On February 7, 2010 CBS premiered Undercover Boss. No, I don’t watch it (nor do I follow other reality programs) but the premise intrigued me.
On the off-chance you have not heard of the program, the format is as follows: A high-ranking executive or owner of a corporation goes undercover in his own company as an entry-level employee (after altering his appearance, assuming an alias and a fictional back-story). With a camera crew in tow, the executive is followed on his day-to-day activities while being filmed as “part of a documentary” about workers in that particular industry. (All hype aside, how many employees are going to really be themselves in front of a camera crew? Sorry, I’m off target here.)
If you went undercover in your own organization, what would you discover? What would your employees say? Would they speak highly of the organization? Or poorly? Would they take pride in their jobs? Would they feel that their contributions were being recognized?
In the business world there are CEOs that have worked his/her way up through the ranks of the organization. He/she understands the business, the people, the processes, the policies and the problems. On the other side of the coin there are CEOs that have not had the opportunity to grow with the organization he/she now runs. Lacking that background and experience, oftentimes there is no true understanding of the company and its employees.
For an executive to go undercover in the workplace it offers him/her the opportunity to see first-hand how the company, from the bottom-up, functions. Stepping from the corner office down into the trenches allows him/her to see how changing policies, restructuring, job consolidations, etc. impact the organization and the people. The executive can take what he/she has learned from the experience and create positive change in the workplace. 99.9% of the time his/her perception of the business is different from that of the front-line employees. He/she can experience first-hand what is working and what isn’t, discovering where and who the true company “resources” are. Identify the talent – know who those individuals are - and cultivate them.
The same approach can be said for the HR Directors, managers and generalists in the workforce. TAKE a proactive look at the organization and people you support. TAKE the opportunity on an on-going, regular basis to fill the role of a front-line employee. I had the privilege on a couple of occasions to work side by side with the employees in the bindery department of a commercial printing company. It provided me with a better understanding of the roles these individuals played within the organization, the challenges they faced, and assisted me in developing a deeper appreciation of the contribution of each and every employee.
Are there lessons to be learned? Yes, I believe there are.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
You Know You're Rude When . . .
I had thought about blogging on one issue that bothers me most in the business world: the lack of common etiquette while at work. Then I ran across this 2009 article featured in HR Morning. My kudos to Jim Giuliano, the author.
YOU KNOW YOU’RE RUDE WHEN. . . .
Some say the workplace these days suffers from lack of civility – but of course not by you. Still, you may want to take this workplace-rudeness test (or give it to someone you know).
According to CareerBuilder.com, you know you’re rude when. . .
You have that habit of interrupting others. That suggests – dare we say “screams” – that your time and ideas are more important than everyone else’s and that you have no interest in listening to what they have to say. A rare offense is forgivable, but habitual interruption is problematic, according to professional coach Susan B. Wilson. “Some folks interrupt incessantly, whether you are on the phone, in a meeting, deep in thought or in another conversation.”
You don’t say “please” and “thank you.” In a 2002 Public Agenda survey, 48% of workers said that only “sometimes” they encountered others who made an effort to say “please” and “thank you,” and another 16% said they saw such behavior “practically never.” A few words to show gratitude can put someone in a good mood – or at the very least can keep someone out of a foul mood.
You don’t clean up after yourself. Lack of housekeeping manners, especially in a workplace communal kitchen, marks someone as a slob, as well as a rudenik. If you’ve worked out a deal where your mom is going to come in and clean up after you, then it’s OK. Otherwise, it’s rude.
You’re LOUD! In the world of cubicles, a loud conversation or one on a speakerphone quickly becomes an entire floor’s business. Never mind how annoying it is to hear a conversation you’re not a part of; think how bothersome it is to try to concentrate on work when someone’s blathering away loudly. Rather than force your call on the whole department, invest in a headset or just hold the receiver in your hand. Or just talk softly.
You treat everyone like a stranger. You’re walking down the hall and a co-worker is walking toward you. Now, a bear hug or a kiss is probably asking too much (especially if the other person is the CEO). Still, it doesn’t kill anyone to smile and nod to let others know they exist in your world. Too busy for a quick “hi?” No, you’re not.
In closing, we have each experienced one or more of the above scenarios in the past. Whether it’s that individual who habitually interrupts a conversation, or that individual who doesn’t say “hi” in the hallways, we have experienced it. My word of advice is respond to the situation with politeness. As my mother always says, “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
Good manners NEVER go out of style.
In keeping with the above theme, thank you Mrs. Emily McGowan for your proof-reading services on this blog!
YOU KNOW YOU’RE RUDE WHEN. . . .
Some say the workplace these days suffers from lack of civility – but of course not by you. Still, you may want to take this workplace-rudeness test (or give it to someone you know).
According to CareerBuilder.com, you know you’re rude when. . .
You have that habit of interrupting others. That suggests – dare we say “screams” – that your time and ideas are more important than everyone else’s and that you have no interest in listening to what they have to say. A rare offense is forgivable, but habitual interruption is problematic, according to professional coach Susan B. Wilson. “Some folks interrupt incessantly, whether you are on the phone, in a meeting, deep in thought or in another conversation.”
You don’t say “please” and “thank you.” In a 2002 Public Agenda survey, 48% of workers said that only “sometimes” they encountered others who made an effort to say “please” and “thank you,” and another 16% said they saw such behavior “practically never.” A few words to show gratitude can put someone in a good mood – or at the very least can keep someone out of a foul mood.
You don’t clean up after yourself. Lack of housekeeping manners, especially in a workplace communal kitchen, marks someone as a slob, as well as a rudenik. If you’ve worked out a deal where your mom is going to come in and clean up after you, then it’s OK. Otherwise, it’s rude.
You’re LOUD! In the world of cubicles, a loud conversation or one on a speakerphone quickly becomes an entire floor’s business. Never mind how annoying it is to hear a conversation you’re not a part of; think how bothersome it is to try to concentrate on work when someone’s blathering away loudly. Rather than force your call on the whole department, invest in a headset or just hold the receiver in your hand. Or just talk softly.
You treat everyone like a stranger. You’re walking down the hall and a co-worker is walking toward you. Now, a bear hug or a kiss is probably asking too much (especially if the other person is the CEO). Still, it doesn’t kill anyone to smile and nod to let others know they exist in your world. Too busy for a quick “hi?” No, you’re not.
In closing, we have each experienced one or more of the above scenarios in the past. Whether it’s that individual who habitually interrupts a conversation, or that individual who doesn’t say “hi” in the hallways, we have experienced it. My word of advice is respond to the situation with politeness. As my mother always says, “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.”
Good manners NEVER go out of style.
In keeping with the above theme, thank you Mrs. Emily McGowan for your proof-reading services on this blog!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Competition for IT talent to heat up in 2010
Following is a recent article featured in HRMorning.com that I'd like to share.
With the economy starting to rebound, competition for talent could heat up. Your company’s IT department could feel the biggest impact.
Nearly one-third (32%) of IT employers plan to increase hiring this year, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey. That could cause retention difficulties as IT staffers weigh offers from other companies.
The best way to avoid a mad rush for the door? For employers that can’t afford to increase pay, the answer may lie in increasing no-cost benefits. Of the businesses surveyed by CareerBuilder, many plan to increase benefits such as:
- flexible scheduling (73%)
- telecommuting options (67%), and
- compressed work weeks (36%).
What steps would you take to retain your valuable "human resources?"
With the economy starting to rebound, competition for talent could heat up. Your company’s IT department could feel the biggest impact.
Nearly one-third (32%) of IT employers plan to increase hiring this year, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey. That could cause retention difficulties as IT staffers weigh offers from other companies.
The best way to avoid a mad rush for the door? For employers that can’t afford to increase pay, the answer may lie in increasing no-cost benefits. Of the businesses surveyed by CareerBuilder, many plan to increase benefits such as:
- flexible scheduling (73%)
- telecommuting options (67%), and
- compressed work weeks (36%).
What steps would you take to retain your valuable "human resources?"
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Employer / Employee Communication
When an employee resigns, oftentimes the employer asks “why?” What is the individual’s primary reason for leaving? Did something trigger his/her decision? What does the new company offer that the old one doesn’t? With so many unanswered questions many companies conduct exit interviews asking questions such as:
- What is your primary reason for leaving?
- What was most satisfying about your job?
- What was least satisfying about your job?
- Were you happy with your pay, benefits and other incentives?
There are thoughts that holding an exit interview with the departing employee will allow a company to promote positive “PR” with the departing employee. The value to the company is that it may receive feedback from the departing employee encompassing compensation, working conditions, management, etc. Perhaps also uncovering employee concerns and details about what they enjoyed most, and least, about the organization. If the company actually uses the information collected in an exit interview, the exit interview process can be useful to the company.
However, the best time for an employer to discuss the concerns of the employee is when the individual is an employee – not when the individual is on the way out the door.
Communication is a two-way process, yet typically companies are most efficient at communicating downward. Getting the flow of communication to change direction and move upwards is a bit of a challenge! In situations where employees feel that information is being kept from them, the rumor-mill will take over. Lack of communication with employees will create a level of mistrust and negative perceptions will be developed. To minimize this, a company must develop ongoing, open communication with employees.
If a company restricts communication to the evaluation process only, the company must improve the process to allow the collection of the information in a timely fashion. Waiting to have a meaningful conversation with an employee on an annual basis only will not allow the company to respond to issues in a timely manner. In that scenario it may be too late to make changes and valuable human “resources” will be lost. Adjust your evaluation process to encompass conversations on a quarterly basis. Managers must take steps to improve their listening skills and to encourage ongoing, meaningful interaction with their team members. Managers must listen to employee concerns and be prepared to act on them.
To promote better communication with employees, there are other options:
- Obtain employee feedback through employee satisfaction surveys. Allow the employees anonymity to provide more candid feedback. Look for trends in responses.
- Hold monthly or quarterly “town hall” meetings and promote open communication with your employees.
- Hold informal luncheons to allow employees an opportunity for more “informal” communication.
- Develop “suggestion boxes” and then openly address the suggestions with your employees.
Remember, sometimes an employee’s decision to leave a company is personal. But sometimes, just sometimes, that decision may have been different.
- What is your primary reason for leaving?
- What was most satisfying about your job?
- What was least satisfying about your job?
- Were you happy with your pay, benefits and other incentives?
There are thoughts that holding an exit interview with the departing employee will allow a company to promote positive “PR” with the departing employee. The value to the company is that it may receive feedback from the departing employee encompassing compensation, working conditions, management, etc. Perhaps also uncovering employee concerns and details about what they enjoyed most, and least, about the organization. If the company actually uses the information collected in an exit interview, the exit interview process can be useful to the company.
However, the best time for an employer to discuss the concerns of the employee is when the individual is an employee – not when the individual is on the way out the door.
Communication is a two-way process, yet typically companies are most efficient at communicating downward. Getting the flow of communication to change direction and move upwards is a bit of a challenge! In situations where employees feel that information is being kept from them, the rumor-mill will take over. Lack of communication with employees will create a level of mistrust and negative perceptions will be developed. To minimize this, a company must develop ongoing, open communication with employees.
If a company restricts communication to the evaluation process only, the company must improve the process to allow the collection of the information in a timely fashion. Waiting to have a meaningful conversation with an employee on an annual basis only will not allow the company to respond to issues in a timely manner. In that scenario it may be too late to make changes and valuable human “resources” will be lost. Adjust your evaluation process to encompass conversations on a quarterly basis. Managers must take steps to improve their listening skills and to encourage ongoing, meaningful interaction with their team members. Managers must listen to employee concerns and be prepared to act on them.
To promote better communication with employees, there are other options:
- Obtain employee feedback through employee satisfaction surveys. Allow the employees anonymity to provide more candid feedback. Look for trends in responses.
- Hold monthly or quarterly “town hall” meetings and promote open communication with your employees.
- Hold informal luncheons to allow employees an opportunity for more “informal” communication.
- Develop “suggestion boxes” and then openly address the suggestions with your employees.
Remember, sometimes an employee’s decision to leave a company is personal. But sometimes, just sometimes, that decision may have been different.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Negligent Hiring Doctrine and Criminal Background Checks
The negligent theory is premised on the unreasonable conduct of an employer in placing a person with certain known propensities for criminal or tortuous behavior in an employment position where the individual poses a threat to others. The negligent hiring theory of liability has been recognized in a number of states, including Texas. Basically, it occurs when the employer fails to properly screen the employee, resulting in the hiring of an individual that has a history of violent or criminal acts. The doctrine addresses and “punishes” the employer for creating a risk by exposing its employees, customers and/or public to a potentially dangerous individual.
Most negligent hiring lawsuits arise after an employer’s worker harms or injures an individual while acting within the course and scope of employment, and that person sues for the harm or injury. Typically a lawsuit will maintain that if the employer had conducted an appropriate investigation into the employee’s background, information would have been discovered that indicated the employee had a potentially violent or abusive nature. As a result, the employer becomes negligent for hiring the individual and placing him/her in a position where he/she would pose a threat to others.
“EEOC and the courts generally recognize that some background material may have some bearing on the applicant’s suitability for the job. In the most obvious instance, for example, you wouldn’t be expected to hire a convicted embezzler to handle cash. There are other situations that apply — contact with customers, driving company vehicles, dealing with minors, etc. You’re on safer ground if you can show those correlations between background checks and suitability.” HR Morning. Recruiting: EEOC Warns About Background Checks. January 6, 2010.
EEOC statistical evidence shows that more minorities than non-minorities have had criminal history (or financial problems) in the past. Taking adverse job action based upon such factors has a disproportionate and unfair impact. The EEOC expects employers to do an individualized job-relatedness determination prior to turning someone down for a job. Always remember that the EEOC’s position is that an arrest per se cannot be considered by employers, because it does not prove guilt. The EEOC agrees that conviction records “could be cause for rejection if their number, nature and proximity would cause the applicant to be unsuitable for the position.”
In the decision-making process the employer should consider the following:
- When was the offense?
- What was the offense?
- What was the punishment?
- What affect on the position?
“In some industries, recruiters are using criminal and credit screening as a quick and easy method for culling the ever-larger pile of applications. But this growing reliance on screening is on a collision course with new legislative restrictions, legal challenges and mounting evidence that such results are poor predictors of behavior and performance.” Workforce Management. Recruiters’ Use of Criminal and Credit Checks Colliding with Legislative Constraints. October 20, 2009.
A small number of states have laws limiting the use of conviction records in the employment context. At this time, Texas is not one of them.
Most negligent hiring lawsuits arise after an employer’s worker harms or injures an individual while acting within the course and scope of employment, and that person sues for the harm or injury. Typically a lawsuit will maintain that if the employer had conducted an appropriate investigation into the employee’s background, information would have been discovered that indicated the employee had a potentially violent or abusive nature. As a result, the employer becomes negligent for hiring the individual and placing him/her in a position where he/she would pose a threat to others.
“EEOC and the courts generally recognize that some background material may have some bearing on the applicant’s suitability for the job. In the most obvious instance, for example, you wouldn’t be expected to hire a convicted embezzler to handle cash. There are other situations that apply — contact with customers, driving company vehicles, dealing with minors, etc. You’re on safer ground if you can show those correlations between background checks and suitability.” HR Morning. Recruiting: EEOC Warns About Background Checks. January 6, 2010.
EEOC statistical evidence shows that more minorities than non-minorities have had criminal history (or financial problems) in the past. Taking adverse job action based upon such factors has a disproportionate and unfair impact. The EEOC expects employers to do an individualized job-relatedness determination prior to turning someone down for a job. Always remember that the EEOC’s position is that an arrest per se cannot be considered by employers, because it does not prove guilt. The EEOC agrees that conviction records “could be cause for rejection if their number, nature and proximity would cause the applicant to be unsuitable for the position.”
In the decision-making process the employer should consider the following:
- When was the offense?
- What was the offense?
- What was the punishment?
- What affect on the position?
“In some industries, recruiters are using criminal and credit screening as a quick and easy method for culling the ever-larger pile of applications. But this growing reliance on screening is on a collision course with new legislative restrictions, legal challenges and mounting evidence that such results are poor predictors of behavior and performance.” Workforce Management. Recruiters’ Use of Criminal and Credit Checks Colliding with Legislative Constraints. October 20, 2009.
A small number of states have laws limiting the use of conviction records in the employment context. At this time, Texas is not one of them.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Let’s talk Sexual Harassment. What is sexual harassment? We could talk about the legal definition. Is there a specific action or actions that define sexual harassment? Is there a “best way” to handle this inappropriate behavior in the workplace? What about those situations where the behavior doesn’t quite cross the line of harassment and discrimination?
Men and women view sexual harassment differently. A 2008 survey by the research group Novations asked working women if they had noticed an increase or decrease in the number of inappropriate sex-tinged comments in their workplaces. The results? Women reported that the number had doubled from 2006 to 2007. The men reported almost no increase in such comments. Clearly there is a problem in the working world. Or is there?
The perception of sexual harassment can also be complicated when different cultures are involved. Different cultures = different behaviors. In some cultures, actions such as kissing co-workers, standing close while speaking, touching, patting and intimate conversations are acceptable. While those behaviors may be permissible in other cultural circles, they are certainly not tolerated in the American workplace. For example, we Americans tend to require more personal space than other cultures. Cultural norms vary regarding what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior. If you employ people from other countries you can avoid misunderstandings by recognizing cultural differences such as communication style.
Whatever the situation, sexual harassment is real and managers admit that it can negatively impact their staff. Communication and awareness of company policies are often the key to resolving these issues. As an employer, take the following steps:
1. Ensure that all employees are treated equally (and consistently) when addressing any policy issues.
2. Know enough about sexual harassment and about your people to help them work well together.
3. Have a strict approach to your sexual harassment policy – zero tolerance. Zero tolerance allows for absolutely no level of tolerance or compromise for violations of the rule in question.
4. Create a respectful working environment and support HR in the efforts to train employees in sexual harassment.
My on-going thanks to Mrs. Emily McGowan for providing proof-reading services on this blog.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Use of Credit Reports in the Recruiting Process
A large number of employers examine the credit history of potential applicants. The rationale? People with big debt and/or credit problems can’t handle their own funds; therefore they’re more likely to steal or commit fraud.
People that manage their credit are better workers? What? Employers should bear in mind that there are other reasons for individuals having bad credit such as divorce, personal bankruptcies resulting from medical crisis, student loans, family death, identity theft, etc. Even simply the loss of income while between jobs. Many of these events occur normally which negatively impact the candidate's finances and therefore credit ranking.
As employers we need to recognize that in today’s struggling economy people have lost their homes, their cars, and can not meet the financial obligations that, prior to their job loss, weren’t a problem!
For the employee candidate it’s a Catch-22. They’ve lost their job. Because they’ve lost their job, they’ve fallen behind on their bills. Now there’s a potential that they can’t get a new job because they’ve fallen behind on their bills and have a poor credit report.
Validex Employment Screening Services states “A candidate’s credit history is often a reflection of his or her current financial habits and, therefore, can be valuable information in hiring for positions requiring financial responsibility or aptitude. This information gives you insight into an applicant’s tendency to meet financial obligations and his or her current financial pressures. The way people handle their own funds is often a reflection of how they will handle company financial responsibilities and assignments.” This is verbatim from their website. How accurate is the statement?
While a credit check provides the prospective employer with information about the candidate's credit score, payment history and other financial information, are they really an accurate portrayal of the candidate’s work ethic or trustworthiness?
My question: Are credit checks an accurate predictor of job performance? There is nothing to support the validity of the claims that individuals with poor credit are poor performers.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires companies to get a candidate’s consent before getting the credit report. If the candidate is not hired because of information in the credit report, the candidate has the right to see the report and be told how to get his/her own version of it. A credit check is helpful if the employee candidate is applying for a job in which he/she is handling cash or exercising financial discretion, as well as being entrusted with property of substantial value. Such investigation on behalf of the employer will allow the employer to avoid issues relating to negligent hiring. However, is the credit check necessary for positions other than those referenced above?
Prior to denying employment to the candidate, do you, the employer, allow the potential hire to have an opportunity to explain the circumstances of the debt? How, as an employer, can you conclude that the credit history has a negative impact on the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of the position?
The winds of change are blowing. Two states, Hawaii and Washington , now limit the use of credit histories in pre-employment screening. This hot topic is receiving increasing exposure as more and more Americans are impacted by the struggling economy.
Up for discussion is a 2009 bill in Congress - H.R. 3149 (Equal Employment for All Act). This national bill will bar employers from using credit reports in hiring or promotions. It will allow, however, the use of a consumer report in the following situations:
1. When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, employment that requires national security or FDIC clearance.
2. When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, employment with a state or local government agency which otherwise requires use of a consumer report.
3. When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, a supervisory, managerial, professional, or executive position at a financial institution.
4. Or where otherwise required by law.
A key highlight to the law is employers would be prohibited from asking applicants to voluntarily submit to credit checks.
On February 28, 2010, MSNB addressed this issue. “Bad credit sidelines some jobless workers.” It’s an article worth reading! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35512038/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy//
Please chime in and let me know your thoughts!
My on-going thanks to Mrs. Emily McGowan for providing proof-reading services on this blog.
People that manage their credit are better workers? What? Employers should bear in mind that there are other reasons for individuals having bad credit such as divorce, personal bankruptcies resulting from medical crisis, student loans, family death, identity theft, etc. Even simply the loss of income while between jobs. Many of these events occur normally which negatively impact the candidate's finances and therefore credit ranking.
As employers we need to recognize that in today’s struggling economy people have lost their homes, their cars, and can not meet the financial obligations that, prior to their job loss, weren’t a problem!
For the employee candidate it’s a Catch-22. They’ve lost their job. Because they’ve lost their job, they’ve fallen behind on their bills. Now there’s a potential that they can’t get a new job because they’ve fallen behind on their bills and have a poor credit report.
Validex Employment Screening Services states “A candidate’s credit history is often a reflection of his or her current financial habits and, therefore, can be valuable information in hiring for positions requiring financial responsibility or aptitude. This information gives you insight into an applicant’s tendency to meet financial obligations and his or her current financial pressures. The way people handle their own funds is often a reflection of how they will handle company financial responsibilities and assignments.” This is verbatim from their website. How accurate is the statement?
While a credit check provides the prospective employer with information about the candidate's credit score, payment history and other financial information, are they really an accurate portrayal of the candidate’s work ethic or trustworthiness?
My question: Are credit checks an accurate predictor of job performance? There is nothing to support the validity of the claims that individuals with poor credit are poor performers.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires companies to get a candidate’s consent before getting the credit report. If the candidate is not hired because of information in the credit report, the candidate has the right to see the report and be told how to get his/her own version of it. A credit check is helpful if the employee candidate is applying for a job in which he/she is handling cash or exercising financial discretion, as well as being entrusted with property of substantial value. Such investigation on behalf of the employer will allow the employer to avoid issues relating to negligent hiring. However, is the credit check necessary for positions other than those referenced above?
Prior to denying employment to the candidate, do you, the employer, allow the potential hire to have an opportunity to explain the circumstances of the debt? How, as an employer, can you conclude that the credit history has a negative impact on the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of the position?
The winds of change are blowing. Two states, Hawaii and Washington , now limit the use of credit histories in pre-employment screening. This hot topic is receiving increasing exposure as more and more Americans are impacted by the struggling economy.
Up for discussion is a 2009 bill in Congress - H.R. 3149 (Equal Employment for All Act). This national bill will bar employers from using credit reports in hiring or promotions. It will allow, however, the use of a consumer report in the following situations:
1. When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, employment that requires national security or FDIC clearance.
2. When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, employment with a state or local government agency which otherwise requires use of a consumer report.
3. When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, a supervisory, managerial, professional, or executive position at a financial institution.
4. Or where otherwise required by law.
A key highlight to the law is employers would be prohibited from asking applicants to voluntarily submit to credit checks.
On February 28, 2010, MSNB addressed this issue. “Bad credit sidelines some jobless workers.” It’s an article worth reading! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35512038/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy//
Please chime in and let me know your thoughts!
My on-going thanks to Mrs. Emily McGowan for providing proof-reading services on this blog.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Why Employers Should Drug Screen Their Employees
Recently a former co-worker of mine expressed a concern that her current employer did not drug test employees. Having recently moved from an organization that maintained a drug-free environment, she was surprised to discover her new employer lacked this basic policy.
While the company in question is small, in light of the equipment that is used in their particular industry the need for drug testing is greatly increased. Drugs can impair a worker’s judgment and coordination, leading to an increased risk of drug-related accidents and injuries. Employee performance indicators of drug use can be excessive absenteeism or tardiness, lower productivity, missed deadlines and / or deteriorating work quality.
To directly quote OSHA, “. . . research indicates that between 10 and 20 percent of the nation's workers who die on the job test positive for alcohol or other drugs. In fact, industries with the highest rates of drug use are the same as those at a high risk for occupational injuries, such as construction, mining, manufacturing and wholesale.”
The federal government estimates that 71 percent of illegal drug users are employed, most working for small businesses. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that drug use in the workplace costs employers $75 – 100 billion annually in lost time, accidents, health care and workers’ compensation costs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, substance abusers are six times more likely than their co-workers to file a workers’ compensation claim. Additional surveys have revealed that drug users are involved in 2 to 3 times as many industrial accidents!
The above statistics indicate that the problem of drug abuse in the workplace is widespread and pervasive. The lack of a drug-testing program can be devastating to your bottom line and your employee safety. It can lower your productivity, increase your likelihood for workplace accidents / fatalities, and have the potential to increase your workers’ compensation costs. With this knowledge in hand, employers are taking steps to end this problem by implementing drug testing for the purposes of reducing thefts and accidents and excessive absenteeism.
As an employer, create a company culture that is drug-free and that will allow you to attract and retain quality employees by:
1. Implement a policy
2. Educate your supervisors, managers and employees
For more information on Workplace Substance Abuse please visit http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/substanceabuse/index.html.
My on-going thanks to Mrs. Emily McGowan for providing proof-reading services on this blog.
While the company in question is small, in light of the equipment that is used in their particular industry the need for drug testing is greatly increased. Drugs can impair a worker’s judgment and coordination, leading to an increased risk of drug-related accidents and injuries. Employee performance indicators of drug use can be excessive absenteeism or tardiness, lower productivity, missed deadlines and / or deteriorating work quality.
To directly quote OSHA, “. . . research indicates that between 10 and 20 percent of the nation's workers who die on the job test positive for alcohol or other drugs. In fact, industries with the highest rates of drug use are the same as those at a high risk for occupational injuries, such as construction, mining, manufacturing and wholesale.”
The federal government estimates that 71 percent of illegal drug users are employed, most working for small businesses. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that drug use in the workplace costs employers $75 – 100 billion annually in lost time, accidents, health care and workers’ compensation costs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, substance abusers are six times more likely than their co-workers to file a workers’ compensation claim. Additional surveys have revealed that drug users are involved in 2 to 3 times as many industrial accidents!
The above statistics indicate that the problem of drug abuse in the workplace is widespread and pervasive. The lack of a drug-testing program can be devastating to your bottom line and your employee safety. It can lower your productivity, increase your likelihood for workplace accidents / fatalities, and have the potential to increase your workers’ compensation costs. With this knowledge in hand, employers are taking steps to end this problem by implementing drug testing for the purposes of reducing thefts and accidents and excessive absenteeism.
As an employer, create a company culture that is drug-free and that will allow you to attract and retain quality employees by:
1. Implement a policy
2. Educate your supervisors, managers and employees
For more information on Workplace Substance Abuse please visit http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/substanceabuse/index.html.
My on-going thanks to Mrs. Emily McGowan for providing proof-reading services on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)