Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

10 Tenets of 21 st Century HR

Ten tenets of 21st century HR:

  1. It is a solver of business problems. It directly impacts the business, its products and its profitability.

  2. Its primary role is to be a productivity consultant that helps managers recruit and retain the best workers and to develop and motivate all employees so they are the most productive they can be (per dollar spent) return on investment (ROI).

  3. It is forward looking. It monitors the environment and it anticipates business opportunities and problems.

  4. It is metric and reward driven. It proves and rewards the business impact of everything it does.

  5. It shifts ownership of people issues to managers and employees. It influences managers to make hard people decisions.

  6. It coaches managers and gives managers choices but it does not actually solve managers’ people problems.

  7. It uses HR tools to increase the organization’s capability to beat the competition.

  8. It builds a sense of urgency and of continuous learning and improvement.

  9. It uses technology and “e-management” to manage people “remotely” and to do all HR faster, better and cheaper.

  10. It is agile. It can rapidly redeploy resources (people, information and talent).

Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 54.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

HR 101 Recognition

HR 101 is a special monthly section that gives you everything you need to know about important HR topics.


This month, a set of tips, charts and data should help you in your effort to make an impact with your recognition and incentive plans.

Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

Strategic HR Won’t Come Easily

Is there anyone in HR who believes that the transformation from administrative support function to strategic business partner is over? Odds are, the answer is “no.”


And how could it be, really? By definition, to be more strategic means to bring HR initiatives into greater alignment with overall business objectives.


But at the dawn of the new millennium, business objectives are more mercurial than ever. Workforce demographics are changing, globalization has accelerated, our competitive position seems to change almost daily, and evolving technology is still revolutionizing communication and data management.


In short, every aspect of business is changing around human resources, so how can HR be moving toward a fixed target—any fixed target?


Instead, HR will continue to balance the demands of several different roles: business partner, internal consultant, operational and administrative expert and both employee and employer advocate. That may sound like business as usual, which isn’t likely to elicit a rush toward the future with weapons at the ready.


In reality, however, it is new because, although the questions may be the same, the answers most assuredly will not be.


The ongoing challenge will be to establish new deliverables and to sustain strong partnerships with both internal and external customers. The ability to see the big picture—and to deploy the resources to address the big picture—will be more important than ever.


Be leaders, not followers.
Establishing deliverables. Sustaining partnerships. Grasping the big picture. Deploying resources. These all demand leadership. But what does that leadership look like?


Peter Firla, director of human resources for Infiltrator Systems Inc., based in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, defines leadership as “understanding the corporate mission, developing goals which support the mission, then using your personal and management skills to help build a stable, skillful, productive and satisfied workforce. Pretty simple.”


Simple? Perhaps. But achieving that goal requires seeing the difference between being an HR leader and an HR manager. According to Joseph E. Champoux, author of “Organizational Behavior: Essential Tenets for the Next Millennium” (South Western Publishing, 2000), “Managers and leaders play different roles in an organization. Managers sustain and control organizations; leaders try to change them. Organizations also have different needs for those roles at different levels and at different times in their history.”


The challenge is to figure out which areas of a company need HR leadership and which need HR management, and at what times. There’s a fine line between serving the company’s internal and external customers in response to what they say they need, and figuring out what they really need. It takes a bit of strategic thinking.


In 1991, the personnel department of Motorola’s Fort Lauderdale, Florida facility embarked on a multi-year effort to transform itself from an old-line personnel department to a strategic business partner. In doing so, it helped transform the larger 2,500-employee organization at that facility to become more customer- and employee-focused.


At the center of the transformation was an in-depth assessment of employee and organizational needs. Understanding the perspectives of both sides helped HR balance priorities. In response to the data, HR launched upward feedback, peer recognition and career planning initiatives.


“By using engineering and marketing disciplines, we in HR enhanced our credibility with line management,” says Don Grimme, president of Fort Lauderdale-based Grimme Human Resources Inc. and an HR professional at Motorola during the transformation. “They especially loved the hard data we were able to provide on soft issues. And our visibility extended far beyond our facility. For example, our team made presentations on these initiatives to both line and HR management throughout the Motorola worldwide corporation, including Motorola’s Corporate Quality Council and in Singapore and Malaysia.”


Similarly, when Janet Brady, vice president of human resources for The Clorox Co. in Oakland, California, took over the HR function in 1993, she completely revamped it. An HR director now supports each function within the organization such as sales, marketing and finance, as opposed to serving a division.


“And interestingly,” Brady told Workforce in late 1998, “it was the people running the businesses that were very supportive of the change. That’s what gave me this ‘a-ha’ feeling, because they were saying, ‘I don’t care how I get this stuff done, I just need it done. You go figure out the most efficient way to deliver it.”


Brady is an example of a phoenix leader. In their book, “Soaring With the Phoenix: Renewing the Vision, Reviving the Spirit, and Re-Creating the Success of Your Company” (Warner Books Inc., 1998), James A. Belasco and Jerre Stead describe the leaders needed during rapid change and uncertainty. They aren’t afraid of “reinvolution,” which is renewal through revolution or rapid evolution that looks a lot like revolution.


Phoenix leaders are defined by their ability to make five essential contributions: “They surface issues that confront the organization; engage the people in resolving those issues; prioritize/allocate resources to address those issues; unleash ownership so everyone accepts responsibility for dealing with those issues; and energize learning … These contributions enable the leader and the others to build a pyramid that provides a strong base for future success.”


Clearly, phoenix leaders rethink how HR’s work gets done. For example, some HR work is being pushed back to line managers. Technology allows employees to do some of it for themselves. Other options include outsourcing and consolidating services in call centers.


But rethinking work is complicated by one still unanswered question: How far will HR move away from being an employee advocate? Ensuring that employees have challenging jobs, with substantive pay and benefits, is one form of advocacy, of course. But advocacy takes many other forms in organizations today. Some of that inevitably must be sacrificed as HR works to meet the demands of other constituencies. How much must be sacrificed is a question that HR can’t answer alone.


Communication is key.
Finding the answer requires dialogue, which means that HR must continue to communicate. That communication must be equal parts listening and promotion. First, HR must listen carefully to what its customers need. Then it must promote what it has done and can do.


“For all the [talk] about contributing to the strategic missions of organizations, employees for the most part still see HR as ‘those folks who handle benefits and do interviewing,’” says Linda M. Konstan, president of LMKAssociates, an HR consulting firm in Denver. “I’d like to see a PR effort on the part of every HR practitioner in this country—starting with their own employees. We’re terrible at selling ourselves. Why not think of ourselves as a product and do some smart marketing?”


Why not, indeed? During the past few years, HR has worked hard at breaking into the senior executive suite and educating senior management on the value HR adds to an organization. Managers and employees are less familiar with HR’s new role as business partner. Increasingly, these internal constituents will need to embrace the importance of the HR function. It won’t be easy, but ongoing communication will help HR earn respect throughout the organization.


Ongoing dialogue has been critical in the reinvention of several high-profile organizations, Sears, IBM and Chrysler, among them. Each of them had to come to grips with the fact they would no longer be a viable entity if they continued down the same business path. They had to own up to where they stood in their industry and market, and launch a massive revitalization effort to stay afloat. Each of these companies is again a success because of their courage to remake themselves with a new focus and a new energy.


In each case, HR’s role was to listen carefully to the business issues and then construct responses. The responses are quite different from one organization to another, and should be. The more effective HR becomes, the more different it will be from one organization to another.


That forging of unique functions within the HR profession may be the hallmark of HR in the new century. Every HR professional can craft initiatives using the same toolbox. The best will try new things, challenge conventional wisdom, and ask more questions more often.


Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 52-56.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

Key Decision Factors for Choosing Awards

Responses from a 1999 study by the Incentive Marketing Association and Ralph Head & Affiliates Ltd:


65%

Cost vs. desired result

62%

Profitability

60%

Has a lasting impact

58%

Good appeal

56%

Ease of administration

55%

Fairness

50%

Perceived value

35%

Uniqueness over time

34%

Matching program to audience

28%

Comparable to previous programs

Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 63.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

OSHA’s Letter on Working at Home

Below is a copy of OSHA’s controversial November letter on telecommuting. OSHA has said this concept is nothing new and is merely a restating of long-standing policy. After an outcry from the business community, OSHA rescinded the letter January 5, 2000. OSHA’s statement upon pulling the letter is at the end of this document.




November 15, 1999


Mr. T. Trahan
CSC Credit Services
652 North Belt East
Houston, Texas 77060


Dear Mr. Trahan:


Thank you for your August 21, 1997 letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Directorate of Compliance Programs (DCP), requesting information on OSHA’s policies concerning employees working at home. We apologize for the delay in responding.


Specifically, you state that your company will be placing some of its sales executives in home office environments. You state that the home office is generally a single room within the home of the sales executive that would have a desk, chair, file cabinet, business telephone, desktop or laptop computer, printer and a fax machine.


You ask several specific questions that would apply specifically to your sales executives, as well as general questions that could apply to many other types of home work situations.


Question #1:
What is the employer’s obligation within the home work environment?


Response #1:
The OSH Act applies to work performed by an employee in any workplace within the United States, including a workplace located in the employee’s home. All employers, including those which have entered into “work at home” agreements with employees, are responsible for complying with the OSH Act and with safety and health standards.


Even when the workplace is in a designated area in an employee’s home, the employer retains some degree of control over the conditions of the “work at home” agreement. An important factor in the development of these arrangements is to ensure that employees are not exposed to reasonably foreseeable hazards created by their at-home employment.


Ensuring safe and healthful working conditions for the employee should be a precondition for any home-based work assignments. Employers should exercise reasonable diligence to identify in advance the possible hazards associated with particular home work assignments, and should provide the necessary protection through training, personal protective equipment, or other controls appropriate to reduce or eliminate the hazard.


In some circumstances the exercise of reasonable diligence may necessitate an on-site examination of the working environment by the employer. Employers must take steps to reduce or eliminate any work-related safety or health problems they become aware of through on-site visits or other means.


Certainly, where the employer provides work materials for use in the employee’s home, the employer should ensure that employer-provided tools or supplies pose no hazard under reasonably foreseeable conditions of storage or use by employees. An employer must also take appropriate steps when the employer knows or has reason to know that employee-provided tools or supplies could create a safety or health risk.


 


Question #2:
Is the employer responsible for compliance with the home itself?


Response #2:
An employer is responsible for ensuring that its employees have a safe and healthful workplace, not a safe and healthful home. The employer is responsible only for preventing or correcting hazards to which employees may be exposed in the course of their work. For example: if work is performed in the basement space of a residence and the stairs leading to the space are unsafe, the employer could be liable if the employer knows or reasonably should have known of the dangerous condition.


 


Question #3:
Is the employer required to do periodic compliance inspections in the home, which may include safety, health, fire, and environmental issues?


Response #3:
There is no general requirement in OSHA’s standards or regulations that employers routinely conduct safety inspections of all work locations. However, certain specific standards require periodic inspection of specific kinds of equipment and work operations, such as:


  • ladders (_1910.25(d)(1)(x)) and (_1910.26(c)(2)(vi));
  • compressed gas cylinders (_1910.101(a));
  • electrical protective equipment (_1910.137(b)(2)(ii));
  • mechanical power-transmission equipment (_1910.219(p));
  • resistance welding (_1910.255(e)); and
  • portable electric equipment (_1910.334(a)(2)).

Although some of these operations may not be found in home-based workplaces, nevertheless, if an employer of home-based employees is aware of safety or health hazards, or has reason to be aware of such hazards, the OSH Act requires the employer to pursue all feasible steps to protect its employees; one obvious and effective means of ensuring employee safety would be periodic safety checks of employee working spaces.


This letter addresses only the employer’s responsibilities under the OSH Act. Depending on what kind of business the “at home” employer is engaged in, he or she may have additional responsibilities under other federal labor or environmental laws, as well as under state laws of general applicability, such as public health, licensing, zoning, fire and building codes, and other matters.


 


Question #4:
What would be OSHA’s inspection procedures in a private home?


Response #4:
OSHA’s health and safety inspection program is directed primarily toward industrial and commercial establishments and construction sites. We do not ordinarily conduct inspections of home-based workplaces, although from time to time we have visited private homes or apartments to investigate reports of sweatshop-type working conditions in the garment industry and other businesses.


We would also investigate work-related fatalities occurring in home-based workplaces. Any OSHA enforcement visit must, of course, be conducted in compliance with the Fourth Amendment which would require that OSHA obtain either consent to inspect or a judicially-issued warrant.


 


Question #5:
Does the employer have to include these home locations in its file regarding record keeping on the OSHA 200 logs?


Response #5:
Employers are not required to maintain an OSHA 200 Log for each home. As stated in 29 CFR 1904.14, which concerns employees not in fixed establishments, employers of employees engaged in physically dispersed operations may satisfy the provisions of 1904.2, 1904.4, and 1904.6 with respect to such employees by maintaining the required records for each operation or group of operations subject to common supervision (field superintendent, field supervisor, etc.) in an established central place.


Injuries and illnesses that occur to employees working at a home location are recordable on the employer’s OSHA 200 Log, if they are work-related and meet the criteria for an OSHA recordable injury or illness under 29 CFR Part 1904.2 and the Recordkeeping Guidelines for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.


Injuries and illnesses that result from an event or exposure off the employer’s premises are work-related if the worker was engaged in work-related activities or was present as a condition of his or her employment (see Recordkeeping Guidelines, page 35, Section 2).


These criteria must be applied to employees who work at their homes. The Recordkeeping Guidelines are available from the Government Printing Office, OSHA’s CD-ROM, and the OSHA website http://www.osha.gov.


If an employee was injured or became ill while performing duties in the interest of the employer, the case would be considered work-related. If an employee was injured or became ill while performing normal living conditions (e.g., eating), the case would not be considered work-related. For example, when an employee who works at home doing typing develops carpal tunnel syndrome, it must be determined whether the employee’s work duties in any way caused, contributed to, or aggravated the condition. If so, the condition is considered work-related for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.


Below are responses to other general questions.


Workplace Analysis and Hazard Prevention: The employer is responsible for correcting hazards of which it is aware, or should be aware. If, for example, the work requires the use of office equipment (computer, printer, scanner, fax machine, copying machine, etc.) in an employee’s home, it must be done manner. For example, from a fire safety aspect the installation must not overload the home electrical circuits.


Training: Can the training be in written form? In addition to any training requirements imposed by specific standards, employee training is one way for an employer to meet its general responsibility under the OSH Act for preventing violations.


In the absence of specific requirements, the type of training that should be provided will be measured by what a reasonably prudent employer would do under the circumstances, taking into consideration such factors as the nature of the potential hazards and the abilities of the employees. It will not always be necessary for training to be in written form. On the other hand, written training alone may not be sufficient.


Ergonomics: From the information you have provided, your employees could be exposed to ergonomic hazards. We have, therefore, enclosed a booklet entitled, Working Safely with Video Display Terminals, 1997 OSHA Publication 3092, which may be helpful in addressing these hazards. This publication is available on OSHA’s CD-ROM and at the OSHA Internet site.


Fire Protection, Lighting, Cooling, Heating, and Ventilation: See response to Question #2, above.


Asbestos, Chemicals or Toxic Materials within the Home Itself Would Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be Required? The employer is responsible for making the workplace of its employees safe, not the entire home. If the employee will be performing work for the employer that involves exposure to any chemical substance for which an MSDS is required, then the MSDS must be present at the home worksite.


However, an employer need not supply an MSDS if the hazardous chemical is a consumer product that is being used by an employee in the home office for the purpose intended by the manufacturer, and the use results in a duration and frequency of exposure which is not greater than that experienced by consumers.


Lockout/Tagout and Confined Spaces: If an employee is performing servicing and maintenance on machines or equipment which are used to perform his or her job, then the 1910.147 lockout/tagout standard applies. With regard to other equipment that may be in the home, the employer would have no responsibility.


As long as the designated workplace is within the existing habitat space of the home, then the 1910.146 confined space standard would not apply. However, since you have not provided examples of such situations, we can give only general answers.


Blood-borne Pathogen Exposures: A home office for a sales executive is not covered by OSHA’s blood-borne pathogen standard since the standard is intended to protect employees who are exposed or potentially exposed to blood or Other Potentially Infectious Materials (OPIM).


This issue cannot be addressed further without knowing a specific factual situation in which employees in their own homes would be exposed to blood-borne pathogens while performing a work-related task.


Means of Ingress and Egress: Many building/fire codes require offices to have two entrances/exits. This, however, does not mean that OSHA would require installation of a second entrance/exit in an employee’s workroom in the employee’s home unless the nature of the work and the surroundings create a heightened risk of fire. However, see response to Question #3, above.


Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): The employer is required to assess the workplace to determine if hazards which necessitate the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are present, or are likely to be present.


If these hazards are or are likely to be present then the employer must provide both the PPE and the necessary training. Employees must be trained in the proper use and maintenance of personal protective equipment, and the employer must verify, through a written certification, that each affected employee has received and understands the required training.


OSHA requires employers to make sure employees have and use safe tools and equipment and that such equipment is properly maintained. Employers are also required to establish or update operating procedures and communicate them to employees so that they will follow safety and health requirements.


Emergency Plans, Medical Assistance Services, and First Aid Kits and Training: Until OSHA develops policies for these issues as they apply to employees working in their homes, enforcement will necessarily be on a case-by-case basis. The seriousness of the potential hazards will be an important consideration.


Lead Levels in Old Paint: See response to Question #2, above.


OSHA Consulting Services: Consultation is a voluntary activity; i.e., the service is not automatic, but must be requested by the employer it cannot be requested by the employee. The service is provided chiefly at the worksite, but limited services may be provided away from the worksite via offsite training to employers and their employees.


When an employer requests onsite Consultation services, the request is prioritized according to the nature of the workplace and any existing backlog of requests. In the case of home-based worksites, a Consultation visit would be classified as “high hazard” only if particularly dangerous work processes or work areas are within the “work zone” of the home.


Due to the limited resources available to the State Consultation Projects, requests form employers that cover only one employee at a home-based worksite would usually be given a very low scheduling priority, particularly when the requested service relates to low hazard activities.


In all likelihood, therefore, a Consultation visit would occur only in unusual situations, and then only with the consent of the home-based employee. The inability of OSHA to provide such free onsite assistance in such cases does not, however, relieve the employer of the responsibility to continue to provide safe and healthful work and workplace conditions for all employees, including those based at home.


Other Consultation services are available to employers and their employees, such as dissemination of informational materials and providing telephone assistance on technical and compliance-related issues. Further, offsite technical assistance could be provided to employers and their employees at locations other than the employee’s home-based worksite, such as in the State Consultation Project office. Offsite assistance is typically provided in situations where offsite training would be the best use of Consultation resources to address a training need common to a number of employers.


The involvement of employees is key:


  • to ensuring the fullest protection of employees in the workplace;
  • to properly identifying and assessing the nature and extent of hazards;
  • and in determining the effectiveness of the employer’s efforts to establish and maintain a workplace safety and management program.

However, in the case of home-based worksites, employees would be involved only where they had freely consented to the provision of assistance requested by the employer, and then only within the parameters defined above.


Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and Workers’ Compensation: An employer’s responsibility under the ADA falls outside OSHA’s statutory authority. Similarity, OSHA cannot address the responsibility for workers’ compensation in this type of situation, since OSHA does not have statutory authority in this area.


For information concerning an employer’s responsibility for workers’ compensation the employer should contact the workers’ compensation agency in the State in which the workplace is located.


Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. Please be aware that OSHA’s enforcement guidance is subject to periodic review and clarification, amplification, or correction. Such guidance could also be affected by subsequent rulemaking.


In the future, should you wish to verify that the guidance provided herein remains current, you may consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Helen Rogers in the Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-1867.


Sincerely,


Richard E. Fairfax, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs




WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 2000
CONTACT: CARL FILLICHIO
PHONE: 202/693-4650


STATEMENT BY SECRETARY HERMAN


OSHA’s November 15, 1999, letter to one employer provided guidance to him on his employees working at home. While this employer has received the guidance he needs, the letter has caused widespread confusion and unintended consequences for others. Therefore OSHA is withdrawing the letter today.


Since Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1971, employers have had the responsibility for making sure that all employees work in safe and healthful conditions. Given the changing nature of work in the 21st century, yesterday I called for a national dialogue to determine what the rules and policies should be for America’s workers. Over the past two days, I have spoken individually with business and labor leaders. To begin this dialogue, I will host a meeting of national business and labor leaders and other interested parties in the near future.


Family-friendly, flexible and fair work arrangements, including telecommuting, can benefit individual employees and their families, employers and society as a whole. As part of this continuing effort, I will ask the National Economic Council to convene an interagency working group, including the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration and others, to examine the broad social and economic effects of telecommuting. As Secretary of Labor, I remain committed to policies that both strengthen families and protect workers on the job.


U.S. Labor Department news releases are accessible on the Internet at: http://www.dol.gov. The information in this news release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: 202/693-4650.

Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

How One Technological Process Has Improved

This enormous infusion of technology has created a different human resources department—and enterprise—than existed only a couple of decades ago.


During the heyday of mainframe computing in the 1960s, ’70s and early ’80s, it was almost impossible to do anything more than process data—something that typically occurred under the supervision of a management information system (MIS) specialist. At the time, obtaining a report could take hours or days. Sharing data in any real way was out of the question.


Then, during the late 1980s, as the personal computer matured and networking became more robust, the introduction of client/server computing took the enterprise by storm. It provided a way to exchange data between systems so that a people at desktops could process data at their PCs.


Although client/server systems created far more powerful computing models and ushered in remarkable capabilities, they too represented headaches. Moving data between systems and databases could require sophisticated middleware, and linking applications and desktops across an enterprise and beyond created ongoing compatibility problems. If you used Windows and needed to get the data to a UNIX or Mac operating system, you might face formidable barriers.


All this changed with the mainstream introduction of the Web in 1994. Suddenly, it was possible to cut across a variety of systems—provided that the software and browser supported the standard protocol of the Web.


By 1996, companies began discovering that what worked on the World Wide Web could also work on their corporate network. Intranets and then extranets were born—creating anytime, anywhere connectivity to data.


“It has moved data once contained in silos and smokestacks into the broad domain of the enterprise,” says Thomas Koulopoulos, president of The Delphi Group, a Boston-based consultancy.


Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 40.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

Top Merchandise Award Choices

Responses from a 1999 study by the Incentive Marketing Association and Ralph Head & Affiliates Ltd:


61%

Apparel

60%

Plaques and trophies

59%

Gift certificates

56%

Writing instruments

51%

Watches & clocks

43%

Desk accessories

41%

Electronics

39%

Food & beverage

37%

Sporting goods

31%

Jewelry

Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 68.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

Idea Sources for Incentive Awards

Responses from a 1999 study by the Incentive Marketing Association and Ralph Head & Affiliates Ltd:


75%

Employee feedback

51%

Peers (Networking)

34%

Trade Magazines

33%

Vendors

25%

Trade shows

22%

Direct Mail

20%

Employee Surveys

15%

Consumer Magazines

Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 62.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

Recognition Policies Protect from Potential Discrimination

There are many ways in which an employer can recognize employees for exemplary performance, years of service or for simply going the extra mile.


While it’s important, and necessary, to recognize employees, it is just as important to be fair when doing so.


When designing a rewards policy, never ignore the guidelines of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability.


It’s also important to follow Internal Revenue Service regulations and any other federal or state income regulations when issuing a monetary award.


Establish specific criteria for recognition.
When issuing an award for a job well done, the employer should ensure that all employees be evaluated by the same criteria.


Your policy should provide a system of validation of the “outstanding performance” to avoid discriminatory practices—for example, a manager who issues these awards to employees he/she likes, or to keep an employee on board, and so on.


An example of a policy might be something as simple as stating the following in your company’s employee handbook:


Merit awards are given to employees who greatly exceed job requirements by exhibiting outstanding performance. Your supervisor may recommend you for a merit award which can be a cash or non-cash award.


Pay close attention to federal regulations.
Many companies recognize employees with incentive compensation plans, stock-option plans, stock awards and so on, when an employee meets specific goals.


Any program that issues monetary awards to employees has to follow the same regulations as when paying an employee.


In other words, these types of programs may have IRS or state tax issues deeming certain reporting or payment requirements.


For instance, when a company issues stock to an employee, the employee may be responsible for reporting any dividend income received to the IRS even if the employee cannot “cash in” their stock for a certain period of time.


Also, when an employer offers stock to an employee at an employer-paid discount, the employee may be responsible for paying taxes on their portion as well as the employer-paid portion. It is important that you cover these types of issues in your policy to educate the employee being provided the award.


Federal contractors also have very specific regulations to follow—for example, the Davis Bacon and the Service Contractor Acts govern pre-determined wage and fringe benefits rates of specific workers on federal contracts.


If a federal contractor issues a monetary award to an employee covered by any of the federal contractor acts, it may violate the very specific pay scale and fringe benefits regulations, and could cause the contractor to lose their contract.


Many federal contractors are only able to provide recognition awards that do not include monetary or gift awards to employees who work on certain contracts.


Be fair in your distribution of rewards.
Every employee who qualifies for an award should receive it in the same manner (for example, at the same time each month or each year) to avoid any discrimination charges.


To accomplish this, try running a query function on your HRIS to capture information about all employees who reach your company’s set milestone(s). It may also prove helpful to have the same person run the HRISreport each time for consistency, and to avoid leaving someone out.


Another good idea is to have the award presented to employees through their direct managers or supervisors, as opposed to sending the award directly to the recipient. A supervisor is more likely to notice if any other employee meeting the same requirements has been left out.


Documentation, documentation, documentation.
Of course you already know this, and you’ve been told this a million times, but—again—state your programs clearly and concisely in a policy.


Make sure that all management is properly trained, and that your employees are made aware of procedures and requirements regarding your recognition and incentive programs.


Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 72-73.


Posted on January 1, 2000July 10, 2018

Award Effectiveness Toward Personnel Goals

Responses from a 1999 study by the Incentive Marketing Association and Ralph Head & Affiliates Ltd. (numbers represent the number of respondents):


 

Extremely

Very

Fairly

Somewhat

Not Very

Not at All

Merchandise

12

38

33

11

5

3

Group travel

23

20

22

13

9

14

Individual
travel

26

36

17

11

1

10

Cash awards

37

43

12

4

1

3

Gift
certificates

15

40

33

7

2

3

Debit cards

13

11

7

18

11

40

Workforce, January 2000, Vol. 79, No. 1, p. 68.


Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 456 Page 457 Page 458 … 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