Strategic HR Lawyer

The EEOC recently issued a Fact Sheet on Employment Tests and Selection Procedures to Screen Applicants and Workers.   The Commission noted that there has been an increase in employment testing due in part to post 9-11 security concerns as well as concerns about workplace violence, safety, and liability. In addition the number of discrimination charges raising issues of employment testing, and exclusions based on criminal background checks, credit reports, and other selection procedures, has been increasing every year.

Some of the assessments that employers use include cognitive tests, physical ability tests, sample job tasks, medical inquiries, personality and integrity tests, criminal background checks, credit checks performance appraisals and language fluency tests.

The EEOC makes several recommendations with regard to tests and assessments, some of which are more obvious that others. Here are a few that I often see overlooked:

• Employers should ensure that employment tests and other selection procedures are properly validated for the positions and purposes for which they are used.

• If a selection procedure screens out a protected group, the employer should determine whether there is an equally effective alternative selection procedure that has less adverse impact and, if so, adopt the alternative procedure. Many employers don't even know if this is the case.

• To ensure that a test or selection procedure remains predictive of success in a job, employers should keep abreast of changes in job requirements and should update the test specifications or selection procedures accordingly. When was the last time you reviewed your job descriptions?

• Employers should ensure that tests and selection procedures are not adopted casually by managers who know little about these processes. I am sure your managers know very little about the legal implications of all of this and my be implementing assessments or tests with good intentions. However, they should seek guidance before doing so.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Employment Law , Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

The EEOC recently held a public meeting to discuss employer testing and screening procedures, which they note are on the rise.  According to the press release:

“Today employers commonly use a range of employment tests and other screening tools to make hiring, promotion, termination or other employment decisions,” said EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp. “With the growth of technology, buttressed by post-9/11 security concerns, it is important that employers review their applicant selection procedures to ensure they are non-discriminatory.”

Discussion topics included:

• written tests
• criminal and credit histories as a basis for selection
• medical exclusions in hiring
• employer best practices
• the increased use of personality and integrity tests.

"Following an EEOC determination that the city’s use of the examinations violated Title VII, the Justice Department conducted its own investigation and determined that the city’s use of the [written] examinations also constituted a pattern or practice of discrimination against both black and Hispanic applicants."

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Employment Law , Policies & Procedures , Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

America's Job Bank will soon meet its demise.   Seems the cost of maintaining it has gotten to be a bit too much for Uncle Sam.  What's a Federal Contractor to do about its posting requirements?  This article from BLR notes:

According to a letter and information sent by ETA Assistant Secretary Emily Stover DeRocco to state-run employment service officers in early 2006, the decision to discontinue AJB will not impact the ability of federal contractors to "immediately list all of its employment openings with the appropriate employment service delivery system." This refers to state job service offices, also known as state employment service or one stop service locations, and workforce development offices (in some states).

All jobs must be listed, including agreements to lease workers from "temp agencies," except executive or top management jobs, positions filled from within the organization, and jobs lasting 3 days or less.

As for posting requirements for Veterans, with the passage of the Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) (which, by the way, will not go into effect until there are regulations implementing - sometime later this year),  mandatory job-posting requirements for covered contractors will change. Under JVA, contractors can no longer meet the requirement by posting solely with AJB. Employers with contracts of $100,000 or more must "immediately list all employment openings with the appropriate employment service delivery system."

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

Statistically speaking, the months with the most layoffs are October, December and January.   "Over the past 10 years, 9.7 million jobs were cut, 38 percent of which were announced in the last four months of the year."   While there are doomsayers and optimists on both sides of the issue, I've seen organizations and industries, where they have moved very slowly in the summer months, jump right in to the fall months.  Companies that have to suddenly figure out how to make their numbers by the end of the 4th quarter, companies that are over budget and looking to save here and there - all of this adds up to more job transitions.  Add to that the likelihood that  job seekers, who typically view the summer as dreadfully quiet, are likely to approach the fall with renewed vigor.  My guess is that recruiters will be doing a lot of work, and outplacement firms will be doing their share as well.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection , Trends | Permalink

Most HR professionals have stories concerning applicants who lied on their applications or resumes.  According to Forbes.com, the following represents the top things that applicants lie about when looking for a job.  Some you might have guessed, but I was surprised at one or two:

1. Playing with dates to hide employment gaps
2. Bogus college degree claims
3. Fear of ageism and leaving off jobs, dates of graduation or other omissions
4. Embellishments of previous accomplishments (what I call the "walk on water" candidate -how many times has a manager come to the HR department with the resume of a fairly new employee and said that the competence of the employee doesn't match the resume?)
5. Embellishing salary
6. Exaggerating the academic GPA or other honors, or claiming technical proficiency that one does not have
7. Claiming foreign language proficiency
8. Exaggerating titles (I guess to justify the lofty title he/she lied about)
9. Providing fake addresses (most likely done by out-of-towners looking to relocate to a new city).  While I've seen this one done, the fact that it could be so high on the list surprised me.
   

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

Seth Godin offers some wise counsel on hiring after an exchange with a receptionist at a company he visited.  He makes the point that all too often people are focused not on the value that a great employee can bring but paying as little as possible or falling to the lowest denominator.  He notes:

"Just about every organization has a receptionist. Sometimes, he or she is merely a guardian, a patrol designed to keep the riffraff in the lobby.

Other times, though, a receptionist can change the entire tone of an interaction. If you've got someone answering your phone, greeting your clients--who have traveled a thousand miles to visit your office--or otherwise dealing with the outside world, I think it's time to do some simple cost/benefit analysis.

If the receptionist greets just 100 people a day, that's 20,000 people a year. Is it worth a dollar per interaction to transform all of those interactions into something spectacular? In other words, instead of hiring the cheapest person, or sticking with the existing person because it's easier, what if you invested in a truly remarkable experience?

It works the same way with the telephone.  How many companies, especially law firms, have a policy that the phone must be answered by a person, not voice mail.  The result, often a live person, with barely a pulse or any enthusiasm answers the phone, gives you the third degree, attempts to transfer you, finds that the party you are calling isn't available and puts you into voice mail anyway.  Usually the person answering the phone is on another floor, doesn't know who you are or, most times, the person you are calling.  So, my question is, why bother answering the phone?  Just let me go to voice mail in the first place instead of asking me to prounounce and spell my last name three times.

For those who don't know of Seth, one click to his post on this subject regarding the receptionist who asked him if he needed a haircut and failed to notice his completely bald head will drive the point home.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

The IT people at Hewlett Packard are taking a giant step backward  by eliminating the option to work form home for all IT employees.  The idea here seems to go back to the old "face time" requirement.  If you aren't in the office, you're not really working.  Seems to me that Hewlett Packard should be at least progressive enough to recognize the benefits of telecommuting (notwithstanding the fact that gas is running about $3.25 for regular here in my hometown and a recent survey shows an need for an increase telecommuting, not less).  Also, they fail to recognize something vitally important - just because you are in the office doesn't mean you are actually working.  I thought we were getting away from the idea of face time as a measure of productivity!

Thanks to the HR Marketer Blog for their thoughtful commentary.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Policies & Procedures , Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

The New York Times recently reported on a growing trend for recruiters and companies to conduct an online search of candidates prior to hiring.  According to the article:

"Many companies that recruit on college campuses have been using search engines like Google and Yahoo to conduct background checks on seniors looking for their first job. But now, college career counselors and other experts say, some recruiters are looking up applicants on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Xanga and Friendster, where college students often post risqué or teasing photographs and provocative comments about drinking, recreational drug use and sexual exploits in what some mistakenly believe is relative privacy."

And we thought that we had to warn people about tattoos and body piercings.  As lives become more and more public with details being disclosed by individuals on the internet onto these networking sites, undoubtedly there ends up being a conflict between what an employer may view as poor judgment and an applicant, such as a recent college graduate, viewing as just fun.  When was the last time you Googled yourself?

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection , Trends | Permalink

For those considering hiring teens this summer, these links to pages on the USDOL website offer useful information for compliance with state labor laws relating to minors. The first is a Summary of State Laws Concerning Child Labor Standards Affecting Minors Under 18 in Non-farm Employment as of January 1, 2006. In addition, this link provides a summary of Employment/Age Certification Issuance Practices Under State Child Labor Laws.

For those in New York, here is the link to the New York State Department of Labor's information on child labor law.

The folks as the Workers Comp Insider also remind us of the need to focus on the safety of younger workers. Their top ten list includes a few useful tips as well as links to other resources on the web concerning teen safety on the job.

Now there are no excuses for making mistakes when hiring minors this summer.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Employment Law , New York Law , Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

Periodically, I have discussions with clients on the subject of their turnover. An interesting study reveals an interesting conclusion: Employees who participate in a firm's retirement plan are less likely to turnover, than those who don't.

In addition:
"Other studies have demonstrated that a variety of factors influence an employee's decision to leave his/her employer, so the link that we have identified between voluntary retirement plan participation and employee turnover is not likely to be causal....However, the lack of retirement plan (and other benefit participation) may possibly be a symptom of a lack of employee engagement with his/her employer, which may explain the increased turnover among non-participants."

I've often said, despite some belief to the contrary by others, that there is certainly a strategic element of benefits. If participation in benefits can be correlated with engagement, then maybe we should be looking at all of our human resources practices when looking at how to engage our employees.

For more information, see the article here: Study Links Employee Turnover, Retirement Plan Participation Rates

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

In a survey of 444 companies throughout North America, Right Management found that..."it costs an average of 2¬Ω times an individual's salary to replace an employee who doesn't work out, including recruitment, training, and severance costs, and lost productivity, according to the survey. More than 4 out of 10 organizations (42%) said it costs at least three times the employee's salary."

According to the survey, the biggest consequences of bad hiring and promotion decisions are:

- Lower employee morale (68%)
- Decreased employee productivity (66%)
- Lost customers/market share (54%)
- Higher training costs (51%)
- Higher recruitment costs (44%)
- Higher severance costs (40%)

To replace an employee who doesn't work out, it costs - in recruitment, training, severance, and lost productivity:

- Two times the employee's annual salary (42%)
- Three times the employee's annual salary (26%)
- Five times the employee's annual salary (11%)
- Equal to the employee's annual salary (15%)
- Four times the employee's annual salary (6%)

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

So you're considering giving a whopping pay increase to entice one of your executives to stay? Think again. According to a survey by Korn Ferry, the reason executives leave companies often has nothing to do with the money.

According to the survey cited in Workforce Management, "...only 5 percent of global executives say that inadequate or inconsistent compensation is the main reason they left their last job. Rather, they cite lack of challenges or opportunity for career growth (33 percent) as the top reason they left. Twenty percent of respondents pointed to ineffective leadership, while 17 percent said the attractive job market was why they left their last jobs."

The answer: give people more career development, work/life balance and empower them to make decisions.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

This cartoon should bring a chuckle!

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

A friend from New Orleans sent me this picture.  I had seen this when I was there a few weeks ago with the Turnaround Management Association's TMAssist Initiative, but was unable to get a picture.  Look closely.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Miscellaneous , Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

According to a World at Work Survey which was reported in Workforce Online, retention bonuses topped the list of programs used by employers to retain employees.  They surveyed over 2700 companies and here are some of the stats:

• Sign on/Hiring Bonus - 64%
• Employee Referral Bonus - 63%
• Market/Base Salary Adjustments - 60%
• Individual Spot Bonus - 43%
• Stay Bonus - 30%
• Stock Option Programs - 25%

Workforce Online also reported the top reasons for job cuts in July (according to Challenger Gray & Christmas):

• Reorganization - 31,699 job cuts
• No Clear Reason - 15, 771 job cuts
• Fluctuating Demand/Sales - 12, 798
• Acquisition/Merger - 10, 311
• Closing - 10,004
• Cost Cutting - 9,687

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

A recent article in the New York Times (free registration required) discusses how Costco has become the Anti-Walmart.  The article discussed how Costco has given Sam's Club a run for its money.  What's really interesting about the article (and perhaps more important) is the discussion of how Costco treats its employees, much to the dismay of Wall Street.  Specifically:

1.  Costco benefits for employees are not just a little bit better than average, they are substantially better than their competitors.
2. The average Costco employee earns $17/hour, 42% more than employees at Sam's Club.
3.  Turnover is virtually non-existent.
4.  Jim Sinegal's (president of Costco) salary is 10% of what CEO's earn at comparable organizations.
5.  401(k) matching contributions range between 3% and 9% depending upon length of service.

The lesson here is that when an organization takes care of its people, it can be wildly successful.  Although some on Wall street argue, according to the article, that it's better to be an employee of Costco than a shareholder or customer, it's performance over the years has been quite good.  But, I think the question for Wall Street is how good is good enough, and is the balance of stakeholder interests appropriate?  As many organizations whittle away salaries and benefits it's refreshing to see a demonstrated commitment to employees.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Employee Relations , Staffing, Recruitment, Selection , Trends | Permalink

I've been taking a Myers-Briggs Qualifying Course through the Center for Applications of Applied Psychological Type in New York this week (I'm an ESTJ).  It's made me think if the concept of "testing" in the workplace and a few key points.

It's amazing how many people administer the MBTI who don't know what on earth they are doing!  See, Michael's post on George's Employment Blawg here regarding the inappropriateness of the MBTI for selection.  I've seen it used hundreds of times in corporations and academia by people not even close to being qualified to administer it.  Having said that, it's amazing how many tests are administered in the workplace that have not been validated, aren't even job related and administered under the worst conditions.  How many times have applicants been sent off to some psychological testing center for some, presumably, related test?  I remember I was a candidate for a VPHR job several years ago (for a company that will remain nameless).  Just as the CEO and I were about to firm up a deal, I got a call from some administrative person who told me to expect a call from the psychological testing service.  I spent two hours on the phone with a dimwit asking me crazy questions.  When he got to the one about which color I'd like to be if I had to choose one and which animal I'd like to be if I had to choose one, I really thought he was crazy.  Hey, I'm not a psychologist, but I can't see the correlation between asking someone if they wanted to be green or orange and job performance! 

I hope that the HR folks and other selection professionals out there reading this will think twice about the tests they are using.  There are a ton of other issues - we could talk for hours about legal issues in test validity, but I have a class tomorrow!

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection | Permalink

There have been a number of recent articles noting an increase in the employment of older workers.  The New York Times ran this article (worth the registration) a week or so ago which provides some interesting facts and statistics.  This isn't just about older workers looking for part time jobs to supplement their retirement income.  Apparently, employers are starting to bend over backward a bit in an effort to recruit older employees.  The article notes that AARP features employers on its website - those that are offering perks, health benefits and flexible schedules.  Here are some other interesting statistics from the article:

• At  Borders, 16% of its employees today are over 50 as compared to 6% six years ago.
• About one-third of men and one-fourth of women between the ages of 65-69 were working in 2004.
• The percentage of men in that age group still working rose to 33% from 27% in 1994 and the percentage of women in that age group rose to 23% from 18% .
• AARP predicts that one in three workers will be 50 or older within five years.

In light of the recent discussions concerning guidelines on phased retirement, the dwindling of retiree healthcare, the fewer defined benefit plans available to retirees, this is clearly a trend that will continue.

Posted By Diane Pfadenhauer In Staffing, Recruitment, Selection , Trends | Permalink