The Immigration Dillemma

I think the biggest HR issue facing Canada is immigration. Here's why - our workforce is aging, yes? There is going to be, in the next few years, a tremendous demand for knowledge workers and labourers as they retire. There will be an insufficient amount of workers to fill the void.
This is all, pardon the pun, old news.

So if this is such an impending disaster, why is it that the think tanks that hide behind Harper, and the great minds behind other developed countries experiencing the same problem in the US and Europe remain adamant on keeping qualified immigrants at bay? They are allowed to immigrate as qualified professionals, and then prevented from working in their chosen field. On what planet does that make sense? Either tell them upfront they have no chance of finding relevant work for a few years upon arrival, or better yet, make a better effort at helping these people find work, or if need be convert their skills to ones that are usable. For example, it is pretty obvious that you can't just walk in from another country and be a doctor - the law is different, the language may be different, etc. But at the same time, they should not be starting from scratch, either.

Would your employer be ok with you complaining about a problem that you have a solution for, just would rather not implement it, or implement it badly? The answer is that you would be fired. Especially with the amount of money and lives on the line.

Work Life Balance

There are a couple of employees where I work that have taken it upon themselves to earn as much money as possible while employed there. Unfortunately, the pay is hourly. So if you want more money, you need to be there longer. To that effect, they've been working up to 60 hours - in 3-4 days. That's around 20 hours a DAY. In a single DAY. Keep in mind, while the pay isn't sky high, it's not like it's unfair pay. It's simply a low level job with requires little qualifications. So one alternative if one wishes to be compensated better, would be to find other work at a more agreeable rate. Anyway, there are at least 4 people I know of that have done that in the last month, and one of them has a little girl at home.

I don't know if my intent at the beginning of this was to make this a formal blog, wherein I pose a problem and suggest a solution, or if I just wanted to vent about how insane that is. The thing is that, legally, they're doing it purely of their own volition. But at the same time, maybe not. One girl's shift finishes in the middle of the night, so she opts to stay back a few hours so she can go home in the sunlight. One woman is trying to make ends meet for her kid. If there were mechanisms in place to support these people so they can feel safe walking home, so they do not feel forced to work obscene hours to pay rent or get their kid braces, if there isn't as much pressure from a severely understaffed department to pull overtime, maybe they wouldn't work 20 hours a day.

At the end of the day it really does make me sad that people have to choose between enjoying life and affording it. I've been quite fortunate in that I've lived a frugal life and know how to make due with even the smallest paycheque, but my lifestyle is certainly not for everyone, especially not ones with dependants. What is most disturbing is that we are not paid minimum wage - we're not even unionized, so our cheques are far higher than they could be otherwise, even if we just work the minimum.

It's days like today when I'm reminded why the minimum wage is in place. That said, perhaps the Labour Board has it wrong when they only require written approval to work longer than 60 hours/week. Even to bring it down to 55 would make a difference, in my humble opinion. And perhaps requiring that if someone is leaving the office late in the night, they receive some kind of escort to their car or to the bus, especially since there is enough legal precedent that if something were to happen while they're getting home, the employer could easily be liable.

Sometimes it can be frustrating to know what we know as HR professionals.

/rant.

Self Branding Part 3 - Online Image

So you've made the changes to your resume and cover letter, and they're both stellar and fit the job like a glove. But have you Googled yourself lately? What comes up? When I looked up my name I saw my LinkedIn profile, a few articles I wrote in university, and my name showed up in a couple of websites for clubs I was a member of where I tutored other students. My Facebook page didn't come up. Neither did Twitter, or pictures of me getting drunk or whatever else people post on the Internet for the whole world to see these days.

Thing is, if you live in a civilized society, you have an online presence. You can either use it to show your friends how last week you did a keg stand at a frat party, or you can show off your skills and interests in a way that shows a potential employer who you are as a well rounded person. The other alternative - keep that stuff private, but if you choose that alternative, keep in mind sites like Facebook offer products called Master Keys which, upon payment, provide the purchaser with access to all Facebook content, including the keg stand you placed under a high privacy setting. The other thing to remember is if someone posts a picture of you on Facebook and you're tagged, but their privacy setting is low, that picture might even show up on a Google search.

As for how to shape your online image, the tip most recommended is to think, when you're posting something, "would I want my boss to see this?" I don't think that's necessarily how you have to operate, because I feel for most people it's extremely constricting. Especially since careers span many organizations now, and what one organization or boss may be ok with, another may find unacceptable. An alternative is to think about it is "is this an accurate representation of who I am?" For example, if you have never done a keg stand before and have no intention of doing it again, it's a fairly inadequate representation of you. To a certain extent, most organizations do understand that there's a difference between work you and after-work you, but it really depends on each company. If the stuff online is who you are, it will come through at work one way or another, and would indicate if it's a good fit or not from the start.

As a final note (or recap, I suppose) is just to make sure you're consistent throughout - if you have a logo, spread it around, try to use the same colours if you have a blog or something where you can change it around, etc. And above else, to thine self be true :)

Happy hunting.

Self Branding Part 2 - the cover letter

I've seen some interesting cover letters in my time. My work in manufacturing guaranteed I'd have stories for life. The biggest issue though, is that many people misinterpret the purpose of a cover letter. It is not just a summary of your resume in sentences, it is an illustration of who you are outside of the resume, it is connecting the dots outlined in the resume in a way that makes you (a) a human being (b) of interest. So it is even more important that you highlight anything memorable about you in it, including, if you've chosen to undertake the task, your self brand.

In some ways you can get pretty creative with the cover letter in that way. You can incorporate the style of the brand into the content of the letter, using even the verbiage of the letter to remind the reader of who you are. The main point is consistency. If you've chosen to brand, just make sure it's highlighted on every piece of literature you submit to the company, so they can connect the resume, cover letter, and whatever else you send them.

And of course, make sure it's consistently good, too. The biggest mistake you can make is spend 90% of the time you devote to job searching just refining and tweaking your brand, because at the end of the day HR still does read the resumes and cover letters of the people they hire (they just might not remember doing it at the interview). If your brand is fantastic, you'll get their attention, but if there's no content to back it up, you still won't get the job.


Up next, Self Branding Part 3 - online image.

Self Branding Part 1 - the resume

So from what I can tell, there isn't a substantial amount of information out there about self branding, and everything I do see is very self-motivated: I like self branding because I brand myself and like it - I am a product to be bought and sold, or I hate self branding because I oppose the idea in principle and am not a commodity. There's not much there in terms of an actual somewhat objective analysis as to what self branding might accomplish, in what circumstances it's appropriate, and what it may entail. So consider this a tutorial for those interested, this being part 1, the basics. When you don't know where to start, start with the resume.

Designer Callie England's application package. Self branding in action. 

Your resume is extremely important, in more than just the way most people think. Yes, it outlines your qualifications and skills, your experience, and expectations from a job, etc etc. It's vital to ensure your resume aligns with the expectations of the hiring manager, so on and so forth. This is all old news. What has changed over the past couple of years is the start of self branding on resumes.

The advantages of self branding on a resume are numerous, but mostly, it just means it's more eye catching and memorable than other resumes. When they're looking at a stack of resumes, sometimes it's even more important to just stand out in their mind rather than meet the qualifications. Wow them into forgetting you are missing a couple of their desired traits.

There are however, disadvantages as well. These can be avoided with well thought out branding strategies, but it's very important to keep them in mind when you're developing a self brand, or even considering it. If you don't have artistic talent, chances are your efforts will look contrived and juvenile. Your resume should look flawless, and  putting on any type of branding just for the sake of it, will likely lead the hiring manager to send your resume around the office as a laugh rather than a serious candidate. Second, you need to ALWAYS keep in mind the industry you're applying in, and the position you're applying for. If you're applying for a job at an ad agency, things like a well done brand will make you stick out, whereas if you're applying for a job in manufacturing, they might just think you're not the right fit for the job. Finally, it really just depends on who's reading it. If it's a manager in your department, they'll see it much differently than if someone from HR is reading it, or if it's just being screened through software. So find out as much as you can before sending anything in.

So really, it's not black and white. It's not, self branding is horrible, it's a way of getting something more about you across than a normal resume would, but it's also not the end all be all of applications, and without it you'd be lost. Make the right decision for your capabilities and industry choice.

That said, I am not a self branding expert. I am an HR Generalist, not a marketer, who would probably be able to give you tips on colour choices, shapes, and other ideas. What I can tell you is from an HR perspective, if you're going to use a self brand on your resume, make sure it's small enough so that the hiring manager doesn't think that you're just filling in dead space, and make it easy to read and understand, we're not marketers either.

Coming up, Part 2 - the cover letter

Illegal HR business practices

What do you do when your boss makes a lewd comment you find offensive? How about if they undercut your pay by not giving you your overtime? Have they somehow managed to pay you less than minimum wage? These are everyday situations many Canadians, and throughout the world have to go through, often alone. In certain places where I've worked, I was told the way to progress is to wear short skirts and low cut tops - certainly the women at the top proved this true; or paid less than the minimum, and so on and so forth. These situations tend to be known organization-wide. So if everyone knows about it, why does it continue?

Mostly, employees fear their jobs would be threatened, otherwise some organizations will simply just rely on their employees being too desperate for work to make waves, or people too invested in the company (a la the proverbial golden handcuffs) to leave. Other employees enjoy having the kind of power you have over a person when you can do something you know is wrong and suffer no consequences. Finally, many people know what has, over the years, become known as the whistleblower's curse, wherein you're commended for unveiling the evils of an organization, and rewarded with the inability to ever find work again.

The resolution? You know, it's really not that simple. Most cultures see the employment relationship as uneven, biased towards the employer, and for these situations to fade from the working world, cultures have to be rewritten to understand that authority does not mean unsurpassable power. So I suppose I'm not optimistic about eliminating this type of working relationship, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything we can do. 

We can, for example, make it easier for people to come forward. 

• All these protections we supposedly have for whistleblowers have to actually be in place and actionable. 
• Whenever an employee comes forward with an issue, it needs to be dealt with swiftly and publicly (within reason). 
• Make use of the new legislation changes to the Health and Safety Act (Bill 168) to make the steps for what to do if an employee suffers harassment or violence in the workplace clear and easy to follow. Make the most of the evaluations the Act requires you conduct.
• When in doubt, an open door policy is always in order. At least the employees should feel safe coming to HR with their issues.

As always, whatever the problem, HR is always part of the solution.

The economic recession and the latest job data

So it looks like we're not quite out of the storm yet. In fact, even though employment is up, it mostly consists of people who are underemployed (for example, I'm a university graduate currently working a job that requests a high school diploma). The situation is so dark for most people, that even the Ex, where jobs include cleaning up after the animals, and where every year since the Ex's inception they have been chronically understaffed, they have been turning away people by the THOUSAND.

This tidbit brought on a number of questions in my mind. Working at the Ex is something even (and usually only) high school students can do to earn some extra cash during the summer, there are absolutely no requirements other than, presumably, being legally allowed to work. So how does their HR staff, used to just go through the motions of interviews and such to give these kids work, decide who is best suited, based on their qualifications, to shovel shit? It puzzles me. Do they prefer those with additional education, as they are less likely to quit (as they probably have financial obligations more urgent than going out for ice cream and lattes with friends) even if the job sucks; or do they go with young people who would earn less money? Does previous experience matter? I suppose only if you've worked at the Ex before.

This lead me to the eventuality that there are many companies out there, who typically have no choice in their employees, because their positions are strenuous, unpleasant, and poorly paid, and are suddenly in a position where for the first time, they need to make actual hiring decisions.

What do you do when you're woefully unequipped to do the job you're paid to do?