Is it possible (i.e. legal) for an employer to define some exempt employees as 40-hour per week exempt employees, some as 35-hour per week employees, some as 32-hour employees, etc. when all were originally hired for 40-hour per week exempt positions? This particular employer routinely reduces a 40-hour employee’s hours (as well as salary) if the work load for that employee decreases either temporarily or permanently. The employer does this at will and then often drags their feet in restoring the 40-hour status when the work load increases. All these employees are doing the same type job, have the same credentials and qualifications. Workload for this position is regulated by state law.
First of all, it's time for my standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I do not profess to be a lawyer, and I do not give any legal advice.
It's perfectly legal to have exempt jobs at less than 40 hours a week. But, I think what your boss is doing is illegal. One of the criteria to be exempt is that the employee must be paid the same amount, regardless of the number of hours worked. If he were evaluating jobs and adjusting pay (note, not hours, because technically you don't pay exempt people by the hour, although you can require that they work specific hours), once a year I might buy it. What he's doing is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
There's nothing wrong with paying someone by the hour, even if their responsibilities would make them exempt. The key is, though, if you choose to pay them by the hour you give up the exempt status and if they work 41 hours, they get overtime pay. (There are some exceptions to this in IT, I believe, but we'll assume this is not that situation.) What you can't do is pay less when they work less than 40, but not more when they work more than 40.
So, my advice is to contact your state Department of Labor. I don't know what your job is that is regulated by the state anyway, but methinks it's time for an unpleasant audit.
Of course, if you are feeling compassionate, you could warn the boss that you believe his actions are illegal. I suspect he knows that already, and no telling the fall out you'd get.
It really bugs me when people attempt to treat their employees like dirt and then wonder why they have low morale and high turnover (which I bet you have!).
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
HRs Role in Governance
Been very busy with writing deadlines, so no posts recently. We've just finished writing a chapter for a book edited by Suzanne Young on Corporate Governance, a particularly important issue just now, especially given Gordon Brown's recent criticism of governance in the British financial services sector. We've argued in the past that HR has a key role to play in governance and sometimes a negative one. I'm thinking here of a paper written by Bert Spector in 2002 claiming the HR was the unindicted co-conspiritor in Enron because of its advocacy of a certain brand of McKinsey-style talent management.
Our focus in the chapter, probably quite apposite given the UK Government's 'nationalisation' of some of the UK banks to inject more responsible management (see John Kay's insightful comments on Newsnight last night), is to look at this issue in the public sector, particularly healthcare. To help us think about this issue, we've adapted some excellent work by Jaap Paauwe on four faces of governance and its relationship to risk. Our adaptation, which we have illustrated with material from current research into the Scottish healthcare system, shows how governance of the HR function itself - how it is organized and led - play directly into the 'three pillars of governance' in healthcare. Firstly, it does so by shaping staff governance (or climate governance) - the ways in which staff are encouraged to participate and exercise voice in their organizations. Secondly, staff governance has an obvious and important impact on clinical governance - the balancing of innovation in heathcare with risks to patient safety etc. Innovation is key to creating public value in any 'enterprising' public service, but there are often real risks to innovation that must be governed effectively (the banks have suffered from this because senior managers didn't seem to know what was going on in their innovations in the wholesale banking market for which they were responsible). Finally, clinical and staff governance directly impacts on the third pillar of financial governance, which in turn refracts back on these two other pillars. How NHS boards (with many lay members) are selected, developed and performance managed will have an enormous influence on the management of innovation in healthcare. In turn, the costs and demands by professional for greater innovation will impact on financial prudence among these authorities.
Our key message is that HR at a strategic level has to understand these causal links, and has to manage its own house to make an impact on these three pillars of governance in healthcare and in other industries. All three rely on effective people management, but aren't always seen as part of HRs role. HR should 'step up to the plate' to help make their organizations legitimate as well as different, which are the two central objectives of reputation management. As an aside, a good starting point for understanding the governance problems of the financial services industry would be to read Niall Ferguson's excellent book, 'The Ascent of Money', which was my Xmas reading and why I haven't had time to post
Our focus in the chapter, probably quite apposite given the UK Government's 'nationalisation' of some of the UK banks to inject more responsible management (see John Kay's insightful comments on Newsnight last night), is to look at this issue in the public sector, particularly healthcare. To help us think about this issue, we've adapted some excellent work by Jaap Paauwe on four faces of governance and its relationship to risk. Our adaptation, which we have illustrated with material from current research into the Scottish healthcare system, shows how governance of the HR function itself - how it is organized and led - play directly into the 'three pillars of governance' in healthcare. Firstly, it does so by shaping staff governance (or climate governance) - the ways in which staff are encouraged to participate and exercise voice in their organizations. Secondly, staff governance has an obvious and important impact on clinical governance - the balancing of innovation in heathcare with risks to patient safety etc. Innovation is key to creating public value in any 'enterprising' public service, but there are often real risks to innovation that must be governed effectively (the banks have suffered from this because senior managers didn't seem to know what was going on in their innovations in the wholesale banking market for which they were responsible). Finally, clinical and staff governance directly impacts on the third pillar of financial governance, which in turn refracts back on these two other pillars. How NHS boards (with many lay members) are selected, developed and performance managed will have an enormous influence on the management of innovation in healthcare. In turn, the costs and demands by professional for greater innovation will impact on financial prudence among these authorities.
Our key message is that HR at a strategic level has to understand these causal links, and has to manage its own house to make an impact on these three pillars of governance in healthcare and in other industries. All three rely on effective people management, but aren't always seen as part of HRs role. HR should 'step up to the plate' to help make their organizations legitimate as well as different, which are the two central objectives of reputation management. As an aside, a good starting point for understanding the governance problems of the financial services industry would be to read Niall Ferguson's excellent book, 'The Ascent of Money', which was my Xmas reading and why I haven't had time to post
Race Questions
Today is Martin Luther King Jr. day. In preparation for this, Offspring #1's kindergarten class read a story about Marin Luther King Jr. She came home and told me all about it. And then she had some questions.
"Mom, are we white?" This was a sincere question, by the way.
"Yes, we're white."
pause
"Is Katelyn white?" Katlyn is the blond haired, blue eyed, neighbor girl of Scandinavian descent who, frankly, could be the poster child for white folks.
"Yes," I said. She doesn't really know what it means to be white or black. We've never talked about the concept. I decide to explain.
"Steve is black," I said, referring to an adult family friend.
Ahh, the dawning of recognition. "Samuel is black!" she said, excitedly.
"Yes," I said, "Samuel has dark skin, but his dad is black and his mom is white." Oops, I've introduced another layer of confusion, because the next question was;
"Is Mr. Baby black?" Mr. Baby happens to also be known as offspring #2. He has the same skin tones as the rest of the family. I explained.
"Oh," she said. And she was done with the questions.
She's 5 and contrary to what you might think from this story very bright. (Not that I'm biased in any way.) We've never talked about race. She's had friends and teachers of all races. It was clear that she had never given one moment's thought to why some people's skin colors were different than others.
Which makes me wonder; By talking and teaching about people's differences, does it make it more difficult to see how they are all the same? Does it lump people into groups that they shouldn't be lumped into? If we divide people up by color and pat ourselves on the back for increasing our diversity, have we really diversified anything? Or have we just made everyone suddenly very conscious of their skin color and the skin color of those around us?
I'm pretty sure Offspring #1 considered skin color something similar to hair color. Lots of differences, but not a big deal. If we start focusing on how skin tones make us different, then don't we end up falling into stereotypes? Katelyn must be like this because she's white and Samuel must be like this because he's black.
Reality is, both friends Katelyn and Samuel are being raised in the same town by parents of very similar economic status. They attend the same public school system. These things are going to lead them to be more alike than different. The big differences between Katelyn and Samuel will be found in things that have nothing to do with skin color. For instance, Katelyn has one little sister. Samuel is the second youngest of 8. Katelyn attends one church; Samuel another. Katelyn takes dance. Samuel plays soccer. Katelyn is up at the crack of dawn. Samuel's mother has to drag him out of bed every morning.
Many businesses are required to report on race. We have Affirmative Action plans that we are required to present and show "improvement" on. Doesn't this just turn us from looking at who someone really is and push us towards making judgments based on skin color? In one breath we tell managers to hire the best person for the job. In the next we say, "minorities are underrepresented in your department." How can that not influence a hiring decision.
I'm glad Offspring #1 has learned about Martin Luther King Jr. And, in fact, we are heading to a day of service in his honor this morning. I'm glad things have changed over the years. I'm not sure, however, the emphasizing differences is the best way to go about it.
"Mom, are we white?" This was a sincere question, by the way.
"Yes, we're white."
pause
"Is Katelyn white?" Katlyn is the blond haired, blue eyed, neighbor girl of Scandinavian descent who, frankly, could be the poster child for white folks.
"Yes," I said. She doesn't really know what it means to be white or black. We've never talked about the concept. I decide to explain.
"Steve is black," I said, referring to an adult family friend.
Ahh, the dawning of recognition. "Samuel is black!" she said, excitedly.
"Yes," I said, "Samuel has dark skin, but his dad is black and his mom is white." Oops, I've introduced another layer of confusion, because the next question was;
"Is Mr. Baby black?" Mr. Baby happens to also be known as offspring #2. He has the same skin tones as the rest of the family. I explained.
"Oh," she said. And she was done with the questions.
She's 5 and contrary to what you might think from this story very bright. (Not that I'm biased in any way.) We've never talked about race. She's had friends and teachers of all races. It was clear that she had never given one moment's thought to why some people's skin colors were different than others.
Which makes me wonder; By talking and teaching about people's differences, does it make it more difficult to see how they are all the same? Does it lump people into groups that they shouldn't be lumped into? If we divide people up by color and pat ourselves on the back for increasing our diversity, have we really diversified anything? Or have we just made everyone suddenly very conscious of their skin color and the skin color of those around us?
I'm pretty sure Offspring #1 considered skin color something similar to hair color. Lots of differences, but not a big deal. If we start focusing on how skin tones make us different, then don't we end up falling into stereotypes? Katelyn must be like this because she's white and Samuel must be like this because he's black.
Reality is, both friends Katelyn and Samuel are being raised in the same town by parents of very similar economic status. They attend the same public school system. These things are going to lead them to be more alike than different. The big differences between Katelyn and Samuel will be found in things that have nothing to do with skin color. For instance, Katelyn has one little sister. Samuel is the second youngest of 8. Katelyn attends one church; Samuel another. Katelyn takes dance. Samuel plays soccer. Katelyn is up at the crack of dawn. Samuel's mother has to drag him out of bed every morning.
Many businesses are required to report on race. We have Affirmative Action plans that we are required to present and show "improvement" on. Doesn't this just turn us from looking at who someone really is and push us towards making judgments based on skin color? In one breath we tell managers to hire the best person for the job. In the next we say, "minorities are underrepresented in your department." How can that not influence a hiring decision.
I'm glad Offspring #1 has learned about Martin Luther King Jr. And, in fact, we are heading to a day of service in his honor this morning. I'm glad things have changed over the years. I'm not sure, however, the emphasizing differences is the best way to go about it.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Respond to Every LinkedIn Query?
Dear Liz,What's the protocol associated with responding to LinkedIn requests?
I respond to most of them, but some of them are off the wall. If I
get a piece of LinkedIn mail from a non-connection that seems like
dreck, I deep-six it. Should I be responding to everything I get on
LinkedIn?
Yours,
Kaylie
Dear Kaylie,
Great question! Most of the mail on LinkedIn moves between first-
degree connections - it's those connected people communicating with
one another, or more distant connections being introduced by their
intermediate contacts. I think you need to respond to all of those.
If you have a first-degree connection who really shouldn't be your
connection, you can snip the cord without too much trouble.
As for InMail from un-connected LinkedIn users, I think it depends.
If it's pure spam, delete it. I have one in my inbox I'm sitting on
right now. It's not spam but it pushes the bounds of my tolerance for
the kind of presumption that borders on bad manners. I don't really
feel like responding but I don't want to be rude, either.
A guy has asked me to come and speak at a conference in Dubai in
June, and says "I know it's a long way to come and present, although
if you have travel plans in the area at the time it may be feasible"
-- and then, presuming that I won't be able to make it, asks me for
helping finding speakers. Who want to get to Dubai under their own
steam to speak at this conference. In June, when the temperature in
Dubai averages between 104 and 107. Yeah, I'm deleting that message.
Your "delete" finger has a voice of its own. I say let it ring!
Cheers,
Liz
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Super Secret HR Stuff
I've gotten a few questions lately that ask about "secret" HR stuff. So, I've decided to spill the secret HR beans and blab about all our secret handshakes and stuff. Except if there are any, no one has given them to me. I suppose this is because I don't belong to SHRM. Why? My employer won't pay for it and I'm too cheap to join myself. So, there's a secret for you!
The first question deals with a woman who fought the HR director and lost and then was coincidentally laid off shortly thereafter. In the past she's had no problem finding new jobs, but now the interviews go well, but then no one ever calls back. She asks:
The real question - the HR recruiter from my last company is well connected with recruiters all over the Bay Area which I can tell from our connected LinkedIn accounts. Is there a protected website for HR professionals where references are available that are not the type that would be given on the phone? Negative references that could lead to lawsuits? I just have this feeling that something else is in play here that I have no control over.
No secret, password protected sites that I'm aware of. (Again, maybe I just am not evil enough to get the passwords.) But, what you can do is follow up with the companies you interviewed with. Don't be pushy, but inquire about the position. If you really believe it's because of a negative reference from this woman, have a friend call her up and ask her for a reference for you.
If the reference is negative, you can then deal with that. If it's positive or neutral (many companies have policies against giving references--managers don't follow that but HR does), that's not your problem.
But keep in mind--the economy isn't going well. There are tons of applicants on the market and companies are sometimes hesitant to hire if they are afraid they will have to fire later. Also, make sure you provide references. Not everyone will restrict themselves to just calling people on the list, but many will. Control as much of the process as you can.
The next secret HR dealt with tattling to the authorities:
I recently applied for a job and as par for the course was required to consent to a criminal background check, credit check, physical.... Everything, it seems, except my blood, which i might add.... They took. Anyway, I'm worried that I may have a bench warrant from over ten years ago for a traffic violations. My question to you is, if this is true, can my prospective employer notify the local authorities?
Sure they can! Your neighbor can too. I don't know anyone that would--for traffic violations. Sure, if it comes up that you are wanted for armed robbery, I'd make that phone call myself. (Although I don't know how our attorneys would feel about that, but frankly, I'm more afraid of armed robbers than attorneys.)
Your real concern is that you've got something in your past you don't want to come out. Why not deal with it head on? Hire an attorney and have him contact the state in question and see what can be done to clear up your little mess. Pay your fines, take your punishment and get on with life. I don't know how bad this is, but I imagine the state would rather get money from you than throw you in jail, so why not face it head on and get over it?
HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If you get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire you in the first place because you might come after us when we eventually fire you.
So, deal with it and then you can stop worrying. Unless you are applying for a driving job, people don't care about traffic tickets. We do care if warrant comes up for you in a background check because that scares us a little. If we could legally not hire you because of it, I honestly don't know. Probably not. But, still, take care of it.
So, now you have learned some super secret HR stuff. Hope it helps.
The first question deals with a woman who fought the HR director and lost and then was coincidentally laid off shortly thereafter. In the past she's had no problem finding new jobs, but now the interviews go well, but then no one ever calls back. She asks:
The real question - the HR recruiter from my last company is well connected with recruiters all over the Bay Area which I can tell from our connected LinkedIn accounts. Is there a protected website for HR professionals where references are available that are not the type that would be given on the phone? Negative references that could lead to lawsuits? I just have this feeling that something else is in play here that I have no control over.
No secret, password protected sites that I'm aware of. (Again, maybe I just am not evil enough to get the passwords.) But, what you can do is follow up with the companies you interviewed with. Don't be pushy, but inquire about the position. If you really believe it's because of a negative reference from this woman, have a friend call her up and ask her for a reference for you.
If the reference is negative, you can then deal with that. If it's positive or neutral (many companies have policies against giving references--managers don't follow that but HR does), that's not your problem.
But keep in mind--the economy isn't going well. There are tons of applicants on the market and companies are sometimes hesitant to hire if they are afraid they will have to fire later. Also, make sure you provide references. Not everyone will restrict themselves to just calling people on the list, but many will. Control as much of the process as you can.
The next secret HR dealt with tattling to the authorities:
I recently applied for a job and as par for the course was required to consent to a criminal background check, credit check, physical.... Everything, it seems, except my blood, which i might add.... They took. Anyway, I'm worried that I may have a bench warrant from over ten years ago for a traffic violations. My question to you is, if this is true, can my prospective employer notify the local authorities?
Sure they can! Your neighbor can too. I don't know anyone that would--for traffic violations. Sure, if it comes up that you are wanted for armed robbery, I'd make that phone call myself. (Although I don't know how our attorneys would feel about that, but frankly, I'm more afraid of armed robbers than attorneys.)
Your real concern is that you've got something in your past you don't want to come out. Why not deal with it head on? Hire an attorney and have him contact the state in question and see what can be done to clear up your little mess. Pay your fines, take your punishment and get on with life. I don't know how bad this is, but I imagine the state would rather get money from you than throw you in jail, so why not face it head on and get over it?
HR really isn't in the business of law enforcement. We run background checks because we don't want bad people working for and with us. If you get angry and go shooting people up, we don't want to hire you in the first place because you might come after us when we eventually fire you.
So, deal with it and then you can stop worrying. Unless you are applying for a driving job, people don't care about traffic tickets. We do care if warrant comes up for you in a background check because that scares us a little. If we could legally not hire you because of it, I honestly don't know. Probably not. But, still, take care of it.
So, now you have learned some super secret HR stuff. Hope it helps.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
You've Been Upgraded
The Workplace Professor Blog brought a fabulous new way to label a termination to my attention: To Upgrade. As you've been upgraded immediately so you can go get a new job.
Seriously. Come on, people, this is an embarrassment to a grim reaper like me.
Seriously. Come on, people, this is an embarrassment to a grim reaper like me.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
When HR Should Act To Save Money
Phillis Dewitt was fired from her job as a nurse. The hospital maintains it was due to insubordination. Dewitt claims it was because her husband was dying of prostate cancer and costing the hospital a boatload in insurance claims.
Obviously, I wasn't involved in any termination discussions, but I imagine HR was. And perhaps they were overridden in any objections, but this is a situation where HR needs to be assertive and lay out the problems with a termination in this situation.
1. Employment in most situations (and no union was mentioned in the article) is at-will. This means that you can quit or be fired whenever. No warning. No severance. No notice. In practice, this hardly ever happens. The hospital had a practice following a formal disciplinary protocol. This was ignored in Dewitt's case. HR should say, "We understand that she was insubordinate, but we have to treat everyone the same."
2. Managers, even ones with medical knowledge, should not be suggesting that someone's spouse enter hospice care. Hospice is end of life care. It is deciding that it is time to let go and not attempt to prolong life. The manager claims she was trying to be compassionate. I would buy this if she didn't turn around and fire Dewitt for not coming in for a meeting while she was on a scheduled vacation. HR should say, "We understand that you believe they are making the wrong choices and that those choices are costing the company money, but this is not an area which you should be involved. If her performance suffers, then we'll talk about how to handle this. But, you are not to attempt to influence medical decisions."
3. Except in extreme circumstances, employees can opt for COBRA to continue their health coverage. Which Dewitt did. Therefore, the company only saved the $900 a month that Dewitt paid in, to keep coverage that was costing over $100,000 a year. HR should say, "You realize that this termination is highly suspect and will not save the company any money due to COBRA anyway."
4. For the reasons above, this termination is a law suit waiting to happen. The reality is, whether the hospital was legally justified in terminating this employee, HR should have brought the following information to the attention of the decision makers:
Any HR person worth her paycheck should have been able to present the above. Sure, she could be overridden (and I hope HR did the above, because otherwise they don't deserve to be respected).
This is a situation where keeping the employee working is actually cheaper than the "cost-saving firing." This is true even if Dewitt deserved to be fired. I certainly can't speak to that, but there are costs to terminating people that HR should understand.
(Via The Happy Hospitalist.)
Obviously, I wasn't involved in any termination discussions, but I imagine HR was. And perhaps they were overridden in any objections, but this is a situation where HR needs to be assertive and lay out the problems with a termination in this situation.
1. Employment in most situations (and no union was mentioned in the article) is at-will. This means that you can quit or be fired whenever. No warning. No severance. No notice. In practice, this hardly ever happens. The hospital had a practice following a formal disciplinary protocol. This was ignored in Dewitt's case. HR should say, "We understand that she was insubordinate, but we have to treat everyone the same."
2. Managers, even ones with medical knowledge, should not be suggesting that someone's spouse enter hospice care. Hospice is end of life care. It is deciding that it is time to let go and not attempt to prolong life. The manager claims she was trying to be compassionate. I would buy this if she didn't turn around and fire Dewitt for not coming in for a meeting while she was on a scheduled vacation. HR should say, "We understand that you believe they are making the wrong choices and that those choices are costing the company money, but this is not an area which you should be involved. If her performance suffers, then we'll talk about how to handle this. But, you are not to attempt to influence medical decisions."
3. Except in extreme circumstances, employees can opt for COBRA to continue their health coverage. Which Dewitt did. Therefore, the company only saved the $900 a month that Dewitt paid in, to keep coverage that was costing over $100,000 a year. HR should say, "You realize that this termination is highly suspect and will not save the company any money due to COBRA anyway."
4. For the reasons above, this termination is a law suit waiting to happen. The reality is, whether the hospital was legally justified in terminating this employee, HR should have brought the following information to the attention of the decision makers:
The termination did not follow policy. The employee is highly likely to sue. Lawsuits, whether successful or not, are very expensive. Expect to spend several hundred thousand dollars defending a lawsuit of this nature. The employee is highly likely to opt for COBRA, therefore the savings you hope to achieve by termination will not happen. This termination is a knee-jerk reaction to a financial problem. Any proposed solution will end up costing more than allowing the employee to continue working. This is a public affairs nightmare. This is the type of story the media will pick up on. This will go public.
Any HR person worth her paycheck should have been able to present the above. Sure, she could be overridden (and I hope HR did the above, because otherwise they don't deserve to be respected).
This is a situation where keeping the employee working is actually cheaper than the "cost-saving firing." This is true even if Dewitt deserved to be fired. I certainly can't speak to that, but there are costs to terminating people that HR should understand.
(Via The Happy Hospitalist.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)