NLRA

Let's talk NLRA for a moment.  There appears to be some lingering confusion.

The federal National Labor Relations Act governs the rights and responsibilities of unions and private employers.  Excluded, with some exceptions, are public employees, independent contractors, employees of Federal, state or local government, etc. 

An employee doesn't have to be a member of a union to be protected under the NLRA as it protects the rights of employees to engage in "concerted activity."   "Concerted activity" takes place when two or more employees take action for their "mutual aid or protection regarding terms and conditions of employment."  This protection can extend to work-related conversations conducted on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

Many employers prohibit employees discussing compensation or wage levels in the workplace, often communicating that such information is confidential.  These same employers would be surprised to learn that this policy or practice would violate federal labor law.    The National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA.

A couple of tips:

1. You can't prohibit employees from discussing compensation or benefits, but you can prohibit them from holding such discussions during assigned work hours.
2. Clearly communicate that employees are protected in discussing their own pay as well as pay and benefits of secondary employees if information was obtained through ordinary conversation with the second party. 
3. If information was accessed in a manner that was restricted, such as access to confidential files or other off-limit information, the company can take steps to uphold confidentiality.

Mother-Friendly Employers

While driving home I heard a radio commercial advertising Mother-Friendly Employers here in Texas.  We've come a long way.  Who would have thought that companies would advertise their support of breastfeeding in the workplace?  Or that a work-site might obtain "Mother-Friendly" designation?

The Texas House of Representatives passed HB 741 in early May.  HB 741 requires public employers, school districts, cities, counties and state agencies, to accommodate employees who need to express breast milk at the work place.  Under current law, working mothers who are hourly employees have federal protections in place for when they need to express milk in the workplace.  (The Federal Health Care Reform Bill, signed in March 2010, contained an amendment to the FLSA requiring employers to give breaks for nursing.)  However, salaried employees have no protections in state or federal law.  House Bill 741 seeks to close this loophole.

Concerted Activity

When you think of the term "concerted activity" there is often an automatic assumption that a union, or union activity, is involved.  But that's not always the case.  Section 7 of the NLRA states "Employees shall have the right to self-organize, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities. . . " 

 

Protected concerted activity sometimes has nothing to do with unions at all.   Employees who get together and complain to management about their pay or benefits is engaged in concerted activity.   Concerted activity can include internal complaints of discrimination, discriminatory harassment complaints, etc., all of which is protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.  

Management and Mr. Likert

Do you ever have to go through your old emails in search of some missing piece of information?  It's akin to a trip down memory lane.  You never know what you will stumble across or where you will end up.    During a recent journey,  I rediscovered this one small email and felt it worthy of discussion.   Yes, the email is cryptic.  But the message screamed volumes to me.

Him:  Are you familiar with Likert’s management theories? 

Me:  Are we speaking of exploitative authority?

Him:  We are.  Like verbatim.

Me.  Yes sir.  (End of conversation)

There are a lot of different definitions of the word “management,” but for the sake of this blog, I’m going with a very fundamental definition. Getting things done through and with people.  

Rensis Likert, an American educator and organizational psychologist, is best known for his research on management styles.  (And let’s not forget The Likert Scale.)   Likert identified a four-fold model of management styles,  each style revolving around decision-making and the degree to which people are involved in the decision making process:

1. Exploitative Authoritative;
2. Benevolent Authoritative;
3. Consultative; and,
4. Participative.    

With that email in mind, let's explore the Exploitative Authoritative management style.  For the EA, responsibility lies in the hands of the people at the upper echelons of the hierarchy.  The supervisor has no trust or confidence in subordinates and motivation is based on threats.  Decisions are imposed on sub-ordinates and teamwork/communication is extremely limited.  Essentially the communication style is almost entirely downwards and the psychologically distant concerns of the employees are ignored. With a style of “do what I tell you,” the overall impact to an organization is extremely negative.

In short, the leader imposes decisions on subordinates and uses fear to achieve employee motivation. 

“E-A leaders are highly production-oriented, display no confidence in their subordinates, provide them no influence in decision making, seldom seek or use subordinates’ ideas, use fear, a threat, punishment and occasional rewards to enforce compliance, and engage mainly in downward communication.”  Organization & Management by R.D. Agarwal.

Let's compare the EA management style against the characteristics of an effective work group.  In an effective work group there is a high degree of confidence and trust in each other.  The values and goals of the group all link in harmony with each other and there is strong motivation by each member to communicate fully and frankly.  An important factor is that employees feel secure in making decisions.  That is 100% at odds with the EA management style.

The “difference between a leader and a manager is that a manager pushes while a leader pulls.  By this, we mean that a manager uses its authoritative powers to push people to reach the set targets and pressurize them to achieve the firm’s goal.  He orders actually.  While a leader pulls, that is, it motivates people and develops zeal in them towards achieving a goal. . . “    The Role and Effectiveness of Leadership in Team-Working: Abstract.

In closing, I ask the following question:  If your employees had the chance, would they "vote" you out of your position?

Generation Gaps: How We (Mis)Communicate

The Baby Boomer generation is starting to exit the workforce, leaving the reins of leadership to the GenXers.  Through this transition organizations are struggling to balance the work styles and communication preferences of 3  - 4 different generations.   Baby Boomer or member of Generation X, through formal writing or an IM, we all need to communicate with each other.   This is where our real generation gap exists.

In my blog entry, Rudeness at Work, stats reflected that younger employees, by an increase of 28% over older workers, contributed to incivility in the workplace.  Question:  Does this present a framework for identifying age-related differences in work attitudes and behaviors?   Answer:  Yes.  In September of this year CareerBuilder surveyed 3,892 U.S. workers and 2,298 U.S. hiring managers ages 18 and over. The results of this survey, Generational Differences in Work Styles, Communication and Changing Jobs, highlighted the contrasts of the generational trends on how each generation approaches work.  It appears as though this isn’t intentional incivility, it's the result of the generation you grew up in and the differences in generational communication styles.   

CareerBuilder Survey Question:  How Do You Like To Communicate at Work?
 

Face to Face

• 60% (Ages 55+) 
• 55% (Ages 25 - 34)

Email/Text

• 28% (Ages 55+)
• 35% (Ages 25-34)

Phone

• 12% (Ages 55+)
• 10% (Ages 25 - 34)

Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are the largest generation born in America to date. The offspring of the Silent Generation, the Boomers experienced* the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the assassinations.   The "We Generation" who were defined by the Cold War and the Space Race. The Boomers recognize the value of relationship building, preferring personal, face to face communication over communicating through technology. Technology is a means of communication, not an exclusive tool to communicate.   Here's where the generation gap comes into play.  The GenX and GenY prefer to use digital communication almost exclusively.

GenXers, born between 1965 and 1980, are defined by Watergate, an era of political corruption, economic inflation, single-parent homes, MTV, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Challenger tragedy.  GenXers often prefer direct and straightforward communication.  And as a result, they may appear abrupt.    While the gap between Gen X and Gen Y is much larger due to the rate of technology growth, GenXers are highly techno-literate and don't worry about being outpaced by younger colleagues.   

GenY, born between 1980 - 1999, are "The Millennials,"  the generation of Facebook and MySpace.  Labeled as digital natives, the high-tech environment has shaped their values.  They are defined by computers, TV talk shows and the Oklahoma City bombing.   (The Department of Labor statistics estimate that GenY will compromise more than 40% of the workforce by 2020. Their sheer numbers will transform every life stage entered.)  GenY is extremely comfortable in a wired world.

GenZ, born after 2000, is the Digital Generation.  They are plugged in to the Internet by handheld devices, remaining connected every moment of their lives.  With so much of the GenZ life centered around the digital domain, a significant percentage prefers socializing online than in real life.  Through IM, text or Mobile phones, their digital connection to the world is essential.  They have access to the World Wide Web 24/7 and information and knowledge at their fingertips.    With a vague memory of such a key event, they are the generation of 9/11 and homeland security.

As technology evolves, so do our communication options and preferences.  Communicating faster, each generation will have vast differences in their communication methods and preferences.  These preferences may create a dividing line between one generation to the next.  Every organization will need to have increased awareness of the potential miscommunication due to generational differences. It will be critical to know the generation and to connect with their preferred style.

*Generations . . .  are deeply influenced and bound together by events of their formative years.  . . . the events that occur at various critical points in the group's lifetime .. . define their core values."

Generation "dates" are approximate and vary by demographer. 

Cronyism or Extreme Social Connections?

Normally the hiring process is a relatively random process based on the selection of applicants.  And in the recruiting process, referral hiring is a common practice.   But there are times when the selection process is not so random or neutral.   What happens when the hiring manager is not totally indifferent to members of the candidate pool and the referral value of a candidate increases based on their social connection with the hiring manager?   Is this where an organization, or manager, potentially crosses the line into favoritism? 

 

In my last blog (Nepotism - It's All Relative) I discussed nepotism and the challenges it may bring to an office environment.  Skipping down that little favoritism trail,  hand in hand with nepotism, is cronyism.   Cronyism is a specific form of favoritism referring to partiality towards friends and associates.   

 

Have you ever worked in an environment where there's a bunch of "good ole boys?"   A group of individuals that are given an undue advantage but who don't necessarily merit this treatment?   Individuals that may be in positions where they are not even qualified to do their job?  In an environment where it's not WHAT you know but WHO you know, you are experiencing cronyism.  That favoritism can be exhibited in compensation, discipline, or even positions.  

 

Does cronyism undermine business effectiveness?  Unfortunately cronyism can create an air of entitlement for those employees who were hired based on their social connection.  They may feel as though company rules do not apply to them.  Additional negative consequences are that sometimes these individuals are under-qualified to perform their jobs (potentially promoted to a level of incompetence) and even pay scales may become distorted.

 

Referencing my earlier question regarding the practice of nepotism and whether or not it's ethical, here's something for consideration:

• One of the most basic themes in ethics is fairness. Logically, cronyism (or nepotism) interferes with fairness through the undue advantage of one person who may not merit such treatment.

Both can greatly undermine the effectiveness of an organization.  So, draw your own conclusion.

 

Always keep an eye on your hiring practices.   We all know that businesses are often thick with social connections.  But don't allow your organization to become too relationship-driven that you unknowingly violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discounting highly qualified applicants.

Nepotism - It's All Relative

"Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives regardless of merit."   

 

You have to wonder in what world a business owner / executive would think that an organization is best-served in hiring relatives "regardless of merit."   

 

For an employer, there may be a perceived benefit to hiring family members.   You're helping the family member out, becoming a bit of a hero in the process, while potentially saving the costs of recruiting, training, background investigations, etc.  for a new employee.    However, there may be disasters looming right around the next corner.

 

While family members may create a readily available workforce oftentimes they are under qualified for the positions they fill.   And those employees who are bypassed in favor of family members may develop hostile feelings, feelings of resentment.  Nepotism in a business environment may create a perceived lack of fairness in the organization, a disastrous negative impact in which employees may see no career growth. 

 

What about employees who are responsible for supervising family members?  Disciplining or firing employees is difficult enough but will they be restricted in what corrective actions they may take?  Will there be repercussions in taking corrective actions?  Will it cost the employee their career?  How does an employee handle the situation when it's the bosses relative?  Whether or not the owner wishes to admit it, nepotism can be a disruption to the work environment. 

 

Can engaging in nepotism be illegal?  Ordinarily, no.  However,  if the employer hires family (or friends) to the point where there is no consideration for other sexes, age groups, etc, the employer may be unknowingly violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Business owners - here are a couple of questions for you to ponder:

1. Is nepotism unethical?
2. Should nepotism be in the Code of Conduct?

Rudeness At Work

In my previous blog I addressed language policy's as a tool to assist employers in maintaining a civil and respectful workplace.  Civility, the fundamentals of courtesy, politeness and consideration, are critical to business.  The lack of civility leads to high turnover, lower moral and even a potential loss of business.

In 2011 a survey was published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.  The survey, titled "Civility in American 2011" addressed civility in politics, education, the workplace, the Internet and the marketplace.   The real interest to me is the section "Incivility Goes To Work."  The study reflected that two-thirds of employees reported that their performance had declined as a result of incivility encountered in the workplace.  43% of Americans (four in 10) have experienced incivility at work with 38% reporting the belief that the workplace was "becoming more uncivil and disrespectful than a few years ago." 

Employers, take note.  As a result of experiencing rudeness, or just awareness, 67% of the respondents reported the need for civility training!  It is up to the employer to determine what is and isn't tolerated in the workplace.  But employees are asking for the education to understand how to communicate with each other and avoid creating conflict.

Statistics provided in the section Who/What is to Blame For Workplace Incivility reflected that the largest offenders were organizational leaders at 65%.   The stats for younger vs. older employees peaked my interest.   Does this present a framework for identifying age-related differences in work attitudes and behaviors?

• 65%  Leadership of the Workplace
• 59%  Employees themselves
• 34%  Younger employees
• 24%  Lack of employee rights
• 6%  Older employees

It is to be expected that a certain level of civility is fundamental to the operation of any business.   The survey reported that approximately 69% of Americans "have either stopped buying from a company or have re-evaluated their opinions of a company  because someone from that company was uncivil in their interaction."  There it is.  A direct impact to your bottom line!

Are there remedies for restoring civility?  Here are some basic steps that any individual can take:

• Active Listening (Listening to a co-workers perspective without interrupting; ask clarifying questions, reflect back understanding of views)
• Communicating critical feedback with consideration
• Assuming that everyone has the best motives
• Remember the small but important gestures - saying "please" and "thank you."
• Be aware of your tone and volume
• Be respectful, even in disagreement
• Maintain objectivity during conflict

In closing, remember the Golden Rule that your mother taught you?  When in doubt, refer back to those words of wisdom (or your mother).

Civility is NOT a sign of weakness.  Civility is about boundaries. 

Language Policies

Let's be clear up front. I'm not talking about WHAT language should be used in the workplace. I'm addressing HOW we talk to each other. Do you have a civil, respectful workplace? Do you want one?  While Federal laws do not prohibit rude or disrespectful behavior at work, employees do have protection in the areas of discrimination and harassment.

With respect to proper language, rudeness, etc., perception is the key word. How does the receiver perceive the expletives used by a fellow worker? A woman who is subjected to vulgar profanity may perceive it as sexual harassment. How does a member of a faith community perceive the improper use of a Deity's name? Is it religious discrimination?

Every company, large and small, should require that employees maintain a respectful attitude and prohibit the use of profane language on its properties or while conducting company business. The content of a Language Policy should, among other things:

• prohibit the use of profane words, obscene expressions, gender-based insults, personal insults, racial as well as religious slurs or any type of verbiage (including written documents, email, voice mail, text messages, etc) that may be construed as offensive by others.

With no guidelines in place, an organization is at risk of being an offensive and creating a hostile work environment.

Employee Actions Off The Clock

In case you missed it, Joseph Andolino, a senior vice president of Halliburton's tax department was arrested in a Harris County prostitution sting along with six other men (reported in the Houston Business Journal).  While there are no reports that he committed the crime on the job, several questions relating to his on-going employment with Halliburton come up.   

 

While I don't think that employers want to overly intrude into the private lives of employees, as an employer do you  have a policy or an employment contract that says an employee may be terminated if s/he engages in criminal conduct?  Do any of your company policies address employees conviction of a crime that indicates unfitness for the job or raises a threat to the safety or well being of fellow employees? 

Texas is an at-will state.  That allows Texas employers a lot of latitude in the hiring and firing decisions.  Essentially an employer can terminate an employee for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law.  However, state legislation, employment contracts, union contracts or your internal policies may dictate your decision.   An employment clause may provide you with an avenue for dismissal.  But does it mandate the dismissal?

• Do you have to prove that the conduct has a direct impact on the job? 
• Does it compromise the employee's ability to do the job? 
• It is an embarrassment to the organization? 

We all agree that an employer shouldn't keep an employee whose after-work activities affect their job performance.  The general rule is the more off-duty behavior negatively affects the work environment, the more termination and/or discipline becomes a legal and valid option.  But, is failure to take remedial action regarding the off-duty conduct inferring that similar actions are condoned on the job?

 

Companies may face difficulty when dealing with terminating employees for off-duty conduct. Potential results when employee's are fired for off-duty behavior can be negative publicity, low morale and related turnover.   You must consider the nature of the crime and how it affects the workplace.  What effect, if any, does the behavior have to the workplace or the company's image?   Does the behavior justify adverse employment action?

 

If you are considering regulating the off-duty conduct of your employees, there are some things to be considered:

• Is the conduct legal or illegal?
• Is there an applicable law that protects the off-duty conduct of the employee?
• Am I willing to apply this policy consistently?

Jason Bosch, None Of Your Business (Interest):  The Argument for Protecting All Employee Behavior With NO Business Impact: " . . . employees should not have to relinquish autonomy over very aspect of their lives just to get or keep a job.   Employers have a vested interest in controlling those aspects of employee's lives that reasonably affect the employees' performance on the job, but that does not justify giving employers carte blanche to control every aspect of their employees' lives."

Employee Satisfaction

Earlier this year an on-line survey by Accenture reflected that 57% (women) and 59% (men) were dissatisfied with their jobs.  While dissatisfied with their jobs, more than two-thirds (69%) said they would stay with their current employer.    I guess that’s a good news / bad news scenario.    The workforce is stable, but it's dissatisfied. 

I’m a firm believer that employees are the key to either the success or failure of an organization.  What happens when those employees decide it's just too much anymore and they seek other opportunities?   Are you willing to loose this intellectual resource?  What will the impact to the organization be?

As an employer, proactive steps should be taken to determine where employee dissatisfaction stems from.  

1. Survey your employees to find out their needs.  Are there little hassles they they are experiencing day to day?   What would make them more satisfied in their work?  Smart employers will listen to new ideas, be open to change.  Provide employees with the opportunities to present ideas for new processes, new efficiencies, to management.
2. Provide training and advancement opportunities.  Is there a career path for employees?  Do they have an opportunity to grow and/or expand their skills?  Achievement can be more important to one employee than another. 
3. Address any compensation concerns.  Is there a perception of “fair pay?” 

 

Employee Humor

The highlight of my business days are oftentimes the antics of a handful of employees.  They are overwhelmed and stressed, and yet they choose tears of laughter over bitterness.  For a moment their laughter will change the environment, bringing laughter and a bit of a brighter day to their co-workers. 

 

It's a shame that positive morale such as this can't be recognized on a performance evaluation. 

How would you, as an employer, recognize such ambassadors of goodwill?

Workplace Bullying Increasing

New survey results.  And no, the results aren’t good.  CareerBuilder released the results of a survey addressing workplace bullying.  The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive (May 14 – June 4, 2012), collected the responses of more than 3,800 workers nationwide.  The survey found that 35% of the respondents admitted they felt bullied on the job.  Unfortunately, that’s an 8% increase from last year.    

Bullies are found at all levels of the organization. The largest offender?  The boss at 48% followed by co-workers at 45%.  In a 2005 survey, when participants were asked to identify factors "which impair their organization's ability to deal effectively with bullying, the most commonly cited factors were management's unwillingness to acknowledge that a problem exists, and the prevailing management style."   Where are we 7 years later?  We acknowledge that a problem exists, but we're not making much headway in solving the problem. 

Bullying takes many forms:

• applying different standards to different people;
• constant criticism;
• ignoring an employee;
• false accusations of mistakes.

No matter what shape or form bullying takes, it can cause more harm that just hurt feelings.   Seventeen percent of the respondents to the survey indicated that they quit their jobs to escape the situation.  Sixteen percent said they suffered health-related problems as a result of being the target.

CareerBuilder released the results of their survey for Canadian employees on August 29^th.  How did our neighbors to the North do?  Of the 552 full-time employed Canadians, 45% of respondents said they were bullied.  The source:  24% coworkers, 23% immediate boss, 17% higher manager.  Twenty six percent of the bullied workers stopped their bullying by quitting their jobs.  A larger survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute indicated that 28% of the targets voluntarily quit, but another 25% quit after being forced out (constructive discharge).

The Workplace Bullying Institute defines bullying as "repeated, health-harming, mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. .. . ".   Workplace bullying may violate an organizations ethics standards, company policies or even the law.   Review your policies.  Has anyone in your workplace been subjected to bullying?  What steps have you taken to eradicate bullying from your workplace?

 

 

Office Politics. Is Survival Possible?

Organizational politics refers to behaviors “that occur on an informal basis within an organization and involve intentional acts of influence that are designed to protect or enhance individuals’ professional careers when conflicting courses of action are possible” (Drory, 1993; Porter, Allen, & Angle, 1981).

Politics are the unseen elephant in the living room. We know it’s there, it’s just difficult to define and describe. And politics, seen or not, have a long-term negative affect on the organization and ultimately, organizational outcomes are damaged.  I have provided examples below of some the more obvious results of politics: 

1. Environment: Politics lead to a negative environment; spoiling relationships among individuals.   The overall climate of the organization may have an influence on an employees’ performance through mistrust, threats, defensiveness, low support, and/or poor communication.
2. Demotivator: No matter how much hard work an employee puts in, it goes unnoticed in a politically driven organization.  The employee who works hard is not rewarded suitably versus the non performer who is rewarded due to politics (favoritism rather than merit determines who gets ahead).
3. Increased Stress:  Politics increase the stress levels of employees (mistrust, threats, defensiveness, etc.). 
4. Information: Information is manipulated and either not passed on in its desired form, or is withheld. Managers/Supervisors have an incorrect view of what is happening in the organization.
5. Turnover (Organizational Commitment):  An employees’ desire to remain in the organization and/or willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization are greatly impacted by politics and behaviors. 

R. Buckminster Fuller (Critical Path) said that rather than attempting to teach people the right things to do, one should design organizations such that doing the right things was simply the path of least resistance.   Good advice.

Here's some ideas to help you survive a politically driven environment:

• Maintain your composure.
• Have those “hard” conversations and make your case.  The truth is hard to resist (however, there may be some harm to the messenger).
• Be the best you can be.
• Never join other voices to persecute the establishment.
• Never join hands to persecute a co-worker.
• Learn to know each co-worker individually and not base a relationship on gossip.

 

Letting Go - The Culture of Change

The only thing constant is change.    It encompasses every aspect of our lives.  We encourage the acceptance of new ideas and yet we resist the inherent change those new ideas bring.  We fight the loss of old patterns and the acceptance of new ones.   

Changing organization culture is a very difficult goal to achieve.  There are commonly shared interpretations, values and patterns that must be changed and yet are difficult to modify.   When employees face change within the organization, there are two obstacles to their success.  The social-psychological fear of the change and/or the lack of technical skills to make the change work.  For change to be truly successful within an organization, both weaknesses and fears must be addressed.  Leaders need to be open to discussing concerns with the employees, to clarify the meaning of the change.  What the change means and what it doesn’t mean to the organization.  “An organization should not abandon core aspects of what makes it unique, whereas some other aspects of the organization will need to be transformed.”  Culture is undetectable most of the time because it is not challenged. 

We’re going through reorganization.  Yes, structure does make a difference.  But we must transform the culture; change the way we do things, to be successful.  We must incorporate new ideas and practices.   Changing organizational culture is one of the toughest tasks we’ll ever undertake.  In any organization the established organizational culture is reinforced by new hires because we hire ourselves.  To change the culture, we need commitment to the change, understanding of the impact of the change to the organization and its people, and the tools to implement the change.

The Obesity Epidemic

The Economic Impacts of Obesity in the Workplace.  Quite a title isn't it?   A 2010 article, it's currently making the rounds via HR Benefits Alert and other HR advisories.  The article cites medical costs, productivity costs, transportation  costs and human capital costs as areas of potential economic impact.

In that same year, 2010, the CDC released it's findings that in 2009 - 2010, 35.7% of U.S. adults were obese. That's 78 million U.S. adults (41 million women and more than 37 million men over the age of 20).  Prior to those findings, in 2009 the CDC launched a website called "LEANworks" as part of a campaign to work with employers to reduce workplace obesity. (LEAN = Leading Employees to Activity and Nutrition.) The website provides an obesity cost calculator for the employer. Using data provided by either the benefits personnel or human resources, the calculator allows an employer to estimate obesity related costs.  Shocked?  In Japan, companies use BMI (body mass index) as an evaluation tool for employment and dismissal.

The CDC released a report in which they indicated that an estimated 42% of Americans will be obese by the year 2030.  According to the American Health Association, if current trends in the growth of obesity continue, total health care costs attributable to obesity could reach $861 to $957 billion by 2030.  That would account for 16% to 18% of U.S. health expenditures.

Statistics or studies, fact or fiction, there's a tremendous amount of information out there that deals with obesity.  Yes, obesity is a concern.  But what about the human cost? Obesity exacts a tremendous price on overweight individuals. Chronic health problems. Psychological suffering.

There has long been the belief that poverty and obesity go hand in hand.  There's no doubt that we need to make healthier choices.  But sometimes that's easier said than done (as my mother would say).   A family on a reduced/limited income has tough choices to make.  They can feed a family of 4 at McDonald's for a lot less than it takes to buy the ingredients to fix a nutritious meal for those same 4 family members.

Is the rising tide of obesity linked to rising food prices?  Basically, one of the primary reasons that lower-income people are more over-weight is because the unhealthiest and most fattening foods are the cheapest.  Between 1985 and 2000, the inflation-adjusted prices of fruits and vegetables increased by an average of 40%.  The price of soft drinks fell by almost 25% during the same time period.  (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition recently reported that $1 can buy either 1200 calories of potato chips, 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit.) 

Obesity is a concern.  And yes, there may be an economic impact to your workplace.   From the Human Resources angle, what about weight discrimination or bias?

Weight discrimination is largely ignored, but it is a serious issue.  The Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas recently instituted a new policy.  This new policy requires that an employee's physique "should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a health care professional."   I'm sorry - what?The medical center will require new employees to have a  body mass index of less than 35. 

This policy may cause outrage, but whether or not it's legal remains to be determined. The hospital is going to have to establish job related reasons for excluding employee candidates with a body mass index above 35.  And, how is the hospital going to actually determine the candidates body mass index? 

Weight discrimination is one of the last types of bias that is, for the most part, legal.  Michigan is the only state with laws on the books prohibiting weight discrimination. 

For those that are interested, a Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index Report indicated that the national obesity rate dropped to 26.1 percent in 2011 from 26.6 the prior year.  A slight drop, but a drop nonetheless.  In this same report, Gallup identified the most and least 5 obese states in the U.S.  For the second year in a row, Colorado had the lowest obesity rate at 18.5% (the only state below 20%).  West Virginia had the highest obesity rate since 2008, at 35.3 percent.  Texas didn't show up on the report.  So, I guess we're doing alright!

Has Social Media Emerged As A Recruiting Tool?

Social Media in the workplace continues to be a hot topic for discussion.  Surveys address the use of social media in the workplace for recruiting to whether or not employees should be allowed to Twitter.

A recent CareerBuilder survey reflected that 37% of respondents used social networking sites to research job candidates.

PayScales respondents to their recent survey indicated that 56% of all respondents used social media to help recruit for their workforce in 2011.  LinkedIn was the most popular website with 80% of the respondents using it as a recruiting tool followed by Facebook which 45% of the respondents used.  Research suggests a job candidate's Facebook profile is indeed a reliable indicator of job performance.  Bear in mind that Facebook isn't the only social network out there.

In a 2009 study, Harris Interactive determined that 45% of employers "perused" a candidate's social network activity prior to a job interview.

PayScales survey results reflected that small companies (65%) were most likely to use social media for recruiting with large companies (44%) less likely.

The Littler Mendelson survey found that 14% of the respondents screened applicants based on their social media profiles.  This percentage differs significantly from other, current research and suggests that the topic needs further review.

It's a trend.  Yes, it's growing.  Are you on board?

2012 Outlook for Employers: PayScale Survey

PayScale has released their 2012 Compensation Best Practices Report.  The data, collected in November and December of 2011, covers multiple industries including healthcare, finance and insurance.  The report provides information on compensation practices, hiring practices and social media. 

The report reveals a significant improvement for both employers and employees.  Of particular note is that there continues to be an upward trend in hiring practices with more organizations increasing their size than in either 2009 or 2010.  Additionally, fewer companies are terminating employees and are instead maintaining their existing workforce or adding new talent. 

Finance & insurance industries were 60% more likely to maintain their existing employee levels with healthcare at 59%.  Industries anticipating increases in organization size over 2011 were media & telecommunications (57%) with transportation & warehousing/storage at 55%. 

The principal reason why companies adjusted compensation was "Performance-Based Pay Increases (69%).  Just under 49% indicated "Employee Promotions" as a driver for compensation adjustments.

In 2011 the base salary adjustments ranged from a decrease of 10% to an increase of 15% depending on the industry.

Pay range adjustments in 2011 held at 66% compared to only 25% of respondents in 2010.  The average adjustment was approximately 5%, slightly up from an average of 4% in 2010. 

The most important compensation objective guiding the respondents' 2011 decisions was "Retaining Top Employees," which was chosen by 54% of the respondents.  This was true across all company sizes and industries.   Retaining and attracting quality workers are still the two chief compensation objectives for 2012 regardless of company size and industry. 

Mining, oil & gas exploration is the industry with the greatest concern for employee retention in 2012:  81% of respondents in this industry feel employee retention is a high or top concern in 2012.    The industry with the least concern is Real Estate & Rental Services.  21% of respondents in this industry feel employee retention is of little to no concern for 2012.

Survey responses in the area of Social Media reflected that 53% of respondents have a formal policy on the use of social media.  Where companies have official policies, only 29% encourage the use of social media at work, while 42% say the use of social media is not allowed at all.  The larger the company, the less likely it has a formal social media policy in place:  57% of small companies have a formal social media policy, compared to 52% of medium companies and 47% of large companies.

In closing, employers and employees face 2012 with greater optimism.  Companies will continue to focus on increasing their workforces and increasing employee wages.  Employee retention will continue to be a concern as the economy improves and workers consider other options. 

The Password Protection Act of 2012 - Part II

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) stated, “Employers seeking access to passwords or confidential information on social networks, e-mail accounts, or other protected Internet services is an unreasonable and intolerable invasion of privacy. With few exceptions, employers do not have the need or the right to demand access to applicants' private, password-protected information."

Beyond the privacy issue, let’s look at the potential ability to discriminate against candidates.  In a statement by Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), “Personal information like race, religion, age, and sexual orientation is often accessible on social networking profiles, and by having access to this information employers could discriminate against an applicant who would otherwise be qualified for a job. In an ever expanding world of technology, we need to have clear laws on the books to protect Americans' right to privacy.” 

Under the bill, the employer can’t force an employee to disclose a password even if the employee is using his/her work computer for access.  The PPA reflects the approach (and building on the existing law) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal government’s primary anti-hacking tool.  This Act protects the integrity of internet systems against hackers, including protecting online email accounts and Facebook accounts against the stealing of passwords.  (The online servers where private user information is stored are referred to as “protected computers” in the legislation.)

For the employer, it will protect their system.  It preserves the right of the employer to control access to their hardware, as well as Internet software.  The employer can set policies for employer-operated computer systems and hold workers accountable for stealing data.   

The PPA does not limit its protection to a particular type of service.  It is “technology-neutral.”  This will allow the bill to remain flexible and not be supplanted in a few years by new technology and allow the PPA to continually evolve.  It is designed to adapt to new Internet innovations. 

A summary of the Password Protection Act can be found on Senator Richard Blumenthal’s’ website.  The link is provided here:  www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/senators-and-congressmen-introduce-password-protection-act-of-2012

The Password Protection Act of 2012 - Part 1

On April 16^th, the Maryland State Senate unanimously passed a bill titled, “Labor and Employment – Username and Password Privacy Protection and Exclusions.”  If this bill is signed into law, Maryland will become the first state to prohibit employers from requiring potential candidates to provide passwords to their Facebook accounts.   This bill will also prohibit the disclosure of any username, password or other means of accessing a personal account for all Internet accounts such as Twitter and LinkedIn.

It is becoming a common practice for potential employers to snoop around in the private lives of prospective employees, as well as existing employees.  Employers use the information to determine whether or not the candidate is worth hiring based on their “on-line” behavior.  Current employees are even being fired based on their “on-line” behavior.  For example:

• Andrew Kurtz (pierogi and Pittsburgh Pirates mascot) was fired based on his Facebook critique of the team’s management. 
• Sister Mary Jesus Galan (a nun at the Santo Domingo el Real convent in Toledo) was fired for spending too much time on Facebook. 
• Cheryl James, an Oakwood Hospital employee (Detroit), was fired from her job for posting something on her personal Facebook page.  And, the list goes on.

The Password Protection Act of 2012 has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.   The PPA would make it illegal for an employer to compel or coerce access to any online information (stored anywhere on the Internet), if that information is secured against general public access by the user.   This includes private email accounts, smartphones and photo-sharing websites.  Employers violating the PPA could be subject to financial penalties up to $10,000.00. 

This proposed new legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), with an identical bill introduced in the House Of Representatives by Reps. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ed Permutter (D-Colo.).    Rep. Ed Permutter previously submitted a Facebook user protection amendment that did not pass the House back in March.

(continued in The Password Protection Act of 2012 - Part II)