Category Archives: HR policies

Once Burned, Twice Shy

Once workers are laid off from a job, they’re more likely to quit their next job — and their next, and the one after that and probably the one after that, as well. That’s according to new research from Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, which compared workers’ “quits” prior to and after a layoff and determined that people who’d been laid off were 65-percent more likely to quit subsequent jobs.

They may also be likelier to quit their second, third and fourth jobs after the layoff, Paul Davis, assistant professor of HR studies at Cornell’s ILR School, told Bloomberg BNA. Davis, who conducted the research, studied the work histories of 2,500 people who were laid off to determine what effect the experience may have had on their subsequent careers. People who were laid off tend to feel less committed to their subsequent employers, keep a close eye on the external market and are more vigilant about new job opportunities, he said.

Layoffs are traumatic not just for the people who lose their jobs, but for their colleagues who stay on, Davis told Bloomberg BNA. In addition to having to take on the extra work previously done by those laid off, these employees may also feel resentful toward their employer for how their former coworkers were treated while harboring fear that they could be the next to receive a pink slip. They may also be more likely to look for new opportunities, jumping ship when they can, he said.

Companies faced with the need for cost-cutting should think long and hard before resorting to layoffs and consider alternatives first, said Davis. When a layoff is deemed necessary, he said, HR should be as open and honest with the “survivors” as they can, and explain why they’re critical to the success of the organization.

 

Getting Under Employees’ Skin

No, this story isn’t about a new and unpopular workplace policy sweeping through the nation’s workplaces.

At least not yet.

The Associated Press is reporting today on a Swedish company that turns its willing employees into “cyborgs” by inserting microchips into them:

What could pass for a dystopian vision of the workplace is almost routine at the Swedish startup hub Epicenter. The company offers to implant its workers and startup members with microchips the size of grains of rice that function as swipe cards: to open doors, operate printers, or buy smoothies with a wave of the hand.

Epicenter’s co-founder and CEO Patrick Mesterton told the AP the move will bring a heightened sense of ease for workers:

“The biggest benefit I think is convenience,” he said. “It basically replaces a lot of things you have, other communication devices, whether it be credit cards or keys.”

According to the AP, the small implants use Near Field Communication technology, the same as in contactless credit cards or mobile payments: “When activated by a reader a few centimeters (inches) away, a small amount of data flows between the two devices via electromagnetic waves. The implants are ‘passive,’ meaning they contain information that other devices can read, but cannot read information themselves.”

The technology is not new, of course, but it has never been used to tag employees on a broad scale before, and the AP says Epicenter and a handful of other companies “are the first to make chip implants broadly available.”
Way back in 2006, however, colleague Mark McGraw tackled the topic of tagging workers:

Cincinnati-based private video-surveillance company CityWatcher.com recently embedded silicon chips in four of its employees, as the company tested the technology in an effort to control access to a room where it holds security video footage for government agencies and police.

The dime-sized chips, manufactured by Delray Beach, Fla.-based VeriChip Corp., were implanted into the employees’ arms, says Sean Darks, CityWatcher CEO, after the company explored various types of biometric applications such as fingerprint and handprint identification systems. CityWatcher turned to radio-frequency identification chips, a less costly alternative to typical biometric systems, to “make security improvements,” he says, and eliminate the possibility of employees losing or misplacing proximity cards or other forms of identification.

RFID chips are inexpensive radio transmitters that emit a unique identifying signal. The chips are commonly used for tracking merchandise in transit, but they can also be implanted in pets to identify them in the event they’re separated from their owners and can be used in humans for medical purposes — to link patients to their medical records in emergency situations, for instance.

However, CityWatcher’s implementation of RFID is the first known case in which U.S. workers have been “tagged” electronically as a way of identifying them, and is likely to add to a growing controversy surrounding RFID , predicted as one of the next big growth industries.

Not everyone McGraw talked to for the piece was excited at the prospect of having more workers walking around with chips inserted under their skin.

“Whether or not implanting  … chips in humans becomes a common workplace security measure remains to be seen,” said Liz McIntyre, a critic of the technology and the communications director of Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering, a nonprofit group focused on consumer privacy issues.  “This is just the beginning,” says McIntyre.
Eleven years later, though, that trend is apparently still in its beginning stages, as the only progress seems to be in the chip’s size shrinking from a dime to a grain of rice, not in expanding the number of companies using such technology.

 

Sad State of Parental Leave

Tuned into a pretty interesting, if not depressing, Facebook Live session on Wednesday. Seems the at-least-slow progress in paid parental leave we’ve been writing about here on HRE Daily and on our HREOnline website isn’t as promising as some think.

At least that’s according to the Society for Human Resource Management, which released during the session its National Study of Employers — a self-described “comprehensive look at employer practices, policies, programs and benefits that address the personal and family needs of employees.” (Here’s the press release for those of you who don’t have the time for an entire study right now.)

Ellen Galinsky, president and co-founder of the Families and Work Institute, talked during the session about the study’s key findings — namely that, despite reports from well-known companies (such as Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson and Ernst & Young — see our own posts linked above) announcing their expansions of paid-parental-leave benefits, the average amount of caregiving and parental leave provided by U.S. employers has not changed significantly since 2012.

Specifically, over the past 11 years, the number of organizations offering at least some replacement pay for women on maternity leave has increased from 46 percent to 58 percent. But the study also found that, among employers offering any replacement pay, the percentage offering full pay has continued to decline, from 17 percent in 2005 to 10 percent in 2016.

In fact, of all employers with 50 or more employees, only 6 percent offer full pay. In addition, daily flexibility, the kind needed for emergencies, has gone down actually, from 87 percent in 2012 to 81 percent in 2016, a statistic Galinsky called “critical.” She added:

“The fact that that kind of flexibility has gone down is a critical [and alarming] finding.”

According to Galinsky, HR has a major role in turning this around. As she put it during the session:

“Flexibility is now the norm. HR should be thinking this way. It used to be, ‘Should or shouldn’t we provide flexibility?’ Now it’s a given that we should.”

Unfortunately, she said, HR needs to do a better job of telling workers what is offered at their organizations. The study found only 23 percent of companies making a real effort to communicate the programs they have.

Here are some other key findings:

  • Small employers (50 to 99 employees) were more likely than large employers (1,000 or more employees) to offer all or most employees 1) traditional flextime, the ability to periodically change start and stop times (36 percent versus 17 percent), 2) control over when to take breaks (63 percent versus 47 percent) and 3) time off during the workday to attend to important family or personal needs without loss of pay (51 percent versus 33 percent).

  • Growth of workplace flexibility has been stable over the past four years. Out of 18 forms of flexibility studied, there were only four changes:

  1. An increase in employers that offer telework, allowing employees to work at least some of their paid hours at home on a regular basis (40 percent in 2016 versus 33 percent in 2012).
  2. An increase in employers that allow employees to return to work gradually after childbirth or adoption (81 percent in 2016 versus 73 percent in 2012).
  3. An increase in organizations that allow employees to receive special consideration after a career break for personal/family responsibilities (28 percent in 2016 versus 21 percent in 2012).
  4. A decrease in organizations that allow employees to take time off during the workday to attend to important family or personal needs without loss of pay (81 percent in 2016 versus 87 percent in 2012).

In Galinsky’s words:

“Whether high-profile companies offering paid [parental] leave are out of step with the majority of employers or leading the way remains to be seen. Given our findings that 78 percent of employers reported difficulty in recruiting employees for highly skilled jobs and 38 percent reported difficulty in recruiting for entry-level, hourly jobs, these high-profile companies could be leading the way in the strategic use of leave benefits.”

And, apparently, that’s not happening. Not yet anyway.

Uber’s Sex-Harassment Inquiry

In case you missed it over the long holiday weekend, there’s plenty of trouble brewing over at ride-share app Uber.

It’s now so serious that the company hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether the company has appropriately addressed discrimination and harassment claims made by female workers.

The investigation comes after former Uber engineer Susan Fowler Rigetti posted her story on Sunday, detailing her experiences enduring sex harassment at the hands of her direct manager, as well as the stonewalling she says she was subjected to by the company’s HR and leadership after she repeatedly brought the claims to their attention.

According to Fowler Rigetti:

On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of messages over company chat. He was in an open relationship, he said, and his girlfriend was having an easy time finding new partners but he wasn’t. He was trying to stay out of trouble at work, he said, but he couldn’t help getting in trouble, because he was looking for women to have sex with.

It was clear that he was trying to get me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported him to HR.

Uber was a pretty good-sized company at that time, and I had pretty standard expectations of how they would handle situations like this. I expected that I would report him to HR, they would handle the situation appropriately, and then life would go on – unfortunately, things played out quite a bit differently.

After receiving less-than-enthusiastic support from HR, she describes how she came to know other women at Uber who had experienced the same harassment and subsequent stonewalling, and how those women decided to use a strength-in-numbers approach to alert HR to the seriousness of the ongoing issue:

Myself and a few of the women who had reported him in the past decided to all schedule meetings with HR to insist that something be done. In my meeting, the rep I spoke with told me that he had never been reported before, he had only ever committed one offense (in his chats with me), and that none of the other women who they met with had anything bad to say about him, so no further action could or would be taken. It was such a blatant lie that there was really nothing I could do. There was nothing any of us could do. We all gave up on Uber HR and our managers after that. Eventually he “left” the company. I don’t know what he did that finally convinced them to fire him.

After the story initially broke, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick tweeted that the behavior mentioned in the post was “abhorrent & against everything we believe in. Anyone who behaves this way or thinks this is OK will be fired.”

Hiring someone like Eric Holder will definitely add credence to an investigation that had previously looked paper-thin. And while only time will tell if Holder uncovers any more stories like Fowler’s, I get the feeling this sordid story isn’t over by a long shot.

Firing Someone over Politics

With conflict between President Trump supporters and detractors still at a fiery pitch, and with his protested inauguration still in the rearview mirror, this recent post on the Littler site might prove helpful.

In it, a boss in Sacramento, Calif., is asking the San Francisco-based employment law firm whether an employee can be fired, or at least disciplined, after the boss “saw one of my employees on the local news the other night participating in a political rally over the weekend.”

“Can I at least institute a policy prohibiting this kind of behavior going forward?” the boss asks.

Well, it all depends, Littler’s Zoe Argento writes, “on the employee’s location, the legality of his conduct, the employee’s contract, the nature of your business and the characteristics of the individual.” But best advice: Probably not a good idea and tread very carefully.

There are some state laws that prohibit employers from taking adverse action against employees because of their off-duty lawful political activities. So know your state’s laws on this. According to Argento:

“In California, employers may not coerce employees, discriminate or retaliate against them, or take any adverse action because they have engaged in political activity. Similar prohibitions exist in other states, including Colorado, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Utah. Connecticut actually extends First Amendment protection of free speech to the employees of private employers. Some of these laws provide exceptions for public or religious employers or for off-duty employee conduct that creates a material conflict with respect to the employer’s business interests. Under such laws, and absent some exception, the proposed termination or demotion of this employee because of his lawful, off-the-clock political activity would be illegal.”

Also, Argento points out, at least three states — California, Louisiana and Colorado — prohibit employers from adopting any policy, rule or regulation that forbids or prevents employees from engaging or participating in politics or from running for office.

On the federal level, she says, firing or disciplining workers who engage in rallies, protests, marches or any other polticial activity could run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act, which provides that “employees shall have the right … to engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection.” She continues:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that employees may organize as a group to “improve their lot” outside the employer-employee relationship. Employees’ participation in political advocacy would therefore be protected if it relates to labor or working conditions. Such advocacy can include contacting legislators, testifying before agencies or joining protests and demonstrations. If the means used are not illegal, an employer would generally be barred from retaliating against employees who participate in these political activities outside the workplace.

“Depending on the nature of the activities your employee engaged in and his role in your organization, it may violate the NLRA to penalize him. If the employee participated in a rally concerning sick leave, minimum wage, or immigration reform, for example, that conduct would likely be protected.”

Argento signs off with some sound practical advice, that a decision to terminate or discipline an employee “should be based on an objective assessment of both the individual’s job performance and your business needs.” She writes:

“If the employee is otherwise a solid performer, and if his behavior does not interfere with the operation of your business, an adverse employment decision may be difficult to explain, undermine morale in your workforce, and, on balance, have more negative than positive results.”

Rule of thumb, she signs off, “proceed with caution” before penalizing employees for lawful, off-duty poitical activities, whether they’re frustrating to you or not.

Tattoos at Work Can Be Positive?

Tattoos in the workplace — certainly not a new phenomenon. Almost a decade ago, HRE was airing the pros and cons of allowing this type 184877376-tattooof self-expression at work, and what employers could and couldn’t control, according to this story by then-Staff-Writer-now-Web-Editor Michael J. O’Brien.

The predictions then were spot on: As one expert — David Barron, a labor and employment attorney — said in that story: “Tattoos are clearly on the rise … I think there’s going to be increasing pressure from younger folks, as they move up into management [to change or relax body art regulations at work]. I’ve already seen the perception [of tattoos] change. Views have become more liberal.”

The cautions then also hold true today. Whatever dress-code restrictions you decide to assign to your employees regarding tattoos (and even piercings and any other outlying dress expressions), you’d better be applying to all employees or you could find yourself in a heap of legal trouble.

Seven years after that story ran, we featured this, proof positive that tattoos were becoming more commonplace and accepted. Here, two featured companies are actually encouraging their employees to tattoo their company logos on limbs or head locations of choice. In that piece, written a couple years ago, both companies claim that, aside from helping them literally stamp an identity and broadcast a brand, the corporate logo helps improve worker pride, loyalty, commitment and camaraderie.

Now, speed dial to this, a piece that ran on the Phys.Org site just 10 days ago, and you’ll have to agree the tattoo trend just got new wings (dare I say inked over the old?). That story — based on a study out of the University of St. Andrews — proclaims that tattoos can actually help job candidates land certain positions and can help certain employers look really cool to the types of employees they’re trying to attract.

Like bartenders — the hypothetical position researcher Dr. Andrew Timming used in his study of hiring managers, who weighed in more heavily in favor of the tattooed bartender-wanna-be than the non-tattooed one. According to Timming, they believed having a bartender with a tattoo would attract younger customers who thought body art was trendy. As he puts it:

“Visibly tattooed job applicants can present as attractive candidates in the labor market because they can help to positively convey an organization’s image or brand, particularly in firms that seek to target a younger, edgier demographic of customer. Tattoos, especially in pop-culture industries such as fashion retail, are an effective marketing and branding tool.”

So we’re not even talking negatives anymore — as in, the things you need to know and be wary of in the case of body art in the workplace. We’re talking positives.

Now mind you, this study does hail from St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland, where attire in general can be very different from the United States, and where dress codes might already be more relaxed. (Why is there an image of the movie Braveheart coming to mind, pitting the well-coifed Brits against Mel Gibson’s rebellious and revolutionary William Wallace, and his cohort of skirt-clad warriors? I have no clue really. Please forgive me, I digress.)

Back to reality, Timming’s reality anyway, and I might have to agree with him that “there has been, in recent decades, what might be called a ‘tattoo renaissance’ in which body art has figured more positively in mainstream society and popular culture.”

And work.