administration. During the 2010 fiscal year, the OFCCP proposed many regulatory and policy changes, and some of those new initiatives are currently under review, while others have been implemented. In the meantime, the OFCCP continued to conduct routine and complaint driven compliance evaluations. The following snapshot of 2010 enforcement data was summarized from the Department of Labor’s enforcement database as of October 2, 2010.

Note: Some of the information in the database and summary data do not correspond with publicly made statements by officials at OFCCP and other reports based on actual conciliation agreements. In addition, other information appears to be incorrect due to database input errors. For example, an individual claim of discrimination under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (disabilities) had a finding of gender discrimination. Another example is a technical violation that resulted in a conciliation agreement for hiring discrimination.

FY 2010 Complaints
There were 107 complaints of discrimination made to OFCCP during the 2010 fiscal year. Based on the data, the OFCCP conducted an investigation on 105 out of the 107 (98%). Interestingly, 20 of the individual claims were classified under the ‘class action’ category. According to the data, only 14 (13%) findings of discrimination were identified based on these complaints.

Total Number of Complaints - 107
• Executive Order 11246 - 26 (24.3%)
• Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act – 33 (30.84%)
• VEVRAA - 42 (39.25%)
• Other – 6 (5.61%)

Violations Identified based on these complaints
• Seniority – 3
• Job Benefits – 1
• Pregnancy – 3
• Religious Discrimination – 3
• Violation Other – 4

FY 2010 Compliance Evaluations
The OFCCP closed 3,896 compliance evaluations during the FY 2010 year. This number does not include the number of compliance evaluations that were initiated during the fiscal year nor does it include those compliance evaluations that were scheduled prior to FY2010 and remain open.

Total Reviews Closed – 3,896
• Notice of Compliance – 3.363 (86.32%)
• Conciliation Agreement (Technical Violation) – 466 (11.96%)
• Consent Decrees – 3 (0.08%)
• Financial Settlements – 64 (1.64%)

Violations from Conciliation Agreements (with only Technical Violations) - 466
• No Written AAP - 44
• Past Performance – 136
• Record Keeping – 191
• Outreach and Recruitment – 240
• Denial of Records – 1
• Hiring – 3
• Selection or Testing – 3
• Salary – 2

Violations from Consent Decrees – 3
• No Written AAP – 1
• Record Keeping – 2
• Denial of Records – 1
• Hiring – 3
• Systemic Discrimination – 3

Violations from Financial Agreements - 64
• No Written AAP – 3
• Past Performance – 12
• Record Keeping – 38
• Outreach and Recruitment – 3
• Hiring – 49
• Promotion – 1
• Termination – 1
• Salary - 7

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

What lesson are we sending home?

I turned on the news last night ( I know everyone says we should expunge that practice from our habits--sorry just addicted) and they were runing a story about the benefits of same sex classrooms. They were reporting that the standardized test scores were higher in the same sex classrooms then in co-ed ones. As I listened to the story I asked my self whether we were sending the wrong message. We have a probelm in many organizations with instances of harrassment as demonstrated by the fines being levied by the regulators. So if we tell our leaders of tomorrow that it is to their best interest to learn in segregated classrooms, does this mean that they are not responsible for learnin ghow to work in the real world.

If we have hostile work environments do we resolve that by telling the human capital assets in our organizations that they can avoid working with those who might place us in that environment. Do we tell them that because studies have proven that same sex classrooms work better, do we also tell them the only collaboration that needs to take place in the workplace is between the same sex members of the workforce?

When I was going to school we had same sex physical education but other than that we were all in the same courses. I don't think that had any dramatic result in my education. It has not hindered my creativity. ( the news article stated that boys in same sex classrooms are more likely to show their creative sides compared to when they have co-eds in the clasroom), What do you think? Are we going down the wrong path?

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

From Fischer & Phillips: Social Media and Non-Competes

LinkedIn: A Violation of Your Employee’s Non-Compete?

October 3, 2010 03:13
by Michael R. Greco

A sales manager has signed a contract with his employer agreeing that client lists are confidential and agreeing not to solicit clients for a period of six months after the end of his employment.  Shortly after resigning to join a competitor, the sales manager updates his LinkedIn profile to reflect that he has changed jobs and is now working for the competitor.  The profile update is broadcasted by LinkedIn to the sales manager’s contacts, which includes dozens of the clients he serviced at his previous employer.  Has the sales manager breached his contract?  Arguments can be made on both sides.

The former employer will argue that its customer list is confidential and that the sales manager obtained his knowledge of the clients’ identities by virtue of his employment.  The employer will note that even novices on LinkedIn understand that the service will notify contacts of a user’s profile updates.  After all, why bother updating your profile if you don't intend to share this information with others? And many, though admittedly not all, courts have held that contacting former clients regarding a change in employment constitutes a solicitation.  See e.g., Merrill Lynch v. Schultz, 2001 WL 1681973, *3 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting that “such initiated, targeted contact is tantamount to solicitation because there is no reason to believe that a customer on the receiving end of such a [communication] does not assume that the [employee] wishes for him to transfer his account.”).

The sales manager will undoubtedly take a different view.  He will argue that he didn’t take any records or other information with him when he left, and that the identity of his former employer’s clients has always been publicly available to anyone who wanted to look at the sales manager’s LinkedIn contacts.  He will also note that he did not initiate contact with clients.  Rather, all he did was update his profile to reflect a change in employment and sat back providing clients – or anyone else for that matter – with the option to contact him.

So who is right?  As with any non-compete case, the answer may vary on a case by case basis and require a close examination of the contract language and the surrounding facts and circumstances.  A court is likely to ask the following questions (among others):  Does the contract specify that client information (such as client identities, names, addresses, and other contact information) is confidential?  Did the former employer actually treat such information as confidential?  What is the wording of the non-solicitation agreement? 

Because the enforceability of a restrictive covenant is highly discretionary in many states, employers who seek to preclude employees from contacting clients via LinkedIn should take steps ahead of time to eliminate any confusion.  Such steps may include any or all of the following:

1. Draft non-solicitation agreements that:

• expressly preclude employees from contacting clients to notify them of the employee’s change in employment;
• specify that communications made through an online social networking website such as LinkeIn, Facebook, etc. constitute a violation of the contract.

2.  Draft confidentiality agreements that:

• expressly define confidential information to include client identities and contact information;
• unambiguously state that confidential information may not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than on behalf of the employer, including through social media.

3. Include a social media paragraph in non-competes that specifically addresses the use of computers and social media.  The paragraph should state that:

• It is not intended to limit the scope of the confidentiality and non-solicitation covenants;
• Employees may only use the employer’s computer systems (e.g., computers, internet, servers, internal e-mail, external e-mail, World Wide Web access, etc.) for business purposes only.  Recognizing the rigid – perhaps impractical nature of this restriction – the agreement may provide that incidental personal use of computer systems is permitted, but state that such usage shall not violate the terms contained the confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions; 
• All e-mail and internet usage is subject to monitoring and that access to any website on the Internet must be for legitimate business only;
• The Employer may choose to block access to certain sites on the Internet at its discretion, and that available access to a site does not constitute approval to use or access that site by the employer.
• The employee is not permitted to have a webpage or website on the Internet for business purposes through a provider without prior written approval from the employer.  This includes social networking sites like Linked-In for business purposes.  The employee should agree that mentioning his or her affiliation or employment with the employer on these types of sites without prior written approval of the content by the employer is not permitted.  If the employee is permitted to connect with clients via LinkedIn, they should be required to set their settings so that other users cannot see their contacts. 
• The employee agrees that the use of text messages, e-mails, IM’s, and/or other communications via Blackberry or other wireless service/devices not routed through the employer’s systems is not permitted for business communications with Clients;
• The employee agrees that participation in chat rooms or other online forums for business purposes is not permitted, and that the employee will not direct Clients to chat rooms, blog sites, or other social networking sites which contain information prohibited by the employer or applicable regulatory authorities;
• The employee agrees that he or she will not discuss the employer, its business relationships, its managers and employees, its customers or its products/services in any chat room or other online forum without prior express written permission from the employer’s management;
• The employee agrees that the restrictions outlined above apply to his or her use of any computer (within or outside of the employer) for any business purpose.

In short, businesses that do not address social networking through their contracts and written policies may find that they have a critical security gap in the protection of their trade secrets and customer relationships. 

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Social Media questions move from what is it? to ownership

In a follow up to yesterday's Fistful of Talnet post, the site has posted reference to the changed question:

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Who Owns Your Social Media Relationships? What To Do When Your “Social” Employees Move On.

We're at the point now where we no longer are teaching HR folks what a "tweet" is and how to sign up for a Twitter account. But as more folks integrate social media into their recruiting practices, we're beginning to see "advanced" considerations arise. The other week for example, I delivered a webcast on behalf of Jobvite to talk about metrics and measurements to gauge social recruiting successes. (Slides here: http://ow.ly/2M2xj and audio here: http://bit.ly/bwsMFx) Not necessarily an easy feat right now but everyone is (hopefully!) looking to provide value with their efforts - yet tracking metrics is a bit of a disjointed process without having to pay a boatload of money for a system or service to do it for you. And even if you do pay, there are few systems that do it well. (Although there may be hope with a new release Jobvite is making that specifically addresses recruiting intelligence and has a fancy dashboard that simply aggregates the data for you. Yes, hello, I am a possible future Jobvite customer. Full disclosure!)

Another interesting "advanced" consideration? Ownership of usernames and relationships in the social space and how to/if you have to transfer those relationships once an employment relationships ends. 

I had a recruiting friend who changed jobs recently and is highly involved in social media - meaning having thousands of followers and connections and a highly engaged following. Now the relationships she has built over the past few years have been twofold - 1) to build up her professional network in order to make a stamp with her personal brand, and 2) build relationships and hopefully cultivate business on behalf of her employer. Call it a mutually beneficial situation of sorts, the work she was doing in social media. But then she made a change in jobs...

The challenge? Well, many of the early adopters just dove in, started tinkering and then built. Considerations weren't necessarily made for username selection and whether they should be attached to/include the company name. Maybe the email address used to sign up for the account was a personal account too... but the tool was used professionally still. So then the picture becomes a little muddier. And what's an employer to do? Or what are you to do if you're the one with the followers (aka potential candidates who are part of your social media community) who are leaving to go work elsewhere? I'm not sure there's a definitive answer - yet. But here's a starting point and some things to think about:

• Step One - Make determinations on who "owns" the username, account, and therefore the relationships based on the email address used to sign up and the username selected. Also make a determination of whether usage of the account was solely for the purpose of the business or instead, multi-use (personal and professional). If it's the latter, what you are looking at is likely the following…
• Step Two - It's reasonable to ask the departing employee to leave a list behind of followers and connections on Twitter and LinkedIn. If you manage a Facebook page, make sure additional administrators are in place (and fingers crossed you started up the page/account using a nonpersonal email address) and remove yourself as an administrator. Same protocol for LinkedIn groups. Promote someone else to "manager" status. It’s probably not reasonable to ask a person to hand over the account/username unless they’ve signed up with their work email address, or the username is tied to the company name (i.e. APCOjessica).
• Step Three - Make it clear that the employee has moved on and provide people with a re-direct option. (Stop following me and now follow so-and-so instead.)

At the end of the day, how to handle this is not too different from how a headhunter might handle ownership of candidate relationships when moving from one agency to another. A company can and should have some kind of dibs on the relationships... but the reality likely will be that many of those relationships were cemented because of a person or personality. People are, of course, naturally drawn to brands where there's a personal connection and therefore foster a sense of loyalty from there. Relationships will follow the person/personality - but as an employer, you could get lucky and retain some if you put forth the effort to sustain a relationship.

And to possibly prevent getting into this somewhat tricky/confusing situation? If you’re getting ready to launch into social media for recruiting or other marketing/branding purposes… make a decision from the get go of how people brand and market themselves. Do I sign up as @jessica_lee on Twitter? Or am I @APCOJessica? Or do I just stick to @APCOjobs? That may drive and dictate ownership of relationships at the end of the day… so look before you leap, friends!

Editor's Note- Jessica Lee is a Senior Employment Manager for APCO Worldwide, a global integrated communications consultancy in D.C. (Okay, you could call it a PR firm too.) Like most upscale HR pros, she spends half of her time on recruiting, the other half on ER, Training and OD. When she's not hammering a candidate to determine Motivational Fit, she's thinking about the future of HR and wondering how she can avoid using the job boards to fill the next spot in her organization...

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Excellent piece from Fistful of Talent regarding social media impact

You know how you thought, "I am going to regret this in the morning," just before eating your 20th chicken wing covered in Super Atomic Hot Sauce?

Remember how you wondered, "Will I ever date another girl?" just before getting your girlfriend's name permanently tattooed on your chest?

And then there was that time you pondered, "Will I ever run for Senate?" before telling the world that you dabbled in witchcraft and once had a date that involved an altar covered in blood?

Oh...not that one?  Sorry, that must be someone else.

Ladies and gentleman, there is indeed an HR/Recruiting lesson in the campaign of Delaware Senatorial candidate, Christine O'Donnell.  Through all the talk of satanic rituals, mice with human brains, and masturbation (can I say that on FOT?), we walk away with this: whatever you put out there can,it likely will come back to haunt you. 

In the age of social media and blogging, it's important to remember this.  There is constant debate about what companies and their recruiters can and should look at prior to hiring a candidate.  Is it appropriate to Google a candidate (or, even better, Bing them)?  Should you look them up on Facebook or MySpace?  At the recent #SocialRecruiting Summit, Richard Cho, Staffing Manager at Facebook said that everything on Facebook is personal and should be thought of as so.  In other words, if I am a speech writer for the future President of the United States, I shouldn't need to think twice about a little picture someone took of me and a carboard cutout of Hilary Clinton .   

I frequently run a search on candidates I am talking to.  If I can view their Facebook or MySpace pages, I do.  Is this so I can spy on them and find some way to knock them out of the running?  Of course not... my job is to hire people, not sabotage them.  It's so that I can learn about them and potential things that I can use to sell them on a job.  But... if I see a status update of, "I'm interviewing with those stupid doo-doo heads at *insert company of stupid doo-doo heads here*," I may bring it up in our next conversation.  But... I'm a nice, and fairly non-judgmental guy.  Others may not like the picture of you and your roommate lighting up at the Grateful Dead concert.  Some may take issue with highlights from your bachelor party.   

Back in the 90's (or was it 80s? Can't tell by that hair), maybe Christine O'Donnell didn't realize she would be running for Senate and having all of her stupid comments analyzed and thrown back in her face.  But... she should have thought about the fact that everything she was saying, in public, was being recorded for posterity.  Everything she was saying was going to be permanently saved in somebody's archives for people to look at and criticize later.

Perhaps now, you are jumping over to your blog to remove any disparaging things you may have said.  Maybe you said that Dinosaur bones are actually a prank God is playing on us to test our faith.  Or, maybe you once Tweeted that Josh Letourneau should pose topless in a calendar (HA! Wouldn't that be great?!).  Well... unfortunately, thanks to tools like the Wayback Machine, it's too late.  It's already etched into internet history.  The smartest thing to do is simply know when to shut up. And fellow recruiters, continue Binging (okay, fine, continue Googling) to learn more about your candidates.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Small Business Jobs Act Provisions Affect Employment Benefits

The Jackson Lewis Law Firm releases memo regarding employment benefits

Date:

9.27.2010

President Barack Obama has signed the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 5297) into law on September 27, 2010.  The bill contains the following benefits-related provisions of interest to employers:

• The bill removes the requirement that cell phones meet certain heightened substantiation requirements and depreciation rules.  This change clears the way for the Internal Revenue Service to issue rules of administrative convenience with respect to the taxation of the personal use of employer-provided cell phones.  Note that this change does not affect the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to determine the appropriateness of cell phones as a tax-free working condition fringe benefit or that the personal use of such devices, provided primarily for business purposes, may constitute a tax-free de minimis fringe benefit.
• The bill allows participants in Section 457 governmental deferred compensation plans to treat elective deferrals as Roth contributions, effective for taxable years beginning after 2010.
• The bill allows rollovers from elective deferral plans to Roth designated accounts, effective for distributions made after the date of enactment. 
  • Specifically, it provides that if a section 401(k) plan, section 403(b) plan, or section 457(b) governmental deferred compensation plan has a qualified designated Roth contribution program, when there is a distributable event, a distribution to an employee (or a surviving spouse) from an account under the plan that is not a designated Roth account is permitted to be rolled over into a designated Roth account under the plan for the individual. 
  • A plan that includes a designated Roth program is permitted but not required to allow employees (and surviving spouses) to make the rollover contribution described above to a designated Roth account. If a plan allows these rollover contributions to a designated Roth account, the plan must be amended to reflect this plan feature. It is intended that the IRS will provide employers with a remedial amendment period to allow the employers to offer this option to employees (and surviving spouses) for distributions during 2010 and then have sufficient time to amend the plan to reflect this feature.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

New Manpower Research Reveals Nearly a Quarter of Companies Worldwide Concede Talent Strategy Does Not Support Business Strategy

Manpower’s Workforce Strategy Survey, released today, reveals that many organizations are not thinking strategically about the workforce they’ll need for long-term growth—most are thinking only about the here and now and are not positioned to build the workforce they’ll need to achieve the company’s business strategy in the future.
 
The data reveals that almost a quarter of employers across 36 countries and territories concede that their organizations' workforce strategy does not support their business strategy, or don't know if it does. Among those two subsets of respondents, 53 percent admit they are not taking steps to address this issue. With the talent mismatch—the inability to find the right skills in the right place at the right time—becoming more acute as the global economy thaws, companies risk being without the skills they need to execute their business strategy.
 
In addition, among employees surveyed in this study, large sections are still in the dark about how their contributions support the business—one in five employees say either that they don’t understand their company’s business strategy or they don’t know how their role supports it.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Ernst & Young Leverages Social Media To Attract Generation Y, To Hire 6,000 Internshere to set a title.

By Kenneth Guillame, Big4.com Staff Reporter

September 26th, 2010

Kenneth Guillame, Big4.com Staff Reporter
26 September 2010

60% of Ernst & Young’s (E&Y) workforce will be Generation Y by the end of 2011. This means that the firm has to modify its people management strategies to remain attractive to new hires and current professionals.

Social media is an excellent channel to reach and educate its potential hires, and Ernst & Young is using all social media channels effectively to spread its message to the internet generation.

And there’s good news on the hiring front too. The firm plans to hire approximately 6,000 students for internships or entry level positions in the Americas in 2010, an increase over 2010’s hiring numbers.

This shift in generational demographics has necessitated the firm to adapt rapidly to the changing needs and desires of its people and recruits. And this year, there will be new and creative strategies to connect with potential recruits.

According to Ernst & Young’s Americas Director of Campus Recruiting Dan Black, “The top talent always has options, regardless of the economic conditions. When it comes to job prospects for top students, it’s still a buyer’s market for the best buyers. We are constantly raising our game and thinking about new and innovative ways to connect with these top students.”

Here are some of the firm’s achievements on social media:

Facebook
Ernst & Young LLP in the US was the first professional services firm to launch a careers page in 2006. Ernst & Young still maintains a strong focus on Facebook with more than 50,000 fans on its careers page.

Text polling

Used at the firm’s four-day International Intern Leadership Conference in Orlando this year. Text polling allowed more than 1,600 Ernst & Young LLP employees and interns to participate actively in presentations throughout the event, and it will be an important part of Ernst & Young LLP’s presentations on campus this year.

Pandora

Pandora, the internet radio site, features three Ernst & Young radio playlists that were chosen by the 2010 summer interns as part of an intern competition.

Mobile devices
Based on market research and analysis, Ernst & Young has determined that more than fifty percent of its target recruitment audience said that they would be interested in receiving more information about potential employers on their mobile devices. A mobile version of Ernst & Young’s Careers site also launched this fall at http://www.ey.mobi/US/en/Careers/Mobile-Careers---Home. This year, Ernst & Young LLP will be hosting a quiz challenge through its mobile site

Twitter
A new campus hire is tweeting daily through Twitter about her job at the firm at http://twitter.com/EYStaff.>

Your World, Your Vision
Awards $10,000 to three winning teams who submit proposals on how to positively impact their community. Ernst & Young has also added a program to its recruitment strategy this year called the Global Student Exchange Program. Recognizing the desire among today’s students for international career opportunities and mobility, Ernst & Young is now offering overseas assignments for select interns during their summer internship program.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Who am I? The role of human capital in a global workplace

As i do every morning I opened my email inbox to read the latest post from Trish MacLane (http://www.hrringleader.com) in which Trish talks about how the contestants on Dancing with the Stars represent the different types of charcter roles can be found in our organizations. Her thoughts got be relooking at the content of a presentation I am making to a local MBA leadership class on this topic.

As the nature of the global workforce has changed over time, the role of the human capital resources has also changed. Far too many organizations ( and CEO's I might add) still believe that their organizations employees are nothing more than a number on the balance sheet. We dont rely anymore strictly on what we produce as we did in the industrial age. Instead your employees are the critical knowledge asset of your organization. Without their sharing what is in their head, you would lose a great majority of the innovative and competitive status cherihed by the marketplace.  So I would suggest a couple of steps to strategically move your organization forward in this new paradigm:

1. Go read Trish's posting from this morning. Read it and consider what she suggests

2. Rethink how you view your employees. They are the lifeline of your organization

3. Move the employees from a liability to an asset on your balance sheet. I realize it is hard to put a true value on their benefit to you. But think of what the cost would be if they all left.

Enjoy your weekend what is left of it, and go into work on Monday embracing the new status of human capital in the global workplace. If you have some basis for looking at the human cpaital asset of your organization in another perspective , drop me yoiur comments.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Relocation Announcement

SunCoke will relocate its headquarters from Knoxville, Tn to Chicago early next year.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Relocation Announcement

The Money Gram has announced that it will reelocate its corporate headquarters from Minneapolis to Dallas  and there will be new hires there as well. MoneyGram plans to have about 75 employees in place in Dallas by March 2011 and 150 by 2012.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Implications for the Workplace

We have witnessed several incidents over the past several weeks of violence taking place in our palces to work.This get followed by a father going ballistic on a school bus because the students riding the bus were bullying his 13 year old disabled daughter. In my spare time ( as if I have any) I substitute teach in the local schools and the last time I did so I had a student who came to the decision that she needed to talk to a friend who was out in the school yard, and despite  being told to take her seat she got up and walked out the door. When I discussed the situation with an administrator the answer I received was that it is not the same environment as when we went to school. Now the students can practicaly do what ever they want.

The implication was that we no longer have the ability to control the quality of the educational environment that we are using to train the talnet we need to fulfill the coming talent shortage in our conversations. Growing up we never heard of employees reporting to work with a loaded weapon. Growing up we never heard of employees taking other actions that are detrimental to the workplace.

If we want a safe workplace it is time we take back the environment in which we train the future leaders. We need to create educational environments where the students are there to learn the skills and tools that they will need to survive when they enter the workplace. We need to convince them that there is a better way then bullying fellow students because they are different. We need to convince them that the only way our society and business organizations will survive is if we recognize, appreciate and relish the diversity of thoughts and knowledge in the global workplace.

While I am not condoning the censorship of our employees, I am suggesting that we need to create a better work environment where we respect  each others presence.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Reflections on society, organizations and the global workplace

As I am writing this it is 9:00 PM and our Jewish clients and my family have just finished celebrating the High Holy Days and today we are asked to reflect on our lives. This brings me to the content of this post. We have also heard or read about the Rev Jones in Gainesville, who felt it was his calling to burn the Quaran, because it did not agree with his teachings. I have previously talked about the presentor at a recent conference who suggested we should do a multi-facted background check to determine whether an applicant "fit our corporate culture." We see and hear fairly regularly lately that the US is losing its competitiveness in the global market. You open the newspaper or turn  on the news and you hear about "political purity."

Competitiveness comes from the introduction of innovation and collaboration. One of the tools of a high performance team is the art of brainstorming. This only works if you consider all views on a particular issue. Not only those views that you agree with but those that might be totally different then yours. When business enterprises operate from the perspective of ruling out all those who do not think the way they do, dress the way they do, talk the way they do and fit a sterotype of the perfect organizational employee, in the long run you diminish not only your own organization but the global workplace as well.

If we go back in history we can find many examples of individuals who made great contributions to our lives, our society and our futures, who if they had been in the mainstream would have been lost in the shuiffle. If we are going to talk about diversity of backgrounds within our organizations we need to walk the ealk and talk the talk. There is a real possibility that your current corporate culture may be contributing to the root cause of your problems.

Strategy: Recognize that different life experiences enrich the workplace by introducing new ideas and viewpoints. These experiences may open doors that you never dreamed of that can take your organization to new plateaus of performance. So in return value the diveristy of opnions with your organizations. If you talk the talk that you have an open door policy, be sure that you really do. Refrain from making judgements about the value brought to the table by someone who does not exactly look and act like you do. We don't all like the same kind of music but that does not diminish the contributions we all can make to our organizations. If you disagree with my thoughts or have responses of your own, feel free to let me know your thoughts.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Site Expansion Magazine reports results of MAPI survey

While the pace of recovery in the general economy has clearly slowed, the deceleration is less visible in the manufacturing sector, according to the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI.

"Despite less consumer spending growth in the second quarter, there was nevertheless some employment growth and modest wage increases. Also, the prolonged downturn and sluggish recovery have created pent-up demand for some durable goods, including sales of motor vehicles and appliances," said Daniel J. Meckstroth, Chief Economist for the MAPI. "The inventory swing is greatest in manufacturing; exports are predominantly manufactured and benefitted from the fast global trade bounce back; and business investment in equipment rebounded much faster than consumer spending, thus making the pace of the industrial recovery stronger than that in the general economy.”

Manufacturing industrial production, measured on a quarter-to-quarter basis, grew at an 8% annual rate in the three months ending July 2010, after expanding at a 5% annual rate in the three months ending April 2010.

MAPI predicts the superior growth trend for manufacturing will continue, but decelerate, increasing 6% overall in 2010 and advancing 5% in 2011. At this pace it will be late 2012 before manufacturing production exceeds the December 2007 pre-recession level.

Production in non-high-tech manufacturing expanded at an 8% annual rate during the May-July 2010 period. According to the MAPI report, non-high-tech manufacturing production is expected to increase approximately 5% in 2010 and 4% in 2011. High-tech industrial production rose at a 10% annual rate in the May-July 2010 time frame. The group anticipates that it will post strong 15% growth in 2010 and 13% growth in 2011.

Iron and steel production grew by 68% in the three months ending in July 2010 compared to the previous three months, while industrial machinery production improved by 58% in the same window. MAPI forecasts that iron and steel production will grow 56% and industrial machinery will increase 36%.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Click herThe Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) has released its expert Technical Advisory Report on Adverse Impact Analysis

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

WASHINGTON D.C. - The Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) has released its expert Technical Advisory Report on Adverse Impact Analysis.

Overview

Although determining whether selection, promotion, and termination decisions result in adverse impact is an important topic for organizations, there is little guidance about the proper way in which these analyses should be conducted. This lack of guidance is problematic in that it is not unusual for professionals in the same organization to disagree about how these analyses should be conducted, and it is certainly not unusual for plaintiffs and defendants to disagree. To help determine if there are "best practices" in conducting adverse impact analyses, the Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) created a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of 70 of the nation's top experts in adverse impact analyses.

TAC members consisted of a wide variety of EEO experts including industrial-organizational psychologists, labor economists, plaintiff and defense attorneys, HR practitioners, and former OFCCP and EEOC officials. The first step in the process was to administer a detailed questionnaire that asked TAC members to indicate how they would handle a variety of data, statistical, and legal interpretation issues commonly encountered in conducting adverse impact analyses. The survey results were used to identify topics where there was strong agreement as well as topics where there was strong disagreement. Results of this survey were used to structure the agenda for an in-person onsite meeting.

Forty-five of the TAC members then gathered at Georgetown University for a two-day face-to-face meeting to discuss responses to the survey and make general recommendations. These recommendations were combined with the survey results to create a best practice document that will be distributed without cost to members of the EEO community on September 15, 2010. As a courtesy to federal enforcement agencies, one week prior to the public release of the best practices document, members of CCE briefed representatives from the OFCCP, EEOC, and Department of Justice on the TAC findings.

The report is featured in today's BNA Daily Labor Report®.

To view the full report click on the following links:

TAC Adverse Impact Report

TAC Report Appendix A: Survey Questions and Responses

TAC Report Appendix B: Committee Member Biographies

Contact: Harold Busch Executive Director email: harold.busch@cceq.org phone: 202-293-2220

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

Center For Corporate Equality releases Technocal Guide to Adverse Impact

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Center for Corporate Equality	............ Announcement .....
Washington, DC September 15, 2010 THE CENTER FOR CORPORATE EQUALITY RELEASES TAC REPORT ON ADVERSE IMPACT ANALYSIS WASHINGTON D.C. - The Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) has released its expert Technical Advisory Report on Adverse Impact Analysis. Overview Although determining whether selection, promotion, and termination decisions result in adverse impact is an important topic for organizations, there is little guidance about the proper way in which these analyses should be conducted. This lack of guidance is problematic in that it is not unusual for professionals in the same organization to disagree about how these analyses should be conducted, and it is certainly not unusual for plaintiffs and defendants to disagree. To help determine if there are "best practices" in conducting adverse impact analyses, the Center for Corporate Equality (CCE) created a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of 70 of the nation's top experts in adverse impact analyses. TAC members consisted of a wide variety of EEO experts including industrial-organizational psychologists, labor economists, plaintiff and defense attorneys, HR practitioners, and former OFCCP and EEOC officials. The first step in the process was to administer a detailed questionnaire that asked TAC members to indicate how they would handle a variety of data, statistical, and legal interpretation issues commonly encountered in conducting adverse impact analyses. The survey results were used to identify topics where there was strong agreement as well as topics where there was strong disagreement. Results of this survey were used to structure the agenda for an in-person onsite meeting. Forty-five of the TAC members then gathered at Georgetown University for a two-day face-to-face meeting to discuss responses to the survey and make general recommendations. These recommendations were combined with the survey results to create a best practice document that will be distributed without cost to members of the EEO community on September 15, 2010. As a courtesy to federal enforcement agencies, one week prior to the public release of the best practices document, members of CCE briefed representatives from the OFCCP, EEOC, and Department of Justice on the TAC findings. The report is featured in today's BNA Daily Labor Report®. To view the full report click on the following links: TAC Adverse Impact Report TAC Report Appendix A: Survey Questions and Responses TAC Report Appendix B: Committee Member Biographies Contact: Harold Busch Executive Director email: harold.busch@cceq.org phone: 202-293-2220

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed

A week of contrast

This has been a short work week for many brought on by two different events. The first was Labor Day. While not celebrated in exactly the same way it was originally intended for, it gave us time off from work to enjoy the end of summer and understand the role of the worker within our organizations. The second event for the Jewish population was the beginning of a new year according to their calendar. This contrast gave me a pause for thought and I would like to share those thoughts with you. I am open to your commnets back if you disagree with them.

Since 1882 Labor Day was created to emphasize "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations" within this country. But it was created at another time and place within our economic workplace. Many of the presenters I talked with at the recent HR Florida conference, expect an increase in the amount of unionization withinthis country similar to other developed countries around the world. While this might be true, we also have recognize that the requirements of the workplace have changed since 1882. The talent needs of our organizations have changed as the demands on our organizations has changed.

On Thursday and Friday, we celebrated the advent of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah). With that is an opportunity to begin once again our lives for the next year. Part of that entrance into a new year is the realization that we are NEVER going to go back to the normal before 2007-2008. To those who decry the high unemployment rate, many still operate from the belief that we are going to return to that day of yesterday. Outsourcing was not necessarily the only reason we saw rising numbers of individuals losing their jobs. We have moved on and some have been left by the wayside. Not on purpose but because the need they filled was gone. We are not in an age of industrial growth any longer. We have moved on to a world where the employee contributes not what they can produce on a machine but rather what is in their minds. Critical thinking replaces manipulative skills. The employee has moved to a position of leasing out their services to a particular organization based on the technical or creative skils the individual brings to the table. If you want to get a further understanding of this dilemma, I suggest you get a copy of Charles Handy's "Age of UnReason" and the "Age of Paradox." Charles Handy suggests that there will be no more unemployment but rather we will ALL become self-employed working for organizations in a project basis.

Russ Moen of the Employment Pros recruiting firm makes the analogy that as we moved from the industrial to the knowledge age, employees became non-owned corporate assets. Our ability to compete in this global marketplace is based on the level of innovation and collaboration that our organizations can create for their clients. What is required of our organizations is to find strategies that will more fully engage our creative assets. It will help the employee. It will help the organization. It will help the global workplace.

Posted via email from hrstrategist@Net-Speed