Ah … to be French!

My son Adam is in France, studying abroad this semester. He’s a Junior, and finally old enough, in my opinion, to handle the responsibility of a semester far, far away from home.

Well… all but the financial responsibility. That’s for dear Mom and Dad. And on the one hand, I’m very grateful we can scrape together the money to provide this experience. But on the other hand, I’m amazed that we’re actually doing it. The life this kid is living is soooo far from the one his parents (especially Mom here) could lay claim to at that age. Sometimes I wonder, how long will it last?

Because a lot has been written about how the United States is a country in the decline, writing checking for things we can’t afford using money from people (primarily middle class people like me) who can’t afford to give it.

It's an issue with HR written all over it. 

Yesterday, after I’d transferred money into Adam’s account, he emailed me (yes, we’re emailing again instead of texting—too expensive for the Mom who can’t afford a smart phone) thanking me and then asking what I want, because it’s that time of year when the French have mandated store sales, so hey, obviously now is the time to buy.

I was incredulous. Did I just read that correctly? Was this boy offering me a gift with my own money? And also—what?! The government tells store owners when to put merchandise on sale? What the heck?

So Adam confirmed that yes, it’s the law (and later I learned this period has a name, Les Soldes), and then he throws in a few other Frenchisms, like everyone (including Adam) has general insurance in case they break something in a store; and he’s now covered by two medical plans, because the French plan is mandatory; and somehow he also qualifies for French social security (or at least he has to register for it).

And it all sounds incredibly warm and cozy, and I kind of want to live there and get my free healthcare and 30 days of vacation, but I can’t help wondering who is paying for all this? 

Or is that just a dumb question and should Americans lighten up already and live a little? At 11.1% unemployment, the French are hurting, but so are we—and we’re way less thin and chic.

Dad Heads Off to Jail after Payroll Department Screws Up His Child Support Withholdings (or Something)

In my previous life as a Director of Human Resources, I was responsible for overseeing the payroll function, which also meant occasionally processing payroll when the regular processor was sick, on vacation, or perhaps on maternity leave.

One thing I quickly learned about payroll is that no one has any respect for the complexity of it. Because there are sophisticated programs that calculate taxes and because many employees (salaried and hourly) receive more or less the same pay each period, people who’ve never processed payroll think it must be pretty easy, and anyway, accurate payroll is an entitlement, right? Getting your check correct is the least your company can do, wouldn’t you say?

But that’s the problem with payroll. It’s as subject to human error as any other company process you can name, but nobody wants to hear that. And while it’s true that you don’t need an IQ in the stratosphere to learn payroll, it’s not all rote, either. In fact, the quickest way to make a bunch of mistakes is to treat payroll as though it’s rote, because change happens all the time.

Employees come and employees go, wages increase and wages decrease, benefits change or benefit costs increase, bonuses have to be processed, and employers routinely receive notices of court-ordered garnishments. Or sometimes they don’t but should have. Or maybe it's not entirely clear what happened. 

Regardless, now someone's Dad is going to jail, and news outlets have picked up the story (which sounds odd, and I can’t help thinking we’re missing something here), but in any case the point still stands—not rote.

As reported in the Huffington Post, Clifford Hall, a father living in Texas, received notice that he was behind nearly $3000 in child support payments. Apparently, Hall’s automatic payroll deductions had him underpaying for over a year.

After receiving the notice, Hall promptly paid the overdue amount and an extra thousand (just to be on the safe side) but ended up in court anyway. “Opposing counsel” (The Huffington Post calls it “opposing council,” ha ha) wouldn’t agree to a settlement, and the judge ordered Hall to go to jail and serve the maximum six-month sentence.

I don’t get this. I’ve handled many a child-support garnishment, and in my experience, notices are sent regularly, not just once in a blue moon. I mean, we'd routinely receive monthly “updates” for the same case even if the support judgment hadn’t increased or decreased one cent. 

(Is it possible Pennsylvania is more thorough than other states? Hmmm … no offense, Pennsylvania, but I have a hard time believing that.) I don’t know, but something doesn’t smell right about this case. (The writers on Snopes.com aren't taking it entirely at face value, either.)

Regardless, Mr. Hall did bring his account up to date, so what’s the point in sending him to jail, where (presumably) he won’t be earning an income and will get behind in child support again?

And if I’m in payroll at Mr. Hall’s employer, do I feel awful right about now or what?

The Employment Law Blog Carnival for January 2014 is LIVE!

It’s a brand new year, and I, for one, am hoping for better things from the workplace … like a decrease in discriminatory behavior, workplace bullying, and general organizational stupidity… and oh, higher wages and more jobs.

Sigh.

Yeah, that’s probably not going to happen—especially that part about the stupid.

Still, the start of a new year is an opportune time for reflection, speculation, and conjecture, and let’s not forget those resolutions! (Actually, I take that back—let’s forget those.)

But enough about what I want. What does the gang that brings you the Employment Law Blog Carnival have to say about the world of work in 2014? Well shucks, keep reading and find out!

Adam P. Whitney of DamnedIf.com warns employers that even cases that win small judgments could still result in big bucks for those on the losing end once legal fees and costs are calculated. (Maybe 2014 will be the year more cases settle through mediation? Hmmm ...)

What else should employers strive for in 2014? Randy T. Enochs from Wisconsin Employment and Labor law Blog recommends ixnaying the stray comments about someone’s (advanced) age (yup, recommendations STILL needed), lest the employer end up in court fighting an age discrimination charge following a termination the employer thought was completely justified.

Another consideration when terminating an employee is whether certain forms of income provided by the employer (like disability payments) can be deducted from severance pay. Stuart Rudner of Canadian HR Law discusses what our Canadian neighbors would say about that, especially regarding pension payments.

Back in the states, Ari Rosenstein of CPEhr’s Small Biz HR Blog reminds us that the debate over a “living wage” will continue in the months ahead, with the federal government smack dab in the middle. Is it possible that the federal minimum wage will increase to $10.10 per hour in 2014? ….

Now dang it, I’m almost certain I requested less organizational stupid in 2014. Let me check … Yes! I did. Geez is anyone listening?? Certainly not that employer accused of forcing his employees to scream at ashtrays as part of a Scientology indoctrination. Eric Meyer of the Employer Handbook tells us all about it. As Eric reminds us, employers should refrain from mandating employee “participation in certain forms of religious expression without reasonably accommodating those who feel that participation would conflict with a sincerely-held religious belief.” (And yes, I’m aware these events took place prior to 2014, but come on, there’s enough stupid here to count for several years, easy.)

For those two employers really, really trying to do better in 2014, Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog offers a bit of employee-relations wisdom. Said wisdom comes from some disgruntled, talking crayons, but so what? I think employers need all the help they can get. Plus, who doesn’t want to know what a crayon would say if he could talk?

Hey! If this talking crayon were a lawyer who also blogs, how would the headline for his first article of 2014 read?

Well, I don’t rightly know, okay? But if the headline were salacious and dramatic, meant to convey the idea that Mr. Crayon Lawyer were presenting THE thing that will change the workplace forever, Daniel A. Schwartz of Connecticut Employer Law Blog would have a few words for him! As Daniel tells us, when it comes to employment law happenings, there's not a whole lot that's new under the sun, regardless of what those attention-grabbing headlines imply.

But we can’t let a few misleading headlines keep us from staying in the know, right? We still need to keep reading. And lucky for us, John Holmquist from Michigan Employment Law Connection has put together a legal heads up for 2014, even while admitting that “the likelihood of the enactment of additional employment laws is slim.”

And while John is looking ahead, Donna Ballman from Screw Your Guys, I’m Going Home is looking backwards (but sort of forward, too), by reviewing how well her 2013 employment law predictions fared. (She did good.)

But regardless of what anyone says, one thing is certain. In 2014 we’ll all continue to put our pants on one leg at a time, because going to work naked is a really bad idea, and that’s why God created workplace dress codes and people like Vanessa L. Goddard from Employment Essentials to provide legal (and commonsense) do's and don'ts every employer should know before drafting those workplace dress codes.

Besides turning up to work naked, another bad idea for 2014 would be not responding to notices from unemployment compensation. (Thank you, Michael Haberman from Omega HR Solutions, Inc.) Did you know (I didn’t) that a law passed by Congress in 2011 provides a means to penalize employers who don’t respond to notices from the UC if the non-response results in payments that shouldn’t have been made? Apparently, nearly $14 billion (that’s “billion,” with a “b”) was overpaid in 2011. (Seriously, UC, y'all need to get it together.)

Anyhoo… for all those whistleblowers concerned that it’s time for their employers to get their stuff together, OSHA has provided a little help. Mark Toth from ManpowerGroup Blogs tells us about the new online tool that makes it easier for whistleblowers to file complaints. (Listen up, employers!)

And that’s not the only resource for beleaguered employees in this here law blog. Heather Bussing from HRExaminer has provided a handy-dandy five-question questionnaire for anyone thinking of filing a lawsuit. The answers aren’t always pretty, but they’re important. (Whaddaya think? Less employment lawsuits in 2014?)

And if that’s not enough, Liza Favaro of Non-Compete Counsel lists all the reasons a non-compete could be deemed unenforceable in court (while teaching me a new word, “fungible,”—although I’m not sure I like that word applied to people, Liza. Just sayin’), which could be real helpful to someone bound by an overly restrictive non-compete (as well as those responsible for crafting non-competes, I imagine).

And in a spooky coincidence (okay, maybe not that spooky), Robert B. Fitzpatrick of Fitzpatrick on Employment Law has a few words to say about non-competes as well, specifically the enforceability of physician non-competes.

Well, I believe that about does it for the 2014 January issue of the Employment Law Blog Carnival. Bring it on 2014!

  

I Am Not a Sheep: How I Learned the Hard Way That Revolver Door Recruiting Is Not for Me

A couple of weeks ago, I surprised myself by walking out of a job interview.

Well, technically the interview hadn’t started yet, and that was a big part of the problem.

See, I’d applied for an HR specialist position and on three separate occasions been contacted by the recruiter du jour about an interview. The first two times I’d declined the invitation, because the pay was too low (as in what-the-hell-are-these-people-thinking? low), but Call Three broke me down, and I decided to check it out. Maybe it’s fate, I thought. Maybe I’ll meet these people and convince them how ridiculous their rate is, I thought.

Mistake #1.

The interview was scheduled for 10:00 AM in a town several counties over from mine. As the appointment neared, I really, really didn’t want to go. But, I’d made a commitment, and then there were fate’s plans to consider. 

And, what do you know? The day before the interview, there were forecasts of a snow storm. “Well, that seals it,” I thought, “To heck with that interview.” I emailed my brother for his advice.

“Don’t go,” he told me. “It’s a waste of time. You’re worth way more than they’re willing to pay.”

I didn't listen. I rescheduled instead.

Mistake #2.

The day of the interview (which would now be 11:00 AM) was cold, bright, and clear. I got a little lost finding the recruiter’s office but managed to pull up at 11:00. As I was pulling up, I called the office to apologize for being late and to say I was in the parking lot and would be right in. I absolutely, positively hate to be late, and I believe that if an appointment is for 11:00, and you show up at 11:01, you're late. However, when I called the recruiter, she didn’t pick up. Hmmm …

After entering the recruiter’s office and introducing myself, I was invited by the receptionist to sit in the lobby and wait for the recruiter who’d see me “soon.” Seated on the other side of the room is a young woman in a cheap suit with flyaway hair filling out a stack of papers on a clipboard. 

Uh oh. Never, ever in my whole, entire 25-year career has anything good come of me filling out a whole stack of papers at the start of the application process. I resolve right then and there that I’m not completing a damn thing before I talk to the recruiter. Meanwhile 10 minutes go by with no recruiter and no word about the recruiter.

At 11:12 or so I text my brother that if this woman doesn’t show up in the next 15 minutes I’m gone. Again, punctuality is very important to me, but more than that, I’m getting a niggling feeling that I simply don’t belong here. Frankly, sitting on a sinking sofa in some dingy recruiter’s office watching bad television is beneath me. Yeah, I said it.

Around 11:15, the receptionist approaches me with the dreaded clipboard and stack of papers. I smile and politely take it, but I already know I’m not giving these people my social security number, permission to do a background check, or anything else without talking to someone, which as I understood it, was the entire point of this interview. The receptionist tells me that the recruiter will be out in a moment.

About 2 or 3 minutes later, a door opens and two women walk out. One is clearly an applicant. The other approaches me—my Millennial recruiter!—introduces herself, and tells me in sing-song, entirely too-upbeat tones that she’ll see me in a bit. She then disappears back into her office without seeming to notice that it is 11:20.

I read all the paperwork and see that I’m being asked to sign a noncompete. Noncompete? Where’s the reciprocity? Why in the world should I sign a noncompete at this stage? I am definitely ready to go.

My recruiter opens her office door, but wait! She needs to see that other applicant again, and when her door closes, I am both done and undone.

It’s now 11:30, and I gather my purse and coat, hand my clipboard to the surprised receptionist who thanks me (and I respond that she’s welcome), and then I hightail it the hell out of there.

It's time to correct my mistake. 

“I am not a sheep to be herded into someone’s office at her leisure,” I think.

“An appointment time should be more than a guideline,” I think.

“I don’t understand why any self-respecting company would believe this is the way to treat applicants,” I think.

“I’m a stubborn idiot,” I think. I just had to find out for myself that further inquiries about this job were a complete and utter waste of my time.

So here’s my takeaway.

It is generally far better to spend good energy pursuing opportunities that make sense than to spend bad energy chasing foolishness that makes no sense. Chasing foolishness that makes no sense squanders everyone’s time and is a downer to boot. 

And I should have known better. In fact, I did know better, but I acted like a dumb dumb anyway. Not again. 

Oh ... and the last lesson? Some recruiters suck.

'Tis the Season: Retrain Your Brain and Banish Family Holiday Stress for Good

Oh … the holidays!

Hot chocolate! Fancy cookies! Shopping for that perfect gift for that perfect someone while humming “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year.”

 Sounds pretty good, right? 

Sadly, for some the holidays are more stress than joy. The prospect of spending prolonged periods with family when relationships are strained, hostile, or otherwise unsatisfying can be a major source of angst and even lead to depression or noticeable levels of anxiety.

Philip Rodriguez (not his real name), a professor at a prestigious university, says “I have friends who don’t visit their families anymore because they just can’t deal with it.”

Rodriguez hasn’t made that decision yet, but he’s thought about it. ‘There’s a lot of dysfunction in my family,” he says. “My sister is schizophrenic and bipolar. She’s moody, controlling, and angry. All my life she’s manipulated my parents. [Growing up] many of the holidays were centered around her and her moods.”

And that’s just the tip of the Rodriguez family iceberg. As a single person amongst those with “attachments” (“If you are single you are looked down on. I could write a book about how awful it is to be single in this society”) and a non-Christian surrounded by religious kin, Rodriguez finds the holidays trying, to say the least.

“Each time I see my father he tells me I should give my life to Jesus. He’s 87-years old, and I don’t want to fight him… but can’t we just have a nice dinner without [him trying] to convert me”? asks Rodriguez.

Whatever the cause, family gatherings can morph us into insecure, misunderstood adolescents in no time. Old resentments rise up while old wounds that have never fully healed reopen, and before too long, instead of enjoying a time of celebration with loved ones, we’re on edge and on the defense, looking forward to getting back to our home base and into the space that makes us feel like us again: adult, assured, and in control.

How to Break the Cycle?

How can we break this cycle, and sooner rather than later, so that our time with family is something to anticipate with gladness?

Life empowerment coach Adina Laver, MBA, MEd, CPC, who earned her coaching certificate at the Institute for Professional Excellence in Coaching and has been helping hurting individuals “break the chains of their childhood stories” for the past 15 years (most recently through her affiliation with the Main Line Family Law Center), says that change is possible, and it doesn’t have to take years and years. During a recent telephone interview, she told me she’s coached individuals to greater happiness in just a few sessions.

What’s her secret?

Change Your Habits and Change Your Life

Laver says that in any relationship each party has developed a habitual response to certain triggers (i.e., “hot buttons”), and if we decide to change those habits we can change the situation. The key is coming to understand how these habits have developed, why they aren’t working, and what we can do about it.

According to Laver, “Research shows that 50% of our predisposition to see the glass as either half empty or half full is determined by genetics, and 10% is determined by our environment. So, a more difficult environment can make for a more unhappy person. But the good news is that leaves 40% up for grabs. We can control what we think … retrain the brain to ‘go down a new pathway.’”

In other words, we don’t have to let our relatives drive us crazy.

What Laver suggests sounds suspiciously like the power of positive thinking, which makes this glass-half-empty girl (hey, it’s genetic, remember?) a little skeptical. However, (mercifully) Laver isn’t saying we can make things true by wishing them so. Instead, she’s advocating adopting a deliberate mindfulness about what we will believe and act upon.

Says Laver, “When your relative complains about the dry turkey or how that dress doesn’t look that great on you, instead of focusing on you, you can turn the situation around and ask yourself, ‘What is going on with this person that [he or she] would say that to me?” In other words Q-TIP, or quit taking it personally.

It also helps to set goals in advance of the get together. Who would you like to spend time with? Which subjects are fair game and which would you prefer to avoid? Perhaps everyone is wondering when you’ll get married, have a baby, or get a job, and you’re dreading the moment the topic is broached. Instead, says Laver, give yourself permission to tell your curious relative “I’m really glad that you’re interested, but I’d rather not talk about that today. What else can we talk about?”

Ultimately, according to Laver, it’s about taking action to transform relationships that aren’t satisfying into ones that are.

“How will you get honor, regard, and respect from your relationships?” Laver asks.

One way is to test perceptions by asking questions. Because look, it’s not always about the other person. If a criticism hits a mark, and you think there may be a genuine issue, take the critic aside and gently probe for clarification. Laver advises asking your relative “Is there something important you think I should know?” and listening for the answer.

Each year the holidays come and then go, but your family is your family for life. Make this year the year you give the best gift ever—the gift of a renewed, more honest and more fulfilling relationship with someone you love.

Check out Adina Laver's website, Divorce Essentials (http://www.divorceessentials.net) or contact her at http://www.mainlinedivorcemediator.com/delaware-county-divorce-attorney or via email at adinalaver@gmail.com. You can also access a Main Line Family Law Center recording of “Surviving the Holidays When Preparing for Divorce here.

What Does Bruno Mars Know About Acing That Job Interview? Apparently Quite a Bit

The interview was over, and my colleague popped his head in my office to tell me how it'd gone.

"She looked great on paper," he told me, "And I'm sure she could do the job. But I just didn't like her answer to one of my questions."

"Oh yeah? What question?" 

"I asked if she'd be willing to stay in the position for at least three years."

Hmmm ...

"And?" I prompted him.

"And she said, 'As long as the company is good to me.'”

Ouch. Wrong answer. Neeeeeeeext—

Well, at least as far as my colleague was concerned.

I thought the candidate’s response was pretty funny, but then again, sass doesn’t frighten me. So long as sass doesn’t cross the line into disrespect and is married to high competence, I’m good.

So I asked my colleague, “Do you think she'd be interested in working for HR?”

And I remembered this conversation yesterday when I read "Want A Players? Here’s The One Interview Question You Need to Ask," by Marc Hoag.

In the article, Hoag defines an A Player as “maddeningly motivated” and “hungry;” someone who is “staggeringly brilliant, inexorably driven to succeed.”

Oh come on, Marc. All that?

And the “one interview question” A-player seekers should ask?

“Are you willing to work nights and weekends to get an assignment done on time?”

Why does Hoag’s article bring to mind the lyrics to “Catch a Grenade for Ya” by Bruno Mars?

“I'd catch a grenade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
Throw my hand on a blade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
I'd jump in front of a train for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
You know I'd do anything for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah)
Oh, oh
I would go through all this pain
Take a bullet straight through my brain
Yes, I would die for ya baby
But you won't do the same”

It’s not that a willingness to work nights and weekends is such a big deal. I’ve done both as an employee, and as an entrepreneur it’s a given.

It’s just that this attitude that employees should be willing to sacrifice everything (or at least lie and say they’d be willing to sacrifice everything) before being deemed “top tier” is so flipping tiresome.

Because let’s face it, this question about weekends and evenings isn’t really about weekends and evenings. It’s about finding that person prepared to say she’d be willing to “catch a grenade for ya,” and why the hell are you asking this question, anyway?

Even if the potential employee crosses her heart and hopes to die, swears on a stack of bibles as tall as Mount Everest, and does a pinky square to prove her sincerity, she’s lying if she claims she’d catch a grenade for you, employer.

She’s read the stats, and she knows the deal. Undying loyalty on her part would be foolish.

(I’d add that it’s completely unnecessary. An employee can be highly productive without letting work encroach on every other area of his life.)

A commenter to Hoag’s article suggested a better question. "Tell me about a time when you had to work nights and weekends in order to get a task or project done, especially when you had demands on your time from outside work."

And I can totally get on board with that. Let’s stick to what the candidate has done, rather than posing goofy hypotheticals for the purpose of getting in his head and testing how “hungry” he is. 

Geez.

The Dark, Dark Side of Office Gossip

I’ve read plenty of articles about how office gossip is good for your career, because it keeps you in the know and may even help to increase office efficiency.

But there’s a nasty, dark side to office gossip that has nothing to do with mere unkindness.

Gossip and other forms of negative or unethical communication are used to do extreme harm to targets of workplace bullying or mobbing.

In Overcoming Mobbing: A Recovery Guide for Workplace Aggression and Bullying, authors Duffy and Sperry list these other forms of unethical communication (p. 33, Uncorrected Advance Reading Copy): 

• Rumors
• False information
• Failure to correct false information
• Ridicule, belittling, and humiliation
• Leaks of personal and confidential information
• Failure to stop dissemination of unethical communication
• Isolation and/or ignoring of target/victim (i.e., shunning)
• “Cold shoulder”
• Target/victim shut out of workplace information loops
• Secret meetings

Look, I’ve written so much about workplace bullying, sometimes even I get tired of hearing about it.

But my weariness doesn’t change the facts. Whatever you call it—workplace aggression, workplace incivility, workplace bullying, or workplace mobbing (for the record, mobbing varies in some ways from bullying, but the two go together like peanut butter and jelly in my view)—it’s a big, icky problem that really hurts people. 

And it doesn’t have to be this way, except so many of us (even me on a bad day), want to shake our heads and say, “Oh well, people will be people. You can’t legislate civility.”

Fine then. Here’s my question. 

Have you ever participated in unethical communication at work, and in so doing, either wittingly or unwittingly harmed the reputation, livelihood, or sense of self of another?

If so, what’s done is done, I suppose.

But whenever you get another chance to say “no thanks” I urge you to take it.

Gossip isn’t always as harmless as it's made out to be. There may be an agenda afoot that, if you knew the details, would floor you with its malevolence. 

Do I sound paranoid?

I don’t care if I do.

Mobbing happens. People do get forced out of organizations through no real fault of their own. And the process is facilitated by backroom, seemingly benign “talk” that quickly spreads until the target is firmly established as the “other” that must be neutralized or eradicated.

So, if some care to claim that gossip is a productivity-enhancing tool, and they have the data to back up those claims, well … I say that’s real interesting—even while I maintain my right to believe that’s a load of self-serving bunk.