Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on April 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Six Ways To Nail a Successful Merger

Ensure adequate due diligence.
Understanding the inner workings of each company is essential. Not only can it ensure that the firms are in compliance with all laws and regulations, but also it can make the merger much less stressful.


Establish a well-developed rationale.
Although products, manufacturing ability or a sales force might get more attention—and actually serve as the underlying reason for the merger—the human side of the equation is a key element in the success or failure of a merger. It’s up to HR managers to get the necessary information in the right hands and communicate to senior executives—from a financial standpoint—how workforce issues enter the picture.


Understand the possible synergies.
A solid understanding of each company’s workforce and the culture that surrounds each can help HR staff develop policies and strategies that work best in the situation.


Meld the corporate cultures.
Mergers and acquisitions mean more than streamlining and standardizing benefits. It’s essential to use a variety of tools—including workshops, activities and new work teams and task forces—to coalesce cultures.


Set solid communication of goals.
A merger isn’t a time for employees to listen to speeches and view video updates every week. Senior executives and HR mangers must spend time discussing the changes and how they’ll impact the workforce. Honesty is essential. But the communication must go both ways. Venting sessions and forums during which employees can ask questions and get straight answers help alleviate much of the anxiety.


Move quickly during the transition.
One of the biggest mistakes HR professionals can make is to overanalyze and study every program or change that’s contemplated. It’s best to move fast and handle most tasks in days or weeks so that the company and new workforce can forge ahead and reengage in meaningful work.


Workforce, April 1997, Vol. 76, No. 4, p. 57.


Posted on April 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Welcome Your Repatriates Home

Staggering numbers point to the fact that American multinational corporations are spending millions of dollars to place expatriate employees in overseas assignments only to see their investments walk out the door—literally.


According to the report “Managing Expatriates’ Return,” published last year by The Conference Board based in New York City, two-thirds of the HR expatriate managers who responded said their expats cost three or more times their domestic salaries. Many experts estimate that number to be as high as $250,000 a year, or $1 million to send an expatriate family overseas on a four-year assignment.


Now consider these statistics: Repatriated managers in U.S. firms leave their companies at twice the rate of domestic managers without international experience. Another study cited in the Conference Board report shows that 20 percent of repat managers leave their companies within one year after returning from overseas assignments—and as high as 50 percent leave within the first three years.


It’s impossible to know the opportunity cost to these organizations of losing their repatriates’ global experience. But the good news is it’s not hard to take the first steps in addressing the problem. Global Workforce assembled the following round table of experts to discuss the key issues.


  • Steve Shephard is a senior member of the technical staff for Colchester, Vermont-based Hill Associates, a telecommunications education and consulting firm. He is also the author of “Across the Great Divide: Managing Cross-cultural Transition” due to be released this spring.
  • Carol Jones is the regional director of international human resources for Deloitte & Touche LLP in St. Louis. Until February she was with St. Louis-based Monsanto, working with approximately 100 assignees to and from the United States.
  • Michael Tucker is the president of Tucker International, a cross-cultural consulting firm based in Boulder, Colorado. He is an organizational psychologist with more than 30 years’ experience working with individuals and companies to help them succeed internationally.
  • Kevin Jeffries is the director of international HR for SBC Communications Inc. in San Antonio, Texas. SBC has maintained international operations since 1990 and currently has approximately 70 American expatriates in Chile, China, France, Korea, Mexico and South Africa.
  • Ann Tagawa is a trainer and consultant for Prudential Relocation Intercultural Services in Boulder, Colorado. She has worked for 10 years in the areas of needs assessment and design and delivery of cross-cultural training programs.
  • Martin Bennett is the director of training and consulting services for Bennett Associates, a Chicago-based intercultural training management firm. He has more than 22 years of experience in the field of cross-cultural education and training.

Throughout the round-table discussion, several themes emerged as key strategies for implementing a successful repatriation. It’s clear that HR must work closely with line managers and expatriates throughout the term of the assignment to implement programs and strategies that will safeguard the assignment. It begins with managing expectations and it ends with creating a receptive, globally minded environment to which your expats can return.


As Steve Shephard of Hill Associates pointed out: “Repatriation begins at the time you put your name in the hat to go overseas.” So our conversation started there.


Manage expectations with a repatriation agreement.
The most simple lesson this round table brought forth is that HR can head off a slew of problems by doing one thing: making sure everyone involved has realistic expectations about certain key issues. Can such an obvious idea really be a standard problem? Absolutely.


In general terms, expats are sent overseas to do one of three things: “fight fires,” develop their management skills or satisfy a job-rotation requirement. The majority of assignments are firefighting missions that call for immediate attention. In such cases line managers and HR are happy to find an appropriately skilled person who has a profile indicating he or she will adapt well in another culture. There’s little thought given to anything beyond the short term.


If you can get the key people involved—the line manager, the would-be expat and yourself—to talk through long-term expectations, you’ll improve your odds of a successful repatriation. Carol Jones of Deloitte & Touche LLP explained: “We encourage our assignees to sit down with the people who’ve asked them to go on assignment [to ask questions like:] ‘Why am I going? Am I supposed to go out there to fix this technology problem in Japan? Or am I supposed to learn everything I can about the Japanese way of doing business because I need this for managing my next assignment?’”


Simply put, expats need to know why they’re going to a foreign post. It makes a difference if it’s simply a functional assignment and not meant to be an opportunity to develop management skills. If they mistakenly believe it’s the latter, of course they’ll be disappointed when they return to a lateral position years later.


Michael Tucker of Tucker International added that expats these days are often very direct about asking what the company will offer them when they return: “[Expats ask:] ‘What are your plans for me, assuming I do well and this works out?’ And there should be a pretty darn good answer to that. There can’t be a guarantee, but there should be an international/domestic career-planning process with options laid out and requirements set so you can tell the person: ‘These are the things you need to do to be continually seen as an attractive person and to get the best assignments after this,’” Tucker said.


Of course, with organizational change, it’s tough to predict what the company’s hiring needs will be several years down the road. But today’s international assignees are going to expect you to try: “I think most HR people would say that employees just aren’t accepting the job anymore unless they’re given some sort of assurance that at the end of the assignment, there’s a job for them somewhere in the 50 states,” Tucker said.


Once you’ve had a conversation, put what was discussed in writing. Create a repatriation agreement outlining the expectations of each party. Shephard shared his suggestions for what should be included in a repat agreement: information about compensation, transportation, schools, the domestic residence, in-country support and placement following repatriation.


Money matters also are bound to become a big issue for returned families if they come home with unrealistic expectations. According to Ann Tagawa of Prudential Relocation Intercultural Services, expats experience approximately a 30 percent decrease in salary after losing their expat bonus. She said: “They lose all the perks like their housing allowance, their children’s tuition, the [club memberships]. Someone once described it like being Cinderella and midnight has struck: They’re stripped of all these things.”


At the same time, expats are struggling with a significant number of one-time expenses, such as a house and new cars. Tagawa added: “Companies can alleviate some of this by providing financial counseling for their expats before they expatriate. Then when they return, [companies] can provide tax counseling and financial planning to help ease this process, as well. Almost [all expats are] going to have to go through some [financial] loss unless they’ve been saving like crazy while they were overseas.”


Carry career planning throughout the assignment.
Before the employee accepts the assignment, he or she wants to know that it fits logically into his or her career path and that the company will value the experience. Up-front discussions and a repatriation agreement may have allayed any fears at the outset, but once expatriates are overseas and they haven’t heard any ongoing discussion of their career advancement, they’re likely to begin worrying. “There’s always that issue of being out of sight, out of mind; and that’s the most difficult thing to overcome. I think every company struggles with it,” Kevin Jeffries of SBC Communications explained.


According to our experts, career anxiety is an early symptom of repatriation. It often sets in long before the employee returns home. And with reason—according to a study by the Conference Board, 60 percent of respondents reported that fewer than 25 percent of their expats know what their home-office position will be as close as four months before their return.


There’s another dynamic that makes the situation different from domestic career planning. Martin Bennett of Bennett Associates explained that international assignments tend to create an attitude of dependency in expats since so many details of their lives are handled by their companies while they’re abroad. This often carries over into their career-development plans. “If a person’s not working on their own career advancement as they would if they were in their home environment, then they’ll quickly find out that companies aren’t necessarily going to have a position for them.”


There’s always that issue of being out of sight, out of mind; and that’s the most difficult thing to overcome. Every company struggles with it.


So what can you do? Create opportunities for expats to manage their career development themselves. Several panelists stressed the importance of sharing information about available positions worldwide. Provide home leaves so expats can check in with business contacts at the corporate office. Establish a resource center that expats can call on a regular basis throughout the last year of their assignment. “We have our Staffing Center here [in the States] that’s responsible for staffing throughout our whole company. And we have specific individuals who have responsibility for our international folks, both on the expatriation side and the repatriation side,” Jeffries explained. “They know [what’s available] and they know the skill sets of the people whom they’re trying to place.”


Even if your expats have taken a proactive approach to their career planning, they’re still going to need you to keep them informed. Bennett said that he has worked with repats who were stunned to learn some things that their peers had known far in advance. “We saw many angry people in repatriation because No. 1, they didn’t understand that when a company downsized people were going to be asked to leave. They hadn’t had all the warnings that their colleagues [at home] had who are now situated very well in other companies,” he said.


It’s important to challenge your expats to maintain relationships with several of their colleagues to help them monitor organizational changes. Providing them access to a corporate intranet and an Internet e-mail account was suggested. Some companies organize regular visits from home-office personnel. But the favorite idea among our round-table participants was establishing expatriate/mentor partnerships.


“The most successful program I’ve found is AT&T’s HR International,” Shephard said. He described the program: “Every employee sent overseas has a person who’s responsible for their well-being and is two levels above them in the corporation. That person is tasked with ensuring that the offshore employee is kept in the loop and comes home periodically for meetings and just to hang around the office and be seen.”


Tagawa explained a common oversight in such a mentoring arrangement: “One problem with reorganization and personnel changes is the person who’s assigned as a mentor and knows what that expat’s going to be doing may not even be with the company four or five years from now. So it’s the kind of thing that if it’s offered to the expat, and there are changes like that, then management needs to put someone else into that position to continue the process and not leave the expat just dangling out there.”


Prepare repats for reverse culture shock.
After career planning, our expert panel cited handling the cultural transition as the next difficult challenge. When our conversation turned to culture shock, Jones summed it up, “I think the most difficult adjustment is that they don’t expect to have to adjust.”


Shephard, having experienced repatriation and reverse culture shock firsthand after five years in Spain as a teenager, described the experience of an expat: “You go [overseas] and although, yes it’s different, you’re prepared for it, so the transition is somewhat manageable. Now, in the course of your four-year tour, you’ve learned new languages; you’ve learned to operate in a multicultural and multinational environment; you know how to do business with people from different cultures; you’ve adapted to a set of skills that you never had before. You’ve had a big office and a car with a driver. You’ve lived in a huge house. And now you’re going home.


“Well, this is when the problem starts to happen,” Shephard continued. “Your company typically treats your return as an [evacuation]—because how hard could it be? You’re coming home. But point of fact, [where you came from] is now home, and as a consequence, your return to your passport country is just like another foreign assignment.”


Shephard described what our experts said was a common experience of repats when they’re faced with friends and family members asking about their time overseas: “Their eyes glaze over for the first 10 seconds because they don’t have a clue what you’ve talking about or they brand you a braggart because: ‘All he ever talks about is the time when he was in Abu Dhabi. Well, who cares about that?’ But in fact that’s all you have to talk about.” This is a painful experience that often causes the returnees to migrate to the social sidelines.


You might be surprised by the type of person who has the most difficult time with this cultural adjustment. Tucker explained: “We find that those who adapt most completely to living and working in another culture are the ones who have the toughest time coming back again. We think that it’s because their lives have changed so much… Their values have changed, their lifestyles have changed and so readjusting back to the home environment is really hard for them.”


That begs the question: Would you be better off selecting a person less-likely to adapt well? Tucker responded: “[No,] but it’s even more important to do training on the other end—and to help people remember how they adapted to the other culture and pull out all those skills and attitudes and apply them back in their home country.”


Other than planning a debriefing session in the form of a traditional intercultural training program, what can you do to help them cope? And what are the issues you should be prepared to deal with? To start off, you should identify whether any of your expats are likely to experience more trouble than average and expect to give those individuals more attention during their adjustment period. Younger expats who’ve embraced the culture completely (older people have more experience adjusting to life’s transitions), a spouse planning to re-enter the workforce and children are going to need your support more than the others; although it’s likely that every repatriate, to some degree, will suffer some discomfort.


Also, the members of our round table suggested you make a commitment to help your expatriates start the readjustment process before they return. “Give at least six months’ notice to the repat family that they’re going to be coming back home. That’s really important because it gives them a chance to reach closure on the assignment, say their goodbyes, finish their projects, complete the work that’s under way and try to tie up all the lose ends,” Tagawa said.


Several intercultural service providers have programs to incorporate the adjustment period into the last year of the overseas assignment. Tucker explained his company’s program: “We like the employee and the spouse to complete [our “Repatriation Planning Guide”] several months before they come back. It starts them thinking about the international assignment, summarizing how they’ve learned and changed, and preparing them for the repatriation process… [When they return] we help them focus on some of those issues they’ve already identified. We like to wait and do the training a few months after they’ve come back, so they’ve experienced a lot of the repatriation difficulties.”


Cultivate a global mindset in your home office.
Let’s say you do everything right up until this step. You defined expectations upfront; you established ways for expats to manage their career development and stay connected to the home office; you acknowledged the difficult cultural conflicts your repats would be experiencing; and you implemented methods to help them with the transition. Even so, your repat program isn’t in the clear. It has yet to face its toughest challenge: incorporating your repats into their new work environments.


Shephard described the situation from the assignees’ perspective: “[Repats] want to use their new-found skills. They feel empowered. They feel special. They feel like they’ve done something good for the company, and they have. … But what happens is HR and line management don’t understand this since they haven’t been through it, so they put [the repats] in cubicles and they bring their salaries back down to where they’re supposed to be in the domestic environment.” Then, doing what feels like mundane work and using none of their newly acquired skills, some of the repats quickly grow dissatisfied. Shephard continued: “I now have interviewed hundreds of people. I’ve seen the same cycle over and over again, and it works like this: They get bored; they get frustrated; they get angry; and they leave.”


At this stage, more than any other, our experts advised handling repats with care. It’s not difficult to show your repatriates that the company values their international experience—so long as your company actually does. Members of the round table suggested holding a homecoming reception. They also suggested asking the repat to give a presentation to key executives or present his or her findings in a report. The repat could be invited to participate on a global task force, or could be encouraged to contribute his or her international perspective during regular meetings.


If your company is committed to developing a global business, making repats feel valued will be a simple task. Managers won’t forget to use their repats as internal resources and will look for ways to make use of their global competencies. If this isn’t the case, you have a bigger job at hand. You’ll first need to work at establishing a corporate value that embraces the idea of transforming your company into a global learning organization.


It makes sense that if your repats feel the organization isn’t receptive to their perspectives, then they’ll soon become reluctant to contribute. Jones explained the situation at Monsanto: “The hard part is to get the employees to go through the debriefing because they feel somewhat hesitant to showcase their knowledge [in this] organization that they’re trying to fit into. So we’re trying to get upper management to send the message that employees are going on assignment, that it’s an investment, and that the company wants a return on the investment and expects an acquisition of knowledge while they’re out and a transference of knowledge when they come home.”


The intercultural training offered a few months after arrival in the home country will be of use in this area too. As our experts said, trainers can help the employees learn to recognize some of the skills they developed. And the counselors may help the repat find a new position within the organization that will make use of these skills.


So why aren’t companies offering repatriation assistance more consistently? Tucker said: “For many years, we’ve had the lip service of people who say they want to do repatriation training, but that seems to be the last place they put their money. … More are doing it now than before, but it’s still the poor stepchild of the intercultural services.”


Tucker said that the reason may have to do with trying to determine whose budget would cover the expenses. He added that some of the problem may be that HR and the line managers simply don’t understand the importance of the issue. Tucker explained: “[They may be thinking] ‘What’s the problem? I mean, this is our country, after all, and we don’t have a problem.’”


Even so, Tucker believes companies recognize that retention is a challenge: “I think many companies would say the loss of talent upon repatriation is a bigger problem today than overseas failures.” And at a million dollars a shot, most of us would agree that it’s an issue worth reevaluating.


Global Workforce, April 1997, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 24-28.


Posted on April 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Employers Need an FMLA Brush-up

We’re fast approaching the four-year anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Employers seem to have the basics down: Any company with more than 50 employees is required to offer up to 12 weeks’ leave for nonkey employees to care for their own or a family member’s serious health condition or to care for newborns or recently adopted children. Upon returning, the employee is guaranteed a return to either the same or an equivalent position. That’s not too tricky.


Unfortunately, we all know the devil is in the details. Employers are stumbling over everything from the definition of a serious health condition to events triggering leave. David Deromedi, a partner at Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman in Detroit, offers a review—and an update.


What are the FMLA issues at the forefront now?
The first issue that comes up is how much notice employees have to provide to the employer to trigger their rights for leave under the law, and how an employer specifically needs to respond to an employee’s notice that he or she might be out or might have a serious health condition that would qualify the person for leave under the act. What we’re seeing so far in the law is that the courts and the Department of Labor (DOL) seem to be saying that employers have to be extra careful in determining whether an employee qualifies for leave.


What do you mean by “extra careful”?
Employers have to kind of bend over backward to determine whether an employee is eligible for leave based on the employee’s specific situation. I think [the law is] saying that if an employee has a particular health condition and you know that, you have to do everything you can to make further inquiries as to the reason why the employee needs the time off, how long he or she is going to be off, if he or she has a doctor’s note to substantiate the time off, and then make an independent determination as to whether that leave qualifies for FMLA leave. Then make sure you walk the employee through the idea that the leave qualifies for FMLA leave and may be treated as such.


So the major thrust is determining if an employee qualifies for leave?
The act itself and the regulations that have been issued by the U.S. Department of Labor have focused on the employer doing everything within its power to make an ultimate determination as to whether the employee qualifies for leave. I think for some employers it’s in the forefront of their minds because this is such a new piece of legislation. For others, sometimes they tend to overlook it. It may be worthwhile just asking a few extra questions to determine employee status or health condition whenever an employee will be out for a while to see if he or she may qualify for a leave.


The courts seem to be saying employers have to be careful in determining whether an employee qualifies for leave.


So how careful does an employer have to be about employees’ triggering FMLA leave?
[Employers don’t need to worry about] an employee who just says, “I’m going to be missing this day or that day,” when it’s just a one-time situation that doesn’t necessarily trigger an employer’s need to gather further information about the employee’s condition. But we’re seeing that once an employee says, “I’ve got some sort of condition that will keep me out of work for more than just a day or two,” then a lot of courts are saying that’s adequate notice for an employer to make a further investigation.


Anything else employers should note?
The other thing for employers [to be aware of], especially if they have personnel handbooks or policy manuals: It looks like the courts are going to say that you should have contained within those handbooks and manuals a fairly detailed statement of what employees’ FMLA leave rights are and what they can do to get leave under the FMLA. You absolutely shouldn’t have anything in there—and I know this is a hard standard to define—that will confuse the employee or make the employee think there are some rights they might have beyond what they’re allowed under the FMLA.


Is there legal precedent for such a scenario?
I’m thinking of a recent court decision from a federal court in Pennsylvania. Basically the court ruled that even though the employer had a provision that identified what type of leave it provided under the FMLA, and the employees had that, the court also found the provision a little misleading. It held the employer to a standard that it has to make sure it clearly identifies what the leave is all about to its employees.


Can you go over the basics of the case?
Under the act, if you take time off you’re supposed to, upon your return, be provided with the same job you had before or a job of equivalent duty and pay and conditions and things like that. So the idea behind the act was to provide employees with some significant job protections so they’d be able to take this time off without any fear of repercussion. [In the case mentioned above,] Fry v. First Fidelity Bank Corp., the employee had taken some FMLA time off. She had taken 12 weeks and then an additional four weeks because it appeared from the employer’s written policy that [employees] could take up to 16 weeks off, with all that time being protected under the FMLA’s provisions. Well the FMLA only requires employers to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave within any 12-month period. So when this employee came back, the employer put her in a completely different position, not an equivalent position. The employee decided to quit because it wasn’t the same thing as she’d been doing before. She wound up bringing a lawsuit [that the employer] didn’t really honor her FMLA rights because it didn’t provide her with proper reinstatement.


What did the court rule?
The court decided that yes, an employer under the statute has an obligation to reinstate an employee after leave if it’s within that 12-week period. In this instance, it’s possible the employer may not have had to reinstate the employee if she took leave beyond that 12-week period. But unfortunately, the employer’s leave policy wasn’t clear enough. Therefore the employee was confused about whether she’d get reinstatement rights if she took the longer 16-week leave. The employer didn’t give the employee all the information she would’ve needed to make an effective choice on her use of the leave. Therefore, because she was misled, she has a possible claim of violation of her FMLA rights. So ultimately what the case means is the courts at this point in time are probably going to do all they can to protect an employee’s effective use of rights under the act. It’s an interesting decision in the way [the court] arrived at that conclusion, but it’s basically one that I think a lot of other courts will adopt: Do the employees have effective use of their leave rights? If they don’t, the employer might be in trouble.


In some instances supervisors have been found to be individually liable for violating an employee’s FMLA rights.


What else should employers be aware of?
The one thing I think employers should keep in mind is the act provides for protection for employees who have what’s known as a “serious health condition.” The DOL has tried to define serious health condition and has come up with an extremely broad definition compared to what most people would normally believe would qualify for a serious health condition. So employers shouldn’t just come up with assumptions about what constitutes a serious health condition. Spend some time in getting doctor’s certifications specifying what the condition is that the employee has. Then decide whether that might qualify for FMLA leave.


Are courts generally swaying pro-employee?
I think they are, but of course I’m coming from the perspective of a lawyer who does work exclusively for employers. What I mean by pro-employee is they’re making sure the act has an expansive interpretation on whom it covers and what types of conditions it covers. I think at the individual federal district court level, that’s where everything’s headed right now. There’s a lot of room for the courts to work within the statute because this covers a lot of types of situations. Another thing that certainly employers should be aware of—and it goes more to what their managers should be aware of—is that there have been some instances in which supervisors have been found to be individually liable for violating an employee’s FMLA rights. There was one case in which a jury verdict was approximately $58,000. Other courts in other locations have determined that basically individual supervisors may be on the hook under the FMLA as well.


The FMLA is near its fourth anniversary. What are employers still doing wrong?
I think employers have done a good job of at least familiarizing themselves with the law and [communicating] their FMLA statements in their handbooks and policy manuals, and putting up the posters. [The area in which] I see them going astray is not so much in terms of applying the FMLA itself. Especially for larger employers, the [problem is] not having [supervisors] sufficiently apprised in the FMLA and what they should be looking for in order to avoid a problem down the road. Sometimes supervisors, if they’ve got an employee who might be out or missing work intermittently, instead of considering it a potential FMLA case, just apply the company’s normal attendance policies. That can get them into trouble. I think that’s [a situation in which] some people are falling down.


Are there any FMLA amendments down the road in 1997?
I know that’s one of the many themes President Clinton was talking about during his re-election campaign—ways to fine-tune or expand the FMLA. As far as I know, nothing specific has been sent out of committee for a vote or anything like that. There’s an agenda to expand it to allow [parents 24 hours of unpaid leave in a 12-month period] to attend things like their children’s school activities and community functions. [The bill also proposes expanding the FMLA to employers of 25 or more people.] There’s talk, too, of trying to provide FMLA leave on a paid basis as well. But that hasn’t stepped up to the point at which a bill’s actually been drafted or reported on as far as I know. It’s just a proposed amendment. I’m not sure if in this Congress the climate is good for [such an amendment] to be passed.


Is there anything else on FMLA that employers should be aware of?
I like to caution employers that there’s overlap between the FMLA, disabilities discrimination and workers’ comp coverage under the various state laws. So whenever an issue arises in which the employee has a serious health condition or potentially disabling condition, that beyond the FMLA issue, there are additional issues. It makes sense to sit down and figure out, either with a lawyer or your own in-house staff, what the employee’s individual situation is, what impact these various laws might have on the situation and what you want to do with the employee in terms of managing them for the future.


Final word: the good news and bad news for employers?
One thing I think it’s helpful for employers to know is they can certainly designate leave as FMLA leave for an employee even if the employee hasn’t requested it by name. If the employee says, “No, I don’t think that should be the case,” the only way it would not be the case would be if the employee [decided] to show up for work. The employer still has the ability to do that. The other thing—and this won’t be a comfort to employers—but certainly on a state-by-state basis, there can be talk about expanding family leave rights well beyond what’s already provided by the federal government. That’s something employers might want to have in the back of their minds—that this may expand at some time in the future depending on where they do business.


Workforce, April 1997, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 101-104.


Posted on April 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Employment Contracts In Writing or Not

One of the marked differences of the employment process between the United States and most European countries is the extent of written communication between the company and the employee regarding applicable terms and conditions of employment.


In the United States, written correspondence normally will be limited to a short offer letter noting time, place and initial compensation for the new hire. In Europe, however, employers frequently provide a detailed statement of particulars, often accompanied by further generic statements of policy.


The origin of this difference can be traced back to the basic legal systems. The United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland operate under common law, meaning there’s an assumption that contracts made between two equally independent contractors may resolve disputes through the courts. The rest of Europe operates under Roman law, which regulates through statutory general principle relationships between different types of citizens, such as employers and employees.


Thus, the United States has no single body of employment law, and regulations are made at federal, state and local levels. There’s no requirement for written statements of detail in an employment contract—although such statements are becoming more common in contracts for senior managers, fixed-term contracts and contracts with unusual terms and conditions. In these cases, special attention typically is paid to compensation and benefits, confidentiality, noncompetition and termination rights and circumstances.


The European Union (EU) on the other hand, has a European directive requiring employers to provide written proof of a contract of employment—giving the details of terms and conditions within two months of starting work. There are exceptions for employees who are temporary (less than a month) and part-time (less than eight hours a day).


How employers must comply varies among European countries. We’ll take a close look at four of these countries.


The United Kingdom requires a written statement.
Strictly, the following applies to England and Wales, as Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legal systems. But the provisions relating to employment contracts are basically the same for all four regions.


The United Kingdom derives its employment law from three sources: common law (as in the United States), statute law and EU directives. Until the 1960s, individual employment law was governed, as in the States, by the law of contract. Since then, there has been much statute- and EU-driven legislation, and in the area of written contracts, the law now requires all employers to issue a written statement covering:


  1. Name of employer and employee
  2. Date when employment began
  3. Rights to any continuation of previous employment rights
  4. The rate of pay and method of calculating remuneration
  5. The pay periods
  6. Hours of work
  7. Vacation entitlement
  8. Sickness pay schemes
  9. Pension scheme
  10. Place of work
  11. Job title
  12. Disciplinary rules
  13. Grievance procedure
  14. Notice period

Some of these may be covered by reference to a collective agreement or general policy statement.


In Germany, oral contracts are the official word.
Perhaps, surprisingly, there’s no legal requirement to provide a written contract of employment in Germany. Oral agreements are as legally binding as written agreements. The EU directive requires written particulars to be supplied, but this isn’t regarded as a legal contract.


Contractual rights in Germany arise from the Civil Code and many subsequent legislative regulations—all of which are being integrated into the new Labour Law Code. As a result, legal provisions on minimum notice, hours of work, wages, vacations, maternity/paternity rights, works council (or consultative body) rights, confidentiality provisions, equal pay, sickness pay, invention rights and non-competition duties apply automatically whether written or not.


In addition, many terms and conditions are regulated by collective agreement (excluding managerial employees), and these are deemed to form part of the employment contract.Despite the lack of legal requirement, it’s the custom and practice to provide a written contract of employment specifying the particular provisions in relation to the above list as it provides a firmer basis for the resolution of disputes than oral agreements.


Prudence calls for written records in Italy.


Similarly, in Italy there’s no legal requirement for a written contract of employment but, even more so than in Germany, prudence dictates that written particulars are desirable in the complex, and at times confusing, legal structure in Italy.


Contracts of employment in Italy are governed by:


  • The Constitution and some specific regulations
  • Statutes, particularly the Civil Code
  • Regulations by authorities other than the Parliament and the Government
  • Custom and practice
  • Corporate rules determined by collective bargaining.

It’s normal, in establishing in both parties’ interests, that the contract is “indefinite,” (or without a prescribed end date) and should provide written details of the following:


  1. Start date
  2. Probationary period
  3. Working hours
  4. Category of employment and duties
  5. Job description
  6. Place of work
  7. Basic salary
  8. Noncompete clause.

In addition, collective bargains often require that written statements of the main terms and conditions of employment are provided—and this will apply equally to managers (dirigenti) who have their own collective agreement between FNDAI, the industrial management, or FNDAC, the commercial management, and the employers.


Contracts are the law in France.
France requires a written contract of employment to be given to an employee within two months of commencing work. The contract must set out the identity of the parties, the place of work, the title of the employee or the type of job or job description, the date of commencement, vacation period, notice period, basic salary, dates of payment, hours of work and relevant collective agreement.


The contract, whether based on a collective agreement or not, operates within the Labour Code, which itself defines minimum notice periods, limits on working hours, minimum wages, vacations, maternity/paternity rights, confidentiality and noncompete duties, and sickness provisions.


The provisions applying to other European countries have similar variations but usually require, either by law or prudence, the provision of a reasonably extensive written contract of employment. The use of references to standard provisions in collective agreements, often nationally based, can limit the length of the employment contract in a number of countries. But rarely do these apply to senior management. In fact, the trend toward written contracts for senior managers in the United States is following the established practice in Europe.


Each country in Europe will be different. Therefore, it’s important to obtain appropriate advice when initiating the contract to ensure that you’re fulfilling the legal requirements and prudent management practice in that particular country.


Global Workforce, April 1997, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 12-13.


Posted on March 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Multi-part Special Leverage the Power of the Internet

When the World Wide Web burst onto the scene a couple of years ago, the hype and frenzy approximated that of a traveling carnival. The press touted it as the most revolutionary breakthrough since the printing press, and companies viewed it as a ticket to greater performance and profits. About the only thing missing was P.T. Barnum handing out modems on the midway.


Unfortunately, many bold predictions have stalled out. But, make no mistake, the Web is here to stay. It’s changing the way people work, interact and think. Says Neal M. Goldsmith, publisher of BusinessTech, a Web-based periodical out of New York City focusing on Internet business and emerging technology, “It’s breaking down boundaries and creating greater connectivity.” Adds Dave Rothschild, director of client applications for Netscape Communications Corp., a Web-browser software company based in Mountain View, California, “It’s the world’s largest encyclopedia, and it’s one that changes every day.”


For HR, the Web has led to dramatic changes. It’s allowing corporations to market themselves directly to college students and professionals—24 hours a day. As resumes stream in, they’re automatically routed into databases. When a manager needs to fill a position, it’s possible to search on keywords and find top prospects. Then, using videoconferencing software over the Internet, it’s even possible to conduct a preliminary interview.


Recruiting may have been the first big HR application for the Web, but it isn’t the only one. It’s also possible to outsource payroll, benefits administration and more. It’s relatively simple to connect employees worldwide for training through the Net. And then there’s the ability to conduct research on anything from benchmarking to TQM.


HR is at the center of a changing electronic universe. It’s the department that’s being looked at to drive gains and provide strategic skills. That means learning how the Internet works and how companies can use it to their maximum advantage. So be prepared to explore new opportunities.


 


Workforce, March 1997, Vol. 76, No. 3, p. 76.

Posted on March 1, 1997July 10, 2018

The Pros and Cons of Pre-employment Testing

T

homas W. Hirons, industrial sociologist, in Mansfield, Ohio, says:
“Before any organization makes a decision to use pre-employment testing, I recommend HR first examine the risks of violating the ADA, FMLA, Drug Free Workplace Act, EEO and Affirmative Action. Next, consider the reliability of the test itself, test administrator and testing vendor. Lastly, check into the real reason your organization has turned to testing. Are you concerned about group consensus or appeasing a demanding supervisor? These are extremely important considerations in the basic hiring process.


“I’ve had no problem with basic-skill pre-employment testing. Can an applicant add, subtract and spell? Is he or she PCliterate? Pre-employment testing in terms of an applicant’s character, however, is risky.


“I’ve seen groups and committees make hiring decisions solely based on pre-employment testing. In other words, group and committee dynamics were in such turmoil that members couldn’t trust their own instincts and took the easy way out in making important hiring decisions. The hiring process of any organization is a vital indicator of the organization’s decision-making process and learning ability.


“If an organization wants to make pre-employment testing just one of the tools, that’s OK. But our culture is very test-biased and testing dependent, so keeping pre-employment testing in check often is difficult. We test every type of human behavior imaginable starting from first grade. Employment hiring and workplace human behavior vary in different professional settings. Organizations that hire based on sound human resources practices that have developed over time within the organizations are much better off in the long run than with any form of pre-employment testing.”


Greg Marvel, human resources director for Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, in Oakland, California, says:
“Pre-employment testing is one of the most valuable HR tools available today. The reality is that most employers can ill afford to make the wrong choice in an employment selection, as the costs of training and investing in a new employee have skyrocketed.


“Every professional human resources position I’ve held during the last 20 years has utilized pre-employment testing to help narrow large applicant pools and differentiate between levels of knowledge and skills among candidates. As HR practitioners, we must not forget the ultimate purpose of any pre-employment test is to serve as a predictor of success on the job and provide the best candidates for our client departments.


“I always have managed recruitments with the attitude that applicants who got through one of our tests had received our ‘seal of quality,’ and that our customers (the department or work site with the vacancy) could reasonably expect final applicants could do the job.


“Of course, those of us who do pre-employment testing (whether written, oral or performance) must always remember that there must be a nexus between the duties of the job and the tests given to determine knowledge, skills and abilities.


“As the modern human resources department migrates to a strategic business partnership with its internal customers, the bottom line becomes ever more important. Some might argue that pre-employment testing is an expensive luxury that organizations can’t afford. I disagree. Each hiring decision will ultimately cost tens of thousands of dollars in salary, training and benefits. The cost of pre-employment testing is small when viewed in this light, and a successful program will ultimately bolster the bottom line of any organization.”


Workforce, March 1997, Vol. 76, No. 3, p. 125.

Posted on March 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Watch out for These Five Embellishments

It’s been known to happen. Job applicants sometimes embellish the truth. And in over 20 years of executive recruiting, Chip McCreary, president of Dallas-based Austin*McGregor International has heard everything. Five key areas he suggests you closely watch follow.


  1. Compensation. For applicants who don’t work for public companies at which executive pay is a matter of public record, compensation is the No. 1 embellishment. Some executives exaggerate salary and bonus and stock-option programs by over 100 percent.

  2. Tenure. On average, senior-level executives spend between four and seven years with the same employer. It’s not uncommon for executives who’ve spent more than 10 years with one organization to indicate they’ve spent less time with the firm. The rationale is that an overly long stay with one company reveals a lack of initiative and drive. Other executives with less tenure may exaggerate the time they’ve spent with a firm in order to emphasize their staying power.

  3. Reasons for leaving. Leaving a company is no disgrace. But lying about why one left may be. Everyone has his or her reasons for leaving a situation that isn’t working out. It’s become practically a rite of passage in recent years for executives to be let go when a company is acquired. Yet some very capable executives refuse to admit being laid off.

  4. Age. Gray hair used to be obligatory for any senior executive. Now, many applicants over 50 tend to mask their age or simply refuse to admit they’ve crossed into their sixth decade. Although it’s illegal to discriminate against job applicants based on their age, most employers will draw conclusions about an applicant’s age through deduction (generally by checking the year they graduated from college).

  5. Hierarchy. Executives commonly will exaggerate their position on the organizational chart. One executive McCreary worked with stated that he reported directly to the CEO, when in reality he reported to the CEO only on special projects. As a vice president of marketing, he reported to the senior vice president. Though they fall more in the category of fibs than outright lies, such exaggerations tend to surface during interviews and reflect poorly on applicants.

Workforce, March 1997, Vol. 76, No. 3, p. 21.

Posted on March 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Introspection Looking Inside HR for Answers

Welcome to “Heart & Soul.” I invite you to view another side of human resources. In my long career as an HR professional, and more recently as a minister, I’ve wanted to see a column in Workforce that would be nurturing, gentle and supportive, yet stirring and deep. Over the past few years, I had given much thought to these ideas until this column was born. In the coming months, this will be a place for us to explore and share some of our joys, frustrations and desires. Please join with me as we delve into the reflective side, the spiritual or the soul side of human resources. Let’s explore a new meaning and focus for our profession. The purpose of this column is to be a support, a breath of fresh air and a space where you can let go and delve into the inside—the heart and soul of HR—without criticism or judgment.


Looking inside HR: A natural beginning. I pondered the choice of beginning this new column with the idea of ‘introspection.’ Why not ‘inspire’ or ‘insight’? Those words seem lighter, possibly more likable. But there’s something deep, stirring beneath the surface with introspection—like stepping into the unknown and looking at life from a different perspective. And then it occurred to me. Of course! We in human resources don’t usually take the time—nor do we have the inclination—to look at ourselves from the inside out. We’re too busy, just like everyone else.


It’s interesting that the very first step in any outplacement program is self- assessment: looking at one’s history, skills, achievements and talents. Outplacement professionals know this critical action is rarely taken by people on the job. They’re too busy ‘doing’ to have any time for ‘being.’ American business doesn’t have much, if any, reflection time for employees, and that’s certainly also true for HR. We want to be a part of the team, to look like everyone else. Human resources has made great strides in becoming incorporated within the mainstream life of companies by becoming true business partners. We’ve struggled to get away from being seen as ‘touchy-feely,’ soft folks. We’ve spent so much time proving we’re strategic that we seem to have ignored the ‘human’ side of HR. But this isn’t about degrading our work so far. Being seen as competent and important to the organization is essential to our continued success.


Yet, just focusing on the linear mode of ‘doing’ keeps us off balance and lopsided. It keeps us away from our creativity, compassion, wisdom and intuition. We’ve become bottom-line oriented, strong technocrats in a workplace that pushes harder and harder for more productivity and more hours. Yet employees seem to be looking for a quality of life that encompasses more than work. In his article “Corporate Soul” (American Way magazine, November, 1995) writer Jim Morrison quotes Tom Chappell, president of Tom’s of Maine and the author of the 1993 bestseller “The Soul of a Business” as saying, “We’re in an age in which a lot of people are looking for more meaning out of not just their personal lives, but their work lives.”


Humanizing the workplace: A logical goal. We need to re-examine our focus and to reengineer our companies with a new perspective. Humanizing the workplace is an idea whose time has come. And we’re the ones to lead the change in this direction. Because we’re the ones who can best understand and advance these ideas, we must descend into a more balanced perspective of ourselves. We must have the willingness to be reflective and to explore who we are, from the inside out. As we begin to explore this new experience, we’ll begin to model the new attitudes that our employees so deeply desire.


What an incredible opportunity we have to be true leaders, coaches and mentors to our organizations. It doesn’t mean we can’t be technical. But it does mean we must balance that linear part of ourselves with gentleness. Our analytical minds are more effective when they’re balanced with reflection and creativity. We’re faced with more change, both in the workplace and in the world, than ever before. We often feel like we’re being overtaken with new technology and new tasks to handle. And it’s an acceleration that’s only going to increase in the future. Frantically, we’ve tried to handle and facilitate the changes that have occurred in our companies: upsizing, downsizing, rightsizing, reorganization, redesign, etc. Constant change is all around us.


Where do we go from here? This isn’t about developing a plan for change with catchy slogans and jargonistic expressions that are just surface-oriented and never go anywhere. These plans just create more ill-will than ever if they aren’t true or genuinely supported. Ghandi once said, “You must be the change you want in the world.” So, how do you want your world to be? How could the workplace really be? We won’t know without introspection—really involving ourselves in the process of internal review and audit. It frees us to make new choices without conflict and contradictions within ourselves. It’s never an easy journey, but clearly, we must start.


Now is the time. Never before in our history has the need for the ‘soft skills’ of communications, behaviors and style been so important and so necessary. Never before has there been such a cry from people who are so hungry for meaning and for community in their lives. If we’re going to be successful—to truly champion change and growth within our organizations—we must begin to look within ourselves. We must begin to see the nontechnical as not only desired, but critical and vital to our success, and possibly even to our survival.


It all begins with introspection— because who and what we are ultimately begins and ends within each of us. Please join with me. This is our time. Let’s explore what we can be—together.


Workforce, March 1997, Vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 122-123.

Posted on March 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Telecommuting When to Offer the Opportunity

The Dilemma:
You’ve had success with local telecommuters. Now, Scott—an employee moving across country because of his spouse’s job relocation—has asked to stay on as a long-distance telecommuter. The trouble is you aren’t sure Scott has the self-discipline to perform independently. Since you’ve already set the precedent of offering telecommuting arrangements, how do you respond to his request?


Readers Respond:
Scott’s self-discipline is the key issue here. An employee who performs at an average level in the work environment may blossom as a telecommuter. I would talk to Scott’s managers to see what their perceptions are. I would talk to Scott to let him know of the existing concerns. Then I would suggest allowing Scott to perform as a telecommuter, letting him know he’ll be monitored for deadlines, follow-up and communication with his supervisor for the first three months. With increased awareness on both sides, this should turn out to be a mutually beneficial work relationship.
Lissa Muse
HR Manager
National TechTeam
Dallas, Texas


What’s offered to some should be offered to all. An employee should be dealt with just as if he or she is a business partner, a customer or a vendor. Professionalism and respect need to be emphasized. An employee should be given just as much of an opportunity as a new hire. Outline the expectations and evaluate performance regularly. If the self-discipline problem is evident at the time of review, let Scott know and schedule another review. Always allow people to show you their best effort.
Eric Ehrhardt
HR Director
Imperial Food Services Inc.
South Elgin, Illinois


Before Scott moves across country, allow him—on a trial basis—to work as a full-time telecommuter from his current (local) home. Inform him upfront that this trial basis doesn’t constitute approval. Conduct regular performance evaluations throughout the trial period. If he doesn’t perform up to the established standards, you have the basis to deny his request. If he does perform well, grant his request consistent with the precedent at your company.


Even if he’s approved, continue to evaluate his performance to be sure the trial period wasn’t just a show to get quick approval. This practice subsequently should be consistent with all employees with similar requests, even the ones whose self-discipline isn’t questionable.
Mavis Smith
Human Resource Assistant
Kasie Steel Corp.
Dearborn, Michigan


I faced a similar situation. In our case, the employee was key to the organization. As a result, I decided to set up a three-month trial period. During the first month it was critical to keep an open mind as we both needed to work around initial challenges. It turned out that we retained a valuable employee and realized new business opportunities in his geographical region. For us, the bottom line had to be a win-win situation for the company and the employee.
Michael D. Bovaird
Manager of Human Resources
SABRE Canada
North York, Ontario


This situation brings up questions that need to be answered. Telecommuting usually means using fax machines and telephones, as well as the Internet. How much contact does Scott need to have with local clients or vendors? How much need is there to fax documents back and forth? How much will this cost? Offer a trial period if it’s economically feasible. But if the costs involved are more than the value of the option, then Scott will have to look for work in his new locale.
Max Wagoner
Professional HR Generalist
Cypress, California


I would say you don’t necessarily have to offer this option to Scott. But first, look back at the performance of those you have transferred. Consider the performance of Scott currently and also any discussions his manager may have had with him. If his performance is only so-so, but no one ever brought it up, then you should offer the option and monitor his performance diligently (and monitor everyone else’s equally). If Scott has had performance discussions recently, then I wouldn’t offer the transfer (assuming those who have transferred had good performance). I’d explain to him that to qualify for a transfer, performance must be satisfactory.


Second, you should set some standards for a person to qualify for this arrangement. For instance, performance must be at X level. This should save this type of headache in the future. And, of course, communicate, so employees understand the standard.
Brook A. Carlon
HR Programs Manager
Technology Service Solutions
Austin, Texas


Workforce, April 1997, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 105-106.


Posted on March 1, 1997July 10, 2018

How HR Can Help Relocating Caregivers

Companies often tailor their relocation packages to meet the needs of upper management whom they’re hoping to relocate. For cases in which the manager also is the caretaker of an elderly person, here are some options to consider.


Help employee with elder’s housing needs: Postpone the move to accommodate the employee’s search for adequate housing.


If the employee is relocating with the elder, provide him or her free transportation to and from the new location to search for appropriate housing or placement.


Set up appropriate resources: Find and fund a care-management service that would help caregivers locate elder-care resources in either the old or new location.


If the employee is leaving the elderly relative behind, provide information on local private-care managers (who act as surrogate kin).


If the employee is relocating with the elder, provide subscriptions to local newspapers or special publications dealing with local elder-care services and provide the employee with contact families in the new location who are in the same position.


Help with dollar expenditures: Provide a direct subsidy to help the employee with the responsibilities of elder care.


Help pay for a private-care manager or management service.


If the elderly relative is being left behind, pay for a set number of trips back home each year for the relocating employee.


If the elderly relative is moving with the employee, pay for the relative’s moving and transportation expenses and/or provide the employee with a larger housing subsidy to permit purchase of a house that has an in-law setup.


A company’s credibility is enhanced when it already has in place these policies: A policy of alternative work arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting.


A resource-and-referral program for child care and elder care.


Some form of a family sick-day program.


Take-home meals from a company cafeteria.


Fitness center and training for employees’ relatives, including frail elderly.


Community care fairs with local agencies participating to inform employees of community resources.


Ongoing lunch-time seminars and elder-care support group meetings.


Dependent-care reimbursement accounts.


SOURCE: Pat Estess, president of New York City-based Work Families Inc., publisher of Working Families newsletter


Workforce, March 1997, Vol. 76, No. 3, p. 48.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 551 Page 552 Page 553 … 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