Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on April 18, 2008June 27, 2018

Fidelity Pursues Midmarket HR BPO Business

Fidelity Human Resources Services, the HRO division of Fidelity Investments, is launching a new strategy to target midmarket HR business process outsourcing clients.


During the past year, Fidelity has been quiet in the HRO business as it has focused on redefining its strategy, said Arthur Mazor, senior vice president of offering management marketing for Fidelity HR Services, in an interview at the HRO World Conference & Expo, held April 16-17 at the New York Hilton.


But now the company is ready to press ahead in the HR business process outsourcing market and hopes to be among the top players in the small-market, midmarket and large-market HR BPO spaces, said Patrick Goepel, president of Fidelity HR Services, in the interview.


The company wants to tap the midmarket because it is a fast-growing space, Goepel said, estimating that it’s growing at 14 percent per year.


Fidelity believes it can compete in this market against the likes of Ceridian and Automated Data Processing, which have targeting this market for years, because of its strong brand name and network of investor centers, Goepel said.


“If you ask employees who they trust, I’m not sure that some of their names would come up,” he said.


With Fidelity’s offering, employees can go online or walk into an investor center if they have questions about their 401(k)s, Goepel said.


Down the road Fidelity might purchase an HRO provider to make further inroads into this market, although there are no immediate plans to do so, he said. The company expects to sign its first midmarket HR BPO client by year-end.


—Jessica Marquez


Posted on April 18, 2008June 27, 2018

For Big Companies, Pension Funding Is Shrinking—Fast

In a matter of just months, the largest of the large corporate pension plans have seen the vast majority of their 2007 gains wiped out, according to a new study from actuarial consulting firm Milliman.


The 100 largest corporate plan sponsors—ranging from General Motors, with its $117 billion pension, to Ingersoll-Rand’s $2.5 billion plan—collectively improved their funded status by $85 billion last year, going from a roughly $15 billion deficit at the end of 2006 to a $70 billion surplus at the end of 2007.


However, Milliman estimates that these pension plans experienced a $62 billion decrease in their funded status in the first quarter of this year, erasing almost three-quarters of their gains for 2007. Declines in the equity markets, coupled with lower interest rates in January, prompted the reversal, according to Milliman, which also estimates that the collective funded status of the 100 largest pension plans now teeters at slightly below 100 percent.


To put this in context, these corporations—which have a combined $1.3 trillion in total assets—experienced the most significant drop in funded status for a single quarter in more than two years, noted John Ehrhardt, principal and consulting actuary at Milliman. He added that since the end of the third quarter of last year, the 100 largest pension plans have lost almost $100 billion of their surplus assets.


Copies of the Milliman 2008 Pension Study are available at www.milliman.com

Filed by Mark Bruno of Financial Week, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 18, 2008June 27, 2018

Oracle-SAP Lawsuit Heats Up

The legal tussle between business software titans Oracle and SAP has intensified, with Oracle accusing its archrival of stealing copies of Oracle’s actual software applications.


In a court document filed April 17, Oracle says it has discovered a pattern of unlawful conduct on SAP’s part that is even more serious than the mass downloading of support materials initially at the heart of the dispute.


“Defendants have approximately 3,000 copies of Oracle software applications on their systems, each one of which may additionally have included within it illegally downloaded Software and Support Materials,” Oracle said in the court filing, known as a joint case management conference statement.


SAP responded in the court filing that Oracle is using hyperbole in the case, which centers on the actions of SAP subsidiary TomorrowNow.


“TomorrowNow’s customers are entitled to use their Oracle-licensed software and materials properly obtained from Oracle’s Web site to maintain that software. TomorrowNow performs that maintenance service for its customers, allowing them to focus their personnel on their core business,” SAP said. “It should be no surprise to anyone, including Oracle, that TomorrowNow has accessed Oracle software in providing support to users of that software.”


SAP also fired its own salvo at Oracle in the filing, saying Oracle has failed to produce complete customer licenses more than a year after claiming those licenses were violated.


The dispute between the biggest makers of human resource software dates to March 2007. Redwood Shores, California-based Oracle sued Germany-based SAP in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging SAP had “stolen thousands of proprietary, copyrighted software products and other confidential materials that Oracle developed to service its own support customers.”


SAP said TomorrowNow was authorized to download materials from Oracle’s Web site on behalf of TomorrowNow customers, but acknowledged “some inappropriate downloads.”


Late last year, SAP said that several senior managers of TomorrowNow, including the unit’s CEO, had resigned. SAP also said it is considering several options for the future of the TomorrowNow business, including a possible sale.


The legal bickering between the two companies could go on for some time. According to the court filing Thursday, the two sides agree that the trial date for the case should be postponed from February 2009 to February 2010.


—Ed Frauenheim


Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

Source UAW and American Axle Could Have a Deal by the Weekend

The bitter labor stalemate between American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc. and the United Auto Workers appears to be over, with significant progress taking place at the bargaining table.


A tentative contract agreement could be reached by this weekend, a source familiar with the discussions told Automotive News on Wednesday, April 16.


“They are very close,” the source said. “They could reach an agreement by this weekend. Both sides have finally come to their senses.”


As with any protracted labor negotiation, there is no guarantee a deal can be reached, but this is the first sign of real progress in the dispute that has all but halted General Motors Corp.’s SUV production in the United States.


“Negotiations are continuing, progressing,” said Renee Rogers, an American Axle spokeswoman. “The process is moving along.”


Because of the progress, the UAW called off a large protest rally scheduled for downtown Detroit, said Wendy Thompson, the retired former president of UAW Local 235 in Detroit.


UAW spokesman Roger Kerson could not be reached for comment.


Last week, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger and American Axle CEO Richard E. Dauch met. Following that, top representatives from both sides began meeting on a regular basis.


According to the source, the two sides are making progress on three fronts: wages, health care legacy costs and job classifications. Dauch has been seeking fewer classifications to win more flexibility for his U.S. plants. He has also been pushing for lower wage rates, which the UAW has resisted.


To make wage cuts palatable to employees, the two sides have been discussing a round of buyouts and buydowns for existing UAW workers.


The strike by 3,650 UAW members began at five American Axle plants on February 26 and has since idled or slowed as many as 30 GM domestic operations. By Saturday, GM will have lost 142,782 production units since the strike began, according to the Automotive News data center. Most of the lost production has been SUVs and pickups—and GM has months of inventory to sell in those vehicle lines.


The strike also has begun to stall GM’s production of sedans, including the Cadillac DTS and Buick Lucerne at the Detroit-Hamtramck car assembly plant. Other GM car production is now threatened.


Despite those threats, GM has not intervened in the American Axle negotiations.


GM, meanwhile, is slowing production of the HHR crossover at its assembly plant in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico, because of a shortage of parts made by American Axle.


Similar action affecting the plant’s Saturn Vue line could be taken soon afterward, a GM source in Mexico said.


The HHR and Saturn Vue, sold as the Chevrolet Captiva in Mexico, are both exported to the United States.


“This [American Axle] strike has affected us,” the source said. He said that if the dispute at American Axle continued, GM’s production of Kodiak trucks in Silao, Mexico, might also be hit soon.


“The idea is to continue working with our current inventory [of parts and components] but at a slower pace,” he said.


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

Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

House 401(k) Fee Disclosure May Not Get Beyond Floor Vote

Under a bill approved along party lines by the House Education and Labor Committee on April 16, retirement plans would have to provide greater transparency on the fees that they charge participants.


A vote on the House floor later this year may be the end of the road for the bill until 2009. Yet, the House Ways and Means Committee also could offer its own version of the bill. Very little is happening in the Senate on this issue. A similar Senate measure only has one co-sponsor, as the legislative days in the congressional session dwindle.


The House labor panel bill would require 401(k) sponsors to list fees in four categories—administrative, investment management, transaction and other areas. The bill also would require 401(k) plans to provide information on the historical risk, returns and fees on each investment option.


Unlike its predecessor, the bill does not mandate that plans include at least one low-cost index fund. But an amendment adopted by the committee would make liability protection for plans contingent upon their offering an index fund.


Republicans and most industry groups oppose the bill because they say that it would force plans to break out separate fees for services that are bundled under one price. They assert it could encourage workers to make bad investment choices by focusing on fees rather than returns.


Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the labor committee, said the bill will help workers better understand hidden fees that drain their retirement nest egg. He cited a Government Accountability Office study showing that a 1 percent increase in fees would decrease retirement income by 20 percent over 20 years.


“The purpose of this legislation is to take these hard-earned savings away from the special interests and return them to their rightful place—the retirement accounts of American workers,” Miller said. “We’re trying to give people more confidence in their 401(k) plans.”


Although Miller has streamlined the fee reporting categories since the bill was first introduced last year, the changes weren’t enough to satisfy critics.


“This bill may focus more on information quantity than quality,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-California and the committee’s highest-ranking Republican. “If that is the case, we may be doing more harm than good by overwhelming workers with cumbersome or incomprehensible information.”


Industry lobbyists maintained that for all practical purposes the revised bill still contained an index-fund mandate that limits flexibility.


“The marketplace is continuously evolving, our members are continuously innovating and developing new products,” said Daniel Crowley, chief government affairs officer at the Investment Company Institute, a Washington organization representing financial services. “It would be inappropriate to freeze in statute any particular investment option. There is no single investment that is right for all investors all the time.”


Analogies infused the debate. McKeon compared the fee disclosure requirement to forcing car manufacturers to list separately the prices for a transmission and brakes.


Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey and author of the liability amendment, likened the fee disclosures to the difference between buying a soda, hamburger and fries individually or in a package.


Opponents turned that parallel back on Andrews. “The Happy Meal is the epitome of the bundled product,” Crowley said


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

Shareholder Bill of Rights in the Works, Union Says

The subprime lending crisis was caused in part by the executive compensation structures at banks, according to AFL-CIO officials, who say additional legislation in the fall may propose new strictures on executive pay.


In remarks to reporters, Richard Trumka, the union’s secretary-treasurer, said performance measures at financial services firms such as Washington Mutual and Citigroup did not penalize top executives for the risk they took and excluded metrics such as loan-loss reserves and expenses related to the foreclosure of real estate assets.


“When the house of cards fell, they didn’t pay for it,” Trumka said. “We did.”


The AFL-CIO said that compensation structures should not just include return on equity and revenue growth as the main units of measure. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act—which removed decades-old barriers to commercial and investment banking—coupled with lax board oversight of executive compensation, led to a “financial meltdown” in the markets, Trumka said.


Dan Pedrotty, director of the AFL-CIO’s office of investment, noted that the union has been in discussions with several lawmakers over an expansive shareholder bill of rights.


Although it’s hard to figure exactly what such a document would entail, it’s likely to include provisions on executive pay.


Union leaders would like a plank requiring all publicly traded companies to reveal how salaries for their top executives are set. They also want to see a rule forcing businesses to disclose the role of compensation consultants in the setting of executive pay levels.


The legislation could be unveiled in the fall, Pedrotty said.


The idea of a shareholder bill of rights is not new. In the wake of the Enron, WorldCom and Tyco scandals in 2002, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, introduced similar legislation. While the bill failed to become law, several of Levin’s ideas made it into the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.


But recently, unions have become increasingly vocal in calling for restrictions on executive pay. In some cases, they have backed legislative efforts to allow shareholders to make advisory votes on compensation structures. One so-called “say on pay” initiative, proposed by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, passed the House overwhelmingly last year but has yet to be debated in the Senate.


Other lawmakers have targeted Wall Street compensation in the wake of the subprime crisis. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, held hearings earlier this year on the golden parachutes given to CEOs at Countrywide, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, during which he slammed the firms’ executives for losing touch with the interests of shareholders.


Executive pay has also become a talking point on the presidential campaign trail. All three candidates have cited high compensation at the failed Bear Stearns and Countrywide as unfair, given the current pain among homeowners who suffered partly because of the firms’ lending practices.


Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton support say-on-pay legislation, and Obama last year introduced a bill similar to Frank’s legislation. His staffers have said say on pay would be a priority in an Obama administration. John McCain has slammed excessive CEO pay, but cautioned against government intervention in private-sector compensation.


Business groups and several Republican lawmakers have come out against say-on-pay initiatives. They argue that shareholder involvement in the compensation process would drive up costs and slow down companies.


Filed by Nicholas Rummell of Financial Week, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

A Business Sparked by the Online I-9

They say change breeds opportunity. For a good example, consider the opportunities brought on by a change in the federal government form that companies must fill out when they hire a new employee.


    As of December 2007, all U.S. companies have to use an updated version of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to prove a new employee is in the country legally and eligible to work.


    Along with other changes, the revised form can now be completed and stored electronically—and that’s where the opportunity kicks in.


    Since the beginning of 2008, at least eight vendors have begun selling Web-based paperless I-9 compliance services, which they maintain can help companies fill out and store the forms more accurately, efficiently and safely than they could by themselves.


    In addition to helping with I-9 forms, some of the vendors can also submit information to the government on behalf of customers participating in E-Verify, a separate voluntary federal program that allows companies to instantly match new employees’ documentation against databases at the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security to confirm they’re cleared to work. Some states, notably Arizona, also have made the use of E-Verify mandatory for some employers.


    In the short time Web-based I-9 compliance services have been out, vendors claim to have signed up companies of all sizes in all types of industries. An estimated 56,000 U.S. companies have signed up for E-Verify. Another 1,000 are joining each week, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security,


    Vendors that are marketing I-9 compliance software include established background checking and hiring management firms such as Kroll, Acxiom Information Security Services, Accurate Background and First Advantage. They also include a smattering of startups, including Form I-9 Compliance, I9Advantage, Verified Person and Verify I-9.


    There’s so much competition that vendors are reluctant to share details about customers they’ve signed or what they charge. However, industry sources say standard rates run $5 to $10 a form, though volume discounts are common.


    Most I-9 compliance software is sold as a Web-based application, so a company doesn’t install anything on its own computer servers, but just logs on to a Web site to fill out forms and access stored information. Vendors keep records on servers at their own data centers, using multiple layers of encryption and security technology so clients’ data isn’t hacked into or stolen.


    Getting paperwork finished quickly and accurately and storing it safely are important because Citizenship and Immigration Services gives companies three days from an employee’s hire date to complete an I-9 form and requires them to store records for three years after someone is hired or a year after they leave, whichever is longer.


    Fines for companies that fail government employment eligibility audits are steep—up to $1,000 per form.


    That’s the main reason a company should use an outside party: If an issue comes up, someone else handles it, says Dave Dickerson, president of Accurate Background in Lake Forest, California. “In an extreme case, there could be 57 steps involved,” including checking documents with the multiple federal agencies, Dickerson says. “The employer doesn’t want to become an I-9 specialist. It’s easier to outsource it.”


    Another selling point: Some software can be integrated into a company’s HR software. To differentiate themselves from competitors, some vendors paired up with partner companies that Citizenship and Immigration Services has approved as E-Verify designated agents.


    Kroll does both. The background check company’s I-9 service can be integrated into a client’s applicant tracking or HR IT systems. Kroll also partnered with Form I-9 Compliance, a Newport Beach, California-based startup and E-Verify designated agent, to offer E-Verify services. Barry Nadell, a senior vice president with Kroll’s background screening division, won’t disclose how many clients the company has signed, though they range in size from very small to several hundred thousand employees, he says.


    More often than not, Kroll’s contact is a client’s HR manager, though at larger companies the general counsel’s office gets involved too, Nadell says.


    The service can help large companies that previously had to depend on branch office employees to get I-9 forms filled out for new hires, says Chas Patterson, a Form I-9 Compliance vice president. “You have people at a store whose job is retail, not HR,” Patterson says. “This application makes it so you don’t have to be an expert. It removes the worry.”


    Sales pitches aside, it is possible for even large companies to handle I-9 forms on their own, says Grace Hoppin, an immigration attorney with Jackson-Hertogs in San Francisco. In early April, Hoppin helped with an I-9 compliance training workshop at a client with more than 5,000 employees, “and they still do paper copies,” she says.


    Also, it might not make sense to invest in I-9 software if the federal government changes employment verification requirements again, a distinct possibility in light of pending immigration reform bills, Hoppin says.


    Some of those bills call for electronic verification of all employees, not just new hires, and different forms of electronic verification have been proposed, Hoppin says.


    In the end, a company’s main concern should be doing everything possible to check out potential employees, especially if companies are in food service, construction, manufacturing or other industries that have had chronic issues with unauthorized workers, Hoppin says.


    In those cases, companies need to have rigorous processes to show they’re complying with the law. If that means using an outside service, “that could be a really convenient tool to show they’re doing everything they can, that they’re checking people out,” she says.

Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

A Show of Support

Some employers have formed work-site support groups for employees struggling with certain health conditions and lifestyle issues as a way to bolster their wellness programs and their bottom lines.


While support groups have yet to become widely accepted by employers, experts say such support systems have the potential to be the next big thing in wellness and disease management initiatives.


“Health care costs keep rising,” says Barry Hall, a Boston-based principal with Buck Consultants. “Employers are at a point of desperation on the health side. There is more and more interest in finding programs that work.”


By bringing employees together in a supportive environment and providing them with the education needed to better manage their conditions, employers will likely see improvements to their bottom line, Hall says. The support group participants are typically more compliant with their health programs and experience better outcomes, he adds.


“Certain diseases are manageable,” he says. “If you don’t manage them you can have huge repercussions, which result in high costs to both the company and individuals. By having people better deal with their conditions, employers spend less on medical treatment.”


Additionally, offering support groups makes employees feel valued, bolstering employee morale and even improving employee retention, says Shelly Wolff, North America leader of health and productivity for Watson Wyatt Worldwide in Stamford, Connecticut.


Employers “send a message to employees that they are more than just someone there to do a job, and they care about them as an individual,” Wolff says. “Those things foster loyalty.”


Work-site support groups can take a variety of forms and focus on numerous topics. Lands’ End, a direct merchandiser in Dodgeville, Wisconsin, has been offering on-site support groups to its employees for nearly 10 years, says Jen Feltz, the company’s health and fitness specialist.


The company has health groups aimed at diabetics, women going though menopause and women diagnosed with breast cancer. Other groups support family members of military officers and working parents. The company is also considering facilitating support groups for those on gluten-free diets and those suffering from fibromyalgia.


Meeting formats and schedules can vary as much as the topics covered. For the most part, however, materials and resources are provided for attendees. A guest speaker or expert, such as a physician specializing in diabetes or a breast cancer survivor, will present pertinent information. Attendees also discuss their own personal experiences. The participants ultimately determine the direction of the meeting, Feltz says.


Lands’ End is not unique. Trane Inc., a heating, ventilation and air conditioning company in Piscataway, New Jersey, focuses its support groups on diabetes, weight-loss management and smoking cessation at several of the company’s locations. It has been offering support groups since 2006.


Additionally, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., in Milwaukee has provided support groups to employees for 10 years. It began with a diabetes program and added a cancer group about four years ago.


At Lands’ End, groups commonly form when the health and wellness staff notices numerous employees posing questions about similar conditions or indicating they need support on similar topics. A health educator on staff then organizes the group.


Trane’s third-party administrator typically identifies candidates for its diabetes support group by reviewing claims data and sending out invitations to those individuals to join the group. Trane stresses to its employees that the company doesn’t have access to their health data, says Heidi Lattig, the director of health and productivity programs.


“Support groups are about giving people time to talk and touch base with one another and find out how others are dealing with the same situation,” she says.


All three companies offer support group meetings on-site for the sake of convenience. On-site meetings, Lattig says, promote participation because they are accessible, and employees feel more comfortable knowing other co-workers will be there, as opposed to unfamiliar faces.


At the same time, however, employee privacy must be protected. Feltz of Lands’ End says it is made clear to participants that the support group is a safe environment to discuss their problems and concerns, and discussions at the meetings must not leave the room.


Trane often has a meeting facilitator unaffiliated with the company to further protect participants’ privacy.


Time is the biggest resource that goes into planning support group meetings, say all three professionals at these three companies. They say support groups are inexpensive ventures that create valuable experiences for employees.


They could not quantify their returns on offering the groups, though. That’s one reason Wolff, of Watson Wyatt, says vast numbers of employers haven’t adopted support groups.


“It’s not readily evident the value it brings to the workplace,” Wolff says. “Once it’s more apparent, it might become more widespread.”


Feltz says launching support groups builds good will and results in a more productive workforce, which she says is reason enough to continue the service.


“It shows we care about our employees and that we care about their overall well-being,” Feltz says. “Healthy, happy employees make healthy, happy individuals. People who are feeling well make better workers.”


The support groups are a smart business decision, Lattig says, and they allow employees to aid one another in their pursuit of healthier lifestyles—which, in the end, benefits the company and has a positive impact on the bottom line.


“We focus on wellness because we believe it’s the right thing to do for our people,” Lattig says. “At the same time, it’s the smart thing to do for our business.”

Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

The Immigration Squeeze

Each day that Congress fails to act on reforming immigration policy, employers at both ends of the talent spectrum say they are suffering.


    Political tension surrounding the issue has spiked following the collapse last year of a broad Senate bill that would have strengthened border security and workplace enforcement while creating a path toward citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented workers currently in the country.


    Not only is a complete overhaul of immigration law a remote possibility this year, but prospects are dim for narrow legislation that addresses specific needs for both high-skill and low-skill workers.


    On April 8, the government announced that the 65,000 cap had been exceeded on H-1B visas, which allow foreign nationals with the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree or higher to work in the country for seven years. In addition, the 20,000 ceiling on visas for people with advanced degrees also was reached.


    In the last fiscal year, companies sent in 123,000 applications for the 65,000 H-1B visas. For fiscal year 2009, which begins in October, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service received 163,000 applications between the April 1 deadline and April 7. On April 14, it conducted a lottery to determine which firms would receive H-1B visas.


    As a way to ease the pain for employers, especially in the high-tech sector, where employers say they desperately need foreign talent, the Department of Homeland Security issued a preliminary regulation that extends the time that foreign graduates in science, technology, engineering or mathematics can work for a U.S. company on a student visa.


    The agency increased from 12 to 29 months the Optional Practical Training Program, giving students more time to wait for an H-1B visa. Microsoft chairman Bill Gates called for such a reform in congressional testimony in March, arguing that hiring and retaining foreign-national graduates of U.S. universities is critical to helping technology companies innovate.


    The expansion of the training program “is a good first step,” says Robert Hoffman, vice president of government and public affairs for Oracle and co-chair of Compete America, a coalition of technology companies.


    “The administration has clearly recognized through this action that there is a severe skills shortage in the economy,” Hoffman says.


    There are 140,000 openings at S&P 500 companies for engineers, scientists and other highly skilled professionals, according to Hoffman.


    Smaller companies also have openings that they say they can’t fill. Erica Denninger, human resources manager at ATMI, a Danbury, Connecticut, technology firm, says that she can’t find enough computer programmers who are fluent in the Oracle programming language, which runs the company‘s customer ordering and product control systems.


    Even after posting job ads extensively in newspapers and on the Internet, Denninger says she comes up empty. “The candidate pool does not exist,” she says.


    She can find an ample supply of U.S. network engineers to work on the company’s servers and technology infrastructure. But for programmers, she turns to H-1B visa holders who transfer to ATMI from other companies. She depends on a Web-based product from Visanow, an immigration processing company, to navigate the process. “It’s very complex,” she says.


    H-1B critics, however, contend that companies don’t have to go through all that trouble, because there are plenty of U.S. applicants available. Opponents say that the H-1B program displaces U.S. workers and depresses wages. They also assert that technology companies are looking for niche skills rather than hiring qualified Americans and then training them in the specialties the companies need.


    Expanding the hiring program for recent foreign-national graduates is stoking their ire. “It’s completely unnecessary,” says John Miano, a Summit, New Jersey, lawyer and computer consultant who founded the Programmers Guild. “Student visas are not supposed to be the gateway to immigration, but they’re being transformed into that.”


    Miano also anticipates a court challenge to the training initiative enhancement. “I’m curious what authority [DHS] has to do that.”


    But H-1B proponents argue that the move alone will not be enough to shore up the talent deficit. They say that Congress must increase the number of H-1B and permanent work visas, or green cards. Bills to do so are mired in a political stalemate on immigration reform.


    If Congress doesn’t act, “you’re going to create one heck of a bottleneck,” says Hoffman, Oracle’s VP of government and public affairs. “You’re going to find that many more highly skilled individuals are forced to leave the country.” In which case, Oracle will establish operations in countries that will accept foreign-national workers, he says.


    U.S. industries that depend on low-skill labor don’t have as much flexibility to roll with the immigration punches. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-Louisiana, says construction firms and rice, sugar and shellfish producers are hurting.


    “They can’t find the workforce,” Boustany said at a Capitol Hill press conference. “They depended on H-2B visas over the years to meet these needs. This is good policy that’s being held hostage by politics.”


    Boustany introduced a “discharge petition” in early April that would send directly to the House floor a bill written by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, that would almost double the number of workers who can enter the country on temporary H-2B visas.


    The 66,000 limit for H-2B visas was hit in early January. Last year, a total of 120,000 workers entered the country because those returning to their jobs didn’t count against the 66,000 cap. That provision expired this year.


    Stupak’s bill would restore the returning-worker rule. It has 146 bipartisan co-sponsors but has been stalled by tensions surrounding immigration policy.


    Stupak won’t sign Boustany’s petition. “My discussions with House leadership continue and I remain hopeful that they will lead to the quick action needed for seasonal businesses in northern Michigan and across the country,” Stupak said in a statement.


    Vacation regions of the country are also feeling the pinch. Resorts in the Florida panhandle can’t fill jobs without the young Europeans they usually bring over on summer contracts, according to Rebecca Wolever, COO of Signature Worldwide, a training company.


    “There aren’t enough American teenagers or 20-somethings to fill those service jobs,” she says.


    This is forcing hotels to try new approaches on recruiting and retention. For instance, some have partnered with ski resorts to swap staff during their respective off-seasons.


    “They’re having to get real creative,” Wolever says. “It’s all about retaining and training the staff they have.”


    Some foreign workers who have come to the U.S. on H-2B visas, however, contend that the program exploits them by luring them here on false promises of good jobs.


    In a meeting with about 80 congressional staff in early April, a group of such workers said that employers have H-2B workers under their thumbs because the visas are for a short duration—only about six to 10 months. During that time, the workers have no freedom to leave a bad employer, live under constant threat of deportation and lack access to lawyers, they said.


    The workers say they have been subject to overcrowded living conditions, low-quality food and verbal abuse.


    “The H-2B visa as it is structured now is an instrument to create servitude and modern-day slavery,” said Daniel Castellanos, a Peruvian H-2B worker and a leader of the Alliance for Guest Worker Dignity.


    The workers could have an ally in Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Miller has introduced a bill that would increase the transparency of H-2B jobs, make employers jointly liable for the actions of recruiters and impose heavy fines for misconduct.


    Miller’s H-2B skepticism is an obstacle to raising the H-2B program caps. He is a close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, which means that his stance likely will influence how Pelosi schedules House time for the issue.


    It’s one more example of the complicated Capitol Hill politics that may prevent not only substantial but also targeted immigration reform this year.

Posted on April 17, 2008June 27, 2018

Bearing Blame

Whenever a prominent firm fails as dramatically as Bear Stearns did recently, it should make everyone wonder what caused the failure and ask themselves, “Could it happen at my firm?” As HR professionals, you should also be wondering what role HR played in the collapse. It’s my contention that the failure of HR professionals at Bear Stearns to move beyond the traditional business partner role to become true business leaders was a primary cause for the firm’s failure.


    Following any major business collapse (some might even argue after every minor one too), it’s important for all involved to conduct a failure analysis in order to determine the contributing factors at work. Obviously, market forces could have played a role with Bear Stearns, but given that a majority of its competitors have managed to avoid collapse, it is safe to assume that market forces were not the cause. A second external factor to consider is predatory actions by competing banks, but that doesn’t seem to be a key contributor either at this point. With market forces and predatory actions by competitors ruled out, attention should turn inward.


    The collapse at Bear Stearns was a companywide failure, not that of a single business unit, so attention should focus primarily on factors that span the organization. The failure wasn’t caused by faulty computer equipment or a software glitch, so technology isn’t to blame. Bear Stearns enjoyed a fabulous reputation, attracting some of the best investors and talent. The firm had been profitable for over 80 years, so marketing and a shortage of resources were not the cause.


    The final internal factor to consider is failure of the firm’s employees and the people processes that governed them. In a quest for more profit, Bear Stearns’ employees took too many risks. When such failures arise, one must blame not only the individuals involved, but also those who designed the management systems—the processes and policies —that allowed the extraordinary risks to play out.


    In looking at possible management system contributors, the first area of focus should be the performance management and performance measurement systems. Bear Stearns dealt heavily in the extraordinarily risky field of financial derivatives. Given the significant risk, HR had a fiduciary responsibility to monitor employee performance even more precisely than would be expected at most firms.


    The firm is also known for targeting candidates who had a predisposition toward taking unnecessary risks, known internally as PSDs: individuals who were poor, smart and had a deep desire to become rich. This type of hiring, coupled with a reward system that provided major incentives for extraordinary return, almost guarantees a disaster unless you have designed sufficient performance management and performance measurement systems that monitor when employees stretch beyond the boundaries of sanity. In the same light, if the hiring, compensation and training systems don’t automatically “adjust” as market conditions change (dictating the need to take fewer risks), employees will continue to take risks based on historical expectations.


    Certainly there were financial processes and software that played an important role in assessing financial risks, but it’s important to remember that 100 percent of those processes and limits were designed and set by people. The fact is that other firms facing the same problems had employees and people management processes that successfully adjusted to meet the changing business environment.


    If you analyze similar failures at Enron and the French bank Societe Generale (with $7 billion in losses by a single trader), you’ll find similar HR-process causes. Employees learn that it’s OK to take extraordinary risks because the employee training process, performance metrics and incentive systems drive them in that direction. There is no effective counterbalance because the ethics, punishment and whistle-blower systems are toothless—they have little actual effect on employee behavior.


    Given the scope of this failure and its contributing causes, it’s only logical that Bear Stearns chief human resource officer Pamela Kimmet and her staff should share the criticism surrounding the firm’s downfall. They are responsible for maintaining shareholder value. Instead of being an effective business leader, HR at Bear Stearns spent significant effort working on a companywide weight-loss program and becoming certified in HR. Shame on them, and shame on you if you don’t learn a valuable lesson from their failure!


Workforce Management, April 21, 2008, p. 42 — Subscribe Now!

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 … Page 591 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