Performance measurement has long been viewed as a necessary but torturous part of the talent management process.
Historically, this process has been shaped by awkward and time-consuming end-of-the-year performance ratings that often feel more like criticism than coaching and rarely result in any meaningful changes in behavior. However, over the past several years the performance measurement process has been evolving.
“The big question today is, ‘Do we even need performance ratings?’ ” said Bhushan Sethi, performance management analyst for PwC. He noted that many Silicon Valley firms have done away with ratings all together, while other companies are rating employees behind the scenes. “They still go through the rating process to figure out raises and bonuses,” he said. But they are eliminating the annual sit-down review.
While some HR leaders applaud this evolution, others believe it is counterproductive. “Proponents of the ‘no ratings’ fad hyped the movement using selective company examples,” noted Marc Effron, founder of the Talent Strategy Group and author of 8 Steps to High Performance. However for every success story, he pointed to companies like medical equipment maker Medtronic, Conagra Brands Inc., and American Airlines, which reversed course and re-installed ratings after their financial performance suffered. Effron also pointed to a 2016 Gartner study that shows companies that eliminate ratings actually see a drop in employee performance because managers don’t know how to manage without them.
Let Robots Do It
While the jury may be out on whether ratings are a necessary part of performance measurement, most HR leaders agree that a once-a-year review on its own is not effective. Instead, they are encouraging managers to provide more real-time feedback throughout the year so employees can adapt their performance and identify opportunities for improvement before their output is affected.
“Employees who want to be higher performers benefit from clear goals and more frequent coaching,” Effron said. But only if it’s done correctly. “Leaders need to improve their capability to set a few, very big, very challenging, very aligned goals for themselves and their team members.”
The demand for more real-time performance measurement has sparked HR technology vendors to embed rating tools, social feedback loops, 360 degree reviews and other performance measurement features in their platforms, or as standalone solutions.
“The trend is toward slick, user-friendly mobile tools to provide real-time feedback,” Sethi said. He pointed to PWC’s own custom-built Snapshots tool, which lets employees provide and request rapid reviews on five performance characteristics, including leadership ability and business acumen. Many of the enterprise software vendors and smaller boutique firms are building similar performance feedback tools to expand their platform.
“It’s the next wave of HR technology,” he said.
Sethi predicts that the next evolution of performance measurement tools will be fully automated, artificially intelligent bots that use machine learning algorithms to rate employee performance based on data, such as sales results, projects delivered, and feedback from managers. An automated solution could take the human bias out of the rating process while freeing managers to focus on coaching their people to improve performance and close gaps on the team, Sethi said. “This would be a much better use of their time.”
Providing such care while working a full-time job is both physically and mentally taxing for most employees, and studies even show that burnout from caregiving responsibilities cost companies nearly $13.4 billion each year in health care expenses.
Backup elder care is a benefit some organizations are considering for employees. In general, there are two primary types of elder care benefits:
Dependent care assistance plans. These plans deduct a certain portion of an employee’s paycheck (gross amount before taxes) to pay for elder care costs. According to Forbes, currently, 41 percent of employers offer this benefit.
Respite care. Offered by only 7 percent of companies, this benefit offers short-term care to family members when an employee needs to rest, take time off or go into work.
Flexible work options. These options include allowing caregiver employees to work from home, have flexible hours during the day, or providing paid time off.
Care subsidies. This benefit would help employees with the cost of elder care with subsidies covering either direct costs or backup care.
Support groups. Employers can create onsite caregiver support groups for employees. This will allow them to speak with fellow coworkers dealing with caregiving of senior parents and perhaps find some value in communicating. The employer may also provide online support group resources if onsite isn’t an option.
Respite care is the benefit most commonly referred to as backup elder care, and it is provided through the private insurance companies employers contract with. It is a voluntary benefit, so employees who do not need backup elder care do not have to enroll. If an employee does not know whether they have these benefits, they should speak with a human resources or benefits manager.
The Professional Impact of an Aging Population
According to the U.S. census, nearly 70 million Americans will be over the age of 65 by 2030. This may sound like a shocking statistic to many, but as the baby boomer population ages and exits the workforce, their children and younger relatives might be required to act as caregivers in many situations.
Backup elder care benefits helps employers reduce the amount of stress caregiving employees experience by allowing them to know that their loved ones will be cared for while they are at work.
Studies show that employees prefer to work for companies that offer a reasonable work-life balance. Companies should keep this in mind when deciding whether to provide backup elder care. Caregiving can be exhausting, even for the most dedicated individual and when paired with a demanding work schedule, employees become overwhelmed.
By providing elder care, caregiving employees will have more flexibility. This means limiting the choice of missing a workday or taking care of an infirm parent.
Scheduling Flexibility
According to a 2012 CareerBuilder study, nearly 40 percent of employees who voluntarily left the workplace did so because of a poor work-life balance. Few employees appreciate being called in at the last minute to work abnormal hours, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Most managers and supervisors are aware of this, but if their employees have outside caregiving obligations, they simply will not be able to depend on them to work outside of normal work hours.
Many employees also have difficulty balancing their caregiving responsibilities with regular work hours. Caregivers are more likely than other employees to leave work early and use paid time off to look after loved ones.
This can place a strain on the workplace when a valuable employee is not able to work their normal hours, especially if other workers are forced to pull their weight for them.
Millennials make up 35 percent of the American workforce, and as members of the baby boomer generation age millennials will have to accept the role of family caregiver. As of 2013, nearly 19 percent of caregiving employees were under the age of 40, and this percentage is only expected to increase in coming years. If a company fails to keep such statistics in mind when recruiting younger professionals, it may start to notice its talent pool shrinking because of its perceived lack of concern for its employees who double as caregivers.
Offering Backup Elder Care
As time continues to prove backup elder care should be a benefit offered by an employer, more companies are taking responsibility in offering these benefits. A main provider of backup elder care is Bright Horizons. They offer 24/7 backup elder care to employers. The organization is understanding of both the employer and employee’s needs and even provides an online self-service support for if the employee wants to choose and hire the caregivers themselves. Other providers include Care.com, LifeCare and Town + Country Resources.
Prices vary per provider, with some backup benefit providers estimating a minimum of $15,000 per year to be paid by the employer. The average amount of an employee paying for elder care services is estimated at $4 to $6 per day if the employer subsidizes the cost.
Offering backup elder care is not only beneficial for employees and their loved ones but a company’s bottom line as well. Caregiving employees cost companies millions of dollars in lost hours each year, and by offering backup elder care, you may be able to make up for these losses and retain your most valuable employees who want to work for a company that understands their needs and the importance of family.
Author Keri Ohlrich asks whether you’re an HR warrior or HR weenie in her new book, “The Way of the HR Warrior.” Workforce Editorial Director Rick Bell caught up with Ohlrich via email.
Workforce: Are HR practitioners viewed as second-class citizens in the corporate world?
Keri Ohlrich: Short answer: Yes. If we’re being cheeky here, we might wish to be second-class citizens, but we’re more like third or fourth class.
Long answer: It depends. There are wonderful leaders and cultures who adore HR, understand the value and expect high performance from the HR department. Unfortunately, the majority of businesses and employees do view HR as second-class citizens and a department that does not contribute to the bottom line.
Why second-class citizens? Let’s look at leadership, HR, and society. Leadership sometimes only wants tactical and administrative HR support. Why wouldn’t they want a strategic HR professional? A strategic HR person questions and discusses how to help their organization reach higher levels. There are leaders who don’t want dissent or to be challenged. They simply want HR to do compliance work and payroll. You can spot companies who view HR as second class when they have HR reporting to Finance or Legal. Or even worse, when they give HR responsibilities to anyone in legal or finance because let’s face it, they would rarely, if ever, ask HR to handle finance or legal matters.
There are some HR talent who are only at the level of tactical and want to stay that way. They crave checking off tasks on the to-do list and completing what is easy. They get a charge from accomplishing tasks. Creating strategy and pushing the organization takes courage and long-term thinking. There are some in HR who resist that level of responsibility and are comfortable being second-class citizens—it’s a safer position.
Lastly, let’s look at society in general. Professions that are human focused are often not given the respect and/or paid like technology-focused professions (think teachers, nurses, social workers versus engineers). Human resources already starts in a one-down position as the “touchy-feely job” and “you just listen to people all day.” Then, let’s consider that the majority of HR professionals are females. Do I need to discuss how females are often viewed as second-class citizens? Cue mic drop.
WF: Since the beginnings of the #MeToo movement there were a lot of questions surrounding, ‘Where was HR’? So, where was HR?
Ohlrich: Great question. First, let’s address a couple types of HR professionals. Yes, there are definitely the HR professionals that we can all point at and call low-performing. And yes, there are HR professionals who knew about harassment and did nothing. They likely did nothing because they were afraid for their job, afraid to speak out, or even worse, just didn’t care that much. That’s the typical story we hear about, but let’s talk about another type of HR professional.
There were amazing HR professionals who were horrified by the behaviors of their leaders. They brought issues to the attention of those leaders and—wait for it—nothing happened. This occurred for a number of reasons: “he brings in so much revenue,” “he has great customer contacts,” or one of my favorites, “we cannot do anything about it because the CEO does the same thing.” There are many HR professionals who had the courage to address hostile work environments, discrimination, and harassment, and if leaders or the board of directors don’t care about it, HR becomes stuck. I know many HR rock stars who have left, had their departments reduced in size, or been fired for their courage and commitment to integrity. It is much easier to fire the trouble maker than to address the issue.
So, here’s my question: where were the leaders?
WF: Your book in part is titled HR Warrior. But you also cite the HR weenie. How can it be both ways in one profession?
Ohlrich: Ah, just like in every profession there are low- and high-performers. There are great CEOs and weenie CEOs, wonderful IT professionals and weenie IT, you get my drift.
But I think there are two main reasons why there is a question of why HR weenies and why that low expectation persists. One, HR is very visible in companies and, two, they are involved in emotional events (hiring, performance issues, layoffs). Therefore, when they’re HR weenies, that behavior is magnified.
Employees and hiring candidates will tell stories to family and friends about what horrible thing HR did (“they didn’t call me back,” “my resume went nowhere,” “they gave me zero severance”). Almost everyone has looked for jobs, received merits, or left jobs. All these situations involve HR and if there is a bad experience during these emotional times, well, then the stories about HR weenies grow exponentially!
But just as there are HR weenies, there are HR warriors who can change the perception. HR warriors can counteract the negative image of the HR weenie one employee at a time. And the same HR warrior might have been an HR weenie in the past. Heck, we all develop and grow—it’s possible for each of us to start off as an HR weenie and grow into an HR warrior. However, a true HR weenie wants to stay in a static position — they refuse to do the hard work to become a resilient and exemplary member of their organization. There were times in my career when I was sure I was more on the weenie side than the warrior side!
WF: Does HR exist to represent the best interests of the organization or the employee?
Ohlrich: It is not a zero-sum game. HR needs to represent both but it is difficult to strike this balance. Oftentimes the best interest of the company and the employee are opposing sides (should we talk about employee health benefits?). This is what makes HR work a wonderful challenge and not for the faint of heart. Unfortunately, I’ve seen many HR Weenies only side with either the employee or the organization and stick to that side no matter what!
Additionally, I think employees want to feel we are there for them, but don’t truly believe that. There are managers who won’t coach or have difficult conversations with employees. Instead, they have HR do “the dirty work.” As an aside, oh how I wish HR would get out of the business of doing managers’ jobs of talent management! Consequently, the employees see HR as the police, because poor managers say, “let me tell HR.” Frequently, employees only see HR when something bad is happening (layoffs, terminations, performance issues). We have an exposure issue. For example, when you only take your dog for a car ride when it’s time to visit the vet, what does the dog think? Car = bad. If HR is only there for bad times, employees think HR = bad. At the same time, organizations tend to believe that HR is there to support only the business.
HR needs courage to balance that tension and understand that the job is a lonely one. Sometimes an HR professional works behind the scenes to get laid-off employees an extra month of insurance, but employees will never know that. Sometimes HR works with legal to figure out the quickest, most efficient way to terminate an underperforming employee and help the organization save on a potential lawsuit, but it isn’t fast enough for the organization.
An HR warrior maintains this tension, and they’re courageous for both employees and the business. An HR professional who only uses one lens (the business or the employee) just might be an HR weenie!
WF: Are HR practitioners afraid to speak up when they see inappropriate conduct by their superiors?
Ohlrich: Well, yes and no. If the inappropriate conduct is their direct supervisor that is a sticky wicket. HR at this point is just like any other employee who has an inappropriate manager. The questions are: What if I say something? Will I get fired? Will my job get worse? Will I need to quit? To make things a bit more complicated, employees have the option of talking to HR, but HR might not have that option for themselves.
It takes the utmost courage to speak out directly against your manager, especially if s/he is the CEO. Where do you go with the complaint: the board, your peers, the public? And as we’ve seen in the past, when victims speak out, it often does not end well for them. The stakes are often higher for HR to speak out because they know the impact that leader has on the entire organization.
If the inappropriate behavior is not caused by the direct manager, but others on the leadership team, then this falls into typical HR duties. Meaning, HR needs to call out these behaviors and try to change them. Again, like the direct manager, the politics of the situation get more complex as the leaders are usually in alliance with one another and will, therefore, protect each other. It can be very difficult for HR to break through the leadership clique when bad behavior is occurring.
WF: What’s an example of “HR speak” that HR professionals should try to avoid? How should they rephrase it?
Ohlrich: So much business and HR speak! I think the most cringe-worthy one that sticks out is “the policy says” or “according to the policy.” It’s better to say, “Well, we can do that, and let’s understand the consequences first.” Of course, if harassment is involved, it’s best to stop that behavior in the first place!
But I have heard HR professionals use “policy speak” on issues that are not as black and white as sexual harassment. Some HR professionals, when asked a question, have sent an email with a cut-and-paste description of the policy to managers. If we just make binary decisions, then we could be replaced by robots. We need to understand the goals and motivations of the audience. We need to tailor our message to them and avoid HR speak.
We bring so much more than just “the policy says.” We understand the business, the culture, and the people, and we can help leaders think through complex issues. It requires more than “policy,” it requires understanding the business and the people. Dare I say it? It requires an HR Warrior!
WF: HR practitioners will go to conferences like SHRM and WorldatWork and get all pumped up then go back and face the realities of their job. How do they carry forth and utilize that positive vibe?
Ohlrich: It’s exciting to hear great ideas and best practices at conferences! And it’s definitely tough to go back to the “real world.” In fact, it can be extra frustrating because an HR professional can visualize what a great organization can look like and realize, “Crud, we aren’t that — not even close!”
To avoid the “post-conference blues,” set realistic goals. First, focus on the big picture. What is a talent goal for the organization? Maybe the business needs to overhaul the way they approach performance. Then ask, where is the organization on its journey to this goal? The HR professional needs to meet the organization where it is and then push! Of course, we have to get leadership buy-in first and explain how we are pushing for good business reasons, and not just to push.
Now, the HR professional knows the overall goal and the maturity level of their organization. From there, create three mini goals to help move toward the overall goal. Consider three that can be achieved in the next six to 12 months. By creating mini-goals, the HR professional can channel the energy of the conference and accomplish great things.
WF: The 2005 Fast Company article ‘Why I Hate HR’ argued that HR is lazy, unhelpful, etc. Why do these arguments still seem to linger?
Ohlrich: Triple sigh. I could blame the media coverage, Dilbert comics, The Office TV show, and I could name more shows that depict HR as lazy losers and freaks (yeah, looking at some of my favorite shows like Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and A Series of Unfortunate Events). It reminds me of the statistics on plane crashes: because they’re covered in the media more often than car crashes, people tend to believe air travel is less safe than cars, when the exact opposite is true. We need a great PR firm to help overhaul the image of HR!
Now, I can’t just blame the media for HR’s poor image. We absolutely have poor talent in HR—the HR Weenies. As I mentioned earlier, HR interacts with every employee at some point in their lifecycle at work (hiring, performance, termination) therefore, one bad HR Weenie experience is told to an exponential number of people. The HR Warrior stories aren’t shared as widely.
We can do more with our profession. Leaders can demand more from HR (as well as themselves). HR can demand more from our profession. HR is indispensable for organizations and employees, and we HR professionals need to tell stories that showcase us in a different light. We have HR Warriors in companies and their voices need to be heard and their stories told. When we accomplish that, our perception of HR changes.
The unemployment rate may be at a record low, but there are still vast pockets of workers in the United States struggling to find jobs.
Global hotel chain Hyatt Corp. is tapping into one of these talent pools with RiseHY, its new community-hiring program, which uses virtual reality and gaming to introduce young people looking for career opportunities to the hospitality industry.
As part of the initiative, Hyatt hotels around the world have committed to hiring 10,000 “opportunity youth” — people ages 18 to 24 who are neither in school nor working — by 2025. According to data from Brookings Institute, 4.7 million young people fall into this category.
“This program is a labor of love,” says Jessica Schultz, Hyatt’s senior manager of community engagement. Part philanthropy and part talent development, RiseHY was designed to support the community while helping Hyatt fill its talent pipeline. “This is a pool of untapped talent who have skills and ambition,” said Audrey Williams-Lee, vice president of corporate HR and philosophy. “They could be a great fit for our organization.”
Immersive Hotel Tours
However, RiseHY is more than just a targeted recruiting effort.
Audrey Williams-Lee
Opportunity youth often come from disadvantaged neighborhoods and have limited work experience and education. “Hospitality jobs aren’t even on their radar,” Schultz said. When Schultz and Williams-Lee began designing the project, they knew they would need to close that gap and find a way to help young people imagine building a career in hospitality.
To give them a sense of what life would be like working in a hotel, they worked with a vendor to build a virtual reality app, called YouVisit, where candidates can take a virtual guided tour of a hotel, see what workers do and learn what’s required of different roles including room attendants, hostesses, wait staff and concierge. “The virtual reality lets them see what their career path could be, and to think about whether this is a good fit for them,” Williams-Lee said.
Gaming the System
Priyanka Jain
Interested candidates are also invited to complete an online assessment, built by Pymetrics, that uses artificial intelligence to assess a candidate’s skills and attitudes through a series of games and reasoning exercises. The games use neuroscience and reviews of past assessments to measure things like how well candidates multi-task, whether they can filter distractions, and their willingness to take risks, explained Priyanka Jain, head of growth and lead product manager for Pymetrics.
The system then determines where a candidate would be a good fit. “There are no good or bad responses,” Jain said. Rather, it helps the candidates and Hyatt understand where candidates are likely to thrive in the absence of a resume or past job experience.
Jessica Schultz
The virtual reality app and game-based assessments are meant to ease these young people through the early recruiting process, but it is also expected to help increase retention and job satisfaction by ensuring the right people are put into the right roles, said Schultz. “It will create a better flow for our talent funnel.”
Once candidates are selected, they are either hired directly and given a mentor to support them as they ease into the role, or they are placed in a three- to six-month training program developed in partnership with community groups to give them the skills they will need on the job.
Once the training is complete, they may be hired by Hyatt or referred to other hospitality employers. “We aren’t just doing this for Hyatt,” Schultz said. “It’s about helping these kids find careers in hospitality.”
Expanding the program ensures every interested youth has an opportunity to find a job and that Hyatt doesn’t have to slow the program down during low hiring seasons, she added. “We expect to hire at least 10,000 youth, but this program will impact so many more.”
Somehow, the EEOC missed “No strip clubs for employees” as one of its anti-sexual harassment talking points.
Under Armour did not get this #MeToo memo until very recently.
According to The Wall Street Journal, earlier this year Under Armour sent its employees an email advising that the company was ending its longstanding practice of employees charging visits to strip clubs on their corporate credit cards. It appears that over the years, executives and employees, including its CEO, took athletes or co-workers to strip clubs after some corporate and sporting events. Not surprisingly, according to the WSJ, “some top male executives violated company policy by behaving inappropriately with female subordinates,” and “women were invited to an annual company event based on their attractiveness to appeal to male guests.”
The Journal goes on to quote Under Armour Chairman and CEO Kevin Plank, “Our teammates deserve to work in a respectful and empowering environment.… We can and will do better.” No kidding.
Bravo, Under Armour, for taking such a brave stance on your anti-sexual harassment, pro-female culture. Prohibiting employees from using expense accounts at strip clubs is not something about which a company should need reminding. It’s something it should have been doing all along.
Employers, you better “do better,” because we are all watching.
These days, particularly in the United States, it feels like the divided nature of our politics makes it almost impossible to keep from choosing sides.
Whether you’re a person, a business or a politician, you almost certainly know what you support and what you oppose. For organizations and their leaders, that means the more difficult issue often becomes whether to say anything publicly about what you support or oppose.
From a business perspective, the issue of whether to make political statements is critical — and it’s more complex and risky than ever. In the past, CEOs, boards or businesses that took some sort of activist stand used to be able to draw a fairly bright line between social activism and political activism.
Today those lines are far more blurred. Whether we’re talking about the #MeToo movement, education policy, health care, immigration or trade issues, these debates frequently fall into both the social and political spheres.
These are deep and roiling waters for business leaders who personally feel obligated to communicate which side they’re on regarding hot-button issues. Given that there are essentially no people in the middle, coming out on one side or the other comes with significant business risk.
If you’re a business leader who represents a brand and you’re considering taking a public stand on a social or political issue, you should first think very carefully about these three constituencies.
The first group you have to carefully consider when mulling a public political stand is your employees. And here’s the first big question to ask yourself: Is your stand consistent with your stated and lived corporate values, or do those values just represent those of the CEO or some portion of the C-suite? If your stand is consistent with your stated and lived corporate values, and they’re not just the personal musings of a company executive, then you’ve got a check in the go-forward box.
Next, ask yourself if your stand will alienate employees and exacerbate the line between people on both sides of the issue in a more public way than already exists. Think about whether some employees will leave, or if they’ll instead stay and be more committed. Or perhaps they’ll remain but as alienated employees with reduced engagement and performance across the board.
An organization’s public political or social stand can bring employees together or can tear them apart. It can also significantly affect your ability to attract talent, for better or worse, particularly when the economy is strong. You have to carefully measure these potential impacts before you step into the political arena.
Next, it’s absolutely vital to consider how your stand will affect your customer base. Start by considering whether your public position will be received negatively or positively by customers — and also whether it will make it harder or easier for loyal customers to do business with you. The reality is that your stand could grow or diminish your customer base, while also negatively or positively affecting your brand promise.
Remember that you’re representing a business. If you feel compelled to make a political stand, think through how it will affect your actual business, what will the stakeholders will think about that and how or whether they will support you in the long term.
Finally, you have to weigh the impact of your action on your community. No organization exists in a vacuum, whether it’s a one-location business, has 20 locations around the country or is a global organization with hundreds of locations around the world. Consider how your stand will positively or negatively affect your standing in the communities in which you live and operate. Will the community be in agreement or will you alienate your community base?
Particularly if you’re a business with one or a handful of locations, you do business with other businesses in the community and you likely have relationships with policymakers. That means you have important relationships with the larger social environment in which you are living and working, and your business often relies on these connections in nontrivial ways. If your stand will make any of these harder, you need to think through truly what the ramifications are for that action.
When pondering a political stand, the bottom line is to remove the self from your decision and think only in terms of the business. If the stand you’re going to take will put your business at risk, put your employees’ jobs at risk or put your organization’s reputation at risk, then you need to think seriously about whether you’re willing to assume that risk.A
That doesn’t mean you don’t ultimately take the stand. It just means you have to be knowledgeable about what the effects will be and have contingency plans in place. As business leaders, we have to think through the ramifications for our organizations and the people that make them — and not just for the CEO.
Second: Ohio law requires that employers provide all employees a reasonable amount of time off to vote on Election Day. Deny employees that right, or punish them for exercising it, at your risk. Better yet, embrace the Time to Vote movement and implement policies (like paid time off) to encourage your employees to vote on Election Day.
Finally: After the election is over, think about how we heal at work. Some thoughts (care of The Wall Street Journal): providing meeting space for employees to talk after the election, offering supervisors and managers sample language for opening up a constructive dialogue with employees, and playing soothing music to distract employees from political headlines.
“Rosemary’s Baby,” the classic 1968 horror film, tells the story of a pregnant woman who (spoiler alert: correctly) assumes that a satanic cult wants her baby.
What does “Rosemary’s Baby” have to do with employment law?
In honor of Halloween, I bring you the story of Irving Cortez-Hernandez, a “Catholic-Satanist” who prayed to the Devil for his pregnant co-worker to miscarry, and as a result lost both his job and his religious discrimination lawsuit.
Cortez worked as an inside sales representative for Centennial Puerto Rico, selling wireless and broadband telecommunications services to customers in one of its mall stores.
During his employment, Cortez complained to HR that one of his co-workers, Lymarie Torres, had skimmed commissions from his sales. During HR’s investigation of the theft allegations, Torres unloaded about behavior by Cortez that one could only describe as downright frightening.
He would speak in a weird language and, when questioned, would explain that he was praying to Satan, or that the Devil had ordered him to speak in tongues.
He would threaten Torres with satanic rituals, including during her pregnancy to induce a miscarriage.
He told employees that Satan protected him, and that they should not mess with him.
He threatened Torres with comments such as, “Today I feel like killing you,” and others with, “Today I [feel like/would/will] kill someone.”
He would tell co-workers that “when the Devil is inside of him, there is no stopping him.”
Not surprisingly, Centennial fired him. Slightly less surprisingly, Cortez sued for religious discrimination.
In Cortez-Hernandez v. Centennial Puerto Rico (D.P.R. 11/18/2010), the district had little difficulty dismissing Cortez’s lawsuit. He claimed that Centennial terminated him because of his satanic religious beliefs. The court didn’t buy it, concluding that Centennial fired him because of his offensive and threatening comments and behavior, not his religion.
That said, there is no rule that Title VII only protects traditional religions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. According to the EEOC:
The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
Thus, if Satanism is a “sincerely held religious belief” (and, by all accounts, it appears to be), then Title VII protects from workplace discrimination those who practice it. What Title VII does not protect, however, is using your religion as a justification for harassing or threatening others. Hence, Cortez’s lost-cause lawsuit.
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. Thus, an employer may not discriminate against a woman with a medical condition relating to pregnancy or childbirth and must treat her the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work but are not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.… Title VII protects women from being fired for having an abortion or contemplating having an abortion.
The courts universally support the EEOC’s position. It’s been the law of the 6th Circuit for nearly 20 years, and the 3rd Circuit for 10.
Yes, there are limited exceptions. The First Amendment, for example, might protect religious institutions that take adverse actions against an employee because of an abortion.
For the most part, you need understand that whether you agree with a woman’s right to have an abortion, abortion discrimination equals pregnancy discrimination, and firing an employee who has (or expresses an intent to have) an abortion is no different than firing that employee because of her pregnancy.
While voting is an important right for Americans, some employees don’t get the chance to cast a ballot because of strict workplace attendance policies.
As the 2018 midterm elections near, employee engagement and recognition company O.C. Tanner asked more than 1,000 workers around the country about their organization’s rules concerning voting during standard office hours.
In the October 2018 study, 62 percent of participants said their company allows them the flexibility to vote during the workday, and 34 percent of survey participants said their company offers its employees paid time off to vote.
O.C. Tanner Institute Vice President Gary Beckstrand said the data proves that companies aren’t tremendously supportive of their employees voting.
Gary Beckstrand of the O.C. Tanner Institute.
“Organizations could do a better job at allowing their employees time off to vote and express their support of the activity,” Beckstrand said.
A significant finding was how employees who were given flexibility to vote during the workday reacted. Beckstrand said employees who are given the flexibility to vote are more positively engaged.
“Employees who feel that their employers care about their overall report well-being report high feelings of well-being,” Beckstrand said. “Allowing employees time to vote is a simple way to acknowledge and support social and emotional wellness.”
According to the study, 65 percent of people say they would recommend their company to a friend as a good place to work, as opposed to the 47 percent of respondents who can’t vote during work. Also, 69 percent of participants said they want to work for their current employer a year from now, contrasting from 48 percent of respondents who can’t vote during office hours.
A 2018 Society for Human Resource Management differs from the O.C. Tanner report, citing that 44 percent of companies give paid time off to vote. While benefits can come from accommodating an employee’s civic duty, employers may be considering employee productivity issues when it comes to allowing time on the clock to go to the polls.
Dean Carter, vice president of human resources and shared services at clothing company Patagonia, said employers can use voter flexibility to their advantage, regardless of financial ramifications.
“If citizenship and democracy are part of your values, then there is no greater way to show it than to make sure your employees have time off to vote,” Carter said. “This is why we’re proud to be part of the Time to Vote [campaign], which has more than 300 companies leading a nonpartisan effort to engage in democracy and increase voter turnout.”
Workers should make sure they know their voting rights.
Employee voting rights and restrictions vary by state. In Illinois, for example, employees are allowed up to two hours’ leave if their company’s hours begin less than two hours after polls open and end less than two hours before polls close. In Michigan, it is a misdemeanor for an employer to discharge or threaten to discharge in an attempt to influence employee’s vote, according to employment law firm Constangy’s Employer’s Guide to Employee Voting Rights.
David Chasanov is a Workforce editorial associate. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
WF: Your book in part is titled HR Warrior. But you also cite the HR weenie. How can it be both ways in one profession? 
These days, particularly in the United States, it feels like the divided nature of our politics makes it almost impossible to keep from choosing sides.
The first group you have to carefully consider when mulling a public political stand is your employees. And here’s the first big question to ask yourself: Is your stand consistent with your stated and lived corporate values, or do those values just represent those of the CEO or some portion of the C-suite? If your stand is consistent with your stated and lived corporate values, and they’re not just the personal musings of a company executive, then you’ve got a check in the go-forward box.
