The Office of Federal Contract and Compliance Programs has issued more bureaucratic steps for employers to take to meet Affirmative Action requirements.  There is no study that shows adding these numerous data collection and recordkeeping requirements will help increase disability hiring.  One new rule requires employers to ask applicants if they are disabled TWICE during the hiring process and once a year after they are hired.  Employers don’t see the value added and also are requesting “safe harbor” to ensure they won’t be sued for violations of the ADA by asking individuals if they are disabled.  The OFCCP has selected 7% as an arbitrary goal for employers to use for hiring people with disabilities within all job groups.  Again, no data supports that 7% is a reasonable goal; and using an arbitrary percentage is a new precedent.  In the past employers have set utilization goals for protected class groups based on the availability of individuals within a protected class.  Another new rule requires accommodation requests be in writing and responses given within a specified time period.  These requirements actually will impede the good will and constructive dialogue between applicant/employee and the employer regarding accommodation needs.  The OFCCP is dropping this on employers without sufficient time for employers to overhaul their data collection software and processes.   

Other concerning requirements are:  more recordkeeping, more sensitivity training and an annual review of all physical and mental job qualifications with a written explanation as to why each requirement is related to the job.

This last requirement is what I call “Karla’s Full Employment Act”.  As a job analyst and documenter, it will give me more work to do.  I’ll get paid, the employer will pay me, the cost of the company’s product or service will go up.  But will more qualified people with disabilities be hired?  These minutia requirements do not affect change.   They only add cost.   Employers’ willingness and readiness to hire qualified people, with or without an accommodation and regardless of disability are the keys to having a workforce that mirrors all people. 

The feds seem to never give up on the notion that employers will do the wrong thing and not the right thing.  It is in the employers’ best interest to do the right thing — and they do. 

These new OFCCP / AA requirements are just a small sampling of the continuous bombardment of onerous regulations on employers.     

Employers plan for “quickie” union elections.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on Dec. 21, 2011, approved a set of sweeping revisions to the rules governing union election procedures. The change was designed to speed up union representation votes and make it easier for organized labor to recruit and gain new members.The final regulation, which some opponents call the “quickie” or “ambush” union election rule, will take effect on April 30, 2012. Mark Pearce, chair of the NLRB, says the primary goal of the rule change is to reduce litigation in union election cases.  Mike Enzi, R of Wyoming, says, not so fast.  Enzi, ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee intends to challenge the rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  This law allows the Senate to introduce a resolution of disapproval to prevent an agency from enforcing a rule.  It is unlikely the Senate would get the votes and even so President Obama would veto, so it appears largely symbolic.   Enzi states “…..the rule….will allow union bosses to ambush employers with union elections before employers have a fair chance to learn their rights and explain their view to employees.”  (which is required by law btw)  Enzi said “I plan to lead the fight against their onerous rule ….. It is disappointing that union advocates believe their best chance to succeed when it comes to union elections is to ensure that only one side of the story is able to get out.  Instead of using backdoor political maneuvers to boost anemic union memberships and smother our nation’s struggling economy, this Administration should help America regain its strong financial footing.” 

So far the NLRB has been unable to muster the support for the ”check off” procedure to replace “secret voting” for employees when deciding if they want to have a union represent (come between) them and the employer.  Once again, elections have consequences.  Obama’s hand picked NLRB members are cleverly issuing rules and regulations (which are as binding as law) that affect the employer and employee relationship.  

Unions gain their life blood through employees’ dues and fees.  Union organizations need members to stay alive and relevant.  Unionized workers have historically voted Democrat.  More members means more money for union management, more elected officials who are Democrat, AND more unelected administrative bureaucratics with authority to issue rules (like the afore mentioned) that favor union growth. 

Elections have consequences.

Above information from SHRM Weekly Issues Report and Employment Law Update.  

The public sector has the largest percentage of union workers at 37%, which is more than five times that of private sector workers at 6.9%. 

Over half of union members live in just seven states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Ohio.

States with union membership rates below 5% are: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Presidential wannabe, Rick Santorum, coming from Pennsylvania, has had a pro-union record, supporting positions usually favored by Democrats.  Stale union practices (such as across the board pay increases) undermine desired employee performance-based compensation systems that recognize and reward productivity, initiative, excellence and results.   

The percentage of workers who were members of a union dropped slightly from 11.9 percent to 11.8 percent in 2011; however, membership actually rose by 49,000 workers, up to 14.8 million people.  These numbers are from a Jan. 27, 2012 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report and the SHRM Legal Posting. 
 

Gov. Mitch Daniels, on Feb. 1, 2012, signed into law a bill that makes Indiana the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state. Under the new law, individuals are neither required to become nor prohibited from becoming members of a union. The law makes it a Class A misdemeanor to require an individual to become or remain a member of a labor organization, or to pay dues, fees or other charges to a labor organization, as a condition of employment. The law also establishes a private right of action for violations, including the ability to obtain damages, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.The law becomes effective immediately but does not abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements. The law extends to all contracts entered into, modified or renewed after March 14, 2012, but does not retrospectively invalidate existing union contracts. The law also does not apply to governmental employees or employees subject to the Railway Labor Act. Finally, the law does not prevent unions from collective bargaining or striking.   (Info from SHRM Feb 2012)Bottom line:  employees who work for an employer that is covered by a union contract, do NOT have to join or pay fees to the union.  Note, however, all employees are still confined by the prevailing labor contract, regardless of whether they pay the union a fee or not.  For example, pay scales are set and controlled by the contract.  All employees are treated the same.  Some say this is fair.  Some (myself) say treating every one the same is not fair.  Some employees deserve rewards that differentiate them from the good employees — either because of their exemplary performance or because of their inadequate performance.  I believe in performance based pay.  Treating everyone the same leads to mediocrity.  The exemplary employees move on to other organizations where they DO get rewarded.  Inadequate performers stay on and drag down productivity, morale and organizational effectiveness.

Welcome Indiana to the world of employee choice!   

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is initiating requiring MORE data.  This agency is the one that oversees affirmative action plans of federal contractors.  The agency would seek information on employer leave policies including religious leaves.  Compensation information would be reported by each individual rather than groups; and expanded to include contract and day laborers.   The Society for Human Resource Management leveled opposition citing violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  SHRM along with CUPA-HR (College and University Personnel Administrators) urge that only legitimate information be collected and in the least burdensome way possible.  Time will tell.  This is just yet another example of the constant layering on of governmental, bureaucratic paper work — without any direct and verifiable value added for employees, employers, our nation and society.  Although these requirements “make work” for us HR professionals — it adds nothing to the productivity of America — and in fact, adds costs and makes each employer a little less able to compete in a tight world market.      

I’m listening to the protesters complain about CEO pay and wondering —  where’s the outrage over outrageous professional athlete and movie star salaries.    I wonder if the protestors know that as of last year, owners of corporations (stockholders) have the right via the so-called “say on pay” provision of the Dodd-Frank bill to have their voices heard regarding CEO pay of public held corporations. Shareholders of publicly traded companies get to vote on executive pay.  Currently, there is additional legislation in the pipe line to have more control over and limit the amount of CEO pay.   Next in line will be professional athletes and movie stars salaries and maybe even writers of fiction books.  Really? why should the person who makes up a story about Harry Potter make 1,000 times more money than me?  I can make up stories and tell lies too.    It’s only fair that she share her money with me.  Tongue in cheek.  Get my point?   We have provisions to direct and manage CEO pay through corporation Board of Directors.  The market place will expose atrocities and mistakes and eventually will self-correct.  I don’t think we want another Federal Board of Bureaucrats to determine CEO pay.  When Senator, Barack Obama, proposed a bill to cap and control CEO pay.  The Frank Dodd bill did not go that far.  But the protesters want it, the Democrats want it and there is pending legislation in the wings waiting for the right (or should I say left) legislative mix to pass it.    Having voiced my opposition to government regulation, I absolutely do agree that some CEO salaries are obscene and not necessary.  Board of Directors:  do your job — or government will do it for you.    

The health care industry has added four million jobs over the past decade.   Specifically consider the field of MEDICAL CODING.  In 2013 there will be a transition to an upgraded coding system and a recent Forbes article predicted that those in demand medical coder jobs may earn up to $80,000.  (Sounds high to me, but that’s what the article said.)  Most community colleges offer training.  DMACC offers online or late afternoon and evening courses and their website states “Medical Insurance and Coding is one of the fastest growing medical office specialties.”  Coders take physician supplied medical diagnoses and transfer to codes for purpose of reimbursement and recordkeeping.   The upgraded ICD-10 codes have been seen with trepidation.  However, 3M Health Information Systems claims the expanded choices will help physicians with diagnosis identification and coders will not be burdened with  learning thousands of new codes.   Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Labor is projecting a shortage of coders in the near future due to retirements and also the impending coding transfer.  Comparisons have been made to the Y2K computer programmer hiring phenomenon.              So if you’re looking for job, a career move, or continuing education after you work your day job – check out Medical Coding!   By the way, some coders work out of their homes.              Want a job?  Get trained!  You’ll have a job!              Sources:  3M Health Information Systems; DMACC; Dept of Labor; Forbes

Reforming teacher pay is a hot topic.  Many belileve that performance pay will motivate teachers.  The belief that money motivates is a widely held misconception.  The underlying assumption is that if you dangle a carrot in front of an employee, the employee will perform better, work harder and change their behavior.  It is simply not the case.  It is insulting because the very premise is that the worker (the teacher) is holding something back and not giving their all UNLESS they are paid more.  Workers, including teachers, dive into their daily work for reasons that are intrinsically motivating.  Feelings of appreciation and respect, believing you make a difference, providing value to people and society, and the pure satisfaction of learning, accomplishing, discovering and sharing are the TRUE motivators.   As we develop improved teacher pay strategies for the future, we should develop compensation plans that recognize our intrinsic motivators.  If we spend too much on ”this for that” type of pay plans, they will fail to have any affect on teacher performance and student and school results.  There are ways, however, to connect pay to desired behaviors, outcomes and results.  Connecting pay to real measurable and valued outcomes is a great strategy to send meaningful messages about what is important for success.  One useful strategy used extensively in private business for the past decade is multi-rater feedback.  A list of desired behaviors and outcomes is developed by teachers, administrators, boards and parents.  Teachers receive feedback from multiple sources, including students, kept confidential, and a monitor or mentor works with the teacher on areas to improve.  When the results show exemplary outcomes the rewards can be administered.  This isn’t an easy or short process.  Its success depends on buy in from all stakehodlers.  It is one of many potentially innovative ways to improve and tie a reward to performance.  To reiterate, if we assume that  money is the motivator, the strategy will fail.  The desire for respect, being appreciate, reaching goals, receiving recognition and impacting society are motivators.  There are many ways to create the environment for these motivators to work for the good of our public education system.    

“There is a mismatch between the types of skills employers are looking for in job candidates and the kinds of employees that educational systems are producing.  It must be corrected, because it is one of the reasons for the high U.S. unemployment rate even as employers claim that they are struggling to find workers. . . . We do need to do a better job at providing curriculum that’s more adaptable to what is happening on the floor of the assembly line or manufacturing unit or the lab. . . . Our nation’s educational and workforce systems largely operate in isolation from one another.”  National Journal policy summit, July 12, 2011, SHRM.    Siemen’s Senior Director of Talent Acquisition, Mike Brown, spoke of the need to transfer knowledge in preparation for when older workers retire.  His organization established a future retiree network aimed at encouraging young employees to mentor older employees and older employees to mentor younger ones.  Brown noted many people who respond to his organization’s job postings do not have the right skill set.   Education reform is critical if the U.S. is going to regain its position of exceptionalism in the world market.  Not all students need to be prepped for college.  Our education system should provide pathways for all levels and types of learners to meet the myriad of skills needed to produce products and services for world competition.   My next post will publish the research data showing the correlation between teacher pay and student performance.  You’ll be surprised what the research tells us.    

The now biased NLRB (with the appointment of SEIU attorney Becker by Obama) has issued a complaint against Boeing for their decision to start a new production line in South Carolina.  The accusation is that the decision is “discriminatory” and based on recent strike activities by the Washington Boeing employees.  Two years ago Senator Clyburn from SC was thrilled about the new jobs going to SC, but now he is receiving presure from the Democrats to change his position.  This is the kind of meddling and high stakes pressure games that the Obama administration and their union growth arm of the NLRB are playing which hurts our nation.  It will be interesting to see and hear the communications from Boeing CEO McNerney.  The Governor of SC is speaking out forcefully against this assault.  The Republicans have talked about reducing the NLRB budget by one third; and now some are thinking a total structural change is in order.   By making the NLRB more like the bankruptcy courts it could avoid the ideology swings.  NLRB Acting GC and Becker are both past AFL-CIO and SEIU attorneys.  They vowed to not be involved with any issues that involved their past employers.  Well that worked out nicely.  Anyway . . . . elections have consequences . . . . . 

Local, state and federal budget deficits will seriously impede summer employment for students according to a study published by SHRM.  Young job seekers will compete with recent college graduates and older workers supplementing their retirement incomes.  Job prospects in the private sector are a little better. 

However, there has been a flurry of increased hiring of people with disabilities in the federal government due to an Executive Order that requires such agencies to hire 100,000 workers with disabilities.

Employers can receive assistance with recruiting and hiring students with disabilities by accessing the Workforce Recruitment Program (WRP) and Career Opportunities for Students with Disabilities (COSD).

The GOP continues to seek regulatory reform while keeping Americans safe and providing jobs and exporting goods.   Increased regulations are plentiful and so are the complaints from businesses.   Small businesses are opposing the April 2010 Obama Executive Order 13502 which encourages and authorizes use of union-only employees on federal construction projects.  The Frank-Dodd Act and the new Bureau it created has unprecedented authority to regulate financial entities for years to come.       (SHRM Weekly Update March 28, 2011) 

Is it more important to hear or to be heard?  Think it through.  If you really want to be heard which means also understood and accepted – then you better also know your audience.  Know their dreams and their delusions.  That requires listening.  Listening here means more than taking in noise.  To have a harmonious workplace, we must “listen for the purpose of understanding”.  We will be able to target and craft our messages when we know our listeners.  Just blurting out orders and demands and edicts and opinions to others will land of “deaf ears”.  We must first listen — which involves questionning, reading, studying, probing and digging into others’ ideas, motives, life experiences, needs, etc.  This is what I mean by listening.  Not just the physics of pitch and tone and air waves – but also the physics of transformed neurons in the brain – understanding.  Again,  listen for the purpose of understanding.  If we do that, wow, will our workplaces be more harmonious.  Take the time to listen. 

“HR professionals say they are swamped by the details and explanations of the new health care law and are focusing their attention on the provisions that take effect this year and next.  A key challenge is how to comply with the law’s mandates without shifting costs in such a way that the plan could lose its grandfathered status.  Consumer-directed health plans (CDHPs) in the U.S. continued to grow in 2010, albeit at a slower rate than in 2009.  One reason:  Employers are uncertain whether health care reform would restrict consumer-directed plans.  IRS issued rules to reflect the prohibition on the use of flexible spending accounts to pay for over-the-counter medicines and drugs beginning in 2011, as required under the health care reform overhaul.  U.S. employees on average paid nearly $4,000 toward the cost of family health coverage — an increase of 14 percent, or $482, above what they paid in 2009.  Employers have passed on many medical cost increases to their workers.”  SHRM Sept 2010

As BP is criticized by the media and politicians, we should realize that what went wrong goes deeper than blaming a corporation.  It took more than one company, one person, and one accident to create the huge mess.  Perhaps more regulations could have helped, but the regulators themselves also have a role to play regardless of the strictness of the written codes.  There is no simple answer, but the ultimate answer and future remedies lie in the culture of the organizations.  There needs to be a culture that allows open discussion and disagreement without retaliation.  The culture should put safety first, above profits, always.  The culture should expect behaviors to not only follow laws and regulations but go beyond the bare minimum standards and codes.  An ethical culture must be established and nurtured.   HR must have a seat at the ethics table.  HR can help to create or transform organizations into ethical entities that allow all employees, at all levels, to voice openly their concerns and ideas.  HR can help to write policies that prohibit favortism and conflict of interest when working with regulating authorities.  HR can help build a strong programs with safeguards and expertise to build, test and verify processes and procedures that result in a safe, healthy and environmentally secure organization.      (above ideas gleaned from SHRM white paper June 2010)     We all have a role to play.  Remember the old saying, when we point a finger at someone, four fingers are pointing backwards. 

In the January 2010 State of the Union address, Obama said his administration will focus on equal pay saying “we’re going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws — so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work.” 

When I heard that I wondered what law requires equal for an equal day’s work?  What new standard is this?  Does this mean if you work eight hours you get the same pay regardless of responsibility level, performance outputs, experience, skill and knowledge factors, or working conditions, or even seniority?  The above factors are all legal and bona fide contributors to differences in pay.  Never have we used “equal day’s work”. 

Probably Obama just read the teleprompter wrong. 

Seriously though — we hear that there is a new task force established called “National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force” so employers will want to find out what that is all about. 

As a consultant to employers on pay equity issues for many years I have found that employers want to pay equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender.  It is not in their interest to do otherwise.  Employers can use various job evalulation approaches to help them build an internal equity pay structure that pays employees based on legally compensable factors. 

Politicians and alarmists like to claim that women get paid 77.7% of what men do.  Senator Tom Harkin recently touted out that statistic.  However, when variables such as length of time in workforce, type of industry and work (especially jobs dominated by either men or women), and willingness to accept lower pay and many other legitimate factors are placed into the equation — the percentage is more like 95%. 

Equal pay for equal work was NOT created by Obama.  It has been the law of the land since 1963.  I recently heard Obama take credit for signing into law equal pay.  Well the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was indeed his FIRST piece of legislation signed.  It merely extended the time period after the supposed infraction took place that a woman can sue.  Which required employers to do more non-value busy work by adjusting how and length of time they keep their pay records.

There is no bigger advocate in the world than me when it comes to equal pay.  But seriously — enough already with the regulations, threats, task forces, and intimidating threats on employers.  

The State of Iowa is considering making Iowa a weakened Right to Work state.  If the legislature gives unions the right to take non-union worker paychecks it will be a step backward for the State and an unfair penalty to workers who choose to not join a union.    Most (about 75%) Iowa public sector employees do not join the union.  Unions would indeed love to have that money from those workers.  The proposed law has stipulations on how unions can use the money.  But really, how will the State of Iowa and the workers know how the money is funneled and spent once in the hands of the union.  Perhaps a new Auditor position will have to be created and funded by tax payers to monitor this additional bureaucracy. Unions claim that non-union workers are freeloaders.  They are not freeloaders.  They are independent thinking, hard working and responsible workers who are not afraid of their employer.  They don’t value the service of the union and many resent being controlled by the limiting contract.  Many workers prefer to be in charge of their own destiny and they reject the long held tenet of labor unions of everybody being treated the same, regardless of performance.    

Last week a government worker said this to me, “I just quit the union because I was tired of the union not actually doing what the employees wanted; and I’ve never needed the union; and if I ever did find myself in a situation where I needed representation, I’d find myself an attorney – not the union”.   Employees are protected in the workplace by many state and federal laws, including OSHA, Equal Pay Act, The Civil Rights Act title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, ADEA, FLSA, FMLA, and many more.  Iowa public sector employees also have extra protection against pay discrimination via comparable worth legislation.    

This new proposed legislation would require workers to involuntarily turn over approximately $300 of their earned pay to the union.  This amount is about 85% of union dues.   Is 85% fair and reasonable?    Imagine how it would feel to cough up $300 for nothing or for something you don’t want.  (I actually experienced that feeling while living and working in Minnesota.)  Forced remuneration to a union is the same as forced membership.  Closed union shops were outlawed many years ago.  Workers should not be required to join a union.  Workers should not be required to pay money to a union.    There’s nothing fair about coercion.   If the unions do such a terrific job for their members, employees will see that and join.  Unions should earn their money.  That is the current process and it is a good one.   Politicians should not write laws that force workers to give their pay to unions.  There is nothing fair about that.

The Department of Labor seeks to enact 90 rules and regulations in 2010.  Their aim is to “ensure that workers are paid a fair wage, have a voice in the workplace, are provided a safe workplace and have a secure retirement”.   One regulation would require employers to disclose arrangements made with labor consultants.  I will be paying close attention to that one.   The Wage and Hour Division recently hired 250 new investigators to look at wage and hour issues.  The federal government is hiring!     

Many U.S. employers feared that health benefit cost growth would spike in 2009 as employees, worried about keeping their jobs and health coverage, consumed more health services than usual. In fact 2009 saw the lowest annual increase in a decade, as the average per-employee cost of health benefits rose 5.5 percent to reach $8,945 after four years of increases of just over 6 percent. However, benefit cost growth still outpaced inflation in 2009 by a widening margin, according to an analysis by Mercer, an HR consultancy.

Mercer’s research reveals that:

• U.S. employers held cost growth to 5.5 percent in 2009, the lowest increase in a decade.

• Growth in the use of wellness or health management programs accelerated as large employers looked to hold down cost without cost-shifting.

• Small employers added consumer-directed health plans in 2009, helping to push up enrollment in these high-deductible plans to 9 percent of all covered employees.

Similar cost growth is expected in 2010, according to Mercer’s National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans. Employers predicted that medical plan cost would rise by about 9 percent in 2010 if they simply renewed their current plans without making any changes. However, they hope to achieve about a 6 percent increase after making changes to plan design or changing plan vendors.

 Information supplied by the Society for Human Resource Management.

Last year the Congress, Treasury and the Federal Reserve took unprecedented steps to shore up the financial industry.  With that came unprecedented government oversight.  Statutory limitations on executive compensation at companies receiving direct assistance were enacted.  Regulations have been released to expand the oversights to cover all compensation arrangements (not just executives) at nearly 7,000 banking organizations.  In the past, regulators have mandated bank governance to ensure safety and soundness only when organizations were in trouble.  Now the focus has changed to proactive and sweeping mandates. 

Creating and managing a principled compensation program that rewards desired behaviors and outcomes and offers market-driven compensation levels to attract and retain talent should be the responsibility of an organization not the federal government.  Federal mandates satisfy the needs of small thinkers to be consistent and treat all entities and all people the same.  This is the road to mediocrity, stagnation, malaise and eventual failure. 

The pendulum is swinging left. 

The Employment Standards Administration is being eliminated from the Department of Labor.  The OFCCP will be elevated.  The newly appointed head of the OFCCP is Patricia Shiu.  Because of the reorganization, Shiu may have to go before Senate confirmation hearings.  In the meantime, employers can expect a more aggressive OFCCP under Shiu’s leadership.  Shiu, according to the SHRM News Release, has zealously advocated for women’s rights in the workplace and helped draft legislation that led to the enactment of the California Paid Family Leave Act.