Tag: HR

A recent article about small businesses outsourcing HR functions should come of no surprise to those in the HR field. With the legal complications involved in hiring, maintaining and ultimately terminanting employees taking its toll on small business operators, it is making much more sense to throw it to a PEO and let them take care of it.

These days, it is nearly insane for a small business to try to manage all of their own financials. They likely go the outsource route to outside accountants who take their scraped together financial documents, tell them what to do to maximize their deductions, and file their taxes for them. Now, HR is starting to go that way. Recruiting has been an indicator of that but now PEO’s are starting to go that way. The issue for HR departments everywhere?

Creep. Specifically, creep along the lines of routine job duties 30 years ago being too complicated for anyone other than specialists. Companies aren’t relying LESS on Accounting firms when they get bigger for the most part. As long as employing employees becomes more and more complicated (and with the slate of laws being considered from state to state until 2010, that is going to happen), more specialization is expected.

Now, of course, what is the big deal? After all, accountants are one of the highest recruited for positions in this country. The ever complicating tax code has given them leverage.

The issue is that working with a bunch of HR specialists in a Human Resources Office sounds like a special area of hell. Not only that, continuing education is going to become nearly required with advanced degrees becoming more and more standard. Can I see a test for HR managers wanting to enter the field? Oh yeah!

The issue, of course, is that it never had to go down this road. With a bit more partnership between business and government, we could avoid a significant portion of new legislation passed every year that makes it incredibly difficult for HR people to enter the field already.

Prediction for HR: more education, more training, more testing and more labor shortages. Of course, for all you smart guys out there, you’ve already figured that out since it is predicted for almost all semi-skilled/skilled profession in the US.

A recent trend in benefits is to pass some of the increasing costs of medical insurance to at risk employees. One of the easiest assailed groups are smokers. Not only are they easily identified but they are not faultless in their affliction (like some cases of obesity or cancer with genetic predispositions). The second reason is that smoking is verifiably expensive. A recent study cited the figure of 6–8% of total medical costs in the US is attributable to smoking and nearly one in five deaths can also be traced back to that cause. While 6–8% may sound like chump change, health care costs in the US comprise of 16% of our GDP. Or nearly two trillion dollars.

While workplace bans on smoking while at work isn’t uncommon in the new century, stricter methods have been put into place. In 2005, there was a well publicized case about an employer banning smoking outright as a condition of employment. And it is becoming more of a common practice to charge smokers more for health care coverage than their non-smoking colleagues.

This trend has outraged some rights groups while gaining applause from health groups and insurance companies. On one side, it is unfair to dictate what your employees do outside of work. Not only that, but there are greater risk factors where employers will not penalize an employee. For example, alcoholism may go untreated for years and may do damage far beyond that of moderate to light cigarette usage. On the other hand, employers want to find ways to decrease costs and maintain profitability. Discrimination on the basis of smoking is not against the law so employers are free to do as they please in this arena. And this sort of discrimination isn’t uncommon anymore. As an example, companies routinely give health care discounts to employees who participate in their wellness programs and discriminate against those who don’t participate.

Where do you come down on the issue? There are obviously very polar positions on the issue but there is definitely some middle ground. I’d like to hear your take on it before I post my next post in which I will go into my views in great detail.

Like many of you I am sure, I watched the first episode of American Idol. Of course, being the HR nerd I am, I began to think about if I could do this sort of interviewing style for jobs that I have open. I think the reason this is so attractive to people in my profession is that sometimes we die to give honest feedback to a candidate who needed just another step or two or someone who was way underqualified. I’d love to be able to say “that was awful” at the end of a bad interview. Of course, there are several reasons why judging singing is different than evaluating a candidate:

1. Candidates typically have a skill set that you can’t spot within 10–15 seconds of them opening their mouths and then confirm over the next minute and dismiss them abruptly
2. There are a few more consequences to choosing the wrong person or missing out on someone that was good because of your trigger fingered decisions
3. As you’ve seen on the show, people are in denial about their deficiencies. Even under the most honest conditions, the people who are often the worst will never be convinced of this or improve

That being said, there are some things we can learn from American Idol that does apply to the interview process:

1. Interviewers often have a hidden bias where they make snap decisions about a person before they even open their mouth. We aren’t interviewing pretty faces to be put on stage though so we must be aware of this bias.
2. Cut the interview short if it isn’t going well. You’ve seen people being cutoff before and some legal guys will probably shake their head in disagreement. If you have the awareness to make the following judgment during the interview, pull the plug and both of you get on with your lives with less time wasted: If the interview went perfectly from this point forward, I would still not hire this person based on past questions. If the answer is yes, you can probably find something to fill the extra 15–45 minutes.
3. Be honest with the candidate. As indicated above, many will not take your suggestions to heart but the few that you do connect with will often come back better equipped or refer people that they know because of your candor.

On second thought though, if you are going to be as honest as Simon Cowell, you may want to consult your legal department first. On the other hand, you probably shouldn’t tell your legal department about this post at all. If they hear I have suggested you subject your interviewees to a round of American Idol auditions, you may be “voted off” as they say in the biz.

I don’t know.

Okay, that is a lie. Fittingly enough, Wikipedia sums up the Web 2.0 question pretty nicely (itself, of course, being part of web 2.0). If you don’t feel like reading through that, I believe that the two bedrock principles of web 2.0 are collaboration through technology and using the web as a platform for programs.

There is quite a bit of talk about how this will change recruiting immensely. After all, the collaborative part sounds pretty sexy. And we have been promised so much! The end of newspapers, job boards and best of all, never having an open req that you can’t fill. Imagine being able to connect with all kinds of different people immediately. Being able to brand your company, have positive relationships with individuals and make contacts that make you a better recruiter.

Sounds pretty great, right?

Some recruiters are latching on to any web 2.0 tool out there (sometimes shelling out some significant money for it). And why wouldn’t you, especially if all you’re told is this is the wave of the future?

The problem is that these solutions are often incomplete. Let me lay out the typical steps here:

1. Web 2.0
2. ????????????
3. Success!

And that’s fine (and necessary) if you are an entrepreneur in a new technology field but if you’re a recruiter, that’s not going to help (at least not now). Whatever advantage you get is going to be focused on certain industries, in certain markets, with certain job types and still isn’t going to be all that fantastic. Even then though, there are still advantages to staying on the forward edge of technology and I do not wish to chastise those who spend their time (or money) doing this. I do this myself and no, I don’t have a self-hating personality.

If your organization is having a problem filling reqs, I am willing to bet that 99% of it is a human deficiency and 1% of it is a technology deficiency. That sounds awfully mean doesn’t it?

Most organizations with a great overall talent strategy aren’t struggling. Or, if they are struggling, they are struggling in ways that other companies wish they were struggling. Premiere companies (and ultimately the people) don’t struggle because they have good execution throughout their entire organization. They market their jobs like they do their products, recruit as much as they need, they on-board and train for ongoing success, they retain the people they need and they network constantly (and have been for years before social networking). That means missing one web 2.0 trend doesn’t kill them and if something big came up technology wise, they would have both the wisdom and experience to make the changes that align them. GE and Exxon didn’t die off when mailing or faxing resumes became a thing of the past.

Then there is the “other” category. These guys don’t have a great talent strategy. And “these guys” are a majority of the companies out there. Whenever you have a poor talent strategy, it is easy to point to technology as a culprit. It is easier to fix technology (or try to compensate with it) because it is more difficult to face the fact that your strategy needs work.

I guess my point is web 2.0 is still very targeted. If you want to get the most bang for your buck though, you can start by making your organization people focused and branding your company in the employment market. Web 2.0 will sift its way through and will probably come up with some great new deal that will help recruiting and possibly even change the way recruiters operate.

That time is not now though. While keeping a close eye on the upcoming technologies is worthwhile, keeping a closer eye on your processes, branding, networks and company culture is more important.

There is a fine line to be drawn between HR and recruiting and quite a bit has been discussed regarding these two. Some have said they should be separated and I think I can understand that. Recruiting can often be part of the brand experience of a company, it can be marketing and it can be sales all in one. Those three things are usually not associated with traditional HR departments. How strange could it be to try to shove recruiting into HR then? HR, the red-headed stepchild of either the Finance or Legal departments in an organization does not fit in with recruiting, the sexy, meaningful realization of marketing and brand awareness at the local level(s). After all, it is one thing to sell a product to a customer, it is quite another to sell a lifestyle, a work environment and a position to a potential employee.

So why do I think HR and recruiting are not only connected at the hip but have an incredibly close relationship in a “global economy”?

Simply stated, it is all part of the employee lifecycle. And managing that throughout with reasonable offers and expectations set in front, training and employee development, and exit planning so that recruiters can be prepared for the next batch of hiring.

When unplanned turnover happens, it is often (but not always) avoidable. And when turnover happens, it is a burden on a recruiter (who may already be sitting on several recs). Wouldn’t you rather have your recruiter working on new and high worth positions rather than scrambling to replace a guy that you could have retained? Whenever someone is recruited that ends up having avoidable job fit issues, wouldn’t you rather that the recruiter be closely aware of the issues and to work with traditional HR to either solve the issue or to move forward with someone else?

The biggest reason is that separating HR and recruiting will lead to mistakes in most organizations. Mistakes that are both burdening on the employee as well as on the company. Not only lost revenue but lost opportunity. And with the success of both HR and recruiting depending so much upon each other, there has to be a strong, departmental team.

The reason I post this now is because it is a conflict I see daily in my current position. And I know that as we get bigger, the problem and balancing only becomes more stated and more complex. And while it will always be a balance, it shouldn’t ever be a conflict. Because what is best for recruiting is best for HR and whatever is best for HR is best for recruiting.

There is one employment agency in town that runs some terrible advertisements for employment and I thought I should share with you. I am not going to share the name or location but I don’t think it really matters. Ugh:

Exuberant HVAC Service Technician
GOING FAST SERVICE TECHNICIANS! Clean driving record one minor infration ok if longer than two years. NEEDED dedicated workers, drug free, dependable, responsible does this sound like you get? WE WANT YOU! Call today before 10am or after 4pm. Ask for Mercedes or Rayn we are here to make the hiring process easy for you. Never a fee to you! So what are you waiting for apply online, fax your resume and call to make sure we received it again before 10am or after 4pm. We look forward to meeting with you!

Shipping and Receiving Clerk
Growing company looking for growing team of workers. Experienced in shipping and receiving clerk, plus refrigeration experience as shipping/receiving clerk. Do you enjoy working in a warehouse even in the winter but the best part you get paid! Are you dependable, responsible, team player, reliable? If yes, WE WANT YOU ! Apply online now. Call us after 4pm or before 10 am for inquiries about this position. Ask for Ryan or Mercedes please. Have an AWESOME week.

Dairy Wholesale Assistant
EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT! Medical benefits provided. Dreamy about numbers, fast pase, crazy phones, personable? Does this sound fun yet? AP/AR assistant and fast data entry at least 90 kmp or 5400 kmh. Awesome phone voice, and computer skills using windows based program, word, email, multi-task, order taker, filing, backup reception, attention to detail is a must, responsible for counting out route drivers deposits. In search of experienced assistant in a high volume office with 9 sales persons and responsible for calling 500 customers. Outstanding benefits and pay for the right canidiate! IS THIS YOU? Then apply on line and call us for an inquiry call

Dedicated Sheet Metal Worker
This a evualation to hirer position! Great company to work for. Competitive pay. Do you enjoy sheet metal ductwork using a variety of tools, including: bending, notching and forming machines, riveters; test manifolds, including guages and hoses, leak detection devices; portable vacuum pumps, piping and fittings of brass, copper, steel or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and sheet metal snips. Doesnt this position sound exciting with never ending challenges. Please, clean driving record only. Apply online and than call us for an inquiry call

Jack or Jill with many skills, and many hats
Looking for a little cash? Not a career position? Then you are the professional office personnel we our looking for? Do you like a crazy work environment, up beat, fun stress, answering phones, filing, taking messages for sale associates, stuffing envelopes, stuffing booklets, taking out the garbage. Starts at $7.63 hour, professional attire. Men: ties, dress shirt and slacks. Women: dress skirt suits, or dresses conservative in nature. Hours vary from week to week 4 hrs maybe 12 hours some weeks. Three line phone system. outstanding attention to detail, personable, awesome attitude. Does this sound fun yet? We wants you!

And I was going to highlight the good parts but it is pretty much all good. Or bad, depending on your view.