The 5 funniest HR Morning stories … ever

The 5 funniest HR Morning stories … ever

employee recognition

Between the Supreme Court’s landmark Obamacare and same-sex marriage rulings — plus the DOL’s official release of its new overtime exemption rules — it’s been an intense couple of weeks for HR pros. So we’ve decided to lighten the mood in the wake of the holiday weekend. Enjoy these gems. 

The most popular gut-busters from HR Morning’s archives:

The year’s 25 strangest interview questions

Some companies love throwing curveball questions to candidates during interviews — and these are the weirdest ones we’ve ever seen. Check ’em out …

————————————————————————-

10 unforgettable lies HR has discovered on resumes

More than half of HR pros (51%) said they’d automatically dismiss a candidate if they found a lie on a person’s resume. So it’s likely these applicants are still job hunting. Just look at the fibs they told …

————————————————————————

12 terrible excuses employees actually used for being late

A dozen HR professionals and hiring managers shared excuses they’d heard from employees arriving late to work that are so horrible, they’re awesome. Check ’em out …

————————————————————————

The 30 worst/funniest phrases to ruin a job interview

One of the latest (and funniest) trends to hit Twitter: Users sharing what phrases they could use to ruin a perfectly good job interview. And people have posted some real gems that you, as HR pros, will probably appreciate more than most. Get a load of these … 

————————————————————————

‘Why did you bother?’: The 7 worst holiday gifts from bosses

These managers might have been better off getting their employees a really nice card instead of these holiday gift atrocities. Look at what they gave employees …



For more HR News, please visit: The 5 funniest HR Morning stories … ever

Source: News from HR Morning

Do’s and don’ts to make performance reviews actually mean something

Everybody hates performance reviews. That’s a given. But there are ways to move them out of the “dreaded chore” category into the file titled “engagement tools.”

Performance reviews are often badly done and serve to de-motivate employees — or worse, give them a weapon to sue the company.

What’s wrong with this process? Here are the three most common mistakes managers make that limit the value of employee assessments:

1. Process vs. progress

Too often, the process of employee reviews becomes more important than the actual result. What do employees want out of their reviews? Aside from a raise, the main thing employees want to know is what career path they’re on — what they have to look forward to in terms of job growth and development.

Too many reviews omit a discussion of what advancement opportunities may be available in the near future, and what the employee needs to do to make it happen.

2. What will tomorrow’s expectations be?

Too often, reviews for well-performing employees congratulate them on what they’ve accomplished and let the story end there. For example:

An employee meets a predetermined goal of boosting production by 10%. Her manager writes in her review: “Your production was lifted by 10% and you’ve met your goal.”

While that’s true, wording it that way makes it sound like she’s reached the end of the line. Instead, the manager should say: “You lifted production by 10%, which is a great accomplishment. You should continue the progress and try to reach 15% — or even higher — next year.”

That congratulates the employee on a job well done, while reinforcing the fact that there’s always room to move forward.

3. Nix the money talk

Intertwining salary issues with performance discussions is truly taboo. Raises should always be the last thing the manager talks about — and in a separate meeting.

If pay comes up before the review is fully completed, it’s more likely employees will start arguing about the assessment instead of taking responsibility for their work. When the review is completed first, employees are more receptive to the manager’s critique.

Help for managers

To help your managers get better at reviews, here are some do’s and don’ts, courtesy of leading employment lawyer Jathan Janove of Ogletree Deakins, who spoke at the Labor & Employment Law Advanced Practices (LEAP) symposium in Las Vegas.

Don’ts

Don’t store up feedback. Don’t use a review as a gunnysack for storing up negative feedback over a period of a whole year and then dump it all on an employee’s head at review time. Feedback, both negative and positive, needs to be given throughout the year.

If you must bring up a new issue, apologize for not bringing it up sooner.

Don’t dispense report cards. People don’t want to go back to the school benches and be graded. If you give them five Bs and a D, all they’ll focus on is the D. Just tell them in plain language how they’re doing.

Don’t say things that could be subject to negative interpretation later. Avoid phrases like “you might try a little harder since you tend to be a little lazy” or “I’m cutting you some slack since you’re approaching retirement.” These only spell t-r-o-u-b-l-e.

Don’t use a review for discipline. Keep progressive discipline out of the performance review process. If you mix ’em up, plaintiffs’ lawyers will say your management process, not the employee, needs improvement.

Do’s

Do keep the end in mind. Focus on where the person is now, what the expectations are and how you can move the person up the line. Focus only on WIGs (wildly important goals) and PIGs (pretty important goals), not petty stuff.

Do give direct feedback. Managers must use the D-I-S formula with their employees — providing Direct, Immediate and Specific coaching throughout the year. That way, the annual review becomes a summary with no surprises.

Do make everyone go through the review process. If you want to build trust among employees around the review process, there can be no opt-outs — everyone gets reviewed, even HR and the C-suite.

Successful CEOs read as many reviews as they can — not to see how their employees are doing, but how their managers are doing.

Do make it a two-way street. Providing feedback should create the opportunity for two-way communication. Managers should be trained to ask the same amount of questions as statements they make.

Sample queries: “This is what I see; now what do you see?” or “How can I help you succeed?”

Do focus on the future. If managers stay focused on what should happen in the future, the employee can feel more fulfilled in his job. Plus, looking forward tends to minimize employee defensiveness about any past mistakes.

People are much less likely to be argumentative this way.

One final thought from Janove: For successful performance reviews, the front windshield is a much more useful tool than the rearview mirror.

This is an update to the original article, which ran on 4/27/13.



For more HR News, please visit: Do’s and don’ts to make performance reviews actually mean something

Source: News from HR Morning

DOL issues new OT rules: What you need to know, what they’ll cost

DOL issues new OT rules: What you need to know, what they’ll cost

DOL overtime rules

The wait is finally over. The DOL just released its proposed revisions to the FLSA overtime exemption rules. Now you can start prepping for the fallout, which will be dramatic. 

For months, the DOL’s been teasing us with promises that the proposed rule changes would be revealed soon. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez even joked the agency was “working overtime” to get the revisions on the table.

Well, all the speculation came to a screeching halt on Monday, when a President Obama-bylined column was published by The Huffington Post, providing a sneak peek at the rules. Hours later, the official Notice of Proposed Rulmaking was available on the DOL’s website.

We’ve gathered the pertinent facts from the 295-page long notice here for you.

Here’s what you need to know:

  • The new pay threshold is much higher than anticipated. As you know, the current minimum salary a worker has to be paid to be exempt from overtime is $455 per week or $23,660 per year. Well, under the proposed rules, it would jump to $970 a week or $50,440 per year. That’s significantly higher than the $42,000 mark those on Capitol Hill had been teasing. The DOL calculated that $50,440 would equal the 40% percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers.
  • The highly compensated employee threshold will also climb. The total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt highly compensated employees would climb to $122,148 from 100,000 — or the 90th percentile of salaried workers’ weekly earnings.
  • The salary thresholds will automatically increase. For the first time ever the salary thresholds will be tied to an automatic-escalator. The DOL is proposing using one of two different methodologies to do this — either keeping the levels chained to the 40th and 90th percentiles of earnings, or adjusting the amounts based on changes in inflation by tying them to the Consumer Price Index.
  • No changes to the duties tests have been proposed. The DOL hasn’t suggested changing the executive, administrative, professional, computer or outside sales duties tests (see them here) as of yet. However, the agency is seeking comments on whether they should be changed and whether they’re working to screen out employees who are not bona fide white collar exempt employees. Early indicators were that the DOL would look to adopt a California-style rule in which employees would be required to spend more than 50% of their time performing exempt duties to be classified as exempt.
  • Bonuses aren’t part of the salary calculation. As of now, the DOL says discretionary bonuses won’t count toward a person’s salary — but that could change depending on the comments the agency receives. Currently, such bonuses are only included in calculating total compensation under the highly compensated employee test. That’s not set to change. But the DOL said some stakeholders are asking for broader inclusion of bonuses in salary calculations.
  • The rules will — most likely — take effect in 2016. We don’t have a definitive timeline for implementation of the rule changes, but it’s a safe bet they won’t kick in until at least 2016. The proposed rules haven’t been published in the Federal Register yet. But once they are, an official public comment period will be set. The DOL will then review the comments and make changes to the proposed rules if it’s deemed necessary. At that point, the rules will be re-released in their final form, and an effective date will be announced.

How many people will be affected?

Based on the Obama Administration’s calculations, only about 8% of workers currently earn less than the existing $23,660 salary threshold. And as the numbers above indicate, cranking the threshold up to $50,440 would put about 40% of workers under the line. According to the DOL, that would extend overtime eligibility to about 4.6 million workers, assuming employers did nothing in reaction to the rule changes.

The White House has also provided a chart of just how many workers in each state would be affected by the rule changes — again, assuming employers stood pat.

How much will it cost?

Now for the cost to employers: The DOL is estimating that the average annualized direct employer costs will total between $239.6 million and $255.3 million per year, depending on the salary threshold auto-escalation method.

In addition to direct costs, the DOL says the rules would transfer between $1.18 billion and $1.27 billion out of employers’ coffers into employees’ paychecks annually — again assuming employers do nothing to adjust to the rules.

As we reported previously, Oxford Economics, a global analytics, forecasting and advisory firm, is predicting that transfer of funds won’t take place. Its researchers believe businesses are likely to make “significant adjustments in the structure of their workplaces to compensate for the billions of dollars of added wages the new regulations would impose.”

Oxford Economics predicts employers will “adjust compensation schemes to ensure they do not absorb additional labor costs.”

To do this, the firm estimates employers would:

  • lower hourly rates of pay
  • cut employee bonuses and benefits so they can increase base salaries above the new threshold, and
  • reduce some workers’ hours to fewer than 40 per week in order to avoid paying overtime.

All of these actions would leave total pay largely unchanged.

But taking these actions would result in exorbitant administrative costs — far outweighing the DOL’s estimates, according to Oxford Economics.

In its report, commissioned by the National Retail Federation, Oxford Economics estimated that raising the salary threshold to $51,000 would cost businesses $874 million in administrative expenditures alone.



For more HR News, please visit: DOL issues new OT rules: What you need to know, what they’ll cost

Source: News from HR Morning

Same-sex marriage legalized everywhere: What employers have to do now

The same-sex marriage argument has finally been settled in the U.S — at least from a legal standpoint. Every state is now required to allow and acknowledge same-sex marriages. This has significant implications for employers. Here’s a breakdown of what they are. 

As complicated and as sensitive of an issue as this is, the fallout from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is actually quite simple: Same-sex married couples will — in most cases — need to be treated exactly the same as opposite-sex married couples (one exception may be in self-insured health plans; it’s still unclear how the ruling will apply to these plans).

The good thing about this ruling — at least from an employer standpoint: It streamlines the benefits administration process significantly. In a nutshell, if a benefit is offered to employees’ opposite-sex spouses, it should also be offered to employees’ same-sex spouses.

In instances were federal and state law doesn’t specifically carve out protections for same-sex spouses (again, like in self-insured plans), employers would run the risk of violating anti-discrimination laws if they end up treating same-sex spouses differently than opposite-sex spouses.

As a result, the best — and certainly the safest — move is to treat everyone equally.

State, federal law aligned … but it may take time

Helping to streamline benefits administration, the ruling helps align state laws with federal law.

Example: Since the Supreme Court shot down the Defense of Marriage Act’s definition of “spouse” as only including a member of the opposite sex, same-sex spouses have been recognized for federal tax purposes and protected under federal benefits laws — like the FMLA. But some state insurance departments, state taxing authorities and state domestic relations courts weren’t required to recognize same-sex marriage.

That has now changed — or at least it will once every state gets on board with this ruling.

In some states, like Texas, governing authorities have said they’ll wait for guidance on how to handle same-sex marriages before fulling aligning themselves with the High Court’s decision.

This may mean several months may pass before couples are allowed to marry in states that up until now haven’t recognized same-sex marriage.

This also means that while employers certainly can start adding same-sex spouses to their benefits plans, they may want to hold off on eliminating domestic partner benefits (should they wish to do so) until their states fully align with the ruling and same-sex spouses have ample time to get married. How long this will take may vary from state to state.

Domestic partner benefits obsolete?

For those employers that do wish to continue offering domestic partner benefits even after their states have started recognizing same-sex marriage, here’s a word of warning to you: You may have to offer domestic partner benefits to opposite-sex couples as well — or risk facing discrimination charges.

Up until now, domestic partner benefits were a way to extend the same benefits reserved for employees’ spouses to those partners of employees who couldn’t get married. But now that same-sex couples can get married the same as opposite-sex couples, it may now be viewed as discriminatory to only offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples.

Note: Some states require insured plans to offer domestic partner benefits.

The reasoning behind the ruling

The case was brought before the Supreme Court by 14 same-sex couples in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, who sued state officials because of their states’ bans on same-sex marriage or officials’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other states. The charging parties said their equal protection and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution had been violated.

Federal district courts agreed with the plaintiffs, but the Sixth Circuit reversed their rulings.

As a result, the Supreme Court agreed to settle two questions:

  • Does the Constitution require all states to perform same-sex marriages?
  • Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the High Court ruled the answer is “yes” to both questions.

The majority said marriage is a “fundamental right,” and the Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses protect individuals from being deprived of that right.

Cite: Obergefell v. Hodges



For more HR News, please visit: Same-sex marriage legalized everywhere: What employers have to do now

Source: News from HR Morning

No matter how crappy the behavior, be careful about asking for DNA

OK, so you’re probably not going to run into this exact situation in your workplace. This case is still a good reminder of the perils of violating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.  

We can’t sum up the background of the case any better than federal district court judge Amy Totenberg:

Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services operates warehouses [in Atlanta] for the storage of products sold at a variety of grocery stores.

So one could imagine Atlas’s frustration when a mystery employee began habitually defecating in one of its warehouses.

To solve the mystery of the devious defecator, Atlas requested some of its employees, including Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, to submit to a check swab. The cheek cell samples were then sent to a lab where a technician compared the cheek cell DNA to DNA from the offending fecal matter. Lowe and Dennis were not a match.

The two sued under GINA, which generally prohibits employers from requesting genetic information from employees.

The upshot: A federal jury recently awarded Lowe and Reynolds $2.2 milliom for pain, suffering and mental anguish. Judge Totenberg had ruled in May that the company’s actions. had violated GINA.

Reuters reported that the company said it was likely to file an appeal.

By the way, the devious defecator has never been identified.



For more HR News, please visit: No matter how crappy the behavior, be careful about asking for DNA

Source: News from HR Morning

A few tips on saying ‘no’ without hurting feelings

As the go-to person for all things HR, you naturally want to be helpful when people ask for something. Often the answer must be “No.”  

But you know from experience that being diplomatic when you say “No” always works better.

Here are three ways you can do just that:

1) Let the person know that you hear him

First acknowledge the request: “I realize that this is important” or “Ordinarily, I’d be able to help you with that right now.”

Customer service pros will tell you that the biggest key to defusing an angry/frustrated customer is letting the customer rant about the problem and saying, “I can see how frustrated that would make anyone.”

Same basic principle goes for listening to a problem that you can’t deal with right away.

2) Explain the situation

Nothing wrong with explaining why your answer must be “No.”

Just keep it brief (you shouldn’t apologize for being busy): â€œI’m working on a project right now” or “I can’t take time away from X, Y and Z.”

3) Turn the ‘No’ around

Make it positive by giving the person an alternative.

For example: “This resource may help you,”?or “Have you asked this person about it?”

Some folks would rather run to known problem-solvers – like yourself! – than spend time figuring out how to fix problems themselves.

Ideas worth sharing with your staffers

You’ve probably dealt with managers bypassing you and going directly to one of your staffers for help. This can intimidate some employees, and make them feel like they have no choice but comply.

Remind your staffers:?Don’t just drop an important task because someone’s got a problem (unless of course it’s an emergency).

They’re allowed to say “No.” Just refer them to points 1, 2 and 3 above.



For more HR News, please visit: A few tips on saying ‘no’ without hurting feelings

Source: News from HR Morning

HR Strategies: Best Practices for Meeting Today’s Top Challenges

In this document, we’ve pulled together relevant research and advice based on both expert research and the experiences of our own customers. You’ll find something for all types of HR leaders to help your company to make the most of your most valuable resource – your people. Here’s what you’ll find:

  • Five ways to create a high-performing global culture
  • Six ways to dial in your talent strategy
  • Five tactics for compensation managers to shift the business

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: HR Strategies: Best Practices for Meeting Today’s Top Challenges

Source: News from HR Morning

The Incredible Power of Company-Wide Goal Alignment for Small and Mid-Sized Businesses

As an HR professional this white paper will reveal how you can put the incredible power of goal alignment to work at your organization. You’ll learn:

  • The short- and long-term business benefits of company-wide goal alignment
  • How to effectively set “SMART” goals
  • How automated solutions can help get your employees working on the tasks that will accelerate your business toward even greater success

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: The Incredible Power of Company-Wide Goal Alignment for Small and Mid-Sized Businesses

Source: News from HR Morning

Adobe Document Cloud for HR Efficiency

In today’s race to attract and retain top talent, the ability to create and deliver professional HR paperwork quickly is a competitive advantage. Read this solution brief to learn how Adobe Document Cloud can:

  • Help HR slash the paperwork
  • Impress candidates and simplify hiring
  • Improve the employee experience with professional and compliant HR documents

Download the paper to learn more about how Adobe Document Cloud can help HR maximize efficiency while finding and retaining great talent!

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: Adobe Document Cloud for HR Efficiency

Source: News from HR Morning

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare again … but why?

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare again … but why?

Supreme Court

Once again the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — and upheld a component that’s become an essential part of the law. So now HR pros can start worrying about the upcoming Obamacare compliance challenges without any major distractions.

The Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, is an appeal of a July ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the law’s subsidies.

Had the subsidies been struck down by the High Court, millions of Americans could’ve lost the tax subsidies that allowed them purchase affordable coverage under the health reform law.

In fact,  USA TODAY reported that more than 5 million Americans would be affected if the subsidies are struck down.

How affected? Those subsidies have reduced monthly insurance premiums by 76% (the average monthly premium dropped from $346 to just $82) for those who qualify, according to federal officials.

How we got here

As HR Morning has reported previously, the entire case essentially hinged on one phrase in the health reform law, which says that subsidies — in the form of tax credits — would be offered in health insurance exchanges “established by the state.”

But more than 30 states passed on setting up their own exchanges, so the feds stepped in to do so.

Four Virginia residents — the original plaintiffs in the case — claim that the subsidies are illegal in the states where only federal exchanges have been established.

‘Inartful drafting’

With its ruling, the Supreme Court essentially said that the subsidies should be available to all eligible Americans regardless of whether they live in states that have set up their own health insurance exchanges.

In the ruling, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. did acknowledge that the specific language in the Affordable Care Act was confusing and problematic. As Roberts put it, the law:

“contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting … Congress wrote key parts of the act behind closed doors, rather than through the traditional legislative process.”

Despite the language, Roberts said the intent of law was clear and that:

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

Maintains status quo

So where does this leave employers. According to Buck Consultants global practice leader Tami Simon:

“The ruling will not have a significant impact on employers and the human resources department. It maintains the status quo for time being.”

And for employers, the status quo is finding ways to comply with the many complex Obamacare regs, such as:

  • The reporting requirement (2016), and
  • The Cadillac Tax (2018).



For more HR News, please visit: Supreme Court upholds Obamacare again … but why?

Source: News from HR Morning