Sunday, January 31, 2010

HR Today

Friday I was at an HR case competition downtown. I didn't win for a number of reasons, but I did get to watch the winning presentations, and I had some thoughts to share.

Here's the thing with HR, most people see us as the people you go to to get hired, get paid, and get fired. Periodically we'll plan a social like a BBQ or some company outing. I try to dispel that whenever I can, but obviously there are also the HR professionals who think this is all we do.

Anyway, Context: the case was about Google and insuring that they maintain the level of innovation even with a growing number of employees (i.e. they fear bureaucracy and anonymity within the organization).

Both winning groups suggested some type of physical activity. One suggested an idea of a Google Cup (an international sports league where offices from different parts of the world compete) and the other suggested a survival weekend type thing. So ok, going beyond the insanity of planning the logistics of an athletic event involving 20,000 people, and beyond the fact that a league could not possibly include all the employees in an office, making it a completely ineffective solution... Let's talk a little about discrimination.

White water rafting? Camping? Soccer? Again, let's ignore the fact that as techies, most are probably not athletes. However, as a stationary position that requires only a highly skilled employee, this type of work is something that people with disabilities enter into as a non-physical job. So basically, the only way we can get people to bond with each other is to exclude people with a disability or limited in a way that will mean that while everyone else is out white water rafting and camping and playing soccer, they'll be sitting on the sidelines, or getting done the work everyone else left behind?

Bitch, please.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Mickey D shells out to wronged employee


Two things astound me here, (1) a manager unilaterally dismissed an employee over a slice of cheese; and (2) the corporation backed up the manager's nonsensical dismissal with an even more nonsensical defense.

Context: a contract employee at McDolands in the Netherlands was fired because she gave another employee a slice of cheese on their burger for free. She sued.

McDoland's defense: she shouldn't have done that.

She won.

This is a perfect example of why everyone needs HR. If they had an HR person, or had given their manager minimal training in HR, or their lawyers minimal training in employment law, they could have avoided having to pay the employee 5 months pay (her full expected salary at the end of the contract) as well as the costly court fees. Was this her first offence? Had she had written notices before? Was it stated in her contract that one violation would constitute dismissal? Was there a dismiss at will clause?

The ignorance.

-------
Link to article for those interested

HR In the worldplace

Today I had coffee with the VP HR at LoyaltyOne. We talked a lot about the position HR tends to get in the workplace, and the stigma people have about HR professionals (being sappy social workers) and how to deal with it.

It brought back to the forefront of my mind just how much work an HR person has to do to be seen as an equal in the business world. It's really rare for HR to be a strategic partner like the wonderful folks at LoyaltyOne. One thing that came up today that I think I've avoided thinking about however, is the fault of people in HR for these stigmas. When HR started out, it consisted of people who knew nothing of HR, they were accountants and marketers and engineers. So there couldn't have been that stereotype that HR people are thoughtless and have no understanding of the rest of the organization - because they'd come from other departments!

So what must have happened is the people who began training in social work, sociology, and psychology that came into HR by way of other positions and generally in my understanding through fluke that had no knowledge of other aspects of the business. They didn't know about any aspect of business because they'd come from another field - they were specialists. So I guess from that grew the assumption that we're all social workers who hire, fire, and pay employees, and the most we contribute is planning the annual company BBQ.

But today's meeting also motivated me, since I'm seeing more and more people going into HR understanding the strategic role it plays, rather than the people who go into it because they want to be in business but don't like math. Whatever, you guys make me look better.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Change of pace


So I've been thinking that I want this blog to change direction a little. It will still be me ranting about the various bits of news I hear and read, but from a slightly different angle. As I mentioned in my previous post, I am an HR person, and I've come to realize that everything I see in the world is through those lenses, so I'll be focusing now on issues that affect work and workers, because that's really where my passion is.

The funny thing is that everything affects work and workers, and why HR is just so awesome.

Take Haiti for example, fundraisers are asking people to stop sending goods over as donations because they're struggling to manage the volume and often they need to throw much of the donations (why would you send gloves to Haiti??). Instead they're asking people to send more money, which they can use to buy goods in Haiti, thus getting what they need and supporting the economy.

I find this incredible, that people, even in such catastrophic situations, still find ways to establish a business! If more people here had that kind of a drive, Canada would not be considered such a non-competitive country. I think they should be rewarding these businesses somehow, that have managed to withstand 2 massive earthquakes and the collapse of the entire social structure of the country in which they operate.

Just wow. HR - It's everywhere!!!

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Who should speak out about those high bonuses

I realize this may be a belated response to the high bonuses on wall street, and certainly I don't care as much as Americans, as it wasn't my tax dollars that went to those little vampires (well I would have voted Clinton, and she'd have arrested those guys). However, for all the people that have been angrily speaking out against this, there is one group that has remained silent, whereas I feel they would have had the greater impact on the validity of those bonuses. So the reason I'm blogging about this today and not last year is because I couldn't think of that group, I just felt there was something missing.

Context: I'm an HR professional.

The group I'm thinking of is, of course, HR professionals. We have the experts in motivation - what will make a worker work harder, what will make a worker loyal to the company, what can we do to keep them from leaving? Thing is, any HR person worth their salt, and even most who aren't, would tell you that at a certain point, money is just not that significant. If you're making 50,000 a year, getting a 10,000 dollar bonus is incredible. It's maybe 5 mortgage payments, a family vacation, a small kitchen renovation, or just huge investment in your retirement. If you're making 40,000,000 a year, and you get another 10,000,000... What are you going to use that for that you couldn't do with the first 40? It's lunacy to suggest that these bonuses are required to keep talent, if that's the only thing keeping your mercenaries employees loyal, then you need to reevaluate your hiring and retention practices.

So I'm calling out HR associations everywhere to call these people out on their bluff, and get those poor people their money back.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Haiti Donations

As with everything else on this blog, this is about my beef, in this case, with Haiti donations. Thing is, I have no beef with people opening their hearts and wallets to people who have been made destitute by a terrible natural disaster, and certainly the people of Haiti appreciate the love coming in from all directions. That said however, money, from all the reports coming in from Haiti, is not an issue. The issue is that people are making roadblocks out of dead bodies, and people otherwise accidentally or on purpose blocking the roads and are keeping the tons of help from reaching those who need it. Not a lack of resources, an inability to effectively deploy them. That's where the help is needed. So overloading the Red Cross' servers with donations will not help the Haitians, not now. They need to use those resources before more resources would be of any use.

I really hate it when people think they see something atrocious in the world, and all they need to make themselves sleep well at night is to donate a couple bucks in their direction. As someone who's worked in the charity fundraising industry, I know that charities essentially don't care why people are giving so long as they are, but I don't think that's a good long term approach. Guilt will only take people so far. I doubt there will be an increase in long term donors to programs such as child sponsorships for children in Haiti. These are all short term, while they're thinking about it donations. Until charities make people care about these people's lives (through more than just guilt) and prove to their donors all donations are stretched to the nth degree, they will never have enough, and continue to having to rely on these tragic events to generate the bulk of their funds. That said, scientists say the severity and frequency of these will increase, so maybe they're just counting on that.

Well, that rant went in a wholly different direction, but yeah, it's not really Haiti specific. I mean, where did all those donations go a year after Katrina? New Orleans is still in many ways in the same place we left it for the next donation fad.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Obama's first year

To be honest I'm not impressed. Firstly, allow me to apologize for the lengthy lack of posting, last semester was just too much. So, moving on to other disappointments...

Now, unlike many Obamanatics, I had fairly reasonable expectations, I'd say. First, don't fuck up even more than Bush. That country is already is a world of pain, and they don't need any more, not to mention the rest of the world could use a rest from American conquests. I did not expect him to immediately pull out of Iraq, just not make things worse, and see if he can think of a plan of eventually making it better. Second, I expected him to deal with all the really easy stuff that really just takes his signature, like the Don't Ask Don't Tell nonsense they make their hard working soldiers go through. Not gay marriage or any sort of huge queer revolution, Americans aren't ready for that it seems, but at least leave your soldiers alone and let them serve. All it takes is a signature! ONE! YOURS! Finally, the economy. I didn't expect him to be able to fix the economy soon, and to be honest this is probably great for Canada in the long term, because businesses are learning the hard way you can't put all your eggs in one basket. I did however expect him to be a LITTLE tougher on the lunatics that caused this mess. They're still getting billion dollar bonuses when they should be in jail.

So in his first year, he shirked many of his campaign promises (so much for Change), refused to do things that would make huge impacts and would require virtually no effort or time on his part, and established himself as a puppet to Wall St (and you thought that was Republican exclusive!).

I feel confident now more than ever that America should have voted for Clinton. She'd have kicked ass and taken names. Obama's a peacetime leader, he's no warrior.