Recently, I have been checking out HR in different venues. This past weekend I was in New Orleans for a Panel I sit on with SHRM - I left on Monday so only saw a bit of the conference. The meetings were interesting, I got to catch up with nice friends I have made and with people I traveled to China with. It seems what we have noticed at MSEC - is happening all over - namely:

The focus of HR is on compliance, tactical issues and watching with great interest and participating in changing legislation around Immigration, Workplace Flexibility and Healthcare Reform. I am not going out on a limb when I say - there will be changes in all three areas. What changes you ask, that is a good question...sorry about that.

SHRM is quite active, more so I believe, on the lobbying level - and they are providing good input. It just seems the prevailing winds are toward workplace change and what is offered to employees and how workers are treated. One thing I do know - is if we as employers don't take good care of our staff, the government is going to. As I said with workplace bullying - this time is now and it is up to us.

Selection Testing is back in the news - you passed! The recent supreme court ruling shows once again that testing is fine....it is important....legally safe......

When done with validated and reliable instruments built for the job, applied consistently and the results used. If you don't want to use the results, consistently, don't use the test. One request then, please don't ask applicants....."what are your goals?"

Take good care -

A recent poll from the New York Times shows relatively strong public support for healthcare reform and even a larger government role. Below is an article earlier this month with some intriguing points. Healthcare issues are going to be heavily covered at the upcoming MSEC Benefit Update Conference.

Noam N. Levey, writer for the L.A. Times in an article written on June 4, 2009, reported that lawmakers in Washington are poised to begin a major push to reshape the nation's healthcare system. Of course leading that push, according to Levey, is President Obama who has opened up to the idea of the government requiring that most Americans get medical insurance, which will likely to increase momentum behind the drive to create a coverage mandate.


Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who are leading efforts to develop healthcare legislation wrote to the President saying they “strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans . . giving them a better range of choices, make the healthcare market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest." Obama has asked Congress to send him a bill by October.
Levey further reports that “Obama also indicated that he was receptive to a new requirement that large businesses share in the cost of providing health insurance. And he called for at least $200 billion more in cuts to the federal Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs for senior citizens and poor families to pay for expanded coverage. According to Levey, the Obama administration is reacting to the need to “control costs in reaction to widespread public anxiety about rising healthcare bills -- as well as concerns among experts about the nation's skyrocketing healthcare tab, which this year will top $2.2 trillion.”

Two weeks after Obama put the $2 Trillion cuts in health care cost, the June 15th Wall Street Journal, article entitled “Just Which $2 Trillion Were They Talking About? pointed out that during the President’s speech to the AMA on that day - the audience was quiet as Obama suggested that an independent body of experts, MedPac would rest control of Medicare reimbursement from Congress. The Wall Street Journal highlighted that it isn’t just the AMA that is reacting to the $2 trillion health care cuts but it affects hospitals, drug companies and medical device companies.
Levey quoted Obama, who wrote: "I want to stress that reform cannot mean focusing on expanded coverage alone. Indeed, without a serious, sustained effort to reduce the growth rate of healthcare costs, affordable healthcare coverage will remain out of reach."

Levey’s article contained a caution, even though it was subtle and buried in the article when he reported that Obama's letter . . came as lawmakers are finalizing their healthcare bills, represented a direct challenge to business groups long wary of requirements that they provide insurance or pay some kind of fee to help the government finance wider coverage. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the mandate a "job killer." Even some small businesses are wary of mandates with exemptions, out of concern that the exemptions could be adjusted in the future.

The remainder is directly from Levey’s article:
Insurance companies, which have embraced a new mandate, vigorously oppose the proposed government insurance program.

The president also waded further into the potentially explosive debate over how to pay for an overhaul that is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

Obama pledged to work with Congress to cut $200 billion to $300 billion from the Medicare and Medicaid insurance programs over the next 10 years.

That would come on top of the $634 billion that the president proposed in his budget to pay for the healthcare overhaul.

About half of that came from changes in Medicare, including cuts to private insurers who contract with the government to provide insurance to seniors. The rest would come from reducing the amount that the wealthiest Americans could deduct on their taxes for charitable donations, state taxes or interest payments on a home.

That proposal has run into stiff opposition from Democrats as well as Republicans, but administration officials have not given up on it. And Obama signaled his intent to keep it on the table as legislative debate proceeds.

The president also suggested empowering a federal commission under the Department of Health and Human Services to make further cuts in Medicare spending with less interference from Congress.

The recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which proposes reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors, are subject to changes by Congress, a highly politicized process long decried by healthcare policy experts.

Under Obama's proposal, Congress would only be able to stop the cuts by passing a joint resolution in a process akin to how the federal government handled the politically sensitive closure of military bases around the country.

noam.levey@latimes.com

The first of a number of surveys is showing a projected 9 percent increase in costs for 2010. The actual cost for employees will be in to the double-digits, at the same wage increases are flat or frozen. This data coming from 500 plus employers as studied by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). Rising unemployment drives up insurance costs as well as employees concerned about on-going job security using their plans while they can. Some mitigating effects may come from continued focus on health care reform efforts however.

MSEC's data from its 2009 Colorado Compensation Survey with over 444 organizations reporting shows a projected 10% increase in health care premiums for 2010 and with an overall projected 2.1% increase in base pay increases.

More than ever, employers are going to have to proactively manage their health care costs and overall benefit program costs as the economy continues it fits and starts toward recovery.

MSEC's 7th Annual Benefit Update Conference in July will have sessions addressing strategic and tactical ways employers can manage benefit costs in recessionary times. Dates for the Conference are:

July 14 in Colorado Springs; July 17th in Denver; July 21st in Fort Collins and July 28th in Glenwood Springs.

This was a recently posted Hot Topic that is a good read - I wanted to pass along.

As Ken Blanchard said, "Reward what you want to see repeated." Recognizing excellent performance is the best way to encourage more of the same. As fundamental as it sounds, many managers shy away from recognizing their employees. They often feel that recognition will encourage complacency, or that they can't recognize exemplary performers without recognizing everyone. Some think that because they don't need recognition themselves, employees must not either. Others would like to recognize their employees, but feel they can't afford to in these tight times.

Gallop polls consistently show that engagement is linked to recognition of exemplary performance. And the good news is, the simplest and least expensive forms of appreciation tend to be the most lasting. Even when tangible rewards are given, it is typically the thank you behind the gift that holds true meaning. When employees were asked if they had ever received a personal "thank you" note from a boss, the vast majority stated that they still had the note, and in fact had kept it for years.

Consider implementing some of these no or low-cost forms of recognition.

Walk the halls. Be familiar with what your employees do on a day-to-day basis, and take time to interact with them.
"Catch" your employees doing a good job. Give them immediate feedback, letting them know specifically what they did well and how it impacted others.
Surprise them with a personal "thank you" note.
Acknowledge their ideas in front of others.
Repeat compliments you've heard about them.
Ask for their input and take their ideas seriously. Let them know how you incorporate their ideas in business practices.
Bake something for your team.
Hold a dress down day.
Create peer-to-peer recognition.

Many of these items are no doubt familiar to you. But as I work with so many HR leaders and managers the power of these steps is often underestimated. Take that first step with this - it will work.

One of HRS's professional staff Laura Woods brought this to my attention regarding changes to the Colorado Wage Payment Law - thought I would pass it on.

Colorado's wage payment law is amended to provide that an employer is subject to penalties for failure to pay wages of up to $50 per day for each employee per section 8-4-113(1), if, two or more times within any 24-month period, the employer causes an employee's check, draft or order to not be paid because the employer's bank does not honor an employee's paycheck upon presentment. Also, in a court action to recover damages, if notice of nonpayment upon presentment of the check, draft or order has been given and the total amount due in the notice has not been paid within 15 days afterwards, the person is liable to the holder or any assignee for collection for three times the face amount of the check but not less than $100 and, with regard to a paycheck, actual damages caused by the nonpayment, including associated fees. (Sections 8-4-103 and 13-21-109 are amended by H.B. 1108, L. 2009, enacted April 22, 2009, effective August 5, 2009.)


Changes take effect August 5, 2009.

As employers cautiously begin to look at hiring - at least a bit - testing applicants during the selection process really is a safe and key part of the overall decision-making process. Employee selection tests, i.e., skills, cognitive, behavioral and honesty tests are critical. As employers consider making hiring decisions now and in the future, they can't gamble with their selection - it is just too expensive. So enough is enough about fretting about their efficacy and legality. When done right, they work and are legal. Our Testing and Assessment Manager, Brandon Young provided me with some ROI data from employers who have successfully implemented testing tools. Data is striking - take a look:

Case Study 1:
An inbound call center in the financial services industry was concerned with increasing retention rates of Customer Service Representatives. Retention rates in the call center were running at only 40% per year. An extensive study utilizing the company’s own performance data revealed that both PeopleClues® Personality and Cognitive Assessment scores were statistically different between groups of retained and early terminating employees. Within one year of using the new PeopleClues® benchmark for selection, the company experienced an increase in retention rates of 100%.

Case Study 2:
In a study of home health care professionals there was also a concern with reducing turnover, which was then running at 100% per year. A predictive validation study was conducted, in which all incoming applicants were tested with the PeopleClues® Assessment but the test results were not available to the hiring manager. After nine months, the assessment results were statistically analyzed against actual retention and performance data for the employees who had been hired. The assessments were found to have accurately predicted 83% of turnover with new employees. Had the PeopleClues® assessment data been used in the selection process, it would have accurately predicted 83% of the retention of new hires and their eventual success.

Case Study 4:
In a study of inbound call center representatives in the cable industry, retention rates in the call center were running at 70 percent per year. The goal was to raise this retention rate. An extensive study utilizing company retention and performance data was able to identify differences on the PeopleClues® Assessments between levels of retention and performance. Within one year of using the obtained benchmark for selection, the company experienced an increase in retention rate to 90%.

Case Study 5:
The fifth study involved a major staffing company which was competing to meet all of the staffing requirements for one of its major clients. The overall placement rate for this client had been running at 33% of applicants presented to the client as potential hires. After the PeopleClues® assessments became part of the staffing company’s own hiring protocol, they were able to obtain the complete staffing responsibility for this client and experienced an astounding 100% placement rate for those applicants that were presented to the client. The retention rate for these client placements was also 100% using this PeopleClues® benchmark.

You can take a free test drive of MSEC's assessment tools and check them out for yourself at Assessment Tools

These do work - honest, and I can say that because I passed that test...

Remember a few blogs ago I referenced that the US was trending toward European HR practices and Europe toward the US - well that "trending" continues.

Recently a Bill was Introduced in House Would Require Companies to Offer Employees Paid Vacation

Legislation (bill number not available) introduced in the House May 21 would require companies with 50 or more employees to offer them at least one week paid vacation, and companies with 100 or more employees to offer them at least two weeks of paid vacation.

The Paid Vacation Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. Full- and part-time workers (up to 25 hours per week or 1,250 hours per year) would be eligible after one year of service.

The bill has two co-sponsors, including Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), and was referred to the Education and Labor Committee. The paid vacation requirements would take effect three years after enactment.

“Why are paid vacations good enough for the Chinese, French, Japanese, and German employees, but not good enough for us? In other countries, it's a matter of right,” Grayson said in a May 21 statement. “Everyone is entitled to it. In our country, it is a matter of class. Over time we are coming to realize that whatever your background, wherever you grew up, wherever you live, there are certain basic elements that people need to have enjoyable lives. They need health care. They need a decent paying job. And for a good life, they need time off.”

Bill Would Amend FLSA

Enforcement would be handled by the Department of Labor and the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Department of Justice. As stated in the draft bill, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis would be authorized to conduct a public awareness campaign, through the Internet and other media, to inform the public of leave afforded under the act. And no later than three years after the date of enactment, the labor secretary would conduct a study on workplace productivity and submit the findings to Congress.

John de Graaf, executive director of the advocacy organization Take Back Your Time, who joined Grayson at a May 21 press conference, said in a statement that the United States is not among the top 10 countries in terms of happiness.

“Those higher-ranked countries emphasize a work-life balance, including ample vacation time,” he said. “Many of those same countries are weathering the current world economic storm better than we are. Vacations make people happier and economies stronger.”

Xerox today named, Ursula Burns as the new CEO for Xerox Corporation. Ann Mulcahy announced early retirement from her post as CEO. T he ex-HR leader is credited with turning Xerox's fortunes around but did not discuss her reasons for early retirement. Ms. Mulcahy will remain Xerox's chairman. Both the exiting CEO and her replacement had spent many years working up the ranks of Xerox. In Burn's case she began as an intern.

Xerox has often been credited with having a number of female executives in high decision-making positions and continues that trend. It aggressively practices succession plannng, promoting from within in its staffing practices.

Young employees take note. By young I mean the 20 to early 30-somethings that are being impacted by the recent economy, i.e., unemployed, than workers aged 55 and above. How can this be? Well, this post is not about age discrimination from a legal standpoint. While age discrimination continues to be a problem, which I don't want to discount - there is a different angle going on here.

As employers have cut staff, choices are made between co-workers and invariably personal characteristics intrude, i.e., does one employee have children in college or perhaps a sick spouse, versus another employee who is single and more mobile. Being human, managers have been laying off younger people in greater numbers. It is also perceived to safer, but take note that some states, notably Michigan and New Jersey protect workers as young as 18, (most states only cover those 40 and older).

Perhaps there is another dynamic going on as well. Younger employees have been vocal about wanting flexibility, faster promotion, and greater responsibility which is not wrong - and older managers have had to adapt some of their expectations and offerings -. In tough times these same things, flexibility and promotion are often not as plentiful. It could be now that younger employees have to adapt some of their expectations too, and make some adjustments including: coming in early, staying late, volunteering for unpopular projects, being patient.....okay I'll stop. As a "X'er" - these are the same words of advice from my dad when I started out - and low and behold I will probably tell Sam and Jordyn (my kiddos), the same thing.

But as it turns out, the job you save may just be your own....Til later.

A recent survey by Watson Wyatt of HR Executives report things may be getting better, or "at least the worst is over" they hope. Signs noted in the survey included:

1.) More than half of respondents do not expect layoffs in the next 12 months;
2.) Cost cutting has "cut" through wage/hiring freezes and layoffs, as much as it can at this point;
3.) Over 60% do not expect hiring freezes, and;
4.) Merit raises of roughly 3% are forecast....for 2010.

Closer to home, I have noted fewer downsizing calls from members, a long with more calls from members actually expanding staff including sending staff on global assignments. The mood of business leaders consistently is one of cautious optimism.

Don't know about you, but I will take it.