What HR managers told us about Obama’s policies
December 31, 2008 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Age discrimination, Disability discrimination, Employment law, FMLA, Race discrimination, Records documentation, Special Report, policies
Almost 1,200 HR managers responded to our poll about how they view the employment policies of President Barack Obama, and how those policies will affect HR. Here’s what they said, and here are 10 relevant pieces of legislation that probably will come into play in 2009.
The poll, and how they responded:
Do you think President-elect Obama’s policies on employment law will:
- Make your job more difficult — 69%
- Have no effect on you — 22%
- Make your job easier — 9%
Some comments:
“Please share the results of this poll with Obama and his staff. They need to try and fully understand the implications of their impending actions on this country.”
“I do believe that Obama’s policies will have a profound and accelerated degredation of an already overburdened and undersupported function…Human Resources.”
“Everyone enjoy[s] working here, the company provides excellent benefit, fully paid POS health insurance with tier-one carrier, Safe Harbor 401K, annual cash bonus with average of 6.6% annual salary increase, stock options. We did not need Federal government to tell us how to treat employee[s].”
What’s coming in ‘09
Here’s a rundown of the employment legislation that’s likely to cross the new president’s desk:
- Paycheck Fairness Act: Among other changes to the Equal Pay Act, the legislation proposes that, for the purpose of demonstrating pay discrimination, a plaintiff can use compensation comparisons of employees who do not even work at the same physical place of business.
- Working Families Flexibility Act: Expands an employer’s obligations when an employee requests a change in hours or venue to accommodate family needs.
- Employee Free Choice Act: A proposal to make it easier for employees to form a union.
- RESPECT Act: Redefines the term “supervisor” in certain industries, thereby making some supervisors eligible for union membership – and empowered to act in the best interests of the unions and not the employer.
- Patriot Employers Act: Awards tax credits and other benefits to employers who, for instance, keep their operations from moving overseas and offer health insurance to their employees.
- Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Changes the statute of limitations on how far back and employee can go to file a pay-discrimination suit against an employer.
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Would provide protections to gay, lesbian and bisexual workers against employment discrimination similar to the protection provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- FMLA Expansion Act: Would expand coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act to companies with at least 25 employees, as opposed to the 50-employee minimum in the current law.
- Healthy Families Act: Proposes that any company with at least 15 employees would required to provide paid sick leave.
- Civil Rights Act of 2008: A far-reaching piece of legislation that would amend a number of employment laws affecting, for instance, discrimination charges involving age and pre-employment tests, and changing the rules under which disputes can go to arbitration.
Tags: employment, FMLA, HR, legislation, obama
January 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Whether or not these policies will make my job harder is not the issue. This is a positive step forward to improving employee morale and decreasing stress related health issues. History has shown that the federal government needs to intervene. With each passing law employee work conditions improve and maybe one day we can all hope to work in a country that puts less pressure on employees to work 60 hour weeks even when they are sick.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:45 am
What Michelle (as an employee NOT an employer) fails to see is the ever-increasing degradation of EMPLOYER rights and the impact that it can and does have on profits. The overwhelming majority (of small businesses) in fact do see a degradation of profitability as a result of these unnecessary rules and regulations. There is NO room in business for idealists. The only ideal arrangements may be with the newest (and soon to be largest) employer in the United States. The United States.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Go Obama! He WILL be one of the best Presidents of our time. Wait and see.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Based on our economy, I think that Michelle is correct. We have destroyed the middle class at the expense of a few very wealthy people. Some people in HR have little understanding of how the tax system works and they fell for the McCain/Palin line about “hurting small business”. Try working at a job with no vacation and no benifits and I think that Ray might change his tune. As a CPA, MBA and HR person, I think that I have an understanding of the complete picture.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:59 am
The employer’s primary responsibility is to provide a good or service that is found to be necessary to someone else. To do that, the employer must hire people to help provide that good or service. The employer’s responsibility is not to be come an adult daycare provider. The employer’s only responsibility to that employee should be to provide reasonable safety and a fair wage – nothing else. This new president and congress will help to further cripple the free market in the US by tightening the straight jacket already imposed on employers. If an employer isn’t providing some sort of benefit an employee thinks he needs or wants, let the free market dictate whether or not that employer needs to make changes. Ray is right, the US’s largest employer will soon be itself. Add unions to that, and we might as well start building a new Berlin wall, with union employees only, of course.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I think this is worded a scare tactic.
How many of those issues would be pushed by an Obama administration rather than the far left in congress?
Yes, these things may “pass by his desk”, but those things could have passed by Bush’s desk as well. I agree that Obama is more likely to pass them than Bush was, but an “Obama Policy” is stretching it.
Let’s give Obama a chance and see how he does. So far he’s actually bringing *QUALIFIED* people to cabinet posts, even crossing ideological lines. That’s a good sign.
He has a big enough mess on his hands without kicking a hornet’s nest of far-left policies… I don’t see it happening.
Robert
January 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I have to agree with Joanne and Michelle as well. I am fortunate to work for a wonderful company with great benefits and very fair employment practices. I have friends, however, that work for employers that are the exact opposite. While I do not agree completely with everything that has been proposed by the Obama administration, I do agree with most of it. I think that it will help to make our country a better place. I find it absolutely appalling that people can still be legally terminated and/or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. It is time that our country starts living up to the words of our founding Fathers that “All men are created equal.”
January 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
A single thought keeps running through my mind: “Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.” Be very careful what you ask for…socialism has failed miserably and repeatedly throughout recent history – unless of course you wish to give up basically all choice in your life in exchange for the privilege of paying 70%-90% income tax. The average legislator does not grasp the economic impact to business of the employment laws & regs they pass. Those laws and regs don’t apply to them as federal employers, so they really don’t care (unless it will cost them votes).
January 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Ray is focusing on the benefit of a few at the expense of the employees and the middle and lower classes.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Employees are usually way out of line and are thinking of themselves without seeing the overall picture.
Folks, PROFIT IS A GOOD THING!!! With more and more regulation forcing small business to provide what it can’t afford, then it is only a matter of time when costs can no longer be passed on to customers and the business closes. Get real folks, everyone wants more but the well is only so deep.
That is what has killed the airline industry and is closing in quick on the car manufactrues.
Small business can’t take much more.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Wow – I am disappointed in the comments listed at the top of the article. What a bunch of whining beaurocrats HR people can be. No wonder we are so “overburdened and undersupported”.
The reality is that these issues are being considered because we have failed as employers or as advocates for business. I agree with Michelle that it isn’t about how much more work this will be for us, but about making the workplace better. I hope that every HR person who saw Lilly Ledbetter’s talk last summer cringed on behalf of our entire profession. In spite of all of our good intentions, we all know that there are companies or individuals out there who are willing to cut corners or take advantage of others until they get caught. We are all going to have to pay the price for the acts of those unscrupulous few.
The other reality is that we have failed as a group to work for our own rights. Leave campaign finances out of it for a minute – unions and their members are volunteering, advocating and making sure their collective voice is heard. If we as employers, business owners and HR professionals don’t want to be a victim of politics then lets stop whining about it and do something. The answer can’t be “that will be extra work for us” – lets find the solution to the real problem.
Ray, the “Poor me, this is going to hurt small business” argument put forward by Chambers of Commerce and others is old, tired, and just not convincing anymore. While it may be true, there are still alot of small businesses in the US and more each day in spite of FMLA, minimum wage or any other regulations that come forward. (And if all of that entrepreneurial spirit isn’t the place for idealism, then we are all in more trouble than we thought) Most small businesses do a great job and want to behave ethically toward their employees and (depending on your definition of small business) will probably be minimally impacted by the above regulations.
So for now we are stuck with some scary regulations to deal with. Our challenge as HR people is to stop trying to deflect regulation and actually try to help our employees to keep our business strong and vital.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I agree with Ray’s sentiments. More government intervention and the more legislation produced (necessary or otherwise) will increase costs without doing anything to improve income. And small businesses will feel the pinch the most. Now, if the economy weren’t in such a funk, you could argue that businesses could increase prices to cover the increase in costs. But that isn’t likely to happen in this environment. So, some businesses that are already tottering will fail, and jobs will be lost.
Start saving now, America, because we’re in for a wild and woolly ride… and keep one hand on your wallet.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Our company provides outstanding benefits including payment of 91% of health care for employees and their dependents, 100% of all other dental and life insurance, a 7.5% 401 (k) match, on-site gym, sick days that are fully paid off if not used, 12 holidays, etc. This is a big selling point for us. Forcing everyone into a government-directed mold will erode our competitive edge. Furthermore, as mandated costs go up, the number of employees may have to decrease. Being a profit-oriented company, we have to still make a profit, unlike the govt that either prints money or raises taxes. We follow the laws, especially since we are a California company, but it gets harder and harder to meet all of the compliance coming down the pike. We already have enough protected leave so that people only have to work 3 or 4 months out of 12!
January 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I also agree with Joanne M. and Michelle. I disagree with Ray. As an HR Professional for over 10 years, I think that we need to look at the big picture. The middle class are the core of who make the wealthy rich. The middle class are those that perform the duties for these wealthy CEO’s and owners of small businesses. Who do you think manufactures the automobiles for these major companies that are going under? – The middle class. Who are the clerks that are operating the daily business for these small business owners? – The middle class. In HR, it is our duty to make sure that employees are treated fairly. If HR has to increase their duties somewhat to comply with the new laws, we should not complain because ultimately there will be no need for employees to unionize because they will feel that employers respect their issues. When employees feel respected, they are loyal to their employers and put their best foot forward. Then employers will see their profits increase.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
In some cases, federal laws do improve the workplace. However, in a great many instances, employers are already offering benefits such as flex time to attend to family matters, paying for insurance, etc. as a way to establish themselves in the marketplace as an employer of choice/excellence to attract top quality candidates. When these things become law, that competitive advantage is washed away. Businesses will falter if they cannot find top quality employees–they will succeed when top quality employees choose to work with them. As a business person, I want the option to design my own destiny, offer more than competitive benefits that do not have a legislated baseline.
So yes, laws like child labor, OSHA, etc are necessary to ensure a baseline of safe and ethical treatment of employees is in place. But for some others, the market will, if you let it, create an enviornment that companies choose to offer these benefits—and the company who does not faces peer pressure to do the same–all without laws.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Jeanette,
The company you work for sounds great. If more companies were like yours, the government would not need to get as involved. There are millions of working people out there who do not have health coverage – our company pays 50% and some of our employees can not afford it. Some companies to not have any vacation or sick days and fire people when they take time off due to illness. We provide a 2% 401 (k) match but many of our employees only put in $100 a month – I don’t think that they will have much to retire on.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
As a current employee (HR) and former employer, I’d be glad to have someone with Michelle’s attitude working for me. If employers had been acting in the best interests of their bottomline — which is in the employee’s best interest– there would be no need for the government to get involved.
We have Ray and other business people like him to thank for this and I am not a happy camper.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Susan said . . . . . A single thought keeps running through my mind: “Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.” Be very careful what you ask for…socialism has failed miserably and repeatedly throughout recent history – unless of course you wish to give up basically all choice in your life in exchange for the privilege of paying 70%-90% income tax.
My only comment is “Who do you think is going to pay for all these “benefits”? How much are you willing to pay for? The consumer is going to foot the bill in the end…..there is no free lunch!
January 5th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Fairness is the issue here. Government steps in (as it should) when a practice develops that is unfair and doesn’t get resolved AND when enough legislators see that it is unfair and hasn’t been resolved. If private industry doesn’t want government intervention, then it should see that its practices are based on fairness. Unfortunately all to often, greed intervenes and that doesn’t happen. I don’t see most of the above proposals actually becomming law. But if they do, it shouldn’t affect your company that much if you are already among the companies that base your policies on fairness. For those that don’t – Isn’t it about time? If your employees can ultimately cope better with life-work relationships they will be better employees. And after all, the employee is the company.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Kerri and Paula, very good response.
If and employee can be easily replaced with little training, then their pay compensation won’t be any more competitive than they are. If it is difficult to replace an employee then the pay compensation will reflect that.
The Government getting more and more involved in the privat sector is dead wrong and will eventually cause business decline. That is the way of the real world.
People need to stop thinking a company, large or small, has more responsibility than fair pay for fair work, period. The market always takes care of that.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Paula is on target. As a business owner and employer, I can tell you that many of my nationwide colleagues have very generous benefits and many perks that are not required; most also take annual measures to ensure their pay is competitive. Please know that the outstanding employees have opportunities–as do the companies who are profitable. I’m weary of the whining from underperformers. Those who feel they are treated unfairly should remember that, at this moment at least, they still have the freedom to seek another position.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I am really surprised at some of the comments above. It really distresses me that some people think only the government knows how to manage employees and businesses. I’ve worked in the HR industry for over 30 years, and our companies have always given the best it can because we want the best employees we can get, number one, and number two, the business knew it was the right thing to do. These onorous policy proposals are just that — onerous — and the camel is sticking its nose too far into the tent, I’m afraid. Many of these policiees are nothing more than payback to unions. Scary stuff.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The Government is mandateing for employers what the Government itself does not do. As a Government contractor the Federal Department of Labor sets the pay and beniefits for my employees. They do not recieve sick leave, we are not required to provide health insurance, we do, and only six employees out of 110 opt for it. Our employees cannot be paid more than the prevailing wage or the company will be purnished.
I think the Government should straighten out it’s contracting policies prior to telling private companies how to run their business.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Paycheck Fairness = idiocy.
WFFA; if constrained to limited time frame and number of times one employee can use the Act, need documented as serious, and capacity of employer to do it and maintain required business hours.
EFCA; the way I read the info on this – it allows too much info to be “open”as to who is doing what for Unions, takes away any benefit of the legislation. It should be much easier to form Unions but this law seems to have great flaws that greatly benefit management. Reminds me of Mao Tse Tung’s “let a hundred flowers bloom.”
Respect Act – I know nothing of this. I find it quite difficult to have meaningful supervision in public employment having Police, Fire & teacher upper level management jobs (Superior Officers) in Unions and it is common in the northeast.
Patriot EA; No impact on my HR work.
LL Fair Pay Act; I don’t know current retroactivity!
Non-discrimination; sounds good and would not impact my work; I find my employer has shown no discriminating habits in this regard.
FMLA – no change for me. The act is too unwieldy as it is!
Healthy Families Act – I’m obliged now, wouldn’t change anything for me. I do not think it is a good idea if it obliges a significant amount of time. Those things can get quite cumbersome in combination with Union contracts negotiating leave as well.
CR Act of 2008 – I find the age issue is ending up costing much in Workers Compensation and medical.
Best thing anyone could do for me in making my work less difficult and cumbersome is a solid comprehensive National Health plan.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
While I don’t embrace all of the proposed changes, I do have a few comments to make.
Yes, I do feel as though the headline is a scare tactic, but what do we expect from a nation that thrives on fear?
Obama isn’t even “president” yet, give him a chance to clean up the fiasco he is undertaking…he is a braver person than I would be.
Obviously, the negative comments come from those blessed to work for great companies. I have worked for both and feel as some of the proposed legislation is definitely needed.
Isn’t doing the right thing for the employee why we got into HR in the first place? Keeping up with legislation and tracking info is our job…
January 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I agree with Michelle’s comments about “my job being harder NOT being the issue…” I must say that I have never been a proponent of unions and I’m still not sure that unions are the best way to address less than progressive employment practices, but I will say I believe having worked in Human Resources for over 12 years now that employers will not always do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing…. I do think without federally mandated laws discrimination and other unfair employment practices would run rampant…. It is simply fact and anyone naive enough to think people or organizations will do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts is simply in denial or not being honest.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Jeanette,
What company do you work for? I’m sure many will agree that yours is a great company. Unfornately many work for employers who pay next to nothing or just choose to have no benefits simply because they can’t afford it. Only 31% of the emplyees at my company signed up for the insurance and of those only 12% picked the more expensive plan.
So I agree that these laws are needed to protect the little man. Of course some of these laws will make our jobs as HR professionals more difficult. But, it is job security.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
It all comes down to choice. Employees agreed to work for the current pay and benefits they receive and thus both are happy, employer and employee. If I suddenly changed my mind about my current situation, I am free to go elsewhere for employment with different benefits, the choice is mine.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
So far it seems like everyone’s discussion is focused on either improving the workplace or cost. It appears to me the above listed items of employment legislation thatare likely to cross the new president’s desk redefine “fairness”. Fairness from employer to employee.
In over 18 years in HR, I have heard employees use the word “unfair” more times than I can calculate. I have also been party to many discussions with other HR professionals regarding employees who perceive they are being treated unfairly when they have to work longer or harder as the result of an FMLA abuser, or a sick pay abuser; employees abusing the very legislation intended to protect them.
I have seen the advent of ADA & FMLA legislation to name just 2. And I have read about the ADA & FMLA litigation. If these proposed legislations are passed, “fairness” will be redefined and it won’t be from employee to employer.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
As Ronald Reagan said, the most feared words in the English language are: “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
January 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I believe we need to provide a fair, healthy and safe workplace. The current administration has worked diligently to erode employers responsibility and accountability for providing those- while still making profits.
Quite frankly a question to all my fellow HR folks- do you think without government regulations we would still have the jobs we do? Do you really think our profession has grown because good hearted employers actually see the benefit of training and development and positive employee relations and good hiring practices? I think my company sees the benefits but only after we were needed to help interpret and sift through and comply with the legislation and various federal and state mandated policies. That’s what gets us in the door (and keeps us) especially in hard economic times.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Our company is owned by three members of the same family and they couldn’t be more generous. As a result of this economy however, they will have to scale back on some of the generosity in order to make sure the employees still have jobs. They have truly sacrificed over the last 2 years as the economy went into its downward spiral and the employees still don’t appreciate it. They will only want, and expect more. Being able to see the owners’ side and the employees’ side, I can only feel badly for those who don’t have a clue! I believe in Obama and believe he will use common sense in his decisions. I pray that he truly considers the small businesses that will be effected if he does not use the sense God gave him. Some of these “laws” are ridiculous and certainly tie the hands of those who feed. I agree with Jon…if you don’t like it, move on.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I am sick and tired of small business whinnying about how this will hurt or affect their profitability. The only people within small business that makes a living wage are family and firends, everyone else gets stuck with min wage no benefit positions. Its time that things be equitable.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
This is scary folks. When to government writes 50 to 75 percent of the employee handbook. there will not be a need for HR staff. I am really suprised and very disappointed in the socialist responses I am reading on here. This country is headed in the wrong direction and we will soon look a lot like Europe and have the probelms with unemployment and social unrest that they have. The best response I have to most of you is: Go out and start a business and try to comply with all of this crap and then make an educated response. Because until it is your money making payroll, you have no idea.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Exactly Andy!
January 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Andy Says:
…
This country is headed in the wrong direction and we will soon look a lot like Europe and have the probelms with unemployment and social unrest that they have.
Andy, Obama and the new congress isn’t office yet… how can you say he’s moving in the wrong direction when he *HASN”T DONE ANYTHING*. You can say “I’m afraid the democrats will head us in the wrong direction”, but don’t say we’re going that way yet.
I feel the current administration has moved the country in the wrong direction and it will be nice to get the Bill of Rights back. (HR issues are down the list)
January 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
There are no pat answers -small individual or family owned businesses less than 10 yrs old need to be very careful in trying to compete and grow.
Large corporate entities should be negotiating with Unions and their managers should not be weak-kneed when it comes to issues that are not beneficial to long term planning for the corporations continuance.
In more than 30 years of professional and managerial work, mostly HR – I have found as many poor actions/decisions from trained and WELL paid so-called Managers as I have had selfish requests from employees or their Unions.
The matters under consideration can make the difference between success or failure of business and this fact should never be ignored. The person who invests and starts a business takes a risk that most of us would never be doing. I only want Gov to give proper regard to all tangents; VERY DIFFICULT when looking for votes.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Jon is correct. If you don’t like the pay and benefits offered by your employer, you are free to leave and go work somewhere else. Now if the employer were smart, they would be competitive with their employee friendly policies so they can retain their star performers and be an employer of choice.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
We are a nation of whiners that seek redress from the government (and/or unions) for anything we do not like or isn’t “fair”. We seemingly cannot take responsibility for ourselves and must have what everyone else has or what we think they have. We are entitled to everything especially when it is someone else’s nickel. We have a right to everything even thoughno right exists in our Constitution. The media uses fear to steer their social agenda and that of their party. We follow like lambs.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
We are a nation of whiners that seek redress from the government (and/or unions) for anything we do not like or isn’t “fair”. We seemingly cannot take responsibility for ourselves and must have what everyone else has or what we think they have. We are entitled to everything especially when it is someone else’s nickel. We have a right to everything even though no right exists in our Constitution. The media uses fear to steer their social agenda and that of their party. We follow like lambs.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
many of the comments on this are verging on insane. HR is not, and should not be, to be fair to employees. If employees (including me, and I have) don’t like the deal, leave. It’s all about helping the organization achieve its goals more efficiently – however that has to be done. Most organizations have to compete against each other in the marketplace for talent – if you have a turnover rate of 5% that is a good company for the people who work there – a company that has a turnover rate of 100% is not – and the people voted with their feet –
How many of the people who are crying about bad companies and the government helping us out can read an income statement, balance sheet, or perform an ROI on HR activities (it can be done, and sometimes the numbers will knock your socks off) – so change things by proving the economic benefit of making the change
I’ve been in HR for 30 years, been a SPHR for 17, and the saddest thing I ever see is some HR person who thinks they are a social worker. No wonder we don’t have, and never will have, a place at the executive table – people who run companies are not interested in that. You guys ever take Econ 1? Why do organizations exist in the first place?
None of this, by the way, has much to do with the vast ignorance displayed by people who do not fundamentally understand the principles this great republic was founded on – to protect the people from the government!! Don’t agree?? Read the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or, God Forbid, the Constitution of the United States.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I cannot believe how entitled and lacking in personal responsibility we have become.
“I deserve EQUAL pay because I work there too!”
It’s a free market, and I say let it rule. People who are worth more will earn more, people who choose to whine over work will always whine that they don’t get what they “deserve.”
This [employer laws in general] is just another front on the heated war over the Constitutionally given Right to Contract. No longer can a well meaning employer offer what he wants and seek someone willing; he has to OWN all of his employees.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Robert,
I don’t think you read the title of this article. It is about policies that the Obama administration are proposing. Since the only subject of the artile is about PROPOSED legislation, I made my comments based upon those proposals. Since a majority of the people who voted, elected Mr. Obama, I feel safe in stating that a direction has been set. It is that “direction” that I was speaking of.
Since you feel that we currently have no Bill Of Rights, you should stop exercising your right to free speach
I think you and many others will be very disappointed when Mr. Obama doesn’t lead you all the way to the promised land. However, I beleive he will do a lot of damage in trying to get you there.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Well said Andy
January 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Go Jack.
Linda and Abby – Job security????? Do you think you will still have your job if your company is unable to remain competitive or turn a profit?
January 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Jack,
Here here.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I agree with the statements about the masses of whiners that always are complaining about how hard they have to work when what they are really whinning about is the fact that they have to work at all ! We are living in an age of “entitlement”. Where do all of these people get the idea that life “owes” them? A lot of it has to do with parents that have spoiled them rotten and a television/internet culture that always leaves them wanting more for nothing.
I DON”T want the Fed’s involved with my ability to work ANYWHERE I want to work. I don’t want guidelines placed on what job I can do and how I am to do that job and for how long I am do to that job. I want challenges! I want to make my own decisions! If my employer is not treating me as I think he/she should be treating me then I can move on and take my talents elsewhere.
We have grown into a lazy, mindless majority. Watch out people! You are going to get what you are asking for and it’s going to be hell to pay to try and get back our freedom that you all are so eager to give away.
Our founding fathers were free thinkers and wanted us to be a nation of free thinkers. This is why it is so wonderful to live in the United States of America NOT the Unified Social Society of the Americas.
BIG surprise! I totaly dis-agree with everything the Fed’s are attempting to do.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Wow. The amount of ignorance I have read here is incredible.
As an HR professional we are here not to just champion the worker (little guy) but to help protect our employers (the big guy). We each have been hired by “the big guy” so let us not forget WHO we work for. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong but we still have someone we answer to and so far it isn’t the government.
A few facts and/or questions:
1. Nearly all politicians have never had their own business, are lawyers and/or have never worked a real job a day in their lives as with our soon to be new president (three strikes on the first pitch)
2. They care little about you or me or those that work for our companies. They are out for the tax dollar to promote their agenda and votes to get elected. Those of you who think our employees need more laws to help protect them are blind to this. Every time a new law is passed it is going to save the world but it never does so we say we need another one and another one. A perfect example is OSHA (safety) laws. Our company as with many others have finally learned a new thought: the government can legislate safety and the employer can provide the most modern safety features of all but if they (the employee) don’t care you will get hurt every time. Like the policeman that won’t wear a vest because he has not needed it for 30 years. You have to want to be safe to be safe. It is a culture. You have to believe it. We can provide the best safety protection, the government can provide the laws but if the people don’t believe they will still get hurt. I could go on about this forever.
3. Why do we pay social security and the government employees don’t? Do not give me the government talking points. We all know the real reason.
4. Why does the government now want to take our 401K retirement and make it like social security? You can say it. Because they have squandered all money in social security and need to fund it another way.
5. If all employees are being so unfairly treated by the (big guy) then how can they afford to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave? For that matter why do they want to take off? What is so different about today then during the previous 6000 years where people got up the next day and went to work?
6. I have read that some have good bosses and other “know someone” that works for a bad one buy why make every employer that is already trying so hard to do what is right pay for a few that don’t care.
I spent time in the military. It is good there to make all pay for what one does wrong. It brainwashes you but does builds a spirit of teamwork that those of you who have never been in the military don’t and can not understand but it works because you have no freedom. Once out of basic you feel free even while still being under intense control. You still however believe in what you have learned. It is like being in prison. You get very little freedom and can have that taken away if you do wrong. In a free world this will not work. We have so much abuse of our policies in this country. Our bosses are so worried about doing what is right because they are afraid of getting sued (spanked). If there is any question then just let it go and hope it works out on its own.
Like so many today not using corporal punishment when it is needed on their children and then wonder why our youth are like they are. We have a younger generation that don’t and WON’T get a job or when they do the want to sue you because you don’t let them leave early 3 times a week and complain because they is sick every Tuesday and you fire them and oh don’t forget you get parents that know how to count to “3″.
We live in the greatest country in the world but there will not be a one of us with a job in the near future if we don’t take our country back because all jobs will all be overseas.
We are being made to price ourselves out of the market to pay tax after tax and fee after fee and we as HR professionals try to justify all the new laws and other legislation by saying we are for the poor working person.
Open your eyes people. The few worst treated employee in the US are still treated better than most of the better treated employees in any other country.
As it was said above:
We have a responsibility to provide them a fair wage and a safe place to work. If they accept these terms then we will hire them. If they don’t then they have the freedom provided by this great country to find another place that may meet their requirements; and we don’t need a group of high paid politicians to tell us this or force us to do it.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Do not forget that the ones that will be wealthier here, at the expess of small business owners’ (that are plant manager, accounting, HR, and other titles all in one) and those that they are forced to layoff when more benefits are mandated, are the trail lawyers. Think of all the new lawsuits to come with more regulation!
January 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
No wonder there are so many articles about HR continuing to struggle at becoming a “strategic business partner.” I didn’t count, but it seems at least half the replies are in full support of increased government intervention to set their own mangement straight. As long as HR professionals side against their own management creating an “Us vs. Them” culture, and view themselves as corporate social workers (good line, Jack!), there will be no partnering. Like it or not, HR is there to protect the company and its officers, not act as Union stewards and officials. Without the company and its officers, there ARE no employees to “protect!”
January 5th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Is anyone willing to strike a balance between being an HR practitioner and company advocate or strategic business partner? Is it not the role of an HR practitioner to advise on fair, equitable and legal employment practices? Some of you Finance and Operation whizzes out there seem to have forgotten about the role the HR function is supposed to play in an organization. Maybe if the Enron HR VP had been a little more forceful on right and wrong people practices and struck the appropriate balance of HR practitioner and strategic business partner hardworking employees would not have lost their pension. In all fairness, maybe this person the (Enron HR lead) did do everything he or she could have, but I’m trying to make a point about checks and balances and ethics within organizations-is this a bad thing now? Asserting that to practice good sound HR is somehow selling your organization out is ludacris-perhaps those who see it that way should work in another function and let someone who’s capable of striking a balance oversee HR.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
anybody ever notice that all of the articles talking about how HR has “made” it, are now at the executive table, etc are in HR Magazines?? anybody ever see something like that in BUSINESS WEEK, FORTUNE, or something lke that? It’s because we are trying to convince ourselves that social work is valuable to the organization – as demonstrated by some of the posts here
January 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
I’m amazed to read so much ill-informed garbage! With the kind of reactionary thinking that is being expressed here, it’s no wonder that we ended up with the corrupt, ignorant and disastrous Bush presidency. I only hope that the progressive and enlightened leadership of a President Obama will prevail and that we will finally be back on the road to making the American Dream available to all of us, and not just to a select, greedy, self-serving elite.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
We’ve been governed by Bushes and Clintons for many years Bob with no change – the poor are just as poor, etc…. Now the Obama presidency is filling up with Clintonians – Leon Paneta the latest…. “Yes we can’t” should be our slogan!
January 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
As if Sarah Palin & Co. could do a better job. You HR professionals are a bunch of whiners. If you don’t like America move to another country.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Obama is looking to hire an HR professional – that seems to be a step in the right direction – guess we will see
January 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Bob – I couldn’t agree more!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
OK – let’s look at the end of the first paragraph – “and here are 10 relevant pieces of legislation that PROBABLY will come into play in 2009″……if we then look at how rapidly most legislations flow through we’re talking policies that will flow over to Jeb Bush!!!!!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Bob and Bruce – thanks for being voices of reason. Happy New Year to you!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Progressive, enlightened…. hmm… haven’t seen that demonstrated yet or even before the race began. As some very enlightened HR professionals said recently in a prominent HR magazine, the Obama presidency promises to be a huge step BACKWARDS for the HR profession and the workplace….
January 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Yes, Bob – “the enlightened leadership” of our President-Elect will have us all walking along, holding hands, wearing white robes, and singing Kumbaya! Wake up and smell the coffee perking, Bob. The democratic, free-market, capitalism that has created so many generations of innovation and free choice in this country is about to give way to an ill-fated experiment in socialism. If you think that’s so great, I recommend you ask why so many Canadians come to this country for healthcare procedures; or ask citizens of other socialist nations why they’ve come here to work. It’s because they don’t want to suffer for six months on the wait list for their gall bladder removal surgery; or because want to have the choice to try and be who or what they want to be, not what the government told them what they will be!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Enough is enough. Human Resource professionals are hired to be leaders. Therefore, lets be leaders and figure out solutions to the problems at hand, instead of arguing back and forth over things that you think might happen with the new administration. Give the man a chance to fail before you spend countless hours bashing him. Now, on with more pertinent issues such as, how can HR professionals keep employee and management morale up in these tough economic times?
January 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Why is everyone convinced that the government is the solution to all of our problems? Have you asked yourself at what point will our jobs as HR Professionals be eliminated because we have asked the government to do our jobs for us? When the government tells us whom we can hire, what we will pay them and what benefits they will receive, what will small businesses need HR Professionals for? The government will simply tell all of us what jobs we are going to do and what compensation we deserve for doing those jobs. Hmmmm, that sounds a lot like socialism to me.
Ask yourselves this: What does the government do better than the public sector? The answer is nothing. They have never turned a profit on anything. They spend much more of our money than they take in. They always insist that we do with less, but when have they cut back and done with less? Never!
Giving the government control (Regulation) over our businesses, is like putting the inmates in charge of the prisons. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If the company you are working for does not treat you well, leave and find another job. Or better yet, go start your own business, and I am sure you will start to realize what additional government regulation really means to your bottom line.
I work for a company that pays very well, pays our monthly insurance premiums, and contributes 25% of each employees gross pay into a pension plan for them each year. We are very liberal with time off, and there has not been a child born that we have not picked up the bills for.
Guess what? I still hear my co-workers complain about their jobs! The truth is most workers will complain no matter what their circumstances are. It is just the way we have been programmed. No government regulation is going to fix whining.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
In reading some of the comments, I am amazed at the lack of social and economic responsibility expressed by people who are HR professionals. My own view is that business does not exist independently of the general well being of the country which nurtures it. On a more parochial level, we HR pros should be mindful of the unique roles we play in the economic life of America. It is our responsibility to provide support for our employees (and their family members when appropriate), guidance or direction to all levels of operations and staff management, and collegial and strategic HR advice to our company leadership during times of uncertainty and great change. These are the activities that justify our paychecks, and when we effectively handle these responsibilities, we truly make a difference in the life of our companies.
We are now in a time of great upheaval, and complaining that an Obama administration is somehow more dangerous than the situation we have been experiencing over the past few years is beyond rediculous! We have a financial system that has imploded with all its ramifications for American industry. We have witnessed the conversion of our country from a manufacturing based economy to a service one. We have watched the most significant shift in wealth to the top 1% of our employee population since the “era of the Robber Barrons”. And finally, we have seen our country move from the ranks of a creditor nation to the status of a debtor nation with all the implications this has for our economic and personal security. We should be ashamed at how badly our nation has been weakened, and all of us bear some responsibility for this. A new agenda is precisely what we need at this point in time, and we HR people can be a critical asset to the process of change management..
Going forward, we should commit to doing all we are capable of, to advance the interests of our companies and our employees, within the the framework of what unfolds out of Washington. At the same time we should prepare ourselves to take advantage of the opportunities for exploring new vistas that will come from the type of activism that we expect from the new Obama dynamic. Doing anything else would seem to be a terrible waste of time and energy. For those who bemoan the fact that significant change is on the way, we can only hope that the changes that come our way do not overwhelm them.
For the rest of us, it is time to “cinch up” and play the uniquely key role that our professional field affords us.
GBA!!!
January 5th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
It is never a good thing when the government has an intervention…
January 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
A single thought keeps running through my mind: “Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.” Be very careful what you ask for…socialism has failed miserably and repeatedly throughout recent history – unless of course you wish to give up basically all choice in your life in exchange for the privilege of paying 70%-90% income tax
Susan, Im not sure where you get your facts from but I know for certain that those living in socialist/capitolist societies i.e. Norway are not paying 70-90% income tax. I actually paid 36% in federal tax to Norway. Included in my taxes is fully paid healthcare with a choice of 20 doctors in my living area and 5 weeks of paid vacation. Norway is not the cheapest place to live but you will never here of people going bankrupt due to healthcare costs.
When you calculate the cost of healthcare as a percentage of your income and federal and state tax, Im not sure we are paying any less in America. We just have less security here.
This scare tactic is funny when those have never lived in that type of society. Norway isnt failing, just the opposite.
Glad I have a choice to live in either country!
January 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
The line is simple, legislate specific behavior or not. We pass a law to not murder to protect life…we pass a law to not steal to protect property from theft…we pass a law to pay a minimum wage to ensure every hour worked is paid a minimum amount.
Wherever you fall on this issue, it comes down to legislating behavior. All of us enjoy freedom, but not when the freedoms of others take away our freedom. Business people enjoy the freedom of making sound business decisions, but not when those freedoms are taken away…and at some point, business people simply give up…just look at communism. Individuals enjoy the freedom of earning a fair wage for a day’s work/effort/expertise, but not when those freedoms are taken away…and at some point they simply give up…just look at…hmmm, communism.
Employers provide jobs while employees provide effort/expertise, as long as each is free to do so…when those freedoms are taken away, the will to provide them deminishes proportionately. Legislation protects, by limiting freedom. Protection is necessary, that’s the chief role of government, but government also enables freedom, the chief cornerstone of our constitution.
Those favoring more employee-protection take away the freedoms of business owners and those favoring more employer-protection take away the freedoms of individuals, it often comes down to this…but who will protect us all when businesses’ freedoms are so far removed that they are no longer able to compete in the world-wide market place?…
I am a believer in the free-market system, from businesss to indviduals, as long as the rules on the field are fair and consistently applied for all. Legislation provides the rules…but no one likes to play when there are unfair or too many rules. This is no game…the stakes are serious and the consequences are the same, but the principles still apply, and the line is simple…do we legislate specific behavior or not, and with each behavior legislated, another freedom is taken away and another rule is made, until no one wants to play any more….
January 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
First up, has anyone actually read any of this legislation or just what this website has said this legislation means? I have not, yet, but I will partially weigh in with everyone else on what has been written here.
1.) Paycheck Fairness Act: “the legislation proposes… that a plaintiff can use compensation comparisons of employees who do not even work at the same physical place of business”
Now, if the legislation was passed (please remember that tons of things could get added on before it ever got to Obama’s desk for pass or veto) this could be either a good thing or a bad thing. The real question comes down to if a company can pay-for-performance and if a company can pay different rates to employees when an adjustment is made for the cost of living in a particular area. Every politician will try and get their own angle tacked on through the writing of this act, 1 out of 25 may actually read the blasted thing, and Obama and his advisors will do (hopefully) the smart thing and actually read the act in it’s entirety when it reaches his desk and then make an educated decision (as with any bill/act/etc.) accordingly.
2.) Working Fam. Flex. Act: Expands an employer’s obligations when an employee requests a change in hours or venue to accommodate family needs.
How unspecific and unclear…now, having a close friend who works from home to assist in the rearing of his kids I can see the advantage of this. At the same time the nature of his work is such where it is REASONABLE and reasonable accomodation will play a part in this if passed. It is also the necessity of the supervisor or manager to issue corrective action and measures if the needs and reasonable expectations of the employee are not being met. I think how this act is written will be the defining factor on if it’s a “good” act or a “bad” act. If it places the burden on the employee to detail the reason, need and solutions to assist in gaining the leave I think that is a smooth operation. If documentation is done appropriately for the leave or accomodation then I don’t see a problem. It depends on the professional nature of the employee. Obviously a retail employee who works the cash register wouldn’t be able to be accomodated since it’s unreasonable and there is no way to allow this person to ring a register from home.
3.) Employee Free Choice Act: A proposal to make it easier for employees to form a union.
If your employees are safe, happy and healthy then why would they need a union? This simply requires managers and supervisors to be more involved with their employees and their peers and managers. Me personally, I wouldn’t want to see it in my work place because I know we have employees that aren’t thrilled 80% of the time they’re at work. Is it my responsibility to make them happy? No. It is the supervisors responsibility to make sure that equal treatment is given and expectations are clearly understood from the get-go.
4.) RESPECT Act: Redefines the term “supervisor” in certain industries, thereby making some supervisors eligible for union membership – and empowered to act in the best interests of the unions and not the employer.
Another unclearly “simplified” meaning of an act. I’m flat out not going to weigh in on this one.
5.) Patriot Employers Act: Awards tax credits and other benefits to employers who, for instance, keep their operations from moving overseas and offer health insurance to their employees.
A tax credit for keeping business stateside is a good idea, but if a company can’t wrangle a decent benefit package to offer employees because the health care industry refuses to work with the company–well…that could be a problem. As an employee with work experience in retail and health care I think I can say that nothing is free but things should be affordable. Forcing healthcare is a nice band-aid measure, but a longer lasting measure would be to educate the American public about finance 101. If an employee knows about money before leaving high school (other than how to spend it) then an employee is going to be in a better place when making fiscal decisions with their pay. A very basic and inexpensive insurance benefit offered by an employer to employees in conjunction with a coverage that is more comprehensive and tailored to be in the realm of affordability to employees comany wide without being fiscally back breaking would be a good way to get people out from under the health/fiscally hostage umbrella that many employees are currently under. Long and short, is this act 100% good or bad–no. It needs more study and formulation and less “it is what it is” mentality assigned to explain it.
6.) Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Changes the statute of limitations on how far back and employee can go to file a pay-discrimination suit against an employer.
I’m not in favor of this. Employees currently have the right to discuss their pay. If an employee leaves their employer and finds out later that they may have been discriminated against pay wise they obviously were talking about their employer within the statute of limitations (most likely). This seems like an ambulance chaser act (lawyers spent to much in gas trying to keep up?). Most statute of limitations for pay are, from what I remember, aproximately 6 months to a year and a half. If an employee hasn’t found work in a year and a half and is still “discussing” the employer who wronged them and decides to sue over the injustice they obviously have too much time on their hands and they should be sending out resume’s instead. Admittedly, there will inevitibly be the employee who was actually wronged and didn’t find out about it until some executive came clean or was charged for some other sort of wrong doing and this was discovered during discovery but if that’s how these cases are brought to light then there should be circumstantial statutes assigned for these discriminatory practice discoveries.
7.) Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Would provide protections to gay, lesbian and bisexual workers against employment discrimination similar to the protection provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Why should anybody care about what someone does behind bedroom doors? ANYONE involved in office romance should be re-assigned to a different, but equal position where they cannot affect the employment of the person they are seeing if the company finds out OR nothing changes but any employment decisions regarding the hiring, counseling or firing of employees is subject to independent internal review at any time. People should conduct themselves PROFESSIONALLY at work and employment decisions and actions should be based on the professional achievements, supervisor recommendations and the ability of the individual to do the essential functions of their position. This is business.
8.) FMLA Expansion Act: Would expand coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act to companies with at least 25 employees, as opposed to the 50-employee minimum in the current law.
Sounds very similar to CFRA. No biggie from where I sit. CFRA is still stricter than the proposed change of 50 to 25 employees.
9.) Healthy Families Act: Proposes that any company with at least 15 employees would required to provide paid sick leave.
I think this particular bit of legislation should be left to the states. I agree with paid sick leave, but unless it were carefully structured it could be very easy for slackers to exploit. If something were passed I would like to see it limited to a certain number of days/hours (1 and 1/2 weeks per year) and if it didn’t specifically indicate full time employees, I think it should be written to specifically designate hours needed for an employee to be eligible.
10.) Civil Rights Act of 2008: A far-reaching piece of legislation that would amend a number of employment laws affecting, for instance, discrimination charges involving age and pre-employment tests, and changing the rules under which disputes can go to arbitration.
I need something more specific as the author seems to have picked and chosen what to point out in this summary statement.
All up these acts seem to highlight (given government legislation) the full time employee or the employee who works 20+ hours per week. My bigger concern regarding some of these legislative pieces is not who presents them or who has said what about them, but what employers would do to get around them. Would an employer move to hiring more part time people so they would be ineligible for a lot of this? That opens the door for more administrative overhead costs and bigger possible class action lawsuits. I still think the bigger problem of business ethics and mutual responsibility. I am an advocate for teaching people so they don’t have to turn to the nearest panting lawyer anytime something seemingly goes wrong. As an HR professional my responsibility is to make sure that the employer knows the laws and statutes surrounding employment law, gives suggestions and recommendations on how to effectively utilize the human component that makes up the company, and assists employees with options open to them internally so they can succeed within the company all the while checking off paperwork and to-do lists. If an efficient system is in place then there is nothing a company can’t do to run smoothly if they can sell the product they’re creating.
January 6th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I moved from a state with no income tax last year and few unions, a legislature that meets only every other year for a few months to do the people’s business, where politicians have real jobs and whose Governor is not in Washington with his hand out for a bail out, to one that is highly unionized, an entrenched political structure, one of the highest tax burdens in the United States and a Governor who goes to Washington begging for a handout. The unions and politicians here have created a tremendous sense of entitlement, duplication of services, waste, laziness, over-paid workers and whiners. The Governors only solution is to tax the people more, not cut the waste that is everywhere around him. In many ways this country is headed in the same direction – more government, more sense of entitlement through the legislation mentioned above, more taxing of those who already pay more than half of the entire federal income burden now. How is this forward thinking? How is this enlightened? I don’t care about what would have happened if the other party won. I’m looking forward at a huge pile of unnecessary legislation – some of which was cosponsored by Obama last year and defeated but will surely sail through a Democrat congress this year.
I’ve been doing this HR thing for some 40 years now – my role is to help management find and keep the best people, give them the best benefits the company can afford (I’ve held the cost of medical insurance level for 4 consecutive years now with outshifting premium or cutting benefits – yes it can be done), pay them the best wages we can afford, identify critical skills needed, develop the leaders for the future success of the company, give our folks the best training we can to help them be as productive as they can. My role isn’t to comply with a bunch of unnecessary legislative acts that social engineers in Washington think necessary but are slowly and surely sapping American business dry with needless overhead. (We outsource those things – that’s not what an HR professional does). I fear the more legislation like those listed above, the faster the acceleration of jobs overseas.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I have been fortunate to have always worked for larger companies with decent benefits. Had this not been so, my husband would never had been able to run his small business. Regardless of the feds definition of small business, the majority are those that have anywhere from 1 or 2 employees to about 50 max. When No body stated that “The only people within small business that makes a living wage are family and friends, everyone else gets stuck with min wage no benefit positions”, it became very obvious that he/she has never been involved in a true small business. The additional costs to a small business in the proposed policies (and yes, I realize that they are “proposed” and not all may make it through) can easily be the difference between profit and loss… the difference between remaining in business and closing the doors. He did the most he could for his employees, but offering health insurance wasn’t an option. Do you realize that unless you have in excess of 50 employees you can’t get group rates? At least not the group rates as we know them. With less than 50 employees, every employee is age-rated for their premiums. Even if we had been able to offer it, our employees wouldn’t have been able to afford it. And, no question about it, had my husband’s business had to pay a portion of the premiums, he would have had to close the doors. Oh, and by the way, in a true small business, that living wage No body talks about…….. the owner gets what is left after all the bills are paid. That can be lots less than what their employees are making.
But this impacts the larger companies also. They must remain competitive and make a profit. Making a profit is a good thing. It’s what keeps the doors open. There is only so much in the pot for labor costs. Need to provide paid sick days? Then some other part of the benefits/wages have to be adjusted, or layoffs made to allow for the increased costs.
The job of HR is not to be a social worker, but to protect the company. We do that by hiring the best people we can, assure equal and fair treatment to the employees and assure that all the various tracking, reporting, etc. are completed. Do we want our employees to be happy? Sure – but only if they are productive and contributing to the overall good of the company. Unfortunately, many think it’s “unfair” that we expect that of them.
Don’t like your benefits or wages? It’s a free country. Start looking for another job. Small businesses (and I mean those with 10-20-30 employees) will be closing left and right if mandated costs continue to rise.
If these proposals are put in force will my workload increase? Sure – but that is not my main concern. A company can only have losses for so long and then the party is over.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Healthy Families Act – Cosponsored by Obama – failed to pass originally. Added cost and loss of flexibility to employers. Employers should decide what benefits they can afford for their workers, not government.
The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – From an employers perspective, there would never be finality on a pay issue because each time an employee receives a paycheck, pension payment, etc.. the clock starts over. This extends the period for suits well beyond needed time to address inequities. Claims become increasing difficult as time passes, witnesses die, move on, etc..
The Civil Rights Act 2008 – eliminates caps on compensatory and punitive damages. Eliminates pre-dispute arbitration agreements in which workers previously agreed to arbitrate, render unenforceable any agreements already signed. Obama co-sponsored.
Ergonomics – 2000 OSHA regulations on ergonomics estimated to cost employers $100B to implement. defeated but likely to pass – Obama strongly supports.
Paycheck Fairness Act – totally stupid concept and over history would have been the basis for collusion suits against employers if they came together to fix salaries at a certain level. Now the right would be given to the employee. Dumb, dumb, dumb…
Employee Free Choice Act – removes the voting secrecy protection for workers and allows them to be pressured by organizers. You can vote for Obama in secrecy but apparently your workers can’t vote in secrecy if a union shows up at your door step.
First explain why we need any of these before racing to enact them… From where I sit, the only people who will benefit from these pieces of legislation are union organizers and lawyers…
January 6th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Jim is right on. I’m concerned that so many of the above posts don’t recognize that HR is a business partner, not social services. We are no longer a manufacturing economy. The owners of today’s knowledge captial are the employees. Please stop acting like we are in the 70’s (although we are coming close to stagnation). I work for a small employer, non-union. We pay a very competitive wage and have a generous benefits package…because of this, our turnover due to compensation last year was zero. That is the way capitalism works. If some of the ridiculous bills such as Employee Free Choice, Ledbetter, etc., pass this will hit businesses at a time when the cost of capital is increasing due to the financial markets and make it even more difficult to recognize an ROI. Government has consistently demonstrated time and again that they are not capable of managing pretty much anything and should stay out of it completely. It doesn’t appear that some people in HR understand what exactly their job is. (also…..many people apparently, Obama included, should look to the census information and find out exactly what income brackets are considered “rich” because the groups they are targeting are actually middle class.)
January 6th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Jim and Diane said it – conclusively
January 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
From SHRM:
The House is scheduled to vote on both the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act by the end of this week. Please let your Representative know TODAY that these bills go far beyond reasonable, balanced approaches to address wage discrimination.
Background
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11) – The Ledbetter legislation is a congressional response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In that case, the Court held that the 300-day time limit for filing a charge Title VII of the Civil Rights Act starts after the alleged unlawful employment action, and does not re-start a new upon receipt of each successive paycheck
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would effectively eliminate the uniform statue of limitations on pay discrimination claims and restart the time clock for filing such a charge with the EEOC upon the receipt of each successive paycheck. The bill would also re-start the time clock when a retiree receives an annuity check from an employer, and would thus keep employers liable to a discrimination claim potentially decades after an alleged act of misconduct. The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 12) – The Paycheck Fairness Act would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that jobs requiring comparable functions, skills, effort and responsibility in similar working conditions must compensate equally. Some stakeholders contend that the Equal Pay Act is not sufficient to remedy wage discrimination. While wage differentials remains an important workplace issue, debate continues over whether the differential is attributable to discrimination or the result of legitimate pay practices such as education, skill, experience, or tenure.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities.
SHRM’s Position
SHRM adamantly opposes discrimination based on gender and believes any intentional misconduct against an employee should be promptly addressed and resolved. We also recognize that some court decisions have narrowed the scope of pay discrimination protections. As a result, we believe that it is appropriate and necessary for Congress to re-examine pay discrimination laws to determine if changes may be needed to restore protection under the law. However, SHRM opposes any efforts to eliminate the statute of limitations for filing claims or to limit legitimate employer pay practices. As a result, SHRM is opposed to both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:48 am
The Republican majority of the US Supreme Court have become audacious tyrants under the totalitarian reign of GW Bush, by far the worst, most brainless president in US history.
I have made it clear to my representatives and senators that we will actively seek to kick them out of office if they do not vote for Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 2008.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Thank you anti-injustice. The policies of the last eight years have not worked (take a look at your 401k statement). I suspect that a number of these responses are coming from the owners of companies. The attitude that people can find a new job anytime if they don’t like their current position is funny – I am sure the authors of most of these responses would change their tune if they were terminated today. Satified employees help companies become profitable.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
People like this “anti-injustice” are the reason this country and our economy are in such a slump. Mindless, brainwashed drones that can’t see that most legislator’s are in there positions to take what is mine, that I have worked very hard for through many of years of struggling without my hand out and give it to those that feel someone owes them something just for being born so that the person giving this to them can get a vote for re-election in the next election.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Hmmm… last I looked it was the policies of the democrats that brought us to the financial meltdown. The sub-prime mess started in the Clinton era with quotas on banks to loan to those they would otherwise not lend to under penalty of $500k per violation. In 2004, the then Bush Treasury Secretary attempted to convince Barney Frank and Maxine Waters among others that sub-prime lending and desktop underwriting were ruinous. All the democrats on the committee disagreed and would not agree that Freddie and Fannie were in trouble and their lending and buying of sub-prime instruments was faulty. You can watch the hearing on you Tube if you like. (BTW – those people are still in charge and we’ve elected more of them) So what was good for the government back entities Freddie and Fannie permeated the entire banking system and led to a meltdown when the housing bubble burst. It was a great example of social engineering started in the Carter Administration, and strengthened by the Clinton administration. The legislation listed above is yet more social engineering that serves no purpose in a democratic society.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Sounds like someone is blaming Bush for the financial crisis. That’s interesting. Can anyone say Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the root cause of the problem. (I guess I couldn’t let that post go unanswered.)
January 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
We all know that bankers didn’t wake up one morning and decide to lend money to people that here-to-for would not qualify. They had to be motivated or threaten. In this case they were threatened. Congress used Fannie Mae and Freddie to buy subprime mortgages from banks who reacted as you would expect them to when they are threatened. Since Fannie & Freddie were quasi-governement agencies and engaged in a campaign of buying and selling sub-primes (and receiving funding from the government through means other than appropriations). There was alot of money to be made in the sub-prime business and if the governement was doing it, every one did it. Those in charge of oversight (mentioned in my previous post) would not agree that what F&F were doing was ruinous. When things went sour, the Barney Franks of the world who supported and defended the practices in 2004 pointed to the White House and their failed policies.The campaign followed suit. Of course, this practice began in the Carter Admin and was bolstered by the Clinton Admin BUT Bush took the heat for it when the ponzi scheme collapse – the failed policies of the repubs – NOT the Barney Franks and Maxine Waters of the world who were social engineering their way to a financial meltdown.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Jim’s remarks would be offensive to me if they weren’t so laughable. How do you take seriously any arguement that our problems of today are the result of a Presidential administration that was under assult by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress from ‘97 to ‘00. If memory serves me right, the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress from 1994 to January of 2007, and with the level of poisoned partisanship that permeated Washington, how could anyone make the claim the the Democrats could get their “pet” legislation passed during this timeline?. And oh, by the way Jim, shouldn’t we have expected President Bush and the Republican majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives to have been better stewards and addressed the problems that caused our “meltdown” at least some time between 2000 and 2007? I know that in the businesses world that I’ve been a part of (manufacturing for 36 years), blaming previous leadership for failures has never been an option. Rather it is a sure fire way to employment termination. Leaders are responsible for many things including correcting systemic problems, and anyone who has 6 or more years in their position would be laughed out of their Company were they to try to shift blame for operations failures to a previous manager.
With respect to Fred’s comments, he is either heedless of the many hands that have helped him along his path to success or he is too arrogant to understand that extremely few people ever succeed without the help and support of many people (teachers, taxpayers, friends, former colleagues, ground-breakers, mentors, etc.,etc.,etc.). The fact is that I’ve not met any “drones” in my HR career. I have met many hard working (often overworked) and committed people who make a difference everyday in this world of Human Resources. I surely hope that Fred regrets his insult to those who hold a different viewpoint. After all, America’s history is a reflection of the Hegelian dialectic; differing perspectives come together and find compromise to make great decisions/progress.
My apologies to both Jim and Fred if I have offended them, but it is time to bring a level of civility to the great issues facing us. We must find common ground as HR professionals as we try to provide some leadership and HR acumen to both our Companies and to the dialogue that our own professional organization, SHRM, affords us.
With the myriad of change possibilities that are potentially in the offing, perhaps we need to develop an interactive dialogue so that all of us are better prepared for the challenges ahead. With that as a watchword, I will reach out to our KY SHRM Chapter Leadership and try to organize a suitable forum. I suggest all of us take a similar position.
Jay.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Jay, no offense taken, you should recall that we elected a Democrat majority 2 years ago on promises to end the war, etc… They did absolutely nothing except pass “National Corvette Day”. They could have easily pushed legislation through to accomplish many things they promised. You can argue that the repub minority blocked legislation just as the dem minority on the banking committees in 2004 blocked any action to reform Fannie & Freddie. Holding majoriies in either or both houses does not make success automatic. My point would be that there are so many examples of social engineering by our government that have failed – some well intentioned, most not. Look at the hope expressed over the Pension Protection Act. Well intentioned but did the exact opposite of what it was designed to do – pension plans are folding left and right. In an election year, its easy to point backward and say “he” failed and I would have done it differently. That person, unfortunately is now hiring as many Clintonites as he can – how is that real change? They, the Bushes and Clintons, have both failed miserably. Where is the new leadership? The different direction? Looks more like FDR than a new vision.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
On Jay’s post — you are ill informed. Check out the facts.
January 8th, 2009 at 8:18 am
read this weeks “Workforce” – see how HR has impact – or not -
January 8th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Gee whiz…..Is this the HR industry ranting and raving like this? I thought we were supposed to be the catalyst for change and diversity. If we’re having fits about these new policies, how in the world are we going to insist that employees follow them?
New president = new policies = change. What’s new about this?
New president (first African-American, interracial) = major change + diversity. Is there actually a problem with this?
January 8th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Thank goodness we have a Congress required to NEGOTIATE changes! So many in this discussion seem to be ready to pounce on those who have differing views. Meet & deal – but really know your facts. Most news media will not give facts about the benefit of Unions as they do NOT want to be unionized – keep the public viewing Unions as a detriment when history proves they benefit all of us, in or out of a Union. Some employers would not provide benefits if not required to; I myself would pay workers as little as I have to for menial unskilled type work – thank goodness I am required to be decent due to min wage laws.
There is so much variation in workplaces and workplace issues.
A problem does arise if the laws ignore the differences.
Karen P
January 8th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Unfortunately if there weren’t a lot of companies that DON’T look out for their employees’ best interests, many of these changes are merited. I applaud some of these changes and hope that the companies out there who are only out for themselves will be required in other ways to take care of their REAL bottom line — their employees.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Unfortunately, in this Congress there will be no negotiations:
“In a naked power grab for Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has angered Republicans by pushing through a rule change to curb the GOP’s rights to affect legislation.
The rule change approved on Tuesday, the first day of the 111th Congress puts new restrictions on motions to recommit a bill to the committee that approved it in order to add new amendments.
Previously Republicans have used the rule to delay or kill legislation or to force Democrats to take politically difficult votes on such issues as gun control and illegal immigration, according to The Hill newspaper.
The new rule allows the full House to reconsider a bill without delay.
The move, which Pelosi engineered, silences the voices of tens of millions of Americans by further shutting down open debate on the House floor and taking away the minority’s right to offer substantive policy alternatives on behalf of the millions of Americans they represent, Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained.
And Rep. David Drier of California, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, said the rule change would create the most closed Congress in history.
Before the vote on the bill, GOP leaders sent a letter to Pelosi stating: This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised.”
Apparently the only views permitted in the House will be Ms Pelosi’s. So much for a better America.
January 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Karen, personally I would not join a union. One gives up so much of their personal liberty when they do. I’d rather have the option of negotiating my own salary and benefits, to work had in a pay for performance atmosphere and have the potential to excel career-wise and salary-wise. I don’t see a union offering an environment for people to do their best and be rewarded for it. I see only an environment of conflict – good guys/ bad guys, polarization. I see a less motivated workforce – a sense of entitlement and a lot of waste (duplication of work and positions). I don’t want to pay a percentage of my salary to a union to do my bidding and to support political choices that may not be mine or to pressure my employer for a particular wage scale or benefits package that makes no sense to me personally. I see no benefit to a workforce that can only do what its union organizes tell it to do. What benefits am I missing?
January 8th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I (you) have a job because my (your) employer is an entrepreneur who invested THEIR MONEY, THEIR TIME and THEIR TALENT to open their business. I, as an employee, do not begrudge my boss profits. NOBODY goes into business to lose money. It’s the profits that encourage my (and your) boss to keep the doors open and ultimately me (you) in a job! When I am on the clock my boss expects me to work. I come to work, earn my paycheck, I get a check every couple of weeks and he sees the profits which, again, are generally reinvested in the company. Many people don’t get this; maybe because even the government doesn’t understand this! I may or may not get a bonus because my actions contribute to the profits (or lack thereof which explains the may not). Employment doesn’t guarantee you the same lifestyle as your boss! Why is the employer, for the most part, painted as an evil money grubby unfeeling jerk? hmmm could it be that that mindset is what creates new laws ultimately giving employees more chances to file (and win) lawsuits?
January 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Barbara – totally agree. If some of these posters used their own money to start and grow a business, their view of government intervention for purposes of social engineering that increase their costs or a union organizer at their door telling them how they are going to spend their money on employees or their business gets shutdown, their tune would change dramatically. But as long as its someone else’s dollar, they are blind.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Thank you Barbara, so well stated.
But Jim, I think you’re missing the point that some employers are evil money grubbing unfeeling jerks– there are more of them than there should be. And it’s precisely those folks who make it so easy for the government to step in and take what appears to be the heroic role with so many citizens. It’s the same problem that gave unions the grisly foothold they have on American labor.
I’m an entrepreneur (though presently an employee for an awesome small biz) and I know firsthand how government involvement kills enterprise, but at the same time we have to understand all employers do not truly have their business’ best interest at heart or they’d be treating their employees MUCH differently.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Renetta – I know of few companies where the senior management team is more focused on themselves than the success of the business and their greatest asset the employee. I think our media has developed a sense of fear and mistrust amongst most – they sensationalize the worse and ignore the vast majority of those who are trying to balance their customers, their stockholders/ investors and their employers. Perhaps I’m a bit naive, but I believe in the goodness of people and it is hard to imagine a management team that sits down and purposely plans to circumvent laws and rip off their employees. We agonize over decisions that impact employees either in lost jobs or reduced salary or wages. Fortunately our management team looks for solutions that minimize impact to employees in times of financial crisis and rewards them in times of plenty. I hate to see the vast amount of good employers be subjected to rules because of the few. Again I repeat an earlier thought – if people can vote for their new president in secrecy at the poll, then why is it that a union election can not be secret as well….
January 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I think also that
1 – My employer does not owe me (or my cousin Vinny) a job (or benefits for that matter)
2 – My employer provides me with a salary and benefit package they can afford and that they can improve or diminish as conditions warrant. I am free to accept or refuse and move on if I am not satisfied. Imagine if all the employees walked away from the evil money grubbers – they would cease to exist.
3 – If I’m not satisfied, I don’t think I have the right to shutdown your business until you pay me more or give me better benefits. I don’t think the government has the right to do that either. Where in the Constitution do you have a right to a job or benefits? You have a right to pursue opportunity under the constitution, but it is not a guarantee that you will be a “success” or are entitled to success.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Jim-
Please don’t consider this an argument because I agree with you much more than disagree. I don’t know where you live or in what sector you’re employed (even if you’re the owner, you’re still employed by your clients) but way too close to half of the employers I’ve had contact with, either as a peer or from acquaintances who have stories to tell have stated either by words or actions that they regard their employees as no more than necessary evils at best and at worst, as the enemy. I’m old and have found this to be increasingly true through the years.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I understand. Again I would say that it is the media, politicians and unions that have developed this sense of entitlement amongst the workforce. If you listen carefully – every statement they say has a “right” connected to it. People begin to believe they have rights that otherwise do not exist and when they don’t get them or have them they become dissatisfied with their employers. You have a right to equal pay, to a certain level of benefits, to time off, etc… ITS YOUR RIGHT they tell you. But who granted that right? Where did it come from? Where is it written? No where… no one ever challenges these assertions of “rights”. We got a whole litany of them during the campaign….
If it is my “right” to a certain wage or medical insurance by God I’ll join that union and we’ll shut them down if they don’t give me the “right” salary or benefits. Or I’ll vote for the politician who tells me its my right and if I elect them they will give it to me.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Jim – I like your style! I personally have worked in a union environment (as well as currently a non-union) if folks think union is the answer and going to solve their problems and make the business more profitable they sure will be in for a rude awakening. Just because they are unionized does not mean they will make more profit while in turn being able (whether willing or not) to pay higher wages, better benefits and it takes away a whole lot of liberty all the while your now forking out money paying union dues. It’s a thorn in your side day in and day out. The constant restraints and bitterness within the workforce was so sad. People that would say and do things because they were union whether they believed in it or not. They felt obligated because they were a member and it was expected – whoa big privilege there – it had nothing to do with profits or getting treated better – it was a power trip! I was raised that it was within ME – if I didn’t not like something it was up to ME to deal with it or change it. I was free to find another job and I did. Whiners should get off their duff and do the same not always expect someone else to do something they are perfectly capable of doing themselves. Union is not the answer nor is government – it’s lies within one’s self. By the way I currently work for a wonderful employer who tries really hard to provide benefits but if small (and I’m sure large also) group insurance premiums continue to rise the current $30,000 a month premium will no longer be possible when 20%+ is added on annually. Are they going to be the bad guy and everyone want to run to a union (which could not change the situation) when the employer has to back up and re-evaluate and choose between that benefit and keeping the doors open, continuing paychecks and putting food on tables. Look on the bright side – if your wages are low enough you get freebies from the state which is better coverage than the one your calling good benefits with no premium!
January 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I am an HR manager for a company that is owned by another company that is owned by a corporation. I worked for this company in a different capacity when I first started 10 years ago. In 2003 I had enough of the way I was being treated and went out and started my own business.
When gas prices started going up I had to start looking for something else to do as my business included 60,000 miles a year driving.
I put out applications and during one companies reference checking they called the company I had worked for. They had a new GM that knew me and had them call me to come back to work. I told the new GM why I left and what I wouldn’t be able to do. He hired me back and in 3 years I am making more than twice what I was making and am now in a position with much more responsibility and authority.
I write all this to say. This is freedom. I didn’t like the way I was being treated. I didn’t sue. I didn’t whine and complain. I went and found something else to do. The company changed under a new GM and now I am back. The old GM was moved back to sales.
I wasn’t entitled to anything but a fair wage and a safe place to work. I received the wage I had been hired for but I wasn’t happy with the ethics of the then GM.
I was able to make these decisions without any help from a union or the government on what I was going to do.
This is how the free market works. If given a chance it will work out and we won’t be owned by the government.
One other thing:
I had to lay 10 people off yesterday. I cryed last night. It hurts but sometimes it has to happen. Most companies are in the business to make money for the owner, stock holders etc. If they don’t follow the rules of the free market system they go out of business. For the most part, enacting more laws doesn’t help anything. It creates a society of lazy worthless employees.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Right on Ray & Kerri!!!
January 9th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Thanks DeeDee – it indeed lies within. I managed to hold the line on medical premiums for 4 years now. It can be done through a variety of ways. I also started an employers coop in the late 90’s to bargain as a group with insurance companies to lower rates – it worked. These are the kinds of things HR people can and should doing for their employees.
Fred – I feel for you – done many of those in my career and it doesn’t get any easier. And good for you! You demonstrate that the individual can with effort and persistent be successful without the intervention of others
January 9th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Fred: Thanks for sharing that great story, and you are absolutely right — that is how a free society works. Good for you!
January 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
All of these long drawn out stories are great, however, people are missing the point in their technical ramblings about free societies and lazy, worthless, letigious employees, etc. None of these proposed laws would even be a consideration if there weren’t a good number of employers out there who don’t give a hoot about their employees. Some people can’t leave their jobs and go out and find another one or start their own business. They may be uneducated, blue collar workers that put in their time and effort and as a result their employer should give them a fair shake. MANY employers DO NOT do this. As a 15-year HR veteran workin mostly in the manufacturing industry, I have seen it first hand and left companies because I refuse to take part in treating employees like dirt or doing underhanded things that would not be considered looking out for the best interest of all parties involved. I have morals and ethics and values and I need to be able to sleep at night and wake up and look at myself every day. I am not “Company Resources” and I am not “Employee Resources”. I am “HUMAN Resources” and I believe in representing the best interests of my company AND it’s employees in a fair 50/50 manner. If companies can’t manage that then the government must step in and look after their best interests. Maybe you all work for fabulous companies that treat their employees like royalty (my husband just happens to work for such a company — and he is very lucky) but most people don’t and if we are being honest with ourselves we would admit that most employers don’t truly give a darn about their employees’ best interest as long as they are making a buck and earning their bonuses at the end of the year. I say GO OBAMA, let’s make the workplace fair and equitable for all and if it causes me a little extra work here and there, so be it…that’s what I get paid for.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
So is it our collective problem to deal with those who cannot or will not do what it takes to improve themselves so they can move to a better job? These laws are, in my view, taking a free society to a socialist society. That is not what this country is about nor the principles it was founded upon. Name one of the laws proposed above that is actually needed or benefits any one substantially other than union organizers or attorneys. Where is the data that supports the need for yet more legislation than currently exists. Congress should be focused on the economy – but they are inept at that – they are good at social engineering (or they think so).
Ledbetter came about, for example, because Ms Ledbetter filed under the Equal Pay Act and the suit was tossed. Her (inept) lawyer failed to appeal and she filed under Title VII but too late. If she cannot file on a timely basis and she hires an inept lawyer and fails to sue him for malpractice, why does the entire statute of limitations have to be restructured for one person who waits too long and hires an idiot (who admits he should have appealed) to represent her? It is a good example of Congress over-reacting to a situation that requires no further legislation, just smarter people to use existing law.
And I’ll ask again, if it is OK for people to go to the polls and vote for Obama in secret, why does Obama support a proposal that does not allow workers to vote in secret to be represented by a union. Imagine if your vote for president was not a secret ballot….
January 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Tracy, are you saying these “uneducated, blue collar workers” do not have a choice to go to college to have more options? They choose to take out loans to buy brand new cars and tv’s but choose not to “waste” their money on something where they would have to go to night school while working all day and caring for a family. I had the choice and I chose freedom of life options with school (even though it was tough being a single parent and working and scraficing other things). God bless America that gave me this freedom if I worked hard enough to make it!
January 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
This is definitely a site for the Fox News crowd.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Jim – considering the number of and length of your posts, I would say a little extra work wouldn’t hurt you. You have a lot of time on your hands. I am thinking you are a politician and I am proud of the way I vote — private or not. You keep bringing up that same point…which is useless and so what, you hate unions. I get it. Cheryl – No, not everyone has those options open to them and how naive to think they don’t deserve a fair shake because they didn’t go to college. Educated or not, people deserve fairness…in life and at work. Not everyone has the intelligence to graduate from college either but do a darn fine job in the work world. How intellectually snobbish of anyone to assume that non-college educated people deserve less than those of us that went to college. Bottom line — if the smartly educated employers would treat everyone with the respect and fairness they deserve, there would be no need for these laws…nor would there be a need for the Department of Labor or for the Human Resources profession as a whole. I agree some of these proposals are far reaching and I am not a general supporter of unions, however, I think some of Obama’s proposals are wonderful and regardless of any extra work it might cause me, I am totally in favor of making sure that EVERYONE gets a fair shake — white collar, blue collar, skilled, unskilled, educated, uneducated, female, male, black, white, gay, straight, etc., etc., etc.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Tracy,
Im sorry but I had to make a few comments about your post. First you say that none of these proposed laws would be considered if the employers would give a hoot about their employees. I beg to differ that these proposals are driven by a workforce of class envy employees who did not make good decisions about getting an education in their early live or eho are just looking for the easiest path. ANYBODY in the country can get an education and move up if they want to. For some, it will be a tough row to hoe, but it can be done.
I applaud you for taking a moral stand and leaving a company that you could not work for. THIS is the answer to these types of problems. Leave the bad employers and they will change or go out of business.
Your husband was not lucky, he made a choice and it sounds like a good one. But once his company is forced to implement the proposed changes it will not be the same place and won’t treat it’s employees like royaly any longer.
It is sad that you have sucha negative view of employers with statements like, “most employers don’t truly give a darn about their employees’ best interest as long as they are making a buck and eraning their bonuses at the end of the year.”
Your last sentence should read, GO OBAMA, let’s give socialism a try and everyone will see what a better system it is……….
January 9th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Tracy,
I just have one question for you. What is fair?
There is no defination. I’m sorry, there are 300 million definations in this country, yours, mine and everyone elses. I hate the word fair and it is so misued and has become the “buzz word” of the day. Everybody wants to claim what is fair and what is not.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “FAIR”.
What most people mean when they use the word, “fair” is, I don’t like XXXXX or I want XXXXX.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Tracy – I work many hours a week, 7 days a week. These discussions are important so we HR professionals (myself for the last 40 years) know what we are up against and how people feel about issues.
I don’t watch Fox and I didn’t vote for either candidate – I think perhaps we should give the Libertarians a shot for awhile. They can’t do any worse than the two main parties have done.
Again – Ronald Reagan said it best: The ten most terrifying words in the English language are: “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
Most people who say Obama’s proposals are great cannot explain why…. no data, no reasoning, no facts – they are just great.
Andy says it all in his last post.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Andy – true. I do agree. However, I think we can all agree that by “fair” I mean treating all people as equals regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, education, pay scale, etc. You are so right though. It’s not fair that I have not won a $300,000,000 lottery so I can retire to a Bahamian beach for the rest of my life!!!!
January 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Tracy, Thank you for clarifying your definition of “uneducated, blue collar employees” you obviously were thinking of the few that would take the opportunity to improve if only they could where I was thinking about so many that could take the opportunity to better themselves but do not want to make the effort. Please do not correct someone with insults and name calling.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Tracy,
Do you actually want to be equal based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, education, pay scale and such? Then we should have no paternity leave, seperate bathrooms, afirmative action, Easter or Christmas holidays, and there should be no education requirements for any job and everybody in the organization will be paid the same.
Sounds like socialism……….
Everyone is not equal and everyone should not be treated equally. I bring a differnt set of skills and education to the table than you do. Should we be treated equally? Should we be paid the same?
Everyone should be treated justly and morally the same. Everyone shoul be treated wth the same level of respect and human decency. Nobody should be mistreated or abused because of their education level or skin color. Everybody should have the same opportunitities to advance and better themselves without recrimination or retaliation. However, a person that does better themself or improves their education level or skill set should be rewared for that.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Andy, actually you are correct and I should have clarified. I am thinking of instances where folks are not treated equally by their employers (and I site this as a direct quote from a former employer), “These people are too stupid to figure anything out as long as they receive a paycheck.” It was considered that because they were less educated, etc. that they wouldn’t figure out the employer’s “blatantly illegal” pay practices, or that the 401K and insurance benefits were totally stacked in favor of upper management, etc. I do agree that my education level and years of experience would earn me more pay than someone with, say, a two-year degree and a year of on-the-job experience. I should have made myself more clear. Regardless of what choices people make in their lives, and not knowing their personal situations I don’t think we should sit in judegement of those decisions, everyone deserves an employer that looks out for their best interest and follows the laws that were put in place to do just that. I would ask for no more and no less from any employer, to any employee, anywhere.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Tracy-
I disagree.
Everyone does not deserve an employer who looks out for their best interest. Everyone deserves to be free to look out for their own best interest. My employer is not my parent or my lover and certainly not my knight in shining armor, and I do not expect them to look out for my best interest.
It would be fantastic if every employer did look out for what they believed to be their employees best interest. In my opinion that would entail taking good care of all aspects of a business. As an HR professional it’s my job to be cognizant of the best interests of each employee, but sometimes what is best for the business is not best for an individual employee. Heartbreaking, but true, I’m sure you’ll agree.
My rather prejudiced point of view is that I trust the employees of this company to make clear judgment and good decisions regarding what is in their own best interests during their career here, and I believe it is my role to support them in those decisions. At the same time, I respect them enough to speak frankly when what they need is not in the best interest of our business model and mission statement.
I’m angry that the actions of employers such as the one you quoted have enabled the government to
create legislation that impacts and impedes all our freedoms, both those as employers and employees, and gives power to unions that do the same. But I also ask that you personally rethink the role of employer, not as Lord and Lady Bountiful, but as a resource to personal freedom and personal gain through capitalism and free enterprise, because the rhetoric you’ve used is aiding and abetting the breakdown of a thousand personal freedoms.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Since Tracy has now backtracked on almost all of her statments and agreed with my more thoughtful ideas, maybe everyone doesn’t really want what thyey say. Maybe if they thought about it and pondered an idea for a time, they might realize that most of these socialist leaning proposals are not a good idea after all.
“Fairness” in its ambigious form is not always good in pratice but is sounds real good is a stump speach or in the news media.
The best place for goverment and the best form of change is at the lowest level. The federal goverment should be involved in the fewest places and programs of any level of goverment. The military (national security), international trade/commerce, civil rights, federal courts, continuity of the union, and maybe a few more. That should be it. Everything else should be at the local or state level. This is where goverment is most accountable and most actionable.
The same is true for individuals, employees should not be looking to the federal goverment for wage equality, or treatment for sick and leave time off issues. Work it out with the employer or seek local or state relief if all else and after all else fails. This way those states with poulations that want unionized work forces and benefits for whatever, can have them. People that want to work for companies that offer this work enviornment can move to these states. But those that want something different can live in states that do not require companies to offer these benefits and then this country will be more of what the founding father had in mind. A union of states wth a common goal but offering different ideas based upon their state populations beliefs and preferances.
This is MY idea of change……..
January 9th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Tracy,
What you just said is EXACTLY what our new democratic leadership is saying. The people of the United States are too stupid to know how to use their money. Whether for Social Security, 401K, stock/bond or any other type of retirements or investments. They want do make laws on how you can invest your own money because you are just too stupid. These are not my words. These are the words of Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I set each of my federal representatives (all Republicans) and told them simple; This country was started with a “Tea Party” over taxes and mis-representations. It happened once and it can and will happen again.
I listed just a few (30 different) taxes that I have to pay.
I get 70% of my paycheck.
Then as I spend my money the taxes begin.
Who is going to pay for all these laws that WILL NOT WORK?
You and I through taxes.
NOT ME. I am done. I will have my Tea Party II website up soon and we can join together in letting out “representatives” know that we are the majority and we are the ones that make the rules.
Try reading Animal Farm by George Orwell. This is a great book that I think explains a great deal about what is going on in this country. Even though he was a democrat/socialist he had some great thoughts while writing this book.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
to clarify I should have said… “I’m angry that the reprehensible actions and attitude of the employer…” I’m not nearly as angry at the government as I am at the fools who have created the situation.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
to clarify I should have said… “I’m angry that the reprehensible actions and attitude of the employer…” I’m not nearly as angry at a socialistic government as I am at the fools who have created the environment where socialism incubates.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
This reminds me so much of those standing on the corner smoking a cigarette and a big gulp cup in their hand begging for money and food and work.
If you actually stop and tell them you will help them find a job or take them to your local food pantry or even bring them a bag of food they will take the bag of food and throw it over the fence when you leave and tell you that can’t work for “some reason”. I have tried.
I was asked by a young lady last weekend while traveling through Oklahoma if I could help her get to Tulsa. She was pregnant, had a small child and her mother with her in a PU much nicer than the vehicle I was driving. I told her that I would put gas in her vehicle and that is what I did. I gave her a hug and told her to pass it on.
This, Tracy, is how we work in this world. If we screw it up once in a while it will work out but WE THE PEOPLE will be the ones that make it work.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
okay– I’m leaving this discussion now because I can neither communicate nor type
January 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Renetta,
Don’t leave. We can all communicate if we try. None of us can type…….
January 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I have not “backtracked” on my statements…I have clarified them. I stand firm in my beliefs regardless of the attacks brought on by others. I am not saying all employees are perfect or that those asking for handouts can’t better their situations or that all the government’s ideas are wonderful or that all employers are unfair and money-hungry. What I am saying is that I look out for the best interests of my company AND the best interest of the employees…and yes, a good balance CAN be met — which I know because I manage to do it every single day. I know that most of the employees that I have worked with have sincerely appreciated my efforts to make a better workplace and my employers have appreciate my efforts to maintain a balance between company and employee. The only employers who were NOT appreciative of my views are those that asked me to go along with, or take part in, actions that were shady at best and when I refused, I wasn’t a team player. I can be bombarded with all of the posts concerning socialistic governments or whatever but I stand firm that what goes around comes around and the Golden Rule should ALWAYS be followed. Let me start it out to remind anyone who has forgotten…”Do unto others…”
January 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Both the Ledbetter and Paycheck Fairness Act are being considered in the House today. Given the changes in rules Ms Pelosi enacted on the first day of the new Congress (posted above), these will easily sail through the House. You should understand the downside of both bills to both employees and employers and take action to protect both before they reach the President-elects desk. He will sign both if they get there.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Tracy,
You have the right perspective for an HR pro. We are ubniquely charged t ballance the interests of our Companies with the interests and aspirations of our employees. Keep up the good work.
With respect to those of you who think it is appropriate to denigrate someone because of their professional views and the values that have helped them become HR leaders, please pause and consider what our mission is. This whole string of emails began as a good faith exchange of ideas on how to deal with the prospective changes and challenges that may be heading our way. Unfortunately, it seems to have devolved into a series of polemical debates on Socialism vs Capitalism, Big Government vs ?, Politicains vs Unscrupulous Employers, etc..
Regardless of what got us here, we as HR professonals must get ready for the changes that are in the offing, and having good interactive exchanges on how best to prepare ourselves and our Management and Employees would be more valuable than what we are doing right now.
Lets talk about what kind of training or orientation or admin preparation, etc. that we are planning in anticipation of the new dynamic facing us. We’ll all be better served!!
As a starter, we have put in place the following:
* a bi-weekly supervisors & managers luncheon to review existing/changing/ new regulatory agency
requirements (OSHA, FMLA, EFCA possibilities, etc.)
* an “Employees Corner” in our monthly newsletter to encourage a free flow of info to all of us
* a complete records and admin SOP review process and a tentative plan on how/what to do in case changes
come our way
* we are currently updationg our HR policy with respect to USERRA and are considering how we will handle
disabled returning Reservists (we hope it is unnecessary!) when they come back from Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.
If anybody has other thoughts or initiatives in motion, please share them with us.
Jay
January 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
And lets remember that socialism is a violation of the Golden Rule, which is what many of these bills at the very top are all about.
Socialism is based on stealing and covetousness. But it appears to the prevailing philosophy of most of my neighbors these days and virtually all of the politicians who rule my life and seize my property through payroll deduction and other means.
When I give, it’s because I have chosen to do so. I want to help. When the government “gives,” it forces me at gunpoint to participate. If I refuse, they will put me in prison, sell my property at auction and claim the glory for themselves. They are generous with my money, and with yours. Government, after all, produces nothing but rules and corpses. Everything else in the world is created in the private sector.
Would you do unto others – ie, stick a gun in their side and demand their hard earned tax dollars for social adventures of dubious nature, as they do unto you with their legislation?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
This discussion is a waste of time.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
It is very difficult to find a solution for everyone in such a big country with so many diversities. I think that this is a step in the right direction. Some may be inconvenient while others will benefit, I think that the most important thing is the overall benefit that this will bring to all in society. We should be more tolerant and generous and be willing to accept some inconveniences if that means that it is good for the whole.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Thank you Daisy. That is what I have been saying all along. If people follow the rules then these new laws will be just that, inconveniences. The only people that need to be angry and/or scared are those that have something to worry about. You can’t please everyone so it’s best to just focus on the good it will bring and not focus so much on whatever slight negatives may come of it. It’s nice to see someone has the same thought-train that I have. Thanks again!!
January 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I can’t believe what some of you people are saying. It is driving me crazy. The end of our country, as it was founded, is close if you who are HR representatives think that Obama is going to do anything but pull the noose tighter. This country was founded on FREEDOM and the pursuit of happiness. No where in the Constitution is this happiness guaranteed.
When I as an individual am forced at gunpoint (government says pay, go to jail or die resisting) to pay for an ever increasingly lazy worthless society that feels it is entitlement owed then I think we are at the end of our reign as a model leader to the world. We have been the success we are because of “INDIVIDUAL” freedom.
I feel like I am in the movie “The Matrix”. I am being led to believe that I am living in a world that is real and on the right track when in reality I am being controlled by a machine that is gaining power ever single day and our ability to fight is slowly being drained from us because we just want to be friends.
Big Brother is already watching us and you just want to feed him more power. You liberal cool-aid drinkers are just like those led by Jim Jones and will probably end up just as they did. It’s ok my children. Drink it. It will enlighten you. Mass suicide. Over 900, mostly Americans, dead. Follow the leader right over the edge.
For those too young to remember just Google the Jonestown, Guyana Peoples Temple suicide and how a charismatic leader with “good intentions and a wonderful message” and a powerful group of leaders around him, can lead so many to their end.
And you want me to give the boy a chance when he has PROVEN without a doubt how he will act by his past.
Does it sound like I am angry. YES. I have worked hard from poverty to where I am now and I didn’t ask anybody for hand outs. If I didn’t have it then I was hungry for a day. It only made me want to work harder.
Now I am asked to give MORE THAN half of what I make to some type of tax and they want to pass more laws to keep the courts and lawyers in business so that they can take more?
Don’t even write to try and justify your position. I know what you are going to say. It is the same mind controlled crap I get on TV every night.
Long live the Messiah.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Fred — chill out man!! Jeez!! You’re going to blow a head gasket!! I don’t think that changing some HR laws merits the constitutional conversations about handouts and hunger!! Conspiracy theories and anger spewing out every pore is not what HR is about. How can you relate cult activists to anything?? You are acting like a lunatic and thankfully I don’t know any companies who have HR people like you running it. You watch too much National Geographic television and Nancy Grace. Try chillin’ with a good sitcom once in awhile and treat yourself to an evening not filled with “They-Are-Watching-Me” paranoia!!!
January 15th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Wow, you made my day Fred. Really.. chill out. There is no way that all of us can be happy at the same time. We all have different point of views and they should all be respected. This is no movie… time lo land.
Hey, that’s why it is a free country right? We tried one way, some people might want to try another one. And for thos people thinking socialism is inevitable do you really think a country as big and strong as this one is going to allow that t happen? Come on, let the guy try. I’m sure if it gets that inclined he it going to go away soon. If not, well… he might do good things.
I don’t thikn we can say there is a president who did everything rigth.
You know what your job is… try to maintain a balance where you are and do the best you can for yourself (without harming others of course).
Ohhh, and how many people are complaining about the extra work with the new policies but then talking about the lazy society… …
January 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Get a grip, Fred! It sounds to me like you’re the one who’s been drinking the proverbial kool aid. I feel sorry for you to have to live with that kind of depressing and desperate world view. Your life must be miserable every single day.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The response to this article has been unbelievable huge, to say the least. I’m been angry reading some responses, I have to admit. It does concern me that there are so many responding who fail to realize or accept the fact that as an HR professional your first obligation is to the company. Obviously, having happy and content employees helps us greatly in meeting that obligation, but realistically, it isn’t always possible.
Taking the proposals one by one – Paycheck Fairness – This is just silly. To suggest that a Customer Service Rep working in Los Angeles, California and a Customer Service Rep working in Fremont, Ohio should receive the same wages based solely on title isn’t even realistic. Should this be approved, it would seem (in this example) that we’ll see companies “consolidating” their CS to the lower cost-of-living locations and eliminating those employees in Los Angeles. Fair to the employees? Certainly not to those in LA. Good business practices to remain profitable? Think so!
Working Families Flexibility Act. Depending on what’s actually included, production facilities can’t function with people working different hours, different days, etc. Again, might sound like a great idea for employees ( and in some locations/cases it might work), overall, not too practical and certainly not something that should be legislated.
Employee Free Choice Act. If Unions were all they try to convince workers they are, then they shouldn’t be afraid of secret ballots. How intimidating is it to workers when all their co-workers know they didn’t sign the cards. This one is unfair to employees. Forget the fact that companies won’t have any chance to present their side. Having gone through several union organizing attempts, I am well aware that unions do not hesitate to suggest they are capable of accomplishing things that they actually have no control over. But let’s let them get in there before employees find out the facts!
Respect Act: I reserve judgment on this one, not knowing what the redefinition of supervisor would be. There may some room for interpretation here.
Patriot Employers Act: Do you really think tax credits will compensate for the increased costs of doing business? We hear all the gripes about American products not being competitively priced and yet, let’s force business to increase the cost of producing the products………… What’s wrong with this picture? And, implementing some of these proposals will increase costs even more.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Let’s see…. I’ll work for this company for 5-10 years and then SAY I didn’t realize there was a pay discrimination issue until just now………..
Employment Non-Discrimination – Go for it. Should be there. Unfortunately, you can’t legislate bias and prejudice. You can only try and identify and control it.
FMLA Expansion Act: Probably won’t have much impact by lowering the number of employees to 25….unless of course, the Healthy Families Act goes through.
Healthy Families Act: If I had only 15 employees and was forced to provide paid sick time……..(and lets not forget the proposal to require I offer health insurance) odds are, I would end up closing my doors. The cost of providing benefits of any kind for small companies such as this can be the difference between profit and loss. And, unlike major corporations, who seem to be able to handle losses over extended periods of time; small business owners can’t. Many we should be bailing out all the small businesses who have tried their best, exhausted all their own personal funds and gone into debt up to their ears and are now filing bankruptcies left and right. I’d venture to guess that they at least tried to cut their costs and don’t have to give up their bonuses, because they never had one!
Civil Rights Act – Guess I’ll wait and see what’s in it.
Anyway – my first obligation is to the company. If labor costs increase and I still only have so much in the pot, something or someone has to be reduced or eliminated…..
You aren’t helping anyone by increasing costs of doing business. Are their bad employers out there. Sure. If you end up working for one of them, don’t quit. At least until you find another job. But start looking………..
January 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Well said Diane. Thank you for the reality check.
and for my loyal fans:
I am sorry. I shouldn’t have done this to you but I knew that some of you couldn’t resist so I wrote something that proved my point. We are having a good laugh here.
The reason that this “discussion” started is about the new laws. Each of these laws are going to cost something either in time, money or mostly jobs. We are electing to pass more laws on top of laws already in place in the hopes that they will fix what the first 40,000 did not. As has been said you can’t legislate honesty and integrity. The only thing that will come out of these new laws is more control, more taxes, more lay offs, more business failures, including many small businesses and much higher unemployment. Lawyers will get fatter and courts will be more over burdened than ever. We we keep on the way we are heading, according to Obama, you will soon wish we were at 6.5% unemployment. I just hope we don’t fall as far as we did during Carter’s miserable failure as president.
By the way. I am very happy. I received over $10K bonus last year (which the goverment promptly took 1/3 before I even got the check). I bought some property and a new home. I have traveled around the country for my employer and as a proud leader of safety at our facility I led our first response team to another CPR save. We had one 9 years ago. Just a few of the reasons to be happy.
Since our recovery from 9-11 and between 2004-2008 our company went from $30 million in gross sales in ‘04 to almost $64 million in ‘08. We have won all the prestigious award from the company that owns us and the $5 billion corp that owns them. We had an amazing ride but we saw last week coming. We had to start laying people off. Just a few but still we had to do it. Why? Our owners and corporate heads understand what happened 2 years ago when the democrats took over congress and we were stuck with a President that doesn’t want to call a spade a spade or rock the boat. (I am in Texas and located just 20 miles from his Crawford home and I am especially fond of him personally.) Now we will have a new President that believes completely opposite from our corporate world. Last year the average bonus to our hourly employee was $4000.00. How many of you at your companies just enjoyed a Christmas turkey?
So you see, I have a right to be upset. Oh I am not as upset about things as you think by my writing but I am not happy with the way things are going. I wish you could tell these people that I have to look in the eye that they are going to have to find something else to do because our company is feeling the tax crunch.
You on the left are right about one thing, we do have different points of view; I want my money, that I work very hard for, to do what I want with and YOU (and the government that now leads us) want my money that I work very hard for to do what YOU want with. Sorry. You aren’t going to change my mind on this one.
Another Boston Tea Party is on the horizon.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Well said Fred and Diane.
We are HR professionals but we are also employees impacted by these laws and taxpayers who have to pay for these laws. Few people realize that this country functioned for most of its history without an income tax, without social engineering, with out social security. If you examine what FDR did (which didn’t work by the way) and examine what is being proposed now, you have to ask yourself (1) why do we think massive WPA like programs will work today and (2) how is this a new vision for the country?
This country has never spent its way out of a recession nor has it taxed its way out. History is repeating itself once again but few read history, few learn from it and many are manipulated by those who seek not the best for the country, but the best for themselves. A recent Gallop poll shows most Americans thing Congress is more concerned about passing legislation that benefits their political careers vs their represented constituents. And most Americans feel they are corrupt.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I don’t think that there were HR departments either. Based on how much time the conservatives spend spouting off, maybe HR departments are not needed. The number of spelling and gramatical errors I have found in your responses are also extremely high. I think the serious HR folks are involved in the I-9 discussion.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I’m sorry but Fred is just an unhappy person. Diane – I learned in college and throughout my experience that my role in HR is two-fold. One – to protect the company and two, to protect the employees. You said, “Obviously, having happy and content employees helps us greatly in meeting that obligation, but realistically, it isn’t always possible.” It’s never possible to make everyone happy…which is what we need to remember whether we are talking about the government, our professional lives or our personal lives. Think about that quote. Whether we like it or not, the government has responsibilities and they can’t make everyone happy either. They are going to tick off the employers or the employees, the republicans or the democrats, etc. Bottom line is that you are right in that we can’t make everyone happy. However, as I pointed out before, I am not “company resources” and I am not “employee resources”…I am HUMAN resources and as such I believe my obligation is to both my employer and the employees. Bottom line…without your employees there is no bottom line. There is too much hypocrisy here. Complaining about lazy employees but griping about having extra work to do. Talking about how we can’t make everyone happy…when maybe we should remember that WE can’t always be happy either. Take your licks, do your jobs, earn your salary and go home everyday with a little pride that you have done a good job and hopefully made a difference…whether it be to your employer or an employee. None of us is happy with ALL of these changes but to say you hate them all, well, you are going to be an unhappy person if you can’t accept change and learn to incorporate that in a constructive way.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am
It’s strange as I read these posts. Someone like Fred is classified as unhappy because he’s not for change for the sake of change. A person such as Tracy says accept change and incorporate that in a consetructive way. Change is not always good. I guess you can tell I agree with Fred. Does that make me unhappy too? Maybe Tracy has insight into me as well.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Fred,
You have strong views, and it is clear that you are frustrated. For that, I am sympathetic. But we are HR people. We solve problems, so nothing coming from Washington DC or any of our State Capitols should intimidate or infuriate us. We’ll just roll up our sleeves and get things done.
However Fred, you are mistaken in your polemic regarding why this Country has been successful on the world scene. While it is true that rugged individualism is one of the philosophies that has helped the growth of our Country, it is not a core principle for what our Country is and what it has stood for, over the 220 years of our existence. For that we need to come back to the basics of our democracy, and we can do that by re-visiting our Constitution; more specifically the Preamble (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a More Perfect Union, Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defence, Promote the General Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…).
These are not just words. They are the essence of “We the People” (all of us who claim the heritage handed down to us by previous generations of brave and committed people). When you consider that America is not an indigenous race like most nations in the world, we we need to remember that our experiment in self governing is fundamentally tied to our ideals, ones that had never been tried in the realm of nations prior to 1789, and we need to passionately embrace them . These words and ideals are the reasons so many millions of us have “put our lives on the line” in the many wars and conflicts we have faught in order to defend and protect this great Country of ours. We ‘ve succeeded as a people over 2 centuries because we have advanced as one people committed to those ideals.
All of us need to remember that our individual successes are not exclusively the results of our own talents and initiative ALONE! We need to thank millions of ground breakers whose great sacrifices made it possible for us to flourish in a free and just society.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Individual successes are the result of freedom, not domination by government which is We The People were rebelling against when this country was founded. The Constitution guarantees freedom to pursue but not guarantee of success – that has to be earned by the individual. Again, we functioned fine as a nation without the notion of a general income tax (8 states still function like that), without the need for social engineering and without the need for things like Social Security. It was only in the 20th century that this country set on a course towards socialism, rather than a representative republic that it was intended to be.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Perhaps what bothers me the most is that these laws are not the constructs of HR people who should be providing the leadership in these areas but rather politicians, lawyers, special interests and labor unions. Rather than throwing ones hands up and just doing more work because it comes from the government, we should be proactive as a profession, in defining the work place.
What we are witnessing is not a new vision but a resurrection of the past. Tea Party indeed Fred! Let me know where and when!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Well HR colleagues get ready! Cause change is now here and it was inevitable. I live in Georgia where employees have been treated horribly, ESPECIALLY by HR! Our best practices have been in theory only and we have not lived up to our roles. So the ivory towers are tumbling down and this is a wake up call. I sense that many of you are not up for the challenge. As an HR professional I do not like or agree with some of things that I have seen happen to employees over the years specifically when star performers lose their jobs for no reason, and then we, HR, reward bad managers for bad behavior. When formulas don’t work this is what happens. Again get ready.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Jay – Finally somone on here who doesn’t sit on a pedestal, pat their own back and gush about how awesome their employees are treated. There are MANY, MANY employers that do not treat employees well and let’s face it, if there weren’t, I would not have such a thriving practice in the field of employment law. I see the results of all of these fabulous companies every single day and just when I think I have seen everything…a company shocks me with their audacity and assumption that their employees are too stupid to know better. I agree with every word you wrote and unfortunately, now that it is an employer’s market, it is happening more and more and more because people can’t just up and get another job.
I could drop jaws with the things I hear everyday and I don’t mean things I hear by disgruntled employees who just want to “get back” at their employers, because yes, I do hear that too! More and more though it is just honest truths from people who are sick of being treated like dung. As much as people complain about the government and socialism and rant on and on and on about all these conspiracy theories, they don’t see the BIG picture and the reasons for these changes.
I say embrace the extra work and the changes. If the company you work for happens to be one of the fabulous few, you will have nothing to worry about!
March 30th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Without data, MANY MANY is hard to quantify and certainly not justification for making massive changes in a representative republic. We unfortunately live in a climate where the press and politicians mold opinion through fear (Bowling For Columbine any one?). Public outrage over a very small segment of people who pay themselves bonuses swamps the news but does not represent the norm yet we are swift to enact legislation in response (or attempt to). Our reactions are knee-jerk, our focus not clear. We punish the masses because of the few. We take isolated examples, amplify them and use them to force change through fear. We thrive on class-envy and pitting one group of Americans against another. Not a good way to live and a poor way to legislate yet this seems to be an acceptable method these days.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Another message from Jim who is hung up on that word “DATA”. Everyone knows that statistics can be, and most often times are, skewed to show the view that the person or people gathering the data want to show. That’s a fact. Here’s a fact — or some data if you will — 9 out of 10 of the people who enter my practice have a legitimate claim against their employer. In case simple math escapes the self-proclaimed Libertarians, Government-haters and conspiracy theorists — that is 90%. If I had 10 people a month walk into my office I would say, “Eh, that is not impressive.” However, I am scheduling initial consultations over a month out because we are so busy. I am not talking about the, “Oh I got laid-off and I am now ticked at my boss.” kind of complaints. Those are generally weeded out through an initial phone call. I am talking harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination type of complaints…and legitimate ones at that. I have already put the Ledbetter Act to good use.
Here’s some more data: In this tough economy where employers are needing to make cuts, they do make those cuts and I have seen seven cases just last week where the employers cut employees and those that remain are working extra and somehow “losing” that overtime pay. I wouldn’t call that fair, would you?
Let’s get off the Government-hating, socialism, big-brother kick and realize that whereas some employers (like Jim’s apparently) may have the sun shining out of their a$$es, most these days don’t. Don’t complain about not having enough time to do your job properly and see to the best interests of your employees and yet still find time to post these ridiculously longs posts on here. If your employer is SO wonderful and treats employees SO well, you won’t have to worry about new unionization laws, fair pay acts, paid sick days, etc. You will just roll with the punches with a big smile on your face and quit being so miserable every second of every day! All I know is if I had HR people in a company like some of these folks, I would go straight to a lawyer, the EEOC or the D.O.L. too!