Author: Site Staff

The Workforce Optimas Awards are a celebration of the power of human resources management. Annually, Workforce recognizes HR programs that have made their businesses better. The winners are selected in 10 categories: General Excellence, Competitive Advantage, Financial Impact, Global Outlook, Innovation, Managing Change, Partnership, Quality of Life, Service, and Vision. The winning programs are profiled in the March issue of Workforce magazine with additional information provided at Workforce online.

It is with great pleasure that Workforce celebrates the winners of Optimas Awards 2000:

General Excellence: In the come-and-go food industry, Jamba Juice has found recruiting and retention strategies that can squeeze out winners from a dry labor pool.

Financial Impact: A diverse group of professionals bring staff development issues to the top of the United Nations’ list of concerns.

Innovation: The HR team at Bayer’s Myerstown, Pennsylvania, production facility initiated a process that helped the plant become more profitable.

Partnership: By providing a culture that supports employees’ passions, Patagonia reaps success and, in turn, supports “green” causes worldwide.

Service: The challenge to GTE HR managers was tantalizing: find a credible way to measure HR’s contribution to the business.

When you read the messages from each of the Workforce editors, you’ll find a common theme: a passion for what they do.

They have a tremendous respect for the power of HR and the results produced by the new breed of HR decision makers who are making their companies better. These HR pros help businesses and employees.

The other common theme is their affection for the HR professionals they’ve met during the course of writing stories. They’ve been inspired by the individuals who have changed the role, the stature and the presence of HR in Corporate America.

With this kind of editorial dedication, sense of mission and ongoing passion, it’s no surprise that Workforce (formerly Personnel Journal) has won more than 70 publishing awards in the last 15 years.

Write the editors. They love feedback – favorable and unfavorable. We became journalists to make a difference in the world with our words. So, if you’ve reacted to anything we’ve written, we want to hear about it.

The thing I enjoy most about writing is that I have an opportunity to earn a doctorate in the world every day of the week. I love interviewing interesting people – whether they’re world leaders or 20 levels down in the corporate structure.

I also love doing research, and the Internet is the greatest public library ever conceived. Best of all, you don’t have anyone telling you to “hush” while you’re exploring great sites and unraveling the mysteries of the universe. I also enjoy the act of putting words on paper and telling a story.

With all the negativity and horrible stuff that goes on in our world, it’s nice to help people and enrich their lives. It’s also great to help people make sense of things – particularly at a time when we’re all on information overload.

One of my main beats with Workforce is technology, which is quickly permeating almost every aspect of HR. I think that it’s important to pay heed to this trend because – whether we like it or not – the world moves forward, not backward.

And though I’m upbeat about how technology can drive improvement, the feeling isn’t absolute. I think technology for technology’s sake is a huge waste, and I also believe that we must manage technology or it quickly controls us.

Inherently, it’s neither good nor bad – it’s what we do with our HRMS, cellular phones and e-mail on a daily basis that sets us free or enslaves us. Having said that, it’s clear that computers and software are far too complex in their present state. I hope I’m providing a guiding light.

But technology isn’t my only interest. I really enjoy writing on sociological topics such as privacy, ethics and issues involving corporate culture. I also write for a variety of other publications. Besides Workforce, my byline has appeared in America West, American Way, Continental Profiles, Discover, Family Circle, Home, Industry Week, Los Angeles magazine, the Los Angeles Times, Travel and Leisure, TWA Ambassador, US Airways, and Wired.

Frankly, I never imagined becoming a professional writer. In college, I managed restaurants and after graduating went to work for Pacific Bell in a management position. I quickly discovered that the corporate world wasn’t for me and realized that the pen is always mightier than the bored. Fast forward almost 20 years, and I’ve managed to make writing a successful career. Click on sam@greengard.com to e-mail me.

Hi there. Let me confess something to you. Everywhere I go, people ask, “What does a contributing editor do?” Well, it has got to be one of the best jobs in the world.

As a contributing editor to Workforce (previously Personnel Journal), I’ve had the chance to interview, meet and just get to know some of the smartest, most thought-provoking, and most dedicated people around the world. That’s you.

Since 1986, together we’ve grappled with such ideas as employee loyalty and productivity, domestic violence and its impact in the workplace, gender issues and how you can assist your employees to balance their work and family commitments, and grief and HR’s role in critical life passages that affect us all.

If you’ve read some of my articles, you can probably guess that my special interests are global trends as well as work and family issues. As a writer and observer for Workforce, I’ve traveled to some of the most incredible places around the globe – Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Barcelona – talking to global HR managers, line managers, expatriates and their families.

Of course, it’s great fun, but equally important, I love my travels because they give me a gut-level, tangible “feel” for the issues you’re facing every day and a sense about how so many of you are trying to address those concerns.

I’d love to hear from you. Please e-mail me by clicking on charsol@aol.com. Take care.

You may be violating the overtime law—without even realizing it—if your employees are putting in overtime without authorization. To try to avoid incurring unauthorized overtime, consider implementing the following policies for non-exempt employees:

• Prohibiting employees from eating or drinking at their workstations and working before hours, after hours, or during lunch.
• Prohibiting food at employees’ desks
• Having supervisors periodically patrol the work area during lunch to enforce the rule against working during a lunch break
• Not allowing employees on the premises more than five minutes before or after the workday
• Requiring permission to work at home.

It’s important that supervisors can spot when non-exempt employees are working extra hours. If they know about it, there can be substantial liability. A couple problem areas: restaurant or retail employees who help out before or after their shift, and sales employees who make special deliveries, phone calls, house calls, or write thank-yous.

 

Source: Defusing the Overtime Bomb: How to Comply with the FLSA, http://www.hrhero.com,” Julie Athey, 1999. 800/274-6774.

There is no legal requirement to document the reason of non-selecting an applicant, at least under federal law, and regardless of whether an employer has a government contract or not. There are various legal and strategic reasons as to whether or not such documentation would be desirable.

The following arguments favor documenting the reason for non-selection. First and most importantly, it could assist a company to reconstruct and prove the reason for non-selection, particularly if key personnel are no longer available who could otherwise offer an explanation. Also, the action may discipline the employer to properly make selection decisions, and select or non-select for legitimate, job-related reasons. Likewise, the documentation could facilitate an employer’s proving that it applied its standards equally, by showing other similarly situated persons, such as white males, who were treated in the same manner.

There are some equally compelling reasons not to document the reasons for non-selection. First and foremost, the company will basically be bound by the stated reason for the non-selection. If the company “documents” a legally inappropriate, or inconsistent or false reason, its legal defense will be severely jeopardized. Similarly, in the process of documentation, the company’s data could conceivably prove that a certain type of selection criteria adversely impacts protected categories by disqualifying them to a substantially greater extent than other persons.

The best answer may largely depend on the quality of an employer’s record keeping. If the employer can accurately and lawfully record the reason for non-selection, then the concept is probably a good idea; otherwise, it is not worth the risk. If the company has made egregious errors in record keeping of the reasons of non-selection, it is a bigger problem than it is an advantage, to have proper record keeping. The reason is that it is easier for a company to later “reconstruct” the reasons for the non-selection, than it will be to explain why the record keeping was inaccurate, erroneous, or stated an illegal reason.

There are some possible approaches that warrant consideration that serve to potentially benefit the employer while minimizing the risk of erroneous or illegal record keeping. Some employers use a coding system to state the common reasons for rejecting an applicant, or not considering an applicant, by listing certain general grounds for not hiring an applicant. Such reasons might be as follows:

1. No positions available.
2. Not interested in positions available.
3. Not qualified for positions available.
4. Not qualified for position being sought.
5. Better qualified persons were hired instead.
6. Cannot work hours offered.
7. Rejected our job offer.
8. Unable to communicate effectively in the English language (if required for position).
9. Obviously under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the employment interview.
10. Did not return for follow-up interview or otherwise failed to complete the pre-employment process.
11. Employment interview revealed no interest in type of work.
12. Underage.
13. Has no work permit.
14. Cannot legally work in the United States or cannot provide documentation necessary to complete I-9 forms.
15. Unsatisfactory prior work history.
16. Falsification or omission of significant information on application.
17. Failure to meet (job-related) experience requirements.
18. Relevant criminal conviction record is disqualifying.
19. Did not pass drug or other job-related tests.

The above criteria for rejecting an applicant are generally lawful, at least assuming the employer’s policies are consistently applied and reasonable in their application. There may be some categories that simply might be listed as “miscellaneous.”

SOURCE: Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Nelson & Schneider, P.C., Atlanta, GA, March 1999. 404/365-0900.

Printed: Offset web, perfect bound.

SPECIFICATIONS

Trim size:………………………….8-1/8″ x 10-7/8″

• Double-page spread:…………16-1/4″ x 10-7/8″

Live Matter:………………………7″ x 10″ on full pages

Bleed Size:…………………………8-3/8″ x 11-1/8″

• Double-page spread:…………16-3/4″ x 11-1/8″

 

REQUIRED ADVERTISING MATERIALS

B/W Film: Right-reading, emulsion-side-down negative. 150-line screen. Laser prints are unacceptable for publication reproduction. All materials other than composite negatives will incur production charges.

4/C Film: Right-reading, emulsion-side-down negatives. 150-line screen. Indicate bleed, trim and center marks on film. Mark each negative for color. Total 4/C density must not exceed 280% maximum. All materials other than composite negatives will incur production charges.

Color Proof: One color proof is required. Advertiser will be billed $75 per page if proof is missing.

Digital File: For a current digital specification sheet, call (714)751-1883 or e-mail material to material@workforcemag.com.

Production Charges: Materials that do not meet specifications will be converted and billed to the advertiser. Advertiser will be billed for other production, including key codes, typesetting and line shots, etc. Minimum charge $25. Production services are non-commissionable.

Storage: Materials will be stored for 12 months and then destroyed unless otherwise instructed by advertiser in writing.

 

CLOSING DATES

Insertion orders are due the 25th of the second month preceding publication date (i.e., January 25th for March issue).

Film materials are due the 1st of the month preceding publication date (i.e., February 1st for March issue).

 

SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS

To guarantee safe delivery of ad materials, we recommend using an overnight delivery service. All advertising material and correspondence should be sent to Workforce, 245 Fischer Avenue B-2, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Telephone: (714) 751-1883. All correspondence, with the exception of film and payments, can be faxed to (714) 751-4106.

Audited by BPA.

DISPLAY ADVERTISING RATES

	1x	4x	6x	9x	12x	18x	24x
Black & White
Full Page	4,070	3,870	3,700	3,600	3,455	3,295	3,175
2/3 pg	3,250	3,085	2,955	2,875	2,760	2,635	2,535
1/2 pg island	3,075	2,920	2,795	2,720	2,610	2,495	2,400
1/2 pg	2,700	2,565	2,460	2,390	2,290	2,185	2,105
1/3 pg	2,075	1,970	1,890	1,840	1,765	1,680	1,615
1/4 pg	1,615	1,530	1,470	1,430	1,370	1,305	1,260
1/6 pg	1,290	1,225	1,175	1,145	1,100	1,045	1,000
2-Color: Black & one process color; PMS matched with process color.
1 pg	5,155	4,955	4,970	4,690	4,540	4,385	4,260
2/3 pg	4,335	4,175	4,045	3,960	3,850	3,720	3,620
1/2 pg island	3,855	3,700	3,575	3,500	3,390	3,270	3,175
1/2 pg	3,475	3,340	3,235	3,165	2,070	2,960	2,885
1/3 pg	2,490	2,385	2,300	2,250	2,180	2,090	2,030
1/4 pg	1,920	1,840	1,775	1,735	1,680	1,610	1,565
1/6 pg	1,500	1,435	1,380	1,350	1,300	1,250	1,215
4-Color
1 pg	6,280	6,080	5,915	5,815	5,670	5,510	5,385
2/3 pg	5,465	5,230	5,170	5,085	4,975	4,845	4,745
1/2 pg island	4,930	4,775	4,650	4,575	4,465	4,350	4,255
1/2 pg	4,555	4,420	4,310	4,245	4,145	4,040	3,960
1/3 pg	2,950	2,850	2,765	2,715	2,640	2,555	2,495
1/4 pg	2,285	2,195	2,140	2,095	2,040	1,970	1,925
1/6 pg	1,755	1,690	1,640	1,605	1,560	1,510	1,475
5th Color: Plus $1,045 per page. Metallic Color: Plus $1,265 per page.

COVERS (Four-color)

	1x	4x	6x	9x	12x	18x	24x
Cov 2	7,545	7,245	7,105	6,990	6,785	6,590	6,440
Cov 3	7,230	6,945	6,810	6,695	6,510	6,315	6,170
Cov 4	7,865	7,550	7,395	7,280	7,070	6,865	6,705

 

Guaranteed Positions: Full-page space can be guaranteed on a space-available basis; page rate plus 15%.

Online assessments can reduce your pre-employment screening costs. Objective “job fit” screening online is the most accurate and least expensive method for eliminating unsuitable applicants. You can cut both the costs of interviewing unnecessarily and the costs of turnover by beginning the hiring process with online assessments. An employee whose core personality traits and learning capabilities fit the demands of the job is most likely to provide long-term value to the organization. The low cost of web-based assessments allow you to use advanced personality testing for every employee at every level, not just for upper-level management.

Use online assessments to match applicants to a performance benchmark. Assessments can be used to measure traits shared by peak performers in your existing work force. Based on those shared traits, you can create a benchmark for workplace success. Applicants whose assessment scores most closely match your benchmark are the only ones you need to call back for an interview.

SOURCE: Advantage Assessment Inc., Pensacola, FL, March 15, 1999.

Want more information on HR Technology? Search the Workforce Online Research Center, or click here to find out about the June IHRIM conference in Salt Lake City.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), a law intended to ensure that employees voluntarily waive their rights to file age discrimination claims, does not prohibit an employer from revoking an early retirement offer while an employee is considering it.

After he received notice of his termination, Lorin Ellison, the 62-year-old chief financial officer at Premier Salons International Inc., was given a separation agreement and release of claims. Before Ellison decided to accept the offer, the company revoked it, and offered a second, less attractive severance package. After the company revoked the first offer, but prior to receiving the new offer, Ellison signed the original offer. When the company refused to honor the first offer, Ellison sued for breach of contract, arguing that an offer of a severance package is irrevocable during the 21-day review period provided by the OWBPA.

The federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, upon appeal, rejected Ellison’s argument. The Eighth Circuit held that the OWBPA merely provides that older workers must not be forced to sign releases without having 21 days to consider them. However, it does not bar employers from revoking offers during that same time period. Ellison vs. Premier Salons International Inc., 8^th Cir., No. 98-1384, 1/6/99.

Impact:
Employers may revoke unaccepted severance packages, even during the 21-day review period provided by the OWBPA.

 

Source: D. Diane Hatch, Ph.D., a human resources consultant based in San Francisco, and James E. Hall, an attorney with the law firm of Barlow, Kobata & Denis, with offices in Los Angeles and Chicago.