Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: human resources

Posted on May 15, 2012June 29, 2023

The Women’s Movement in the ’70s, Today: ‘You’ve Come a Long Way,’ But …

women's movement

A new social movement took center stage in the 1970s. It followed the lead of the civil rights movement, as well as the mounting protests against the Vietnam War. In this volatile era, the women of the nation were determined that their voices be heard above the din of discontent.women's movement 1970s

“I am woman; hear me roar,” went the lyrics of a popular Helen Reddy song from 1972.

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” went another popular slogan frequently used by activist Gloria Steinem. The phrase suggests an independence and stature for women that still, four decades later, is not fully realized. Even with a string of laws and legal wins that have advanced women’s positions in the workplace, advocates say there is still a long way to go.

“We take five steps forward and 10 steps back, but we try to keep moving forward and not get too discouraged,” says Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, which supports social and economic justice for all women. “We really try to be advocates, and that’s what the women’s movement has been all about. I feel we really need to stand up for the gains that we’ve made over the last century or so and not let them slip.”

Outspoken leaders of the women’s liberation movement, like Steinem and Betty Friedan, aimed to raise women up from home and work situations that they considered subjugation. And both forward-thinking college students and working women organized marches and protests for equal rights in the workforce. One of the more noteworthy rallies was the Women’s Strike for Equality where an estimated 50,000 women marched in New York and another 100,000 women across the country in August 1970 to mark the 50th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave U.S. women the right to vote.

“You’ve come a long way, baby,” was another popular saying of that era, which originated on cigarette advertisements meant to acknowledge the giant strides of the women’s movement.

But judging from a January 1975 article in Personnel Journal, the forebear of Workforce Management, some of the concepts embraced by the women’s movement, including equality in the workplace and the C-suite, were not going over well in tradition-bound workplaces.

In “What Does It Take for a Woman to Make It in Management?” by Marion M. Wood, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California, a list of 10 attributes was offered as requisites for women’s success: 1) competence; 2) education; 3) realism; 4) aggressiveness; 5) self-confidence; 6) career-mindedness; 7) femininity; 8) strategy; 9) support of an influential male; and 10) uniqueness.

Additionally, Wood quoted an unnamed male Equal Employment Opportunity director as saying, “For a woman to succeed, there must be a man in her life who believed it’s the right thing to do.”

The women’s movement of the ’70s was in part a reaction against the type of happy homemaker that was often portrayed in television sitcoms of previous decades. Like it or not, girls growing up in the ’50s would have been exposed to role models such as the housewives in Leave It to Beaver, The Donna Reed Show and Father Knows Best, women whose career goals were getting the kids off to school and serving dinner on time. A working woman as role model didn’t come along until the late 1960s and early 1970s when shows such as Julia—where Diahann Carroll starred in the first nonstereotypical network TV role for an African-American woman as Julia Baker, a single mom who worked full time as a nurse—and The Mary Tyler Moore Show in which Moore portrayed Mary Richards, a career-oriented single woman who is a news producer for a TV station in Minneapolis.

Today, women comprise nearly half of the U.S. labor force. While 70 percent of families in 1960 had a stay-at-home parent, now 70 percent of families have either both parents working or a single parent who works. In two-thirds of all households, women are either the main breadwinner or the co-breadwinners, according to the Center for American Progress. In 40 percent of all households, women are the only wage earners. Yet on average, women in the workplace earn 20 percent less than men doing comparable jobs.

Please also read: Workforce Management Looks Back at Workplace History (1920s-1970s)

Over the past several decades, a variety of laws and rulings have paved the way for more Mary Richards to succeed at work. Among the first was the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

And, truth be told, the wage gap was even wider in the early ’60s. When President John F. Kennedy signed the bill banning wage discrimination, women were making only 58 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

Other landmark legislation followed that was intended to improve worklife for women, while making it easier to meet the dual demands of work and family. In 1978 the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.) In 1993 the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, was passed. It entitles eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons. In 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law, giving workers more leeway to sue for paycheck discrimination.

Conservative commentators take issue with this act, as well as the validity of the gender wage gap. In a recent article in the online libertarian magazine Doublethink, the Ledbetter Act is said to force businesses “to constantly look over their shoulders” for claims rising up from the past. “This is a trial lawyer/class action lawsuit boondoggle,” writes columnist Nicole Kurokawa Neily, “and that’s bad for the American economy.”

But other observers defend the Ledbetter act as vital to fairer pay for women. And advocates say there is more to do to make the workplace a level playing field for both sexes.

“I think the current laws are important and a great start,” says Emily Martin, vice president and general counsel for the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C., “but I don’t think they’re the end of the conversation by any means. They’re a good baseline structure that establishes the crucial principle that women are entitled to equal treatment on the job.”

For example, Martin recently testified at an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing on pregnancy discrimination, which was ostensibly outlawed in 1978. Yet the EEOC reports that complaints from pregnant workers are on the rise, with 5,797 complaints in fiscal year 2011 alone. Most complaints stem from wrongful firing, while about 10 percent are from unlawful failure to hire.

At the Feb. 15 hearing, EEOC general counsel P. David Lopez stated, “At the core, all of these cases involve employers who held stereotypical assumptions about pregnant women.”

Adriana Kugler, chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department, tells Workforce Management that lingering stereotypes and biases play a large role in keeping women from achieving equality in the workplace. “There are expectations from employers that women want to have a family and won’t be as committed, and so they’re not even offered an opportunity,” she says.

Women tend to outperform men academically, while they are held behind in the workplace. According to the 2010 census, 36 percent of women age 25 to 29 had college degrees compared with 28 percent of men in that age group. A December 2011 report by the Harvard Independent states that since 1980 not only are more women than men enrolled in higher education, but also more women graduate with honors.

Yet, in Fortune 500 companies women account for just 7.5 percent of top earners, and only 3.6 percent of those companies’ CEOs are women.

Kugler says that, among employers, there’s a widespread but unexpressed belief that women cannot fully commit to job responsibilities, work-related travel and time away from home. She points to a 1997 study by two women economists from Harvard and Princeton universities of major orchestra auditions that showed that when the auditions were blind, women were as likely as men to be hired as musicians who would be expected to go on the road and to make considerable time commitments to the job. But when interviewed in person, men were hired more often than women.

“You know,” Kugler says, “the sound of a beautiful instrument should be the same whether it’s played by a man or a woman. But the employer has stereotypes about what kind of a commitment a woman is willing to make.”

To make it easier for a woman to commit to her job, especially when trying to juggle work and family, existing laws need to be updated, some observers say. Dina Bakst, co-president of A Better Balance, a legal team in New York City specializing in work-family issues, says, “Our laws and policies are really out of date. The FMLA was a monumental piece of legislation, but it doesn’t go far enough. We need paid leave and workplace flexibility.”

Bakst says 178 countries have paid family leave for new mothers, and 50 countries give paid leave to new fathers. Meanwhile, some states have passed their own legislation. Laws requiring paid family leave are on the books in California, New Jersey and Washington. A similar law has been introduced in New York’s Legislature.

“Paid family leave is a seriously important policy that many companies recognize as being good for the bottom line and have for their own employees,” Bakst says. “You’ll see many fantastic companies that do provide some form of paid leave because they know it’s good for business.”

As for the disparity between wages earned by men and women, there was slow but steady improvement in closing that gap after the 1963 Equal Pay Act became law. But once the female equivalent of a man-earned dollar passed 70 cents in 1990, progress began to sputter. “The pay gap really narrowed for about 30 years, and it has stalled for the past decade or so,” Kugler says.

The issue has not lacked attention. Indeed, it has its own unofficial holiday, April 17, which is meant to show how long a woman must keep working into the next year to earn the equivalent salary earned by a man in the previous year. And this year on Equal Pay Day, the U.S. Labor Department announced seven winners of its Equal Pay App Challenge. Teams of software developers devised their own free mobile phone applications to apprise job hunters of pay disparities and to offer tools, such as negotiation skills, for improving one’s chances for landing a better-paid job. (Links to the Equal Pay Apps can be found at tinyurl.com/78ycsgu.)

Incidentally, encouraging female workers to learn salary negotiation skills is not a new idea. In Wood’s Personnel Journal article from 37 years ago, lack of such skills was cited as a reason women were often held back from management positions. “Traditionally, women have not been trained to bargain,” she wrote. “Most have not learned that a salary offered is not a constant, but a starting point for discussion. Men … will continue considering women ‘cheap help’ as long as women continue to accept lower offers than they are worth.”

Disparities in men’s and women’s paychecks still exist in most professions. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey of 2009, the gap was greatest in the financial services industry, with women making about 70 cents to a man’s dollar. Even in teaching, which has traditionally been a woman’s profession and today is 80 percent female, women’s wages are lower. “In 2010, women in teaching professions were earning only 80.9 percent of their male counterparts’ wages,” says Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.5 million people.

Making its way through Congress now is the Paycheck Fairness Act. It would require disclosure of compensation while outlawing retaliation against employees who seek information about other workers’ salaries. According to Martin of the National Women’s Law Center, it would “tighten some of the loopholes” in the Equal Pay Act, namely loose interpretations that have allowed some employers to justify wage discrimination.

The case of Sheila Davidson of Philadelphia illustrates what the Paycheck Fairness Act is all about. Last November Davidson won her wage discrimination claim against her employer, Amtrak. Davidson had just been promoted when she learned that a man, doing the same job she had previously performed, was being paid a higher salary, higher even than what Davidson was earning after her promotion.

What gave Davidson an advantage is that she works in human resources for Amtrak and thus has access to compensation information. If the Paycheck Fairness Act gets passed, average employees would have access to similar data.

Philip Kovnat, the EEOC lawyer who represented Davidson in her lawsuit against Amtrak, remarked that it was not uncommon for HR people to file their own EEOC complaints. In fact, Davidson had been filing EEOC complaints on behalf of other employees for the previous eight years and had worked as an HR professional for 25 years. In the end, a federal court in Philadelphia directed Amtrak to pay her $171,483 in back pay, along with damages and attorney fees, and raised her pay by $16,505.

Susan G. Hauser is a writer based in Portland, Oregon. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on January 13, 2012March 12, 2020

SAP Hires Executive Julie Roehm

Former Chrysler marketing executive Julie Roehm is the new senior vice president of marketing at business-software company SAP.

Roehm, 40, whose last full-time marketing job ended with a stormy legal battle five years ago, is known in the auto industry for her tenure as marketing communications director at Chrysler. In 2004 she was in the middle of a controversy for signing up Dodge as a co-sponsor of the “Lingerie Bowl” as part of a pay-per-view program during the Super Bowl’s halftime show. Under pressure from the public and from dealers, Dodge scrapped the program.

Roehm also initiated several innovative marketing efforts at Chrysler and in 2005 was named sister publication Advertising Age‘s first Interactive Marketer of the Year.

Roehm joined Chrysler from Ford Motor Co., where she orchestrated the successful U.S. launch of the Focus small car in 1999.

More controversy followed her in 2006 when she left Chrysler to become senior vice president of marketing at retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Her tenure ended there less than a year later after she was fired over an ethics dispute. She later filed a walsuit against Wal-Mart for breach of contract and she alleged the company engaged in a smear campaign against her.

At SAP, Roehm will report to Jonathan Becher, the chief marketing officer. A spokeswoman at SAP told Advertising Age that Roehm will be based in New York. Roehm declined to comment when contacted by Advertising Age, saying only that she was in the “midst of several changes.”

Advertising Age is a sister publication of Workforce Management. Automotive News, also a sister publication of Workforce Management, contributed to this report. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Auto

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on March 21, 2011December 30, 2019

Deloitte Gets Physical with $300 Million Learning Center

Consulting giant Deloitte is putting serious cash behind its stated priority of training and development. Many companies have hoarded money in an uneven economy, but the New York-based firm is dipping into its profits to build Deloitte University, a $300 million “learning and leadership development” campus near Dallas.

Slated for completion this summer, Deloitte University will feature 35 classrooms, each outfitted with technology for interactive learning. The 712,000-square-foot complex also will be self-contained, including 800 hotel rooms on site to house visiting Deloitte employees who attend training. The company plans to hire a hospitality management vendor to operate the hotel.

Deloitte University’s primary purpose will be to help consultants buttress their technical proficiency with leadership, collaboration and team-building skills, says Bill Pelster, a Deloitte managing principal for talent development, who is based in Seattle. More than 45,000 consulting professionals make up Deloitte and its U.S. subsidiaries. Worldwide, the company has nearly 170,000 employees.

Deloitte consultants specialize in highly technical fields, such as tax accounting, auditing and risk management, corporate financial advice and regulatory/legislative matters. They also have expertise in selected business sectors.

It is unusual for consulting firms to adopt the corporate-university concept, says Sue Todd, president of the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania-based Corporate University Xchange, a research and advisory firm. In fact, Todd says most consultancies still cling to older models in which consultants specialize strictly in one strategic area.

However, the need for continuous learning by technical professionals is greater than ever and likely to remain so given the rapid pace of the changing business climate.

“Consulting firms are slowly finding the models they’ve used to define jobs need to be significantly expanded. Either they get more value from their consultants, or they risk losing whole hunks of business to competitors,” says Todd, whose organization is not directly involved with Deloitte University.

Still, it is unusual for companies in the current economy—even large concerns like Deloitte, which posted global revenue of $26.6 billion in 2010, up 1.8 percent—to sink vast sums of money in a physical learning campus. But Deloitte has been transforming the learning curricula across its varied lines of business, including switching last year from a regional to a national model for talent management. Construction of the leadership center dovetails with that effort, officials say.

As the most visible outgrowth of the strategy, Deloitte University will sprawl across 107 acres in Westlake, Texas. When operations begin—probably in October—it will deliver 1 million hours of training per year, or roughly one-third of all Deloitte’s U.S. training.

All told, more than 420 learning programs are scheduled during the first year of operation.

“It embodies our commitment to developing professionals in a much more dynamic way” than traditional learning formats, Pelster says.

Deloitte University plans to jettison traditional learning methods. Lecture-based learning is out. Instead, interactive training activities will force employees to anticipate hypothetical problems and devise solutions as a group. Computer-simulated business scenarios, case studies and role-playing will be the norm.

The participatory format should help consultants see things from a client’s point of view—an important attribute when addressing business issues fraught with ambiguity and complexity, Pelster says.

Some of Deloitte’s U.S. partners, managers, and executives will serve as instructors at the Dallas campus, facilitating small groups of cross-disciplinary teams and providing feedback. For roughly every five participants, one Deloitte leader will be on hand as a sounding board.

“It’s basically a leadership laboratory that gives us the opportunity to see how teams react, and then provide immediate feedback on their decisions. It’s important that our leaders be in the classrooms to teach and mentor the next generation of Deloitte professionals,” Pelster says.

Deloitte decided to invest money in a learning campus largely because it will provide flexibility in how learning is delivered, Pelster says. Video and other interactive technologies are being installed to connect classroom learners with colleagues in Deloitte offices, including another learning center in India. Classrooms also can be reconfigured to accommodate different types of learning events, Pelster says.

It’s not a true corporate university, however, in which employees can choose to enroll in professional courses. Rather, participants will be invited to attend by business units or sponsors of specific learning programs.

Deloitte’s sizable investment also comes amid growing optimism by senior executives, 70 percent of whom expected to spend more on all types of capital projects during the first quarter, according to a February survey by the Corporate Executive Board in Arlington, Virginia. That’s up from 52 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Deloitte isn’t alone in pouring money into a building dedicated to employee development. This year, Planned Cos. is celebrating the second anniversary of its 2,000-square-foot interactive educational facility. The company, which provides building management and maintenance services at commercial and residential properties, built the $200,000 center next to its headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.

It features 14 workstations, each providing simulated exercises on a specific area of building management. A front-desk module, for example, enables employees to watch a live feed from a luxury condominium in Jersey City. “It lets them visualize what it means to man a front desk in a professional manner,” says Robert Francis, president and CEO of the company his family has owned for four decades.

Planned Cos. uses the facility as a retention tool for existing customers, as a sales tool to persuade new prospects, as well as a way to improve employees’ skills and help them plan their careers, Francis says.

The learning center also helps Planned Cos. hold onto its employees—a key goal in an industry with volatile turnover. “The higher our retention rate, the more it helps our bottom-line productivity,” says Francis, whose company’s efforts at career development earned it the 2010 Optimas Award for Vision from Workforce Management.

Even with the rise of e-learning and virtual technologies, Deloitte placed a high value on having its own leadership campus. The decision to build Deloitte University came after extensive internal research, including surveys across its multigenerational workforce. Pelster was surprised to find that throughout the company, including millennial employees, support for a physical learning facility was strong.

“It’s one place we’ll all go at key milestones in our careers, and it’s one place we’ll all have in common,” Pelster says.

Workforce Management Online, March 2011 — Register Now!

Posted on October 25, 2010June 29, 2023

Verizon Wireless Gets a Strong Signal on Tuition Reimbursement

tuition reimbursement

Verizon Wireless knows it is getting its money’s worth when it comes to tuition reimbursements.tuition reimbursement

The telecommunications giant based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, has measured the business impact of tuition assistance on a quarterly basis for nearly six years. The company compares retention rates of employees who participate in a tuition-assistance program against other groups of workers.

“We have reduced our turnover to the extent that the savings we realize pays for the expense” of paying for tuition, program manager Dorothy Martin says. Martin declines to specify exact savings, but says the training benefit is popular with the company’s 82,000 workers. Each year, roughly 20 percent take advantage of the program, dubbed LearningLink, to pursue college degrees, industry certifications and other career-related courses.

Full-time employees at Verizon Wireless are eligible to receive up to $8,000 annually for tuition and textbooks. Part-time employees working at least 20 hours a week qualify for up to $4,000 a year. The tuition funds are available to employees either as a prepaid or reimbursement option.

In measuring the bottom-line impact of its tuition assistance program, Verizon Wireless stands out: most companies do not track the effectiveness of tuition reimbursement benefits.

“We have four goals: to attract motivated employees, keep them engaged and committed, give them opportunities to apply what they learn, and to develop a pipeline of new leaders,” Martin says.

About 600 Verizon Wireless employees are pursuing college courses in 2010, Martin says. That’s in addition to about 700 who completed degree programs a year ago. The company also is helping 45 employees pay to finish their doctorates.

Verizon Wireless does not require a minimum service commitment from graduates. The lenient policy reflects the program’s success in retaining top performers, Martin says. Again, she can point to data: “Whether out of loyalty or to advance their careers, the majority of them stay with us.”

Workforce Management Online, October 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on February 18, 2010June 29, 2023

Employee Engagement Workers Want Feedback — Even if It’s Negative

employee engagement, managers

The best way to drive employee engagement is for managers to accentuate the positive in employee performance. The second best engagement approach is to focus performance discussions on employee weaknesses. Worst choice: Give no feedback at all.employee engagement

That is the synopsis of “The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes,” by Gallup Inc. More than 1,000 U.S. employees were interviewed for the report. Gallup broke management styles into three categories, based on employee perceptions:

• Managers who focus mostly on employee strengths
• Managers who focus mostly on employee weaknesses
• Managers who focus on neither strengths nor weaknesses

Thirty-seven percent of employees say their bosses concentrate on strengths, while 11 percent say their managers focus solely on negative characteristics. Gallup says 25 percent of employees surveyed fall into an “ignored” category, in which their supervisors address neither strengths nor weaknesses. Twenty-seven percent of people did not express strong opinions about their managers either way.

The differing approaches reflect back varying levels of engagement. Sixty-one percent of employees in the “strengths” group report being engaged in their jobs. Still, 38 percent of those workers remain disengaged despite the positive feedback, perhaps because they believe the praise is not sincere, according to Gallup. About 1 percent of employees whose managers are focused on strengths are considered to be “actively disengaged,” meaning they may act out on their job frustration.

By contrast, engagement is considerably lower—just 45 percent—for employees whose managers focus primarily on negative characteristics. One-third of such workers are disengaged. Most alarming: 22 percent are deemed to be actively disengaged.

The worst engagement scores can be found in the “ignored” category, where only 2 percent of employees are highly engaged. Fifty-seven percent report being not engaged and 40 percent are actively disengaged.

So while emphasizing strengths gives the strongest boost to engagement, even negative feedback is better than no feedback at all, according to Gallup.

“We found that it is better for managers to dwell on some aspect of employee performance—even if it is a focus on negatives—than to avoid the matter altogether,” says Jim Harter, a Gallup research scientist and co-author of the report.

Harter says negative feedback “at least lets people know that they matter,” while neglecting them can be far worse.

Engagement—or lack of it—carries huge implications for how well companies achieve their business goals, especially amid recession, Harter says.

“The growth trajectory for companies with highly engaged workers, on average, looks really good when compared against their competitors. These types of companies are holding their own while their competitors are dropping off” on key variables, Harter says.

Organizations with high engagement scores exceed their peers in nine areas of business performance, including customer loyalty, profits, productivity, quality, turnover and absenteeism. For instance, organizations with the highest engagement scores in Gallup’s database have an 83 percent chance of achieving above-average business performance. By contrast, organizations at the lowest levels of engagement have a 17 percent chance.

The report is based on Gallup’s Q12 Index, which measures a dozen factors that are known to affect engagement.

Workforce Management, February 2010, p. 10-11 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on January 4, 2010June 27, 2018

Employee Engagement: Define It, Measure It and Put It to Work in Your Organization

Employee engagement is to HR what customer loyalty is to marketing and sales. It is that often elusive frame of mind that goes beyond satisfaction and ensures the long-term and productive tenure of the faithful employee with the employer.

This article describes how leading organizations define employee engagement, how they collect and measure and put into play relevant information and how they ensure senior leadership is held accountable for making employee engagement a part of the organizational culture.

Defining employee engagement
In order to make the most of such key talent processes as recruiting, training and development and retention, organizations should be tuned in to the “voice of the employee” and ensure that valued employees are engaged with the organization.

A manager of organizational effectiveness and employee engagement at a Fortune 100 company put it this way: “The typical organization today views talent management as three building blocks: attract, develop and retain. These are solid building blocks. The challenge is that these blocks won’t stick together unless there is mortar. And that mortar is employee engagement. A robust, world-class talent management process has to put the mortar between those three key building blocks.”

To avoid platitudes, every organization should define employee engagement to ensure that the information it is gathering from the workforce on can be put into practice. For example, one organization researched by APQC for its newest collaborative research project, “Rewarding, Engaging, and Retaining Key Talent,” defines employee engagement as commitment, work ethic and loyalty.

Another organization defines employee engagement as a combination of perceptions—including satisfaction, commitment, pride, loyalty, sense of personal responsibility and willingness to be an advocate for the organization—that have an impact on behavior.

And a third defines engagement centrally as “an individual sense of purpose and focused energy, evident to others in their display of personal initiative, effort and persistence, that is directed toward organizational goals.”

Each organization in the study is clear about what it means to be an engaged employee. That definition is reinforced through standard processes and practices for collecting employee engagement information.

Why employee engagement is important
Both qualitative anecdotes and quantitative research indicate that organizations realize positive outcomes from employee engagement.

For example, a best-practice organization candidate for APQC’s “Rewarding, Engaging, and Retaining Key Talent” study found that high levels of employee engagement have been correlated with high levels of quality, productivity and attendance. Another has correlated higher levels of employee engagement with higher levels of new product innovation. And a third has observed some very positive business outcomes, in large part because of its focus on employee engagement over the past four years, including a reduction in team member turnover of 19 percent, a reduction in workers’ compensation claims of 27 percent, an increase in net revenue of 22 percent, and an increase in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of 43 percent.

Quantitative research reinforces the relationship among customers, employees and the bottom line. For example, the classic 1994 Harvard Business Review article “Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work” establishes relationships among profitability, customer loyalty, employee satisfaction and productivity. A 2003 article from Journal of Applied Psychology—“Which Comes First: Employee Attitudes or Organizational Financial and Market Performance?”—found consistent and significant positive relationships over time between overall job satisfaction and financial and market performance (as well as reciprocal relationships).

Measuring employee engagement
Employee attitude or climate surveys are two tools for gathering feedback and enhancing workplace communication. APQC’s Open Standards Research shows that workforce climate surveys primarily take the form of an annual census, which means that all employees are surveyed once a year. (About half of survey participants conduct employee satisfaction/engagement surveys at least once per year.) The results are then communicated to senior leaders and the top managers responsible for such key employee areas as talent management, compensation and benefits for action and process improvement.

APQC’s qualitative research also sheds light on how best-practice organizations monitor the voice of the employee and take action. For example, one organization calculates an employee engagement index, based on a subset of employee survey items measuring the engagement of respondents:

• Satisfaction: Employees are asked, “Considering everything, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the company at the present time?”

• Advocacy: Employees are asked whether they “would recommend the company as a great place to work.”

• Retention: Employees are asked to respond yes or no to the statement “I rarely think about looking for a job with a new company.”

• Pride: Employees are asked to respond yes or no to the statement “I am proud to work for the company.”

At another organization in APQC’s collaborative research, employee engagement is measured two times per year through a formal survey. First, the organization administers a formal employee engagement survey to all employees worldwide. This information is analyzed, and action plans are developed and implemented based on results. Participation is voluntary; in 2008, roughly 92 percent participated in the survey. Then about halfway through the year the organization conducts a random poll to assess how well it is doing with the action plans generated from the annual survey results.

Sustaining a commitment to employee engagement
The final steps in the engagement process are ensuring that the information can be acted upon, that senior leadership is held accountable for the results, and that a focus on employee engagement is instilled in organizational culture.

Employee satisfaction and engagement research should be important elements in HR and organizational strategic planning processes. Of the organizations participating in APQC’s Open Standards Research, 77 percent indicate that employee feedback and surveys are key aspects of the organizational HR planning process (Figure 1, N=75). Because employees are important customers—indeed, the ultimate customers—of HR plans, policies and strategies, their opinions can help organizations gauge the success of particular initiatives, determine strategic priorities and pinpoint needed improvements.

 

Which of the following are inputs into your HR planning process?

Organizational long-term objectives

  83%

Organization mission statement

80

Senior management directive

79

Employee feedback/surveys

77

Internal and external analysis

75

Corporate and unit strategies

72

HR customer satisfaction surveys

52

Other

  5

 

Organizations must also reinforce how seriously they take employee engagement. According to APQC’s Open Standards Research, employee satisfaction and the growth of key staff members are the most common employee- or HR-related metrics factored into leadership compensation (Figure 2, N=156). Employee satisfaction is typically gauged via employee satisfaction, engagement, climate or culture surveys. Staff development is typically measured by the number of promotions and developmental opportunities completed.

 

Which of the following people/HR metrics are built into the compensation plan for the leadership team at your business entity?

Employee satisfaction (climate/culture survey)

  40%

Growth of key staff (promotions, developmental opportunities provided)

40

No people metrics built into compensation plans for leadership

32

Attrition/retention of key staff

28

Staff training completed in comparison to learning goals

21

Number of available positions filled internally

19

Diversity

15

Other

 9

 

Here are some examples from APQC’s collaborative research of how leading organizations act on this information:

• The organization feeds results of the employee engagement survey into action plans and process-improvement initiatives. Through data analysis, it compares each group’s employee engagement index against the organization overall and against the benchmarks.

• In another example, each business unit develops action plans based on results of the previous year’s engagement survey and the follow-up pulse survey. The organization also requires that all managers with direct reports have performance objectives related to engagement.

• A third organization directs information from the customer and employee surveys to the appropriate process owners for action and improvement. This information is used as one factor in computing bonuses for senior leadership and is communicated to managers for process-improvement purposes. Results are also used for group training purposes when necessary. The organization also convenes a cultural council for every operating location to review information from the employee and customer surveys and discuss other employee issues and concerns, such as turnover and career paths. The cultural council comprises employees who meet on a monthly basis as part of the council and discuss improvement opportunities. Actions and feedback suggested by the councils then are communicated at the district and the division level.

The final consideration is making employee engagement part of an organization’s culture. One way to do this is by integrating employee engagement into other key talent initiatives and activities. For example, one organization integrates employee engagement into such activities as learning and development, Six Sigma, succession management and nonfinancial recognition:

• In learning and development: One e-learning module focuses specifically on the “fundamentals of employee engagement.”

• In Six Sigma: The company has been able to calculate estimated improvements in business outcomes based on improvements in the employee engagement scores using Six Sigma processes.

• In succession management: Successors are ultimately selected based not only on their performance and potential, but also on their engagement, leadership and values, as measured by the employee opinion survey.

• In nonfinancial recognition: The company grants an annual “Chairman’s Recognition for Engagement” award to deserving employees each year.

In this manner, employee engagement is integrated throughout different aspects of talent management and is instilled as a key part of organizational culture.

Posted on September 10, 2009June 29, 2023

Bring Back Classical Management

Jack Welch leadership

When the first Model T rolled off the Ford assembly line in Detroit in 1908, it was more than just a car.

The Model T represented a new sacred bond between the autoworkers, the owners and managers of Ford, and the American consumer. Ford promised that he would “initiate the greatest revolution in the matter of rewards for its workers ever known to the industrial world.” In 1914, he doubled workers’ pay from an average of $2.34 to $5 a day and shortened the workday from nine hours to eight. At the same time, the cost of the Model T went from $850 in 1908 to $440 in 1915, an unheard-of approach to business (so much that his peers called him a traitor).

Today, we may not fully appreciate the magnitude of what Henry Ford accomplished more than 100 years ago, but we should. Most likely, we don’t appreciate it because what he did fits the definition of “classical management,” a concept that originated in 1908 and flourished until the mid-20th century but can rarely be found today. But in the current recessionary and highly competitive business environment, human resources managers would benefit from having an understanding of this largely defunct concept in order to restore its principles for the betterment of their companies.

The concept of classical management is simple to understand: It is a leadership function that seeks to optimize benefits for the worker, investor and consumer to fair and consistent levels. Back in 1908, Henry Ford accomplished this objective by pricing the Model T lower than what his competitors charged for their cars. He also increased workers’ wages to twice what the market paid. According to Ford, “Every time I lower the price a dollar, we gain a thousand new buyers.” This approach is the primary reason for the real productivity gains that occurred in the U.S. economy from the start of the 20th century until the middle of it. However, as the U.S. became the most prosperous economic superpower of all time during the middle of the 20th century, these principles started to disappear from the U.S. corporation in favor of competing interests within the corporate structure.

The waning use of classical management didn’t present itself as a problem until the 1960s and ’70s, when other national economies began to recover and compete in the U.S. consumer marketplace. Eventually, U.S. corporate leaders began to realize that they had a competitiveness problem, but often responded with approaches that were the antithesis of classical management: quick-hit schemes, such as financial engineering and accounting routines, rather than the creation of real productivity and value.

After decades of such gimmicks, the sacred bond between a workforce and its manager is no longer typical and valued. Instead, the relationship has been marginalized and the labor model has effectively been globalized. But now, after years of being a non-strategic entity within the walls of a corporation, the human resources manager can play a critical role in helping the corporation’s leadership understand classical management as a key business strategy for its future. I truly believe that an organization needs to follow the precepts and discipline of classical management to be competitive in the 21st century.

An interesting aspect of classical management is that effective human resources management is critical to its successful implementation. Look at a few corporations where classical management exists today:

Nucor Steel is a successful corporation winning in a sector that most Americans believe is a relic: U.S. steel production. Nucor is the largest steel producer in the U.S. with $6.2 billion in sales. It is the nation’s largest recycler and competes head to head with Chinese companies that are often the beneficiaries of an unfair advantage on the open global market.

How does Nucor do it? If you ask its leadership, they will tell you that they do it through the productivity that is achieved through an optimal balance among its workforce, consumers and investors. Nucor has never laid off a worker, pays all of its employees incentive bonuses (which can be up to 150 percent of an employee’s pay) and has a policy of egalitarian benefits beyond belief. For example, there are some benefits that workers get that senior executives don’t qualify for—but not vice versa.

Also, the management team’s base pay is purposely lower than that paid by competitors. If the organization doesn’t perform well, managers feel the pain in their wallets. I also believe that Nucor’s managers—like others who embrace classical management—place value on the company for which they work. It isn’t all about the dollars.

Another example can be found at Costco, where CEO Jim Sinegal runs the business from the retail floor, answers his own phone, pays his employees almost 50 percent more than his competitors and contributes twice as much for health benefits. In the past, when Wall Street analysts have chastised him for such practices, he was quoted as saying that such actions aren’t philanthropic, but rather are sound business practices. Since Costco has a faster pace of earnings growth than its top competitor, maybe Wall Street and others should pay attention.

Lastly, the world’s largest single-site brewery is in Golden, Colorado, part of the MillerCoors Brewing Co. (which, incidentally, is where I work). This operation also has a sacred relationship with its highly tenured hourly workers, some of whom have up to 40 years of service. This workforce receives incentive bonuses, and the open relationship between these workers and management is responsible for levels of productivity that have been necessary to support a rapidly growing brand of products.

Are these companies different from yours, and if so, how are they different? Here are some points of comparison to consider:

Does your company have a business strategy to drive revenue and profit growth through optimizing the results for consumers, workers and investors? Or are some of these stakeholders being squeezed by quick-hit schemes and accounting gimmickry? In particular, is the workforce being marginalized by such practices?

For the past few decades, the role of human resources has been marginalized as well, viewed as something unnecessary to competition in a global market. Today, in the midst of a widespread recession, HR has the opportunity to present a real long-term strategy that will lead to productivity and sustained growth. It’s not a strategy that will take hold overnight. Classical management died slowly, and it will take time to revive. Today’s HR manager must start by building a new discipline and culture within management that understands what classical management is, and why it is a critical alternative to today’s conventional approaches. Companies including Nucor Steel, Costco and MillerCoors have found a way to lead their industries by leading and managing their workforces. Can your company be next?

Posted on May 6, 2009June 29, 2023

Employee Engagement in Tough Times, Part One

employee engagement

Amid periods of economic uncertainty, engaging and retaining valued employees is particularly critical if organizations are to maintain quality in their products and services and lay a foundation for future growth. Yet while challenging economic environments make employee engagement more critical, they also make it more difficult to achieve. Belt-tightening often results in organizational retrenching, reduced staffing levels, increased workloads and constrained compensation budgets.

The present economy may leave organizations feeling as if they are being squeezed in a vise. But there is opportunity amid the economic uncertainty. Careful attention to positioning individuals and teams to succeed will not only allow organizations to weather the storm, but also to emerge from the downturn in a stronger competitive position.

All organizations will be changed by the downturn
In the present economy, there will certainly be winners and losers, as there are in any period. But while some organizations may fare better than others, outcomes will be consistent in at least one respect: All companies can be expected to emerge from the downturn as changed organizations. In some cases, the changes may be fundamental, owing to mergers, acquisitions, restructurings, or shifts in market focus or positioning. In other cases, the changes may be more modest. Cost-cutting efforts, layoffs and shifts in priorities may simply result in new ways of addressing existing goals and objectives.

Also read: Employee Engagement in Tough Times, Part Two

However, regardless of the magnitude of the downturn’s impact on your organization, it’s important that you recognize that this time will bring changes, and with them come immediate challenges and longer-term opportunities. The immediate challenge is to minimize the disruptive aspects of organizational transitions on employees and customers. The longer-term opportunity is to ensure that once the downturn ends, your organization will be not only different but better.

employee engagementDisruptive events, such as recessions, cause organizations to re-examine taken-for-granted ways of working. In these periods, there is a unique opening to restructure working relationships in more productive ways—before managers and employees once again settle into more stable patterns. And therein lies the opportunity to leverage a downturn to create positive changes that can serve your organization well—now and in the future.

Lessons from the past
In understanding organizational responses to periods of economic uncertainty, we can draw some lessons from the 2001-2002 downturn. Near the end of the recession, Hay Group surveyed executives from organizations appearing on Fortune’s Most Admired Companies list and from peer companies, as part of our ongoing partnership with the magazine. Nearly all respondents (86 percent) agreed that the economic environment was more challenging for their organizations than it was two years prior to the recession. With respect to motivating employees, however, respondents in the most admired companies generally reported that their organizations were in a better position post-recession than pre-recession. They also reported enhanced levels of employee loyalty and reduced concern about losing key talent. For the peer companies, by contrast, the downturn was perceived to have had a net negative effect in each of these areas.

The 2001-02 downturn was a transforming event for the most admired companies and peer companies alike, involving widespread changes in operations. While the most admired organizations and their peers exited the downturn in different places with respect to employee motivation and commitment, all came away with an enhanced appreciation for the impact on business success of employees’ performance and engagement. Fifty-seven percent of all respondents viewed the impact as greater or much greater than two years prior, whereas just 7 percent saw the impact declining.

A perspective from the vice president of human resources for a Fortune 500 building products manufacturer highlights the particular importance of employee performance in a downturn: “When our business is good,” he noted, “you could put monkeys in charge and they would still make money.” But when times are tough, he continued, strong leadership is essential and individual contributions are easily distinguished. Put another way by Warren Buffett, you find out who’s been swimming naked when the tide goes out.

A current view: human resource priorities

In November 2008, Hay Group conducted a global study to understand how human resource strategies, programs and priorities are being affected by the current economy. Nearly 2,700 respondents from 91 countries were asked to describe whether changes were being made to such areas as pay and benefits, staffing levels, performance management and training programs, and what those changes entailed.

Notably, three of the top five workforce concerns indicated by respondents pertained to the employee life cycle—attracting and recruiting the right talent, engaging and motivating employees and retaining key contributors. Concerns about talent acquisition and retention may seem misplaced during an economic downturn, when we are confronted with daily reports of organizations laying off large numbers of people. But the study results point to key reasons for organizations to continue to attend to these issues.

Even amid downsizings, organizations are still hiring staff to fill critical roles. And many are finding it harder to do so, as promising candidates are reluctant to move from their current positions. As one respondent noted, “Our new-hire offer acceptance rate is low due to the market situation. The candidates are worried about future layoffs if they change jobs, as the practice is commonly based on last in, first out.” Likewise, faced with constrained compensation budgets that limit their ability to reward staff, many organizations are fearful of losing valued employees. Savvy leaders recognize that competitors often see opportunities to lure away key contributors in downturns and worry about vulnerabilities in some or all of their markets.

Employee engagement is critical in a downturn, but it’s not enough

Maintaining a focus on engagement is especially critical in difficult times. Engagement refers to the commitment employees feel toward the organization (e.g., their willingness to recommend it to friends and family, their pride in working for it and their intentions to remain a part of it). But it’s also about employees’ discretionary effort—their willingness to go the extra mile for the organization. Right now, as organizations need to do more with less and strive for greater efficiency, tapping into the discretionary effort of employees is all the more essential.

Unfortunately, however, our research confirms that many organizations that have enviably high levels of employee engagement still struggle with performance issues. So while engagement is necessary, engagement alone is not sufficient for achieving maximum levels of individual and organizational performance. Leaders must not only engage and motivate employees but also enable them to channel their efforts productively and effectively.

In what we call an enabled workforce, employees are effectively matched to positions, such that their skills and abilities are put to optimal use. Likewise, employees have the essential resources—information, technology, tools and equipment, and financial support—to get the job done. They are able to focus on their key responsibilities without wasting time navigating such obstacles as procedural restrictions or nonessential tasks in the work environment.

Most organizations employ a sizable number of frustrated workers: individuals who are highly engaged but lack the tools required to be fully effective and successful. Frustration is a significant problem for organizations and employees, especially in a challenging economic environment. Organizations trying to squeeze out every drop of productivity can’t afford to squander the energy of motivated employees. And employees who are being asked to work harder and to do more with less understandably want to work in smart and efficient ways. In the short term, these motivated but frustrated employees may suffer in silence. But over time many can be expected to turn off and disengage, or tune out and leave.

The second part of this article will offer a “path to performance” for generating business results through enhanced levels of employee engagement and enablement.

Posted on May 6, 2009June 29, 2023

Employee Engagement in Tough Times, Part Two

engaged at work, employee engagement

Tough times make it essential that organizations get the most out of talent at all levels. But those that focus exclusively on employee engagement are likely to be disappointed by the extent to which improvements in this area translate into enhanced performance. To maximize individual and team contributions, engagement alone is not enough. The commitment and discretionary effort offered by engaged employees can easily be squandered if leaders do not also enable them to succeed by putting them in roles that fully leverage their potential and providing them with the workplace supports they need to carry out their responsibilities.

A path to performance
The drivers of employee engagement and employee enablement can be organized around four major themes, representing a “path to performance” for generating business results through enhanced levels of employee effectiveness.

Also read: Employee Engagement in Tough Times, Part One

Organizations first need to clarify strategic objectives to promote understanding and line of sight at all levels. They need to instill confidence in leaders and ensure appropriate market positioning and focus on customers and quality. Next, organizations need to align structures with strategy and ensure that resources, decision-making authority and support from co-workers are adequate to put employees in a position to succeed.

With the structure in place, organizations then need to attend to getting the right people “on the bus,” providing training to enhance employee skills today and development opportunities to build capability for the future. Finally, organizations need to motivate high levels of employee performance through appropriate performance management systems, along with compensation and recognition approaches that reward employee contributions.

Below we highlight key considerations in each of these areas in challenging economic environments.

engaged at workKey considerations in a downturn
Leadership and direction:
Leaders need to help employees understand that the company has a coherent strategy that will allow it to succeed in the current business environment. They must communicate that both the company as a whole and its individual divisions are making progress relative to strategic objectives, and that all employees have a role to play in helping the organization carry out its plans. To win trust and confidence in a downturn, leaders are well advised to:

• Communicate, communicate, communicate: In the midst of change, communication channels in organizations often dry up. Yet in times of uncertainty, employees are most in need of communication. If leaders are not meeting this need with credible messages, gossip and rumor often fill the vacuum.

• Be transparent: As employees are asked to make sacrifices for the organization, it is important that they have a sense that decisions are being made rationally and equitably and that the changes will result in increased organizational effectiveness and the eventual betterment of the work environment.

• Enlist supervisors: If middle managers and first-line supervisors are supportive of senior executives, they can foster high levels of confidence in the organization’s leadership and direction. If, on the other hand, middle managers and supervisors signal to employees through their words or actions that they lack faith in organizational leaders, employees’ trust can be expected to decline rapidly.

Work structure:
Faced with challenging economic environments and competitive pressures, many organizations have reduced headcounts without reducing the amount of work to be done, resulting in higher workloads for remaining staff. To promote efficient execution of key tasks, leaders need to ensure that employee efforts are backed by efficient processes, adequate resources and support from co-workers:

• Solicit broad input: While effective job and organization design is part of the solution, so too is harnessing the creative ideas of employees at all levels. To draw out improvement suggestions broadly, organizations need to ensure that leaders and the organization’s overall culture encourage employees to come forward with innovative suggestions for improving the way work is done and reinforce the value of employee creativity by appropriately translating ideas into action.

• Clarify must-win battles: In high-workload environments, leaders must clearly state which personal goals and priorities are critical. Doing so allows employees to focus their efforts on essential, value-added tasks.

• Make sure managers wear “enterprise hats”: In transition environments, some managers and employees may be inclined to hunker down and focus on the achievement of individual or departmental priorities. It is imperative that organizational cultures, performance management systems and hiring and promotion processes reinforce the need to balance local concerns with broader organizational concerns.

Capability:
Faced with a difficult economy, some organizations may be tempted to shift their focus away from training and career development activities. But doing so is a big mistake. Recognizing that personal development and growth are among the most important drivers of engagement and enablement, organizations should instead:

• Be surgical in training and development cost reduction: In tough times, organizations are often forced to make cuts in training budgets. In doing so, however, organizations should identify and protect high-value training offerings and training that is focused on high-potential employees.

• Emphasize the role of line managers: Through coaching and regular performance feedback, supervisors can help employees identify developmental needs and enhance their skills. Supervisors also serve as mentors and sponsors for employees by helping them understand organizational expectations, develop supportive networks and work the informal systems that are a part of every organization.

• Promote equity and fairness: Where promotion opportunities are constrained, it is important that leaders effectively communicate the resources that are available to help employees manage their careers and clarify how promotion decisions are made. These messages build employee trust that development processes are fair and equitable.

Rewards:
In high-workload environments, employees are very sensitive to compensation issues. Acutely aware of all they are contributing, they can be expected to pressure their organizations to balance rewards and contributions. Managing rewards in a downturn requires that organizations:

• Focus on rewards, not just ratings: Many organizations spend an agonizing amount of effort to ensure that managers comply with prescribed distribution curves for performance ratings. But what is the value if the highest performer still receives only marginally more in merit or incentive pay than the average performer? Instead, organizations need to ensure that performance ratings translate into differentiated rewards.

• Clarify reward philosophies: In partnership with WorldatWork, Hay Group recently undertook a study of compensation practices and policies by surveying top compensation managers in member companies. Notably, more than two-thirds of more than 1,200 respondents rated their pay-related communications to be “not effective” or only “marginally effective.” Not surprisingly, these respondents also expressed much less favorable views of the motivational impact of their compensation systems. While 91 percent of respondents indicated that their companies have a pay philosophy, nearly two-thirds indicated that “about half” or “less than half” of employees understand it.

• Leverage tangible and intangible rewards: Especially when compensation budgets are tight, organizations need to think more broadly about the value propositions they are offering to employees—that is, the totality of financial and nonfinancial returns employees can expect based on their contributions.

Conclusion
Organizations that manage dynamics in all four “path to performance” areas successfully during the downturn are likely to foster the engagement and enablement necessary to cope with economic challenges and set the stage for enhanced performance when the economy recovers. When it comes to employee issues, a downturn is not the time to take your eye off the ball. For organizations as for individuals, character is revealed in tough times. The organizations that continue to put people first in tough times will win loyalty for the future.

Posted on February 18, 2009July 22, 2019

Sources: UAW to Give Up Cost-of-Living Allowances, Bonuses

More details emerged Wednesday, February 18, on the concessions made by the United Auto Workers to the Detroit Three automakers in advance of Tuesday’s viability-plan filings by General Motors and Chrysler.

The new agreements call on workers to give up lump-sum bonuses over the next two years and their cost-of-living allowances, said two UAW sources familiar with the talks. The contracts also limit overtime pay and supplemental unemployment, the sources said.

At Chrysler, workers also will forfeit a $600 Christmas bonus, the sources said. Automotive News first reported the concessions on bonuses, overtime and supplemental unemployment Tuesday.

Detroit Three and UAW officials are keeping mum on the agreements until workers have an opportunity to vote on the provisions. Details about the concessions were not released when GM and Chrysler revealed the viability plans to the U.S. Treasury Department.

UAW vice president Bob King and GM manufacturing and labor chief Gary Cowger declined to comment when asked about the changes at an event Wednesday in suburban Detroit.

Still left to be negotiated is future funding of retiree health care trusts. Loan provisions require the union to take carmaker equity in lieu of cash for half the remaining money owed the multibillion-dollar voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations.

In the case of GM, the UAW is being asked to take GM equity for half of the $20 billion that the carmaker owes the VEBAs.

Nevertheless, the UAW engaged Detroit Three negotiators in marathon bargaining over the past week to meet the filing deadline for the viability plan. As a requirement of $17.4 billion in federal rescue loans, GM and Chrysler must bring their work rules and labor costs in line with their Japanese counterparts in the U.S.

Although Ford isn’t getting loans, it may ask for a $9 billion line of credit and wanted to be a part of a contract pattern to stay competitive with Chrysler and GM. Ford said the UAW agreement would help it avoid asking for financial assistance.

In the plans released Tuesday, GM and Chrysler said they would need up to $21.6 billion to weather the current dismal sales climate.

The Detroit Three got the UAW to move on several fronts, one of the sources said. Instead of paying overtime for work beyond eight hours, they will pay overtime only for work beyond 40 hours during a week, the source said.

The union gave up two of the four lump-sum bonuses due workers during the four-year contract, the sources said.

Supplemental unemployment benefits, or SUB, also have been limited.

Idled workers with more than 20 years of service can collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay, the source said. Workers with less than 20 years get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks, the source said.

Those SUB provisions are all that UAW members can get now that the Jobs Bank has been eliminated. The Jobs Bank was a program that guaranteed idled workers 95 percent of pay and full benefits indefinitely if no other job could be found for them.

Chrysler and GM were required by the 2007 contract to pay up to $4 billion for the Jobs Bank and SUB pay during the four-year agreement.

Details of total cost savings have not been made public.

Filed by David Barkholz of Automotive News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Workforce Management’s online news feed is now available via Twitter.

 

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 … Page 38 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress