Author: Site Staff

Not surprisingly, emotions and opinions run high when it comes to employer monitoring practices. Employers generally agree on the basic premises for such oversight activity. Here are the percentages of respondents concurring with the following statements:

EMPLOYEE FAIR MONITORING PRACTICE	GENERAL PUBLIC	EMPLOYEES	UNION MEMBERS
Procedures for listening-in and standards used to evaluate employee call handling should be fully explained to employees.	89%	93%	92%
Employees should be told when they are hired for these jobs that supervisors will sometimes listen-in on business calls, so that employees can agree or not agree to work under these procedures.	88%	92%	95%
Employees whose performance is criticized should have access to any notes or recordings maid of their calls, and given the opportunity to challenge the supervisor’s evaluation.	86%	90%	96%
Problems with employee performance found from listening-in should lead to additional employee training, and only when performance fails to improve should disciplinary action be taken.	82%	87%	90%
Listening-in should be done only on business calls, with separate and unmonitored telephone facilities for employees to make personal calls.	73%	78%	83%
Management should involve employees in setting up standards and procedures for listening-in on business calls.	73%	77%	84%

SOURCE: Privacy & American Business/ Harris Survey, 1994.

Personnel Journal, May 1996, Vol. 75, No. 5, p. 76.

The Department of Labor recently has issued guidance on the amount of investment education a company can offer before stepping over the line into “investment advice,” prohibited by ERISA. The guidance named four “safe harbors”—categories of information that generally won’t be considered investment advice. These are:

One—Plan information:
information such as benefits of participation, reasons to contribute as much as possible, the impact of pre-retirement withdrawals, and the investment information required by the 404(c) regulations, such as prospectuses and fund returns.

Two—General financial and investment information:
general financial investment concepts, asset classes, the historical returns for different asset classes and the effects of inflation over periods of time.

Three—Asset allocation models:
models that provide participants with portfolios of hypothetical individuals with different time horizons and risk profiles. Models should include all material facts and assumptions on which the models are based.

Four—Interactive investment materials:
asset allocation models may be applied to individual employees’ investing issues through worksheets, software and other similar tools.

Note: All four of these “safe harbor” areas have additional conditions and requirements. Employers are advised to seek a full copy of the guidelines from the Department of Labor.

SOURCE: Hewitt Associates

Personnel Journal, April 1996, Vol. 75, No. 4, p. 72.

In 1995, the U.S. Department of Labor published its research about the effects on company performance of downsizing. Below are its guidelines, (many of which are apparent in Siemens Rolm’s restructuring approach) which have reaped success for both companies and their employees.

1. Articulate a vision of what you want your organization to achieve.

2. Establish a corporate culture that views people as assets to be developed rather than as costs to be cut.

3. Be clear about your short- and long-range objectives; e.g., to cut costs (short-range) and to improve customer service and shareholder value through more effective use of assets (long-range).

4. Establish an alternative menu of options for reaching the short- and long-range objectives.

5. Get the people who will have to live with the changes involved in making them; provide opportunities for input at all levels.

6. Communicate, communicate, communicate! Share as much information as possible about prospective changes with those who will be affected by them.

7. Recognize that employees are unlikely to contribute creative, ingenious ways to cut costs if they think their own employment security will be jeopardized as a result.

8. If cutting costs by cutting people is inevitable, establish a set of priorities for doing so (such as laying off outside contractors and temps first) and stick to it. Show by deed that full-time, value-adding employees will be the last to go.

9. If employees must be let go, provide as much advance notice as possible, treat them with dignity and respect, and provide assistance to help them find new jobs.

10. Consider retraining and redeploying surplus workers to promote their employment security and self-reliance and to protect your human resources investment.

11. Give surviving employees a reason to stay. Explain what opportunities will be available to them.

12. View restructuring as part of a process of continual improvement –with subgoals and measurable check points over time — rather than as a one-time event.

SOURCE: Guide to Responsible Restructuring, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the American Workplace, 1995.

Personnel Journal, February 1996, Vol. 75, No. 2, pp. 58-69.

Will the human resources problems today, be the same in 2005? According to a survey by the Human Resource Institute at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Florida, many of HR’s top issues are changing. See if your concerns are the same.

HR’s 1995 Concerns	HR’s 2005 Concerns
managing change skill level of the work force rising health-care costs management issues work ethics, values and attitudes improving productivity focus on the customer employee communications information technology reengineering	skill level of the work force managing change information technology aging of the work force management issues quality of education work ethic, values and attitudes managing diversity improving productivity employee communications

Personnel Journal, January 1996, Vol. 75, No. 1, p. 30.

The International Benchmarking Clearinghouse of the American Productivity and Quality Center in Houston offers the following advice on how to engage in best practices studies ethically and effectively:

Principle of Legality
If there’s any potential question on the legality of an activity, don’t do it.

Avoid discussions or actions that could lead to or imply an interest in restraint of trade, market and/or customer allocation schemes, price fixing, dealing arrangements, bid rigging or bribery. Don’t discuss costs with competitors if costs are an element of pricing.

Refrain from the acquisition of trade secrets by any means that could be interpreted as improper, including the breach or inducement of a breach of any duty to maintain secrecy. Do not disclose or use any trade secret that may have been obtained through improper means or that was disclosed by another in violation of duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.

Principle of Exchange
Be willing to provide the same type and level of information that you request from your benchmarking partner to your benchmarking partner.

Communicate fully and early in the relationship to clarify expectations, avoid misunderstandings and establish mutual interest in the benchmarking exchange.

Be honest and complete.

Principle of Confidentiality
Treat benchmarking interchange as confidential to the individuals and companies involved. Information must not be communicated outside the partnering organizations without the prior consent of the benchmarking partner who shared the information.

A company’s participation in a study is confidential and shouldn’t be communicated externally without the company’s prior permission.

Principle of Use
Use information obtained through benchmarking only for purposes of formulating improvement of operations or processes within the companies participating in the benchmarking study.

The use or communication of a benchmarking partner’s name with the data obtained or practices observed requires the prior permission of that partner.

Don’t use benchmarking information, or any information resulting from a benchmarking exchange, or benchmarking-related networking, as a means to market or sell.

Contact lists or other contact information provided by the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse in any form may not be used for marketing in any way.

Principle of FirsT-Party Contact
Initiate benchmarking contacts, whenever possible, through a benchmarking contact designated by the desired partner’s company.

Respect the corporate culture of partner companies. Establish—and work within—mutually agreed upon procedures.

Obtain mutual agreement with the designated benchmarking contact on any hand-off of communication or responsibility to other parties.

Principle of Third-Party Contact
Obtain an individual’s permission before providing his or her name in response to a contact request.

Avoid communicating a contact’s name in an open forum without the contact’s prior permission.

Principle of Preparation
Demonstrate commitment to the efficiency and effectiveness of benchmarking by being prepared prior to making an initial benchmarking contact.

Make the most of your benchmarking partner’s time by being fully prepared for each exchange.

Help your benchmarking partners prepare by providing a questionnaire and agenda prior to benchmarking visits.

Principle of Completion
Follow through with each commitment made to your benchmarking partner in a timely manner.

Complete each benchmarking study to the satisfaction of all benchmarking partners as mutually agreed.

Principle of the Understanding and Action
Understand how your benchmarking partner would like to be treated. Treat your benchmarking partner in the way that your benchmarking partner would want to be treated.

Understand how your benchmarking partner would like to have the information he or she provides handled and used, and handle and use it in that manner.

SOURCE: The International Benchmarking Clearinghouse of the American Productivity and Quality Center in Houston

Personnel Journal, November 1995, Vol. 74, No. 11, p. 66.

The following factors were identified as critical to global-team success by Santa Clara, California-based Intel Corp. after it interviewed and studied its high-performance teams.

Attitude

• Positive attitude
• High motivation
• Desire for success
• Respect among team members
• Commitment
• Confidence
• Goals and focus
• Clear charter, responsibilities, boundaries and time lines.

Common incentives and goals

• Multi-tasking while simultaneously maintaining the team’s focus and prioritization
• Challenging tasks
• Understanding mutual expectations
• Diversity
• Multi-disciplinary and diverse team membership
• Complimentary skills
• Shared common values
• Trust and listening
• Global teamwork
• Having common goals
• Strong internal business relationships/partnerships
• Management
• Good coaching
• Lots of delegation: little bureaucracy
• Empowerment and independence.

Communication

• Good communication between team members
• Early face-to-face meetings
• Publication and proliferation of documents describing team processes, as well as content issues.

SOURCE: Intel Corp.

Personnel Journal, September 1995, Vol. 74, No. 9, p. 54.

A recent review of 20 surveys conducted across the country between 1980 and 1994 shows that between 16% and 44% of gay and lesbian respondents felt that they faced some kind of discrimination in employment, generally in the areas of hiring, firing, harassment, evaluation or promotion (U.S. Newswire). In a 1987 Wall Street Journal poll of Fortune 500 chief executives, 66% of the CEOs indicated that they would hesitate to give a management job to a homosexual person.

Do the gays and lesbians suffering this discrimination have legal recourse? No. Currently, it’s perfectly legal to fire, demote or refuse to hire a person based on nothing more than his or her sexual orientation—there is no Federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals in the workplace based on sexual orientation.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA—Senate 2238, House 4636), currently being debated by the U.S. Congress, would give gays, bisexuals and lesbians legal recourse to fight against employment— and workplace-related discrimination.

Here’s a brief run-down of the Act’s contents:

• The core of ENDA prohibits an employer with 15 or more employees from using an individual’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, stressing that sexual orientation has no bearing on one’s ability to contribute to the economic needs of society.
• The bill also provides for meaningful and effective remedies for such discrimination, including reinstatement and punitive damages.
• Section three of the bill protects against discrimination based on the sexual orientation of one’s associates, while section four states that application of ENDA does not cover domestic-partner benefits.
• Under ENDA, employers are expressly forbidden from implementing affirmative action programs or using quota or goal systems based on sexual orientation.
• ENDA exempts religious organizations from the bill completely. However, church-run businesses are subject to ENDA regulations.
• The bill doesn’t affect current law on homosexuals and bisexuals in the military—that issue is being dealt with by other acts of Congress.
• The requirement of filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the right of an individual to bring a private suit and the ability of an individual to receive injunctive relief and damages, up to the limits authorized by Title VII, are incorporated in Section nine. States can’t claim immunity under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution.
• Section 17 deals with what many consider a troublesome issue. It states that the Act shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment. This gives the employer the opportunity to purge the organization’s ranks of all homosexual employees. The concern here, however, is likely unwarranted, because many homosexuals will certainly stay “in the closet” for the 60 days until the Act takes effect.

A diverse network of groups supports ENDA.
Support for ENDA comes from a broad range of political, business, labor and civil rights groups.

• Political support begins with ENDA’s chief sponsor, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. At present, Senator Kennedy is joined by 146 Congressional co-sponsors, with 30 Senators and 116 Representatives officially lending their support to the bill. Of the 146 sponsors, 136 are Democrats, nine are Republicans and one is Independent, showing the partisan political nature of the bill’s support—a potential stumbling block to ENDA’s enactment.
• In addition, President Clinton has stated that should Congress pass ENDA, he will sign it into law. Thus, even though the President is not actively campaigning for ENDA, his declared agreement with the aims of the bill is a major source of support for the bill’s sponsors.
• ENDA has received endorsements from major corporations, including Xerox, Bankers Trust, Harley Davidson, Honeywell, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Dow Jones, RJR Nabisco and AT&T.
• The ENDA bill has drawn almost universal support from organized labor, including the AFL-CIO, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers, American Federation of Teachers, American Association of Nurses, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees and the International Association of Fire Fighters (Human Rights Campaign Fund).
• Many civil rights groups are in favor of ENDA, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Women’s Legal Defense Fund, NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund, and Japanese American Citizens League. Particularly vocal are gay and lesbian groups, led by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.
• There has also been a somewhat surprising amount of support from religious groups, including the National Council of Churches, Anti-Defamation League, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian Universalist Church and the United Methodist Church.

ENDA is backed by compelling arguments.
Senator Kennedy places the ENDA bill in the context of other Civil Rights legislation. During the Senate hearing on the bill, his opening comments focused on removing sexual orientation as a basis for job discrimination, in the same way that race, gender, religion, national origin, age and disabilities have been dealt with by previous legislation. The argument goes that because there’s no evidence that sexual orientation has any significant relationship to job performance, it should be removed as a basis for negative selection decisions.

There also is an argument for consistency. Although certain cities, towns and counties have tried to deal with sexual-orientation discrimination, they all vary in the degree to which protection is offered and how an individual pursues a claim. If ENDA is enacted, it would mean that all workers would be subject to the same federal protection.

There also are two compelling economic reasons to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. First, as businesses face greater competition, both domestically and globally, companies will have to ensure that they’re recruiting the most qualified candidates available. In a sense, it’s self-defeating for a company to deliberately cut itself off from a particular talent pool just because of misgivings about that group’s lifestyle.

The second economic argument is based on the National Commission on Employment Policy’s (NCEP) attempts to quantify the costs of discrimination on taxpayers, consumers and corporations. Taxpayers and corporations bear the cost for discrimination in that an estimated 42,000 gay workers are dismissed each year due to sexual orientation. This translates into a $47 million loss, in terms of training expenditures and unemployment benefits.

Groups against ENDA have their own arguments.
Opponents to ENDA aren’t as numerous as the bill’s proponents. In addition to Richard Epstein, author of “Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination,” its most vocal adversaries include the Family Research Group, a conservative Washington think tank, and Joseph Broadus, a George Mason University law professor.

Epstein contends that civil rights laws in general are counterproductive. When a minority group is allowed to promote an agenda, he portends, it behaves as badly as the majority group that’s supposedly discriminating against it.

Of course, some groups raise moral arguments also. Robert Knight of the Family Research Council and Broadus of George Mason University argue that ENDA would force employers to act against their consciences. Knight also notes that the religious exemption doesn’t apply to church-run, for-profit businesses. Knight speaks for many individuals when he states that if the bill becomes law, for the first time in history Americans will be told that they must hire people they believe to be committing immoral acts precisely because they commit those acts. This interferes with freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, he says.

Although there are many religious groups who favor the bill, there are many more who feel it would threaten the basic values they are trying to impart. As mentioned earlier, church-run businesses—such as children’s summer camps, the Boy Scouts, bookstores, publishing houses, and television and radio stations—with 15 or more employees would have to comply with the legislation. This means that the message that religious institutions connected with these businesses send to their members regarding their position on homosexuality and bisexuality would be weakened.

ENDA’s opponents also have their legal arguments. For one thing, many worry that a strict application of the act would end up creating informal quotas. In addition, many object to correlations drawn between ENDA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, believing that no one is born gay, that it’s a lifestyle decision. Because this is an overt choice they made, there’s no need to protect them from employment discrimination.

Opponents also cite recent education and employment figures to argue that the Act will result in special privileges for an elite group. The data show that homosexuals have above-average levels of education and income. Forty nine percent of homosexuals hold managerial or professional positions compared with 18% for the general population, and the average income for gay individuals is $36,000 per capita yearly versus $12,287 for the overall population.

ENDA teeters on the line of passage.
Will ENDA become law? It’s difficult to say. Seventy-six percent of Americans support equal employment rights for homosexuals, according to the Human Rights Campaign Fund. However, despite this undercurrent of approval, the change in the composition of Congress would argue against its passage in the current session.

ENDA will, however, come to pass, just as other fair-employment legislation has before it. As in the case of earlier legislation in the area of employment discrimination, it will undergo an intense public and Congressional debate. The legislation will be rewritten and amended many times. Eventually its time will come and sexual orientation, for better or worse, will be added to the growing list of criteria removed from consideration in employment decisions.

The passage of ENDA would begin, but certainly not conclude, the process of protecting homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace. Legislation is only one tool for realizing change in society. Ultimately, perceptions and attitudes will have to be altered to achieve ENDA’s aims. The passage of this legislation is a necessary first step.

Personnel Journal, August 1995, Vol. 74, No. 8, pp. 48-49.

Anti-Defamation League
This group helps people who believe they’ve been discriminated against on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity. The ADL also offers a wide variety of education and diversity-training programs.
800/446-2684

Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Located in Los Angeles county, the APALC is a non-profit agency dedicated to providing legal assistance to the Asian-Pacific American immigrant community. It also informs the public about political and social issues pertaining to this minority group.
213/748-2022

Center for Creative Leadership
An international, not-for-profit group that strives to improve the practice of leadership and management throughout the global society. Center for Creative Leadership activities include research, publication and continuing education.
619/453-4774

The Conference Board
A business-supported research network.
212/339-0231

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
A national, non-profit legal and educational organization serving the Hispanic community.
213/629-2512

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc.
Primarily involved in class-action suits where discrimination is an issue. Also sponsors educational seminars.
213/624-2405

National Conference of Christians and Jews
A non-sectarian, non-profit human relations organization that attempts to improve lines of communication and cooperation in a culturally diverse work force.
213/250-8787

SOURCE: Compiled by Charlene Marmer Solomon

Personnel Journal, August 1995, Vol. 74, No. 8, p. 66.

Guidelines for managing an alliance:

• Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of favorable and unfavorable conditions. Control them to maximize revenues, minimize costs and lower risks
• When possible, start an alliance small and build on trust
• Avoid exchanging market access between competitors
• Identify and address conflicts over activities critical to success, time horizons or government regulation
• Generate widespread internal political support
• Place operating managers on the negotiating team
• Send divisive topics to higher-level negotiation groups
• Structure the alliance with its own board of directors to speed up the approval process
• Select a CEO on the basis of appropriate skills, style and ability to develop an understanding of goals and competitive advantages that are to be shared between the alliance partners
• Do not require the alliance to prepare two sets of financial control reporting systems, one for each partner
• Stay alert to early signs of termination: inflexibility in adapting operating procedures; combative negotiation style; conflict over management appointments; politicking; and a reluctance to reinvest
• In the termination process, determine what must be accomplished in order to allow the remaining partner to keep the former joint activity going
• When negotiating termination procedures, do not establish a precise termination value formula nor take a detailed, legalistic approach that breeds mistrust.

SOURCE: The Conference Board

Personnel Journal, May 1995, Vol. 74, No. 5, p. 30.

An organization’s culture can be defined as “What it’s like to work around here.” Its dimensions include the following:

• What the organization expects from its people and how it communicates those expectations
• How the organization does its work
• Whether there are major class distinctions between employee groups (e.g. management vs. line employees) or if the work environment is more egalitarian
• How and by whom decisions are made
• How work is organized-by functions, business lines or customers
• The level of employee involvement and to what degree employees are encouraged to take risks
• Whether employees are encouraged to compete with one another or to support one another
• The meaning of success in the organization.

SOURCE: Sibson & Company

Personnel Journal, April 1995, Vol. 74, No. 4, p. 32.