What HR managers and workers think of Obama’s policies
February 23, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, policies
One poll by HR Morning shows what HR managers think of, and expect from, President Obama’s policies on employment law. Another poll by a legal-research organization describes worker attitudes toward the Employee Free Choice Act.
First, our poll of 1,286 HR managers, of whom we asked, “Do you think President Obama’s policies on employment law will –”
- Make your job easier: 9%
- Make your job more difficult: 70%
- Will have no effect on my job: 21%
So, clearly, the HR managers expect to take on more work because of new and proposed policies.
Those responses can be compared with another poll, by the Employment Law Alliance, asking 1,288 workers about their awareness and thoughts about the proposed Employee Free Choice Act.
- 25% said they were “aware of” the EFCA.
- 26% said they support the EFCA
- 30% support replacing a secret-ballot election with a “card check” system to determine union representation; 35% opposed replacing the secret ballot.
- 37% favor the use of government-supervised, binding arbitration to settle a contract in the event of a deadlock (as proposed in EFCA); 22% oppose it.
- 30% said they were more likely to back the EFCA if the President supported it.
Tags: EFCA, Employee Free Choice Act, obama
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am
The new administration is extremely naive and belives it can legislate economic recovery by give-away programs. Barrack is making a huge mistake, plain and simple. I just don’t believe that he has the experience to understand the real world; his experience is all educational hype and theories that he’s never experienced. The general field of HR will become more heavily burdened by these social legislated idealogies. I am not impressed with anything so far.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Agreed. The big O has made the mistake of believing socialism can work if it is “just done right”. Theft is theft no matter the name-no one will be productive in a society that takes away your property via law. It has never worked and it won’t ever work because it is fundamentally opposed to your rights, i.e., life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Wants and desires are not rights and until the Feds acknowledge that fact their policies are doomed to failure.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I am the HR director for a small engineering firm and the wonderful new Obama plans will make
my job more difficult and for less money. Mr Obama wants to hurt businesses in America not help.
What a mess. The only thing this porkulus package will do is hurt people not help.
Too bad they don’t have anyone in the white house who really cares about Liberty. Maybe in
4 years we will try again…….
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I think President Obama is doing everything he can to pull us out of a nose dive. I love that his policies favor working people. The idea that what’s good for workers is bad for the country is a myth. Americans have a visionary on their hands, and a very bright future, if they’ll let him do the job and stop the reactionary rhetoric.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
The famous “trickle down theory” certainly didn’t work…atleast not for the middle and lower classes. Did wonders for big business. I am all for the change.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
President Obama’s policies will make my job, and that of every HR professional, more difficult; will cost our employers more money to comply with an every expanding number of rules and regulations and, ultimately, will cost me my job when my employer either closes or downsizes. President Obama, like most socialists, believes that jobs belong to the workers when, in fact, the jobs really belong to the business owners. The proposed EFCA legislation along with increased taxes will force more jobs out of the country and more Americans on welfare.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
We been having lay offs way before President Obama’s plan so have many other companies forced to downsize of close. So are we now going to blame him for all the woes of the economy? Jobs have being going out of the country for a while now.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Cindy,
You are correct. Many comapnies have been forced to downsize or close and, yes, jobs have being sent out of the country for some time, but many people had hope that Mr. Obama would change all that. Because he is the President, he is ultimately responsible for both the good and bad that happens. As Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here”.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
It is unbelievable of how all of this is getting blamed on President Obama. He inherited all of this and nobody is blaming the real culprit President Bush. President Obama is trying to pull us out of this mess but it is going to take all of our efforts and we all must work together instead of blaming each other. I thought we were all Americans…….I guess not!
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
to Tom:
Understood but the man’s only been in office a month and 1/2. It can’t be fixed over night.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
If those in favor of EFCA are HR professionals, I can’t imagine what you believe it will do for your company. You need to learn to be a business advocate – if there is no business or if the business is not profitable, there are no employees. And I would disagree whole-heartedly that Bush is responsible for our current situation given that he can only make proposal and Congress is responsible for the rest. Last I checked, the last few years have been a Pelosi nightmare. And the Enron’s and Worldcom’s grew up and greedy under the Clinton watch.
The real fiasco has been the bail-outs. Get real – it will keep jobs from being lost?! Ha – the first cost-cutting measure most businesses will take is to reduce headcount, etc. Just let failing companies fail and allow those businesses that can do it right prosper, grow, create jobs, etc.
Regardless of the politics, though, the EFCA will be responsible for the loss of business and will be the demise of any incentive for a smaller business to grow (which prevents jobs from being created). Employees have no idea what all of the implications are. If they sign a card today, it may very well be valid if the EFCA passes and it is irrevocable for a whole year. Please educate yourselves before believing naively that this is even remotely “good” for Americans.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I think he has the right idea. I agree with Lee, Cindy and Ulysees. He’s been in charge for 6 weeks trying to fix 8 years of damage. Although I feel Bush is mostly responsible, so are the CEO’s, Presidents, VP’s of large corporations. Funny how so many worker bees lost their jobs but you hear all about these high power executives who make 6 figures and still received bonuses. Struggling companies should not be handing out bonuses to people who don’t really financially need it. People really need to step up, take responsibility and move past the blame game.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Obama is just as guilty as Bush and all of Congress. For the past 2 or 3 decades legislation has chipped away individual rights. The big O is moving the demise of libety much faster that’s all. Economies are not created or controlled from the top down unless it is in a communist or socialist state. Those two systems depend on force to make an individual produce and the state takes it to redistribute for the “good of all”. Only in capitalism does an individual keep what they produce to do with it as they please. The current Congress is destroying production under the guise of “doing good” for everyone-just wait and we will all be equally poor. And for that lack of leadership I currently blame Obama. Before him it was Bush. No party has exclusive claim on lack of intelligence.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
the country, our economy, and the big business pholosophy has been broke for awhile. Every good HR person knows it – we’ve had to “spin” less bonuses, less pay, and cutbacks for awhile now, regardless of industry. So why continue to gripe and be naysayers? – no other president has appeared to be successful solving the problem with a new thought – let’s at least give this one a chance – oh – any by the way – it’s not just “his” thought – I beleive that there’s a cabinet, and various congressional and senate committes that needed to “bless” some of these new rules/regs?? and no president of any business is expected to “know everything” – why do some of you feel that Pres. Obama needs to know it all? that’s not even humanly possible – any president – big businees or country – is only as good as the people they surround themselves with. why the scapegoat mentality? and to the last commentator – you may be right – there is no exclusive claim on “lack of intelligence” but then again I expect that depends on who is judging?
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have been against the bail-outs and the stimulus package but Congress pushed Obama’s plans through anyway. A show of party support? So much for bi-partisanship. The folks in DC are operating within a vaccuum and don’t have to live with the day-to-day results of their decisions. When they rely on social security instead of a rich pension plan and medical benefit plans that are similar to what average Americans subscribe to then perhaps things might change in the right direction. How many of those Capital Hill decision-makers are small (or even large) business owners? How many are lawyers who depend on keeping things muddied so that their cronies are hired for interpretation? We’ll all need legal assistance if EFCA passes so in addition to paying back the labor bosses (who, by the way, manage to become rather wealthy on the backs of those they are paid to represent), there’s also some pay-back to their legal peers.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Linda has it right. If HR people are not in sync with business being their partner they might as well look for another career. A lot of HR (supposed professionals) people are not well educated in business, they just want to give it away like BO (or maybe the UAW who took it away). This debate obviously has a split opinion and we’ll never really have a good perspective for another 3-4 years. I have to laugh about all the prior administration blame going around. I think we should go back to FDR and come forward on the “blame game”! I think that slick Willy is at the heart of a lot of this mess and Pelosi and gang just carried it forth. Have fun!
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 am
I fully support President Obama’s efforts to reverse the damage that has been inflicted upon Americans by the runaway capitalistic ideals. While I support the right for everyone to be able to earn a living and make a profit for their efforts, I do not support the right of these same people to break the backs of the middle class while doing so. While I understand that a person puts themselves in jeopardy to create a new business, without the workers they are able to hire, they would not have a business. Our grandfathers fought a long and hard battle when unions were first introduced……..they had no choice if they wanted to maintain a decent living standard for their families. Over the last few years these laws have been watered down almost to the point of no longer having any affect. I am astounded when I talk to young people who think they actually have a right to lunch time, breaks, holiday pay, vacation, etc. You don’t. An employer has the right to work you 7 days a week, 24hrs a day, if they choose. Of course most employers realize this would be detrimental to do so. Big business was forced to treat their workers decently; they did not choose to do this on their own. They were too busy enjoying a very rich lifestyle from the backs of their employees. What makes anyone think this has changed? Look around you…..it hasn’t. There are a few companies who do try to do the right thing, but they are few and far between. The business provide the jobs, but they cannot make any profit without the workers. Should they not at least be able to provide a decent lifestyle for their families? It is time for CHANGE.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 am
Cheers to Billie!
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
I’m not ready to live in a socialistic country. Ask any person from a country who lives by that philosophy where they would prefer to live and I would bet $$ that they would choose the USA and a “capitalistic” culture. If a worker doesn’t like the employer, they are free to move on to another one. Why is there such a mentality of entitlement? It’s the thought that others “owe you something” that has been a large part of the reason why we are in such a mess. Someone has to pay for it – taxes, welfare, etc. Why increase that burden and bite the hand that feeds you (i.e. an employer trying to stay afloat without the hammer of a union)? Right to work an individual 24/7? Come on, anything over 40 hours is compensated at 1.5x – it’s not just a free ride.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Although the stock market is not a perfect barometer of the economy, it is interesting to note that it has gone down ever since the election of President Obama and the last 2 months(since his inauguation) have been the worst. Every time he or Mr. Geitner announce a new policy, the market “tanks” and employees lose more of their 401k retirement funds. It almost seems as though Mr Obama doesn’t want the American worker to succeed financially, but to be dependent on the largess of the government.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 am
I am not advocating a “socialistic society”. What I am advocating is fairness to the employees that allow you to make that profit. If you could hire someone to do a job for $3.00 an hour instead of paying $6.55, which one would you hire? Obviously the one that will allow you the largest “profit”. I’m not saying that unions are the answer to everything in this aspect, only that by having them were the people finally able to earn a decent wage and be given consideration by the employer other than as someone who could easily be replaced by someone else who was a little hungrier. No one wants to handicap the business owner to the point that they can’t survive, nor want to continue. What the people want is fairness, and it has certainly not been there in the recent years. The only “entitlement” employees want is the right to earn a decent living. (notice I said “earn”.) Nothing is for free. Where do you thing the right to be paid at 1.5x for OT came from? The businesses certainly did not offer it on their own. Free enterprise is what made this country, but it should not be for the benefit of a few and the detriment to all of the rest. All should be able to benefit from the prosperity of the country as long as they are putting forth the effort to do so. No one should have a “free ride”, but they should at least be able to have the opportunity to “ride”.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 am
And we’ll all be Old Age Pensioners living in government run council houses with crummy healthcare (National Health) just like it was when I lived in the UK. High unemployment, taxing the rich until they can’t afford to keep things going anymore (so they turn over their family homes to the National Trust to become tourist attractions or worse); a truly wonderful existence. And all the while, those in political power living in a totally different manner enjoying the finer things in life (including private health care). It’s not capitalism that’s at fault, it’s the politically machinations and paybacks.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Billie – so you just want it to get to the tipping point for employers? I’m not trying to be mean here just trying to find a way to explain why it’s so important not to ding the business owners. Are you an HR professional? I would think twice before hiring someone who isn’t more concerned about the viability of the business and is more likely to invite the union in the door. I will repeat – if the employee is unhappy with their current employer, they are free to go elsewhere. From an employer perspective, I would be more concerned about what is causing turnover and move to repair that but not to the extent of being held over the barrel by an employee who threatens to quit “unless” . . . But it’s always in an employer’s best interest to do what they can (within reason) to retain good employees. Sometimes it’s not just the $$ but also the other things that make an employer one of choice. Having a union in place often times takes those other options off the table and makes it a negative for everyone.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
I should have included (in addition to the comment about unions in place) “or government mandates”.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
I’ll cease and desist now. Just thought this was a viewpoint of interest to pass along. Please note the credit at the bottom of this posting.
Case Against EFCA
A detailed study recently released thoroughly debunks the claims made by proponents of the EFCA. Written by noted legal scholar Richard Epstein, it addresses the EFCA’s three provisions, and soundly criticizes the justification supporters cite for the bill. It is a lengthy but readable document (download PDF at https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/452.pdf).
Says Epstein, “The bottom line therefore is that the passage of EFCA will create huge dislocations in established ways of doing business that will in turn lead to large losses in productivity.”
********
Solis vs. Corruption
Hilda Solis was confirmed as Secretary of Labor this week. After a bumpy confirmation process in which her nomination was held up by questions about her role as a lobbyist for the Free Choice Act while also serving in Congress, she was approved overwhelmingly by the Senate.
Unions are happy with Solis, who served on the Board of American Rights at Work, a non-profit, union-funded lobbying organization whose purpose is to garner for the Free Choice Act. Businesses are wary for the same reason. I’m sure she is anxious to get to work. She has big shoes to fill.
read the rest of the article here…http://laboringattheinstitute.blogspot.com/2009/02/hilda-solis-will-she-tackle-union.html
**********
If you use content from this newsletter please
attribute it to Labor Relations Institute and
include our website address: http://www.LRIonline.com
Contributing editors for this issue: Phillip
Wilson, Greg Kittinger
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Billie – Union workers with no more then a high school deploma were making over $45 an hour as General Motors Union workers. Is this what you call a ‘decent wage’? I call it gouging the employer, and to top it off when GM ran into terrible financial problems the ‘union’ would not give an inch. Unions were needed in their inception ‘child labor laws’, set hours of work’, etc… but now they are just like our government – out for themselves. Mr. O – was placed in office by the union support and now its his turn to pay them back. Who suffers???? Small Businesses and ultimately each and every employee. YOU – Billie
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Even though I support President Obama, I agree with Kathleen. Unions had their day but now with all the employment laws to protect workers, they ARE more of a hinderance than help. They usually protect the “bad” workers. My son works for UPS and their union doesn’t do much for the hard workers but they still have to pay the dues.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I am amused. Denial seems to be the main stay here. Bush and his cronies since Bush number 1 have raped and pillaged the workers in favor of the rich for years. The end result should be obvious but the nay-sayers have their heads stuck in the sand or ‘oricified’ with Bush and company. He has destroyed this country. Now President Obama has to put radical change into effect **to benefit workers** and the deny and socialist complainers come out of the wood work. Where were you when the working class was being financially raped by the miserable failure of trickle down (except if you were rich)?
Stop the questioning about if people here that support a change are HR professionals. I question rather or not those that are still advocating raping the working class are professional themselves. Business had survived wonderfully, until Bush, with policies that were fair to the worker which is what kept the economy healthy and businesses in business.
I have pointed out before and it is still true rather or not we like it. Unions, protected class laws, antidiscrimination laws, fair pay acts and any of the laws that measure fairness in the workplace by decree are the employer’s fault, not the employees. If companies and employers and especially if the HR people were doing their jobs and advocating employment law fairly then none of the decrees would have been necessary. No court cases would have been ruled upon and the President would not have to reverse years of BUSH and his hate the worker policies and politics. Advocating for your company includes advocating employment law so that your companies would be protected from law suits and so that your companies would not become the test case for new legislation to force fairness by decree. That is what an HR professional does.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 am
well stated John!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
Thank you, John. We are often led to believe we have to ignore the “human” in “human Resources.” It encompasses all aspects.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
John:
I do agree with what you say whole heartedly but I still have issues with current day unions. I see teachers who shouldn’t be teachers….have known them to actually strike a child…and the unions protect them. UPS protected a employee who threatened my daughter’s life at work. They told her just to make sure someone walks to her car with her. The unions I see, don’t work like they should.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 am
As my father used to tell me, “Union representation is only as good as those you elect to the offices.” Many members don’t pay attention to what is going on and leave it up to everyone else. The same applies to our government. Unions are not the answer to everything and are not perfect, but they did get you what rights you now have. Maybe this time something will change, as the people are now paying attention.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
I’d love to see a BIG change in accoutability for teachers. Reward the good and terminate the bad. Our public school system is sinking.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Cindy
I can only assume that you have had personal experiences with the union and teachers. If I may kindly suggest what I am actually hearing from you. I am not necessarily hearing that unions are bad; rather I am hearing that the union you speak of has some really bad practices. Unfortunately that does happen. But it will take people like you to stand up and fight for what is principled and right to change that. Billie is right. Perhaps it is the representatives of that union that should be taken to task and maybe you are the person to do it.
Either way I am hearing a sense of fairness being advocated with out regard to who is being unfair. That includes unions. I can appreciate that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
I would love to see it totally revamped. Our current system does not work. There are way too many drop-outs and others left along the side of the road because they don’t fit into the college mould. Our schools have to concentrate too much on rules and regulations, and education has fallen by the wayside. Our children are so inundated with having to “belong” and wearing the “right” clothes, that the social aspect is out of control. I’ve often thought that it might be a good idea to give kids a break after 10th grade. Let them get a job for a year to see what it’s like out there, and what they might be interested in doing. Then let them return for education in the field they may be intersted in, be it college prep or vocational training, or whatever. So many waste those H.S. years because they have no motivation and don’t appreciate the opportunities until it is too late.
I do agree with the teacher situation. So many of them are just there because it is a job, but many have been put in that situation because of the antiquity of our system. I have seen a few that really care, but they seem to be few and far between. (not all their fault, either.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
It’s VERY hard to fight the school system…and yes, I know from experience. I believe that people should be rewarded on their merit not because someone says it is time to be rewarded even if you are doing a lousy job.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
My son had a teacher in fifth grade who was WONDERFUL. My son has ADD and struggles with school work…needs alot of one on one to understand. She worked with my son after school to help him keep caught up. The SCHOOL told her to stop because she was enabling him. So the school system itself shuts down good teachers. It’s awful.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
You have all gotten way off the original mark of this query. Most of the paragraphs I read talk about different people and their professions which includes personal responsability. It amazes me at how much of you add disclaimers such as (not all their fault, either), (a sense of fairness being advocated without regard to who is being unfair) (the bad being rewarded but the good not) What happend to personal responsability??? Taking pride in what you do without being rewarded?? Just performing to the best of your ability, doing right, having a clear conscience.. . . As Linda stated many paragraphs ago – where did this mind-set of intitlement come from??? If you work you eat, if you don’t you don’t deserve to be given a free handout from those who do work. If you choose to be educated, you should be rewarded with higher pay. If you choose to not be educated – just work harder at manual labor and again you will be rewarded. This all started with FDR and his “new deal” – it has proven that if FDR’s new deal had not been put in place – America would have come out of the great depression in about 2 to 3 years. But with his ‘new deal” which translates to “bigger government” the depression lasted 12 years. Each administration makes their mistakes but this current one – is all about “more government” being disguised to the blind as “change”. This is not what America needs.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
As in all conversations regarding such things as politics and religion, everyone gets off-track quickly. This was supposed to be all about the EFCA. First the legislation is a mis-named. There is no “free choice” when a union representative is standing next to you telling you (must) sign an authorization card. No privacy when you vote? Would you go an vote in any political situation and not have privacy/secret vote? BO is so influenced by the unions (maybe even paid by them) and and the far left he is going to put Ameirican business out on their ear. So for those repsonding in support of his tactics, don’t worry you’ll soon be on the unemployment lines to and then you can enjoy the fruits of your polictical leanings.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Well stated Robert -
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
To Robert:
I’ve been fearing the unemployment lines for a lot longer that two months since President Obama stepped in. This problem didn’t start a month and a half ago
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
To Kathleen:
….and Bushes “trickle down theory” just worked so well. Sure.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Kathleen and Robert
You both just did what you complained about others doing.
Plain and simple. Policies ruined the businesses of this country. You can’t divorce a discussion of policy from the founders of the policy or the reason for the policy. Bush was the policy maker. Businesses profited silently. HR people used and abused the privilege of the working class and now all of a sudden that is off topic? Why? Now working people will get back what the policies of a corrupt administration previously stole.
I hope we all enjoy the fruits of Obama’s change even you who still clinging to some ideology that speaking for working class people is some type of failure. I find it interesting that when the term “entitlement” is used it is a chastisement thrown at the employee. When did entitlement to the employer without regard to the employee become fashionable? Under Bush. He and his policies were soundly defeated. That means that the majority of people wanted a change. You guys are simply reflecting why all of this happened to begin with. You just don’t want to see it. If we employers and HR people had acted with good faith and treated our employees fairly (oh my gosh! Treat an employee fairly!?!) an according to the law this policy would not have been an issue. This policy was part of the platform of Obama and he was voted in anyway with unprecedented Republican state backing him. Did you miss that?
As to the unemployment lines; that seems a veiled threat. It goes like this: “well before I will bend to fair treatment of employees I’ll just seek another unfair way to get rid of them.” So the next thing we will see is more lawsuits from discriminatory firings, more lawsuits over improper RIFs, more age discrimination lawsuits for illegal firings. What we will see is the employer being held accountable for the tactics that some here want to still practice. HR has changed. Laws have changed, employers putting it too employees will change. If HR people don’t change get ready for the lawsuits. You will earn them.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Bravo, John!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
John John John – I hold no particular administration solely accountable for our present state. (and this ‘policy’ didn’t just start with the Bush administration) Total government rule whether it be over HR, taxes, states, is not how our country was founded. It hasn’t worked for ancient Rome, Europe, Russia, Cuba and it “will be” the downfall of America. You can NOT fix a problem by assuming more debt. And as far as Republican States voting for BO – that was by electorial vote, if you actually take the number of actual votes by Republican count – he would have lost. Again – a minipulation designed for bigger government – control. It’s all about control. You John can choose to be controlled or take control. If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
The original subject was “What HR managers and workers think of Obama’s policies” Stick to the subject. Take the Bush bashing to another venue. It serves no purpose.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
to Tom:
sort of does serve a purpose when people want to blame all the country’s woes on President Obama.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Kathleen
Actually I agree with some of what you say. I have stood for something with each post; fairness in the work place. You can choose to be controlled as well and I think you have. But that type of control is what is being changed. I do not agree with your assessment of big government. We employers and HR peole are paying for what we did to the workplace and employees. It is just that simple.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
John, I don’t know if you know what fair really is baes on what you wrote. I think that vast majority of American businesses are very fair. If you believe what the liberal press prints about business, then you are out of touch with main street Ameirican business. I have spent over 40 years in the HR business with some very well known employers and they all took into consideration their employees first. They did expect a fair days work from their employees in return for good pay & benefits. And trickle down did not fail. The major issue has been the fragile infrastructure of the financial system (give me a break, sub-prime lending!) tied with the greed of a few. We all endorsed and enjoyed it when it was working; attempts to put in place checks & balances failed because the left thinking folks in Congress did not want to be seen as raining on their constituents wealth parade (or their own, ask Pelosi). Conservatives were out voted. Now everyone is looking to place blame. All of a sudden capitalism has become a dirty word. We all better think long and hard about where we will be if that is the direction BO is going (and if he isn’t he is trying to fool us). Do you think that the EFCA is a “fair” law? If so please explain yourself, I’ll be interested in reading your perspective.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Tom
I did not see you make any statement about the Obama bashing happening here. Is there a reason for that? Fairness issue maybe? Bush made policies that were detrimental to this country. That is what I am pointing out. Others are saying Obama is making bad policy. Why is discussing Obama policy that will hopefully fix the failed Bush policy, different than discussing the failures of Bush that lead to what needs correcting?
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
robert Says:
John, I don’t know if you know what fair really is based on what you wrote.
————————————————————
Good grief Robert. We are disagreeing, that does not mean I just fell off the turnip truck.
Robert
I think that vast majority of American businesses are very fair.
———————————————————-
So? It is not and was not the businesses that treated people fairly that causes law suits. It is those that fail at that, get dragged into court for the impact the business has had on working people that the court sanctions or adjudicates and then affect us all. Just like cops. Most are good does that mean that some are not bad?
Robert
If you believe what the liberal press prints about business, then you are out of touch with main street Ameirican business.
———————
See here is where you played your hand. Fairness is lost in this statement because your referenced ‘liberal press’. I never said where I get my opinions from but you are telling me that yours come from right wing press. That includes the likes of Rush and others who appeal to, sorry, people who need someone to think for them.
Robert
I have spent over 40 years in the HR business with some very well known employers and they all took into consideration their employees first.
—————–
I have no issues with that. I am happy for your 40 years. I have been in my position for 37 years. Do you think your 40 years in the sole measure of what employers do? Then explain why there are courts that find against employers every single day?
Robert
They did expect a fair days work from their employees in return for good pay & benefits. And trickle down did not fail. The major issue has been the fragile infrastructure of the financial system (give me a break, sub-prime lending!) tied with the greed of a few.
——————————————-
Of whom? EMPLYERS and COMPANIES. Trickle down was not a failure? It was a miserable social experience that has nearly bankrupt this country!
Robert
We all endorsed and enjoyed it when it was working;
————————————–
Only part of tat is true. It was endorsed and enjoyed by the rich robbed the working class.
Robert
attempts to put in place checks & balances failed because the left thinking folks in Congress did not want to be seen as raining on their constituents wealth parade (or their own, ask Pelosi).
——————————-
Here is your hand again. Not fairness but a bent view based on your politics. There were no checks and balances. Everything lead to the meltdown of the financial market, guess what built on conservative principles.
Robert
Conservatives were out voted. Now everyone is looking to place blame.
—————————
Sure you are Robert. You just blamed Pelosi in your last sentence. But the conservative movement has been so used to saying something is true and then by some magic waving of the Bush administration wand it was true. Then came the glass house falling down around your head.
Robert
All of a sudden capitalism has become a dirty word. We all better think long and hard about where we will be if that is the direction BO is going (and if he isn’t he is trying to fool us).
———————————–
No, greed became a dirty word. Following a blind leader became a dirty word. Capitalism still exist and will always exist. But it has to include everyone not just greedy companies that will do anything to get a profit.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I also have been in this industry for over 50 years and have been through many administrations. All non-union companies are regulated by State Labor laws with California being one of the strictest. This new EFCA goes way beyond ‘fair’. It specifically targets small businesses who employee 85% of all workers. Closing them down by over-regulating their ‘already’ set in stone State policies and you will have unemployment at an all time high. We can debate back an forth as to ‘whose to blame’ but the ball is rolling and it is gathering much moss.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Yes and thank goodness it is.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Greed…that’s what it has been all about the last eight years. It’s time to stop the “me first” mentality.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
We should stop supporting the Republican party and the Democratic party. They are both too extreme in their respective directions to do any good. The current economic dillema is mostly due to the last 8 years of the Republican party’s policies that allowed the majority of the nation’s wealth to become too concentrated with the wealthiest. The Democratic party’s policy of “raping” the wealthy’s riches and giving it to the poor is not the answer nor is creating absurd laws to make everybody’s lives a living hell. These are the only answers each party ever has and look where it has gotten us. The Federal Government should allow the creation of new industries by legalizing many things that are illegal for ridicolous reasons i.e. marijuana, prostitution, and gambling. With the creation of new industries, there will be more jobs and more revenue for taxes. Many of the jobs that will be created will be jobs that will allow the poor to make the leap into the middle class which is what is needed for a strong society. Also with the revenue from those taxes, the government could lower the amount of taxes taken from people’s income, allowing them to have more money to spend, thus putting more money back into the economy. However, we still need to tax the wealthy more than the poor to avoid the concentration of wealth and to gradually allow some of that wealth to re-enter the economy. But if we had new industries that created tax revenue then we could lower income taxes for everybody. Not to mention the money the government would save from stopping the “War on Drugs.”
March 4th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Chris:
I agree with most of what you say although I do support President Obama…although I don’t agree with all his plans. There has to be a middle ground. As far as legalizing marijuana, prostitution and gambling…I agree with you there also. Alcohol is much harder on a body and causes many issues so why is it legal and not marijuana? What’s the difference? And why should I care if someone wants to use THEIR body to make money. It’s going to be out there no matter if it’s legal or not. Make it legal and it will probably be safer for all involved.
The greed era started with Bush and trickled out to big business. No one cared how the working class fared. It was all about big profits, i.e. record profits for oil. I AM hoping that the Greed era is over and big business will have to be more fiscally responsible.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Oh my gosh. I cannot believe that this has turned into what it has. I’m sorry but can you honestly say that your quality of life was better and that you had less cash than you do now? If you forget, 9/11 happened shortly after Bush took office. It tanked the economy and yet under that administration, things rebounded. Also take a good look at history – Enron and Worldcom happened under Clinton’s watch and so did all of the selling of the Lincoln bedroom and other taxpayer supported properties. Greed? And now I read that there are parties at the White House at taxpayer expense even while there are scores of Americans out of work and trying to figure out how to make their next mortgage payments. The goal of this administration and Congress is to make everyone so dependent on government that we may never get back to where we once were. And as an HR business partner, I am mortified at the policies on the table as well as those recently put into practice. Creation of jobs – how? If a business is so heavily mandated to do Obama’s bidding? The only jobs being created are government jobs – more red tape, more taxes (those jobs don’t create revenue, they are an additional drain). And the EFCA will only make it more difficult to create anything of substance.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I think I worded my one comment incorrectly as I had revised part and left some alone. My quality of life/standard of living was much better during the last administration than it is now. And certainly better than it will be with all of the additional tax and spend programs coming out on a daily basis.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:00 am
To Linda:
I find it hard to believe that President Obama’s less than two months in office has effected your quality of life so much. Sorry but mines been different for quite a while now.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:11 am
…and so, folks, therein lies the rub – we have all done what we have always done – sat back in the stands and complained about the efforts of “others” (Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, Obama, Nixon – did we miss anyone??) – wrong, right or indifferent. So after you voted in this election did you think that was the end of it? I have read through all the trails of comments – and whether I agree with what you have written or not, I have read some astute observations and critiques there that are important enought to be shared on a wider basis than HRmorning – so what are each of us going to do about it? I think we need to stop responding here and get on with “it” – whatever “it” is to each of us – be the change you want to see…
March 4th, 2009 at 9:16 am
To Deborah:
You are right on that one.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:35 am
deborah
Good comment. “It” is here. We have to deal with that. At least we wil have to see what “it” is. Two months has not been enough time to define “it”.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Things are so bad that blame must be spread to more than one person; we are after all a country built on checks and balances, but for grins and giggles let’s just call Bush the devil incarnate responsible for the subprime mess, bankruptcy of Iceland, nationalization of banks in the UK, hurricanes, tsunami’s, wildfires and last week’s winter storm as obviously the weather patterns that created it were in place before Jan 20. The question here is what we think of Obama’s policies so the focus should be are they going to make things better or worse going forward.
Personally I don’t think there is any way that massively increased government spending (which is monetized), increased taxes (cigarettes anyone just to start), greater regulations on all business (Ledbetter, et al), government sponsored increase in union activism (have any of you checked Hilda Solis’ resume) and higher energy costs (through cap and trade policies) can possibly help a struggling economy recover. These are all Obama’s (yes, in just over a month)–not Bush.
Sadly, these actions are identical to the mistakes made in the 1930’s that made the depression as long and bad as it was. Oh, I forgot “buy American steel” protectionist polices–let’s kill exports too! (Did you notice the EU slapping tariffs on our bio-diesel just because of the tax credit in the stimulus bill?)
Obama is leading us exactly back to the ‘70s stagflation and the misery index–inflation and a lack luster economy at the same time. Time to whip out the WIN buttons (for those of you too young—”Whip Inflation Now”, the basis of Gerald Fords economic policy).
March 4th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Right on, Billie! A co-worker recently told me of her family member whose employer uses a time clock. The workers check in and out showing a regular eight-hour day. Then they work several hours past the check out time. That worked time appears nowhere – they get no pay for it. Possibly, they get some comp time. This is entirely illegal – so it’s hard to swallow that we have all these employee rights and protections and don’t need unions any more. (I do know the unions also go too far sometimes.) I agree with John, too. I’m pretty sick of hearing Clinton blamed for everything and whatever he didn’t do, the Democratic Congress must have done. Enron, Worldcom, etc. – during the last eight years – not during Clinton’s time. So, if this economy is really his fault, instead of Bush’s, I guess whatever Obama does must be Bush’s fault – or maybe there is just no way at all for Bush to be responsible for anything. Remember, HR professionals are employees, too. Be glad somebody is trying to improve things for you.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Judy, when did you finish up your apprenticeship with the UAW?
March 4th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
robert –
uncalled for and just plain rude. This forum, as all others are, is about fostering “enlightneing” discussion which is a right that we have in America – the freedom of speech and to “agree to disagree” – this forum is not about insulting people and/or their ideas, beliefs, opinions.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I am amazed by the “Pro-Union” HR people. If you are part of a company that is doing it right, why would you need a union? As a person that has been in three unions, it’s not all the historical glamour you qoute it to be. The unions are like the government – they want their money up front. Once they have thier money, they will try to dictate business at all cost. Unions business are the worker, and they will use every resource to protect the bad employees. I watched my union dues protect the worst of the worst. What makes me grin is the past accounts of how the unions did this and that. It’s no longer the coal mine years and unions were needed duirng those times, but the union has also become it’s own worst enemy. It is interesting to read the rose colored commentary when the corruption of the unions has been left out or the wasteful use of dues had been spent. I find it ironic the uniions threw millions of dollars at Obama’s feet (AFSCME alone spent $65 million on the campaign) when this money could have been used directly to benefit their members. Just wait until this hits not-for-profits, small cities and struggeling business owners and we will see how nice the union will play. Ask GM, Ford and Chrysler – greed from the CEOs and the unions destroyed these companies. Support your “change” as you call it. It’s not good business decisions. When people realize politicians are more of the proble than the fix, then just maybe we will get somewhere. Bush, Pelosi, reid and Frank didn’t do their job when it came to regulate and oversee the banking and mortgage businesses. The reason? They all had their hand in the cooki jar. WAKE UP PEOPLE! This si to the people who support bad business policies. Stop giving President Obama free passes. Although their is a recesssion, you do not create anti-business polices, take over control of more business, tax the poeple that invest in businesses and support the unions in legislation that will result in strong arm tactics of your employees. That is the isuue. The President is not spending to get us out of the recession, but taking advantage of the situation to pass his agenda. Although he views business as the problem, he needs to be reminded they pay most of the bills. As the President to continues to spend borrowed money at a rate higher than any leader in history (yes, within his few short months), the bill collectors will be knocking on the vacant doors. At that point, we will be asked to pay more in taxes or the treasury printing presses will runing overtime to circulate inflation. It’s time to wake up and understand that social agendas from a “community organizer” is not good for business or the American worker.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Jimmy
Where-as you have spoken clearly about your dislike of unions, the main thrust of your post is to bash Obama and others that you have named. Sorry, I don’t buy what you are selling. Until the ‘change’ that you have such distain for has a chance to work, the only ones that can be blamed for this mess is the administration of the last eight years that has sold this country down the tubes.
We have a union. We have a very good working relationship with that union. We have an advantage of being in a right to work state. You are right. I’m sure that some can cherry pick bad examples all day long to make the shoe fit their point of view. On the other hand there are very good examples of unions working the correctly.
It is time to wake up. Wake up to a new way of doing business. A way that we employers should have been doing all along. A way that would have made unions unnecessary. What you may call a ’social agenda’ may be plain fairness to the worker. Besides we have always had social agendas. We just don’t call them that while we still have the advantage. When fairness has to be legislated then all of a sudden it is a social agenda.
March 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
To eliminate secret voting subjects workers to too much pressure. Union or non-union, employees should be FREE to choose without fear of retaliation. Neither Employer or Union Rep should know how a vote is cast. I see huge issues for HR with card system. What the Union originally did is now pretty much covered by OSHA for safety and Laws for fair hours/pay. Not sure they are still relevant, but again, it is a choice, one that should not be coerced.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
If the truth is a bash, so be it. I think I pointed out it’s the politicians. I am glad your union is a good one. You continue to talk about how the workers are not given a fair shake without the unions. That I am not buying as well. Wake up to a new way of doing business? How many so -called fair work regulations do you think we need? Do we need more regualtions? Whay do you think we have jobs Why do you think HR departments need to expand? At some point, the employer is not responsible for every aspect of the employees life (unlike the government’s responisbility). I agree companies should operate in a fair and equal manner. There are plenty of laws and regulation from both Federal and State governments. How much more do you want to put on businesses? When is it too much John?
So why do you think this change is needed? Why can’t it remain the way it is? I have no problems with business owners that took on the risk deciding how to run their business with or without a union. So why do we need card signing? I have been in three unions, if that is cherry picking so be it. How many unions have you joined? Have you ever witnessed some of their tactics? Are you not concerned at all that employees who refuse to jon will not be riduclued, harrassed or singled out by pro-union employees or union representatives? Will the law protect those employees from being harassed? Will they have the right to sue for damages or received $20,000 rewards when the union is wrong? There is protective process in place as we speak fro employees to vote or not to vote for a union. Why change it?
March 9th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Jimmy
If the truth is a bash, so be it. I think I pointed out it’s the politicians.
___________________________________________________________
No, if that is what you did then you would not be so angry now. I’m a fairly savy person and what I saw was bashing. No more no less.
Jimmy
Wake up to a new way of doing business? How many so -called fair work regulations do you think we need? Do we need more regualtions?
_____________________________________________________
Sure and rather you like it or not that is what you will do. I think that any fair policy that is not being practiced should be practiced. If not then we will continue to have legislation to make us do so. We need more regulations because people will not do the right thing on their own. Me having to say that to you is proff positive. Just the mere mention of fairness has sent you bonkers.
Jimmy
Whay do you think we have jobs Why do you think HR departments need to expand?
____________________________________________________________
Same reason as above
Jimmy
At some point, the employer is not responsible for every aspect of the employees life (unlike the government’s responisbility).
________________________________________________
No one said that the employer is responsible for everything. This is not an all or nothing issue, Jimmy.
Jimmy
I agree companies should operate in a fair and equal manner. There are plenty of laws and regulation from both Federal and State governments. How much more do you want to put on businesses? When is it too much John?
___________________________________________
Jimmy I can appreciate you saying this. However the thrust of your response does not bare this out. I want business to stop being the reason that a;; of the state and fedreal legislation is passed. You cannot tell me that courst and legislators are simply going to bed at night to do nothing more than dream up more laws unless we employers are giving the basis for it.
Jimmy
So why do you think this change is needed? Why can’t it remain the way it is? I have no problems with business owners that took on the risk deciding how to run their business with or without a union.
______________________________________
Nor do I. But this is not new stuff. This push has been around for a long time well before an Obama administration. The people you need to ask are the ones in the Bush time that began this drive. Why? Could it be that employees were tried of being abused?
Jimmy
So why do we need card signing? I have been in three unions, if that is cherry picking so be it. How many unions have you joined? Have you ever witnessed some of their tactics? Are you not concerned at all that employees who refuse to jon will not be riduclued, harrassed or singled out by pro-union employees or union representatives?
____________________________________________________
Not any more so than what was done previously.
Jimmy
Will the law protect those employees from being harassed? Will they have the right to sue for damages or received $20,000 rewards when the union is wrong? There is protective process in place as we speak fro employees to vote or not to vote for a union. Why change it?
__________________________________________________________
Ok, the shy is falling. Go for cover. There is not one question you have asked that was not the same ’sky is falling’ questions that were thrown out there to defend against fair pay, or title VII or any myriad of things that employers do not like. There are hundreds of reasons for change, Jimmy. The biggest reason is the shape the country is in now. But no reason will be acceptable to you. You fear the change. But like every other act that is passed we will have to move forward and do the right thing. I don’t fear that.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
It’s not about fixing anything with the economy or the middle class. It’s all about power and big government. Greed is the reason we are in this stinkhole of an economy. Greed all the way from the banks to the consumers. Adding more debt doesn’t fix debt, it just gives the government more control and more power. Too bad character didn’t matter during the election because Chicago one party politics has come to Washington.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I think we need to focus on this bill and not the overall political rhetoric. Disagreement with leadership is not disrespect. From my viewpoint EFCA is bad legislation that is likely to hurt business at a time when business is most vulnerable. I fear strong- arm tactics that might come to my workforce and I am amazed that we in HR would embrace the loss of secret ballot and its protection for our workers. As for bashing the President, in my work as an HR Chief I must point out alternatives and I owe it to my leaders to let them know when I feel that a decision is not in the best interest of the organization. That is supporting my leader, not bashing him. I hope my President makes the right call on this important issue.
March 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I suggest that if you either like or don’t like the proposed policies of the current adminitration,that you email the President. He has said that he wants his administration to be the most open in history. In addition you should contact your elected representatives. (I have). They want to hear from constituents and, while I’m not sure any one of us can individually influence them on a particular issue, I am sure that your time will be better spent than venting on this or other forums.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
It is mind boggling and so disturbing to see so many naive HR “professionals” write their misconstrued thoughts on the EFCA. Bashing? When did giving one’s honest thoughts on the EFCA and the administration that is backing it become a sacred cow? What most American businesses don’t need is the social cause liberal thinking HR staff that seems to be in-vogue. If you still want a job in five years I’d recommend many of you go back to economic 101 to first understand what is now being touted as the solution to economic doldrums and then read our constitution & bill of rights as to your basic liberties. I’m almost ashamed to mention that I am in human resources given the liberal thinking almost anti-business position many of those on this blog have expressed. You can keep your responses to yourself, it is my last entry/response into this foray.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Ok folks this is my final comment on this matter.
I think it is mind boggling and naive for so many HR professionals to be so blinded by selfish interest. I also think that so many of you make your little snide remarks and have little enough sense to know that your comments are nothing more than bashing the administration. A rose by any other name is still a rose. It is also evident that so many of you will be behind the eight ball mainly for a couple of reasons. You will not be prepared for the change because you have been so used to the status-quo that to do anything different is frightening. So many of your comments reflect that. I feel is that some have lost the sense of what HR is. Yes the position is mainly to protect the interest of the employer BUT not at the indiscriminate expense of the employee. There has been so little defense of employee rights discussed here no matter how many times I brought it up that it is a wonder why some of you have not been sued. I get ridiculed when I insist upon it. .
ROBERT
I am also ashamed that you are involved in HR. Your politics is clear your honesty toward employees is not. But you go right ahead and run amuck of the law. Sooner or later it will catch you.
Finally, I for one am willing to try something different. The last administration had sacred cows and it has bankrupted this country not only financially but morally. Some think that they can as the HR person, do anything they jolly well please. As of yet those do not understand that THEY ARE THE REASONS FOR UNIONS. THEY ARE THE REASONS FOR SO MANY REGULATIONS. That seems to be the only way some will get it. That is reflected by some comments here that make it evident that moral standing toward workers is the last thing on their list. So be it.
I have accomplished one thing though. I have had my eyes opened to the real world and I am thankful that my position as the HR professional for my work place includes operating within the law –any law — and includes utmost fairness to our people. That is the first line of defense for a company. That is what I have done and will continue to do. If I am not honest with the least person in my company then nothing else matters.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:56 am
John
Thank you for keeping the “human” in Human Resources.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Today (or tomorrow) is apparently the day that the EFCA will be introduced to the senate. I want to urge any H.R. professional who cares for the right’s of the employees that allow us to have jobs, to write a letter or email to both of your state’s Senators encouraging them to oppose the mis-leading named Employee Free Choice Act. I am afraid for the workers when the SEIU will have the freedom to do whatever they want.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:19 am
The American standard of living has plunged since Ronald Reagan declared war on unions and the working class. Forget middle class, it is just a term to make us feel better. You have zero power at the workplace unless you can pass one simple test. Give yourself a raise next pay-period and if you see an increase in pay you have power at work, you most likely own the place. No increase in pay equals zero power. The rest of the objections are no more than anti-labor rhetoric. Weekends off, 40 hour work-week, overtime, healthcare benefits, child labor laws,and many more benefits are all thanks to a union somewhere down the line.
Before Ronald Reagan, familys got by on one working parent. Today, both parents work well beyond the eight hour day and many are one paycheck away from financial setbacks. The “Trickle Down” is a miserable failure. Take an Honest look and open your mind, give the man a chance, anything is better than the boob from Texas.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I’m thinking that those writing about employee “rights” and entitlements in this forurm really don’t understand what the EFCA could mean to both employer and employee (or even to their own future). I would suggest that you learn as much as you can. SHRM has pre-written letters to send off to senators/reps urging them to vote down the bill – just go to the legislative action pages.
People, if you don’t have a business, you don’t have employees. If this thing passes, watch how many fewer businesses we have at this time next year.
This whole discussion has become about politics. The original question asked about what HR thought the EFCA would mean to them and their business. I have read no posting that suggested in any way that it would be a good thing or that if it did somewhere amongst all of this “discussion”, I don’t believe an example was ever provided.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:53 am
kudos to Linda for getting us back on track.
As an experienced (28 years) HR professional, I am delighted to see the diversity of thought presented within this forum from my peers.
However, talk is cheap and actions always speak louder than words. It is my heartfelt wish that those of you who have expressed vehemently and passionately your beliefs and opinions take action rather than feel falsely “empowered” that your statements here are actually doing something –
- If you haven’t joined SHRM, do so.
- If you haven’t written you elected officials at a vareity of community, state and national levels – do so.
- If you haven’t joined your business community and, specifically, organizations that will help foster your “cause” – then do so.
If you are not “doing” any of those things, then your words here are wasted and you are taking the “professional” out of human resources professional…
March 10th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I know Robert doesn’t intend to post any more, but just wanted to say I’m surprised he believes most of these posts are from liberal minds. I think abour 75% are from the conservative viewpoint. I agree with John – we wouldn’t need so many laws if employers had always and would always treat their employees fairly, without it being made mandatory. I don’t like the “no election” part of EFCA, either, even though I am an Obama supporter. We won’t agree on everything. I sent an email to the White House on this and on another hot topic – the proposed change in abortion law in which, I believe, care providers would be required to assist or lose their careers (or perhaps be limited in their choice of where they could work.) If that’s an accurate accounting, that is not fair, either, regardless of how one feels about abortion in general. So, Linda, thanks for mentioning things we could do. Even if we don’t get each thing we want, we are at least participating.
March 27th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I notice that the top earners have seen their compensation go up 80% in the last few years.
Middle class employees have actually had a decrease in real wages. More and more of the profits of companies have gone to the owners and top executives. Why is this? Is the because the top earners have done a proportionally much better job than middle and low earners? Who controls wage rates and total compensation at most of companies? Top wage earners. If you were in charge wouldn’t you do the same? Why is there a need now to review executive pay at many financial companies? Pay that is for some reason inversely tied to profits and effectiveness.
Say we stay on this path for another 10 years and the gaps widen even further. Will this make the USA better, stronger, more stable? When the gap between the richest and the poorest becomes very wide what will happen? When our average CEO makes 500 times more than the average worker how will this make America a better place for most people. Perhaps if it reaches 600 times then we will have reached an even better state of capitalism.
I find that many people who read this blog still believe that it wrong to criticize excessive compensation of top.
I think we need to overall lower compensation at the top and increase compensation at the bottom and lower levels. I do find that American capitalism has moved towards an untenable distribution. (Read “Good Capitalism/ Bad Capitalism”, written by a three economists who studied capitalism in 25 capitalistic countries).
In 2007 of the top 50, the average hedge fund manager made $463,000,000. (That is four hundred and sixty three million dollars.) Where did this money come from? When this much money comes out of the system to 50 people how does this hurt our county? Since hedge funds are unregulated how do we know that this money was earned legitimately? Also do you know what the top tax rate is on compensation earned through a hedge fund? It is 20%.
I think Obama is the best chance America and probably the world has to return to economic sanity.
March 30th, 2009 at 6:11 am
I’ve already seen the stimulus package HELP people. WE have some laid off employees who couldn’t of afforded COBRA without it. Kudus to PRESIDENT Obama. Yes, it’s caused me more work but I’m okay with it knowing that my fellow AMERICANS will have health insurance.
I also agree with John…I see it at my own company. I for one had to take a pay cut along with alot of others….top executives did not. And I don’t buy the idea that you have to do this to keep TOP talent. I don’t see anybody who is irreplaceable. In my eye, the people who had to take the pay cuts did their jobs as well as the top excutives and are as valuable.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Linda, Cindy, Billy, Tom —- Looks like you have all the time in the world to debate the issue of Obamanism….. Obvious you’re not busy working! Maybe your employer doesn’t really need your services. Luckily with our new transition to socialism, you’ll be paid the same with or without having to work (or even have a job)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I am also a seasoned, degreed PHR as well as a life-long Democrat, and I am not pleased with the direction our administrations (in Maryland, both State and Federal) are taking us. I am blessed with a wonderful workplace that offers many unique benefits, such as vacation reimbursement, a people-friendly atmospher, and periodic sabbaticals. We meet with our employees on a regular basis to brainstorm and negotiate about workplace issues, including conditions of employment and benefits–something we couldn’t do in a Union environment. Some of our benefits are not as generous than what is proposed by expanded FMLA and Health Family acts, while other go above and beyond what is required or what is proposed. The point it, what we have works for us. I absolutely support treating people right. I absolutely support assisting people to balance work with family obligations and emergencies. I am glad that people who have lost their jobs can get a COBRA subsidy. But I resent our employee benefits and practices being micromanaged by the government. These mandates cost real dollars which we don’t have (we are a nonprofit funded by the State; the State mandates new benefits but doesn’t cover the cost.) I resent the extra burden that is falling on our already strapped job function. E.g. I don’t have time to read 60 pages of conflicting information to figure out how to administer the new 65% COBRA subsidy.
I think the new Administration should look for ways to strengthen the HR function through partnerships with business and SHRM rather than adding more regulations and encouraging unions. For someone as visionary, progressive and big-picture as Obama, I am surprised and disappointed by some of his proposals. Honestly, I am considering changing my party affiliation to Independent. Also, I hear HR folks talk about getting out of the HR field with increasing percentages of our time being taken up with compliance activities that get in the way of us doing the rest of our jobs.
In anticipation of being blastedfor my comments, lets remember as HR folks to listen respectfully, l use “I statements,” and not attack each other.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
another Tom –
and your point is what? Ego-building snide remarks don’t reflect well on you and diminish credibility (especially if it’s your first posting) with the group – if you have something useful to say, have at it – if you don’t, then keep it to yourself – don’t waste the time of those of us who ARE busy and working, but think seriously enough of our company roles/functions to want to keep up with HR interests so as to broaden our minds and interests to those that – oh my, dare I say it?? – may be different than those we hold personally.
Your unintentional (or not) small-mindedness apparently has kept you from seeing past the political decisions already made (that we cannot change now) so that you can focus on the bigger picture – how do we DO OUR JOBS by successfully dealing with “it” as it comes down the chute – regardless of who’s slinging it…repbulican or democrat – doesn’t make a darn bit of difference when you are WORKING it day-to-day. And as in my previous posts – if you don’t like something take a hint from our current president – get involved in grass roots action groups and work to make change – actions speak louder than words
April 7th, 2009 at 6:13 am
To ANOTHER TOM
I just must have a skill that you do not possess….multi-tasking. I can do paperwork and take a second to shoot an email.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:15 am
to Deborah:
Good post. For the first time in my life, I HAVE emailed my congressman to let him now how I feel about issues. I have never done that before. President Obama has inspired me to not just talk the talk but walk the walk.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I believe every HR person is familiar with the nearly unanimous negative reaction of employees when they are confronted with Change. Regardless of how good or bad the change is for them they will find reasons to complain about how it impacts them negatively. While most HR people find this the most frustrating part of the job, the no win scenario they face in their jobs, it appears from many of the comments shared so far that HR people are by no means above or immune to the same predictable behavior. Try to remember your negative outlook here in these posts, the next time you are trying to inact improvements that benefit the majority in the long term and you are faced with nothing but complaints and accusations about your intentions. Will you always succeed in making the right decisions? Very unlikely. And yet…. you are quite certain that our president and the administration must satisfy every doubt of every citizen before you will cpnceed that something positive is trying to be done, even if it’s less than perfect. Quite frankly I think you deserve to listen to every conceivable irrational employee gripe, 24/7 for the duration of your careers if you choose to exhibit the same kind of reactionary short term thinking that they respond to you with.