Should You Belong to SHRM?



(Used with no permission but used
with kindness.)

 The organization of SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) has been taking some heat from a number of bloggers. Prodded on by Laurie Ruettimann a group of us offered blog posts that offered critiques, criticism, ideas and even some praise. Some of the folks at Fistful of Talent discussed their rejections as speakers at an upcoming conference and in the ensuing comments there was a call for an alternative conference, comments regarding the relevance of SHRM, and some people saying they were considering dropping their membership(s) in SHRM and SHRM chapters. Then the other day Jason Lauritsen wrote a blog post entitled SHRM Isn't the Problem, I am. A well written post that discussed the issues of HR as profession and how SHRM has been the scapegoat for the angst felt.

In my blog post on SHRM I expressed a desire for them to be thought leaders in the field, to strive to transform the profession. Jason shot that down, and he is right. Professions do not get changed by associations. Associations follow the field and have to appeal to "early adopters" as well as the folks that resist change. It is practioners that lead change. Practioners enact change. Practioners provide examples of how to do things better.

SHRM is THE organization of the HR profession. There are others, but none with the membership numbers (one national organization boasts a membership that is half of the membership of SHRM-Atlanta) that SHRM has. So SHRM does represent the profession. So it behooves us to remain involved. It behooves us to try to enact change in the association from the inside. Much of the superstructure of SHRM, its chapters, are volunteer organizations. Many of these chapters have a great need for leadership. Taking a leadership role in a local organization is a great way for professionals to demonstrate new ways of doing HR and influence for change. If enough people are providing leadership on the grass roots level the association as a whole will have a greater capacity for change.

So to answer the question in the title, Should you belong to SHRM, my answer is yes. You should belong on both the national and local levels. And here are some other things you should do:

• Take a volunteer role or a leadership role
• Be active in your memberships (you only get out of an organization what you put in)
• Continue to be critical, but make it constructive criticism. Organizations won't change without feedback.
• Remember your profession is your responsibility.

This has not been an elegant post. You need  must  read Jason's post SHRM isn't the problem, I am. He is much more eloquent than I am. I commented on his post and said he had saved me from writing this post. But I went to sleep last night thinking about this. Probably because of the SHRM-Atlanta meeting I had gone to on Wednesday. I have been a member of SHRM national and SHRM-Atlanta for most of my HR career. I have occasionally let memberships lapse but have always come back. I have held several leadership and volunteer positions in the past. I have also been a critic in the past (and present) and will continue to be so. You should be one too... but you have to earn that right. So get involved and stay involved and move the profession and the association ahead.

BTW, for those of you who may be looking for an entry-level postion in HR, getting involved in a SHRM chapter and working hard and diligently as a volunteer will give you exposure to potential hiring managers who may overlook your lack of experience because of what they have seen you demonstrate as a volunteer. Think about it.

"Edgy HR": Strategic Advice to SHRM

When I was asked “What would you do if you were running SHRM?” my immediate thought was “I would be ‘edgier’.”

SHRM, on the national level and often on the local level has a rather dry and staid reputation. It is not seen as being a “thought leader” but rather a repository of older information. In sum, it is seen the same way many HR departments are seen within their companies. And that is a problem the profession as a whole has.

  

So what steps would I take to change this? Here is my list:

 

1. I would have a VISION, a VISIBLE VISION. Not a plan for the organization of SHRM, but a vision for the Profession of Human Resources. What do we want the profession of HR to look like in 10 years?  
2. From that vision of the profession I would do some backcasting and determine what the organization of SHRM would need to do to get the PROFESSION to be where we want it to go. Backcasting would provide us with a road map of how we would progress. This would lead to a strategic plan for the organization.
3. I would convene “thinking panels” of “edgy”, “snarky” thought leaders to tell me about “out there” HR.  
4. I would hire a VP of Edgy HR to be on the Leadership Team. 
5. I would think in terms of a model of the HR professional having broader based education and experience in operations. 
6. I would give a serious look at Josh Letourneau’s model of social networking and having HR drive that process in organizations.  
7. I would thoroughly understand the power of social media to disseminate information, drive thought, communicate, bolster efforts and even to ruin companies and reputations.

 Those are just a few of my ideas. Well here is one more. Find a CEO soon. One that is not boring.

 

This post also appeared at the Voice of HR in their series on 2011 SHRM Strategic Guidance. Check it out for more great blog posts.

These Will Make You Go "Hmm": Great HR Posts

There is a ton of stuff in the blogsphere to read. There is NO way you can keep up on it all and get your job done. So that is why I try to help and pass on to you some great things I read. Here is a list of posts that will make you think. And who knows you may learn something in the process.

• First up is The Employee With The Achilles Heel written by Kimberly D. Urban at her blog site Kim's HR Potpourri. This post is one that all of us can identify with. My story was similar to hers. Great employee who could not make it to work.
• Next up is What If We Kill Incentives? Laura Schroeder, writing at the Compensation Cafe, discusses what has to be in place if we take away monetary incentives. Her real-life example comes from time spent in Russia.
• Some of you have probably seen the NLRB activity on employee Facebook activity. I have even considered writing on it myself. I may no after having seen Jon Hyman's post WIRTW #152. It is his usual collection of excellent articles, but the first group focuses on Facebook Firing. So if  you want to be caught up on this controversy read this series. It DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON YOU! Ignore it to your own peril.
• Another selection from the Compensation Cafe is on The Importance of "Why" written by Derek Irvine. Derek talks about the importance of meaning and purpose on the job.
• Lastly, there is the entire series of posts offering strategic advice to SHRM and how things can be improved for the association and the profession. This is found at Voice of HR. My reaction to most of these posts has been "Damn, I wish I had written that!" (I did write a post as well, though it has not yet been published. But it will pale in comparison to most of these.)

So there is your list of thought provoking, stimulating stuff to read today or this weekend. I will defy you to tell me these did not make you go "HMMM".

Credit Checks: Yes or No?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal and by SHRM the EEOC has been holding hearings whether the use of credit checks on potential employees should be utilized by a company in making a hiring decision. Representatives from SHRM (tesitmony can be found here), the US Chamber of Commerce, the law firm of SeyfarthShaw, LLP, and others testified on behalf of continuing the practice of using credit checks. Advocates for low income individuals testified against their use. The major point appears to be that poor credit potentially could be a bar to gaining employment in these tougher economic times. I have had some clients and students inquire about the use of credit checks as well. So I thought I would weigh in on the subject for my readers.

Credit checks usage as a background check, and indeed all background checks, are treated the same as consumer credit checks and are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA requires that you have an applicants permission to check their background. It also requires that if you make some adverse determination on the basis of that background check that you inform them, give them an opportunity to respond and to potentially correct the information if it is indeed incorrect. You can find the entire FCRA here. (Note it is an 86-page document.) The law does hold a company to the standard of insuring that their practices do not result in disparate impact, recognizing that minorities have historically have poorer credit records than do non-minorities, in some cases due to discrimination.

So the major complaint about the use of credit history as a hiring tool is that some companies use it across the board for all applicants as an indicator of "character" and "personal responsibililty." They deem this as "fitness for the job." In my opinion this is a poor decision making process and a misuse of the law. Character and personal responsibility are better left to the interview. Using the credit report is the lazy way out. Of course if they screw this up, they may be conducting illegal interviews as well.

What is the proper use of the credit check as a decision making tool? Determining if the position requires the employee to handle company money, company credit, customer money or customer credit, such as access to credit cards. Putting people in these positions without a credit check could expose the company to liability, either due to internal theft or to theft of consumer information. Let me give an example. I once ran across a company that would do a credit check on an employee on a whim. Poor decision making. Unfortunately for them, the one person they did not credit check was the person they hired to be their accountant. She had a good resume and she interviewed very well. She came across as trustworthy. So imagine their surprise when auditors discovered that she had embezzled over $60,000. If they had check her credit they would have discovered that she was $120,000 in debt. That might not have altered their decision to hire her, after all she was a good accountant. But it might have put them on alert to more closely manage her work. Either way money, time, effort, and heartache might have been prevented.

So my answer to the question in the title is YES. I would use, and have used, credit checks in making determinations on candidates for positions in which the future employee would be exposed to things that might damage my company or a client of the company. If you are running a piece of machinery, interviewing candidates, emptying the trash, filing reports, sewing clothes, cleaning the carpet I don't care what your credit history has been. I just require that you come to work and do a good job. If your credit history gets your car repossed then it might become an issue, but only if you can no longer get to work.

Will companies continue to use the credit check incorrectly? I am pretty sure the answer to that is YES. These are probably also the same companies that violate the FLSA, the Civil Rights Act, FMLA, the ADA and most of the other laws. Does that mean all of those have to be changed? Nope. Just need to penalize companies that violate them.

There is no one-to-one connection between your character and your credit... not today anyway.

So what do you do? Are you a YES or a NO?

You can find a differing opinion from Lance Haun here.

Getting the Most Value from a Conference: The Marketplace is Where It Is AT!

I have returned to the office from having attended the SHRM-Atlanta Fall Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. The conference was pretty well done. As in all conferences there were a number of topic tracks you could choose from. I spent the majority of my seesion times on compliance issues ( I know that is so out of character for me, LOL). I knew most of it, but it doesn't hurt to hear what might be new. So there was some value there.

But the real value for me was derived by the time I spent in the marketplace. The value is found in three places in the marketplace. First was reconnecting with people I had not seen in awhile, both attendees and vendors. As much as you would like to stay in touch with people it is hard to do so in the course of the day-to-day routine. So meeting an old friend or acquaintence wandering around or staffing a booth is always a pleasant event. In doing so I catch up on what they are doing and where they are in the world. If I happen to see two at one time I try to be a "connector" for them and introduce them to someone they have not yet met. This follows along with the keynote address on Netweaving, presented by Bob Littel.

The second value derived is connecting with someone I had not previously met. I made several new aquaintences at this conference, either through an introduction or by walking up to a vendor and sticking my hand out and introducing myself. You never know where that introduction may lead.

The third value is learning what vendors are offering these days. As a consultant I try to be a resource for my clients, and not in just things that I can offer. So hearing what is being offered, what is cutting edge, what is new and exciting is invaluable to me. If you aspire to be strategic in your organization you have to have some foresight. Foresight is gained by doing research and the best way to do that research in the most convienent way possible is to walk around a conference marketplace. Yes you may have to listen to a sales pitch, that is ok. Knowledge comes at a price. It will not kill you. Plus, you have an opportunity to get some great "swag". Pens, cups, and other gizmos that always make a conference fun.

So the next time you attend a conference make an effort to spend time in the marketplace. Make an effort to meet the vendors and learn more about what is going on and available outside of your office. If nothing else reward these vendors who pay big bucks to be there, it helps keep your cost of attendance down.

Senate Considers Pay Legislation That House Passed

The Paycheck Fairness Act and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, that were passed in the House of Representatives last week, are now being considered by the Senate. SHRM opposes these bills, which while well meaning are flawed in construction. Here is why SHRM opposes them.

SHRM opposes the following provisions of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

Fundamentally changes statute of limitations—By making the time clock start over upon the issuance of each successive paycheck or retirement benefit, the Ledbetter bill would allow individuals to bring discrimination claims years or even decades after an alleged act of discrimination occurred. Employers would be liable for previous management decisions for which there may be no available witnesses or records.

Expands plaintiff field—The Ledbetter bill would allow not just an employee who was discriminated against, but other individuals who were “affected” by an act of pay discrimination to file claims. The legislation may allow family members, including spouses and children, and potentially others to become plaintiffs in suits over an employee’s pay—even after the employee was deceased.

SHRM opposes the following provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act:

Ø Promotes class action lawsuits against employers—The Paycheck Fairness Act would require employees to “opt-out” of a gender discrimination class action, rather than the current law requirement that employees must give their written consent to join a class action. By automatically including all employees as part of a class, the bill would dramatically increase the number of plaintiffs in class actions.

Ø Exposes employers to unlimited damages—The Paycheck bill would create unlimited punitive damage awards for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. The potential for such penalties would likely compel employers to settle more wage discrimination claims, even in cases where no discrimination occurred.

Ø Restricts legitimate pay practices—The Paycheck bill would make it significantly more difficult for an HR professional to use legitimate factors, such as education, training, or experience, as a component of an organization’s pay system. Moreover, the legislation may altogether prohibit an employer’s use of local market rates and prior salary history in setting compensation.

So I hope this informs you as well. Inform your senators if you are so inclined. That is what SHRM is calling for in their letter campaign. I happen to know my two senators will be opposed, but yours may not. And if you don't know if yours will be then shame on you. And if you do not know who your senators are then hand in your voter registration card you don't deserve it. Also, don't call yourself an HR PRO, a PRO would know.

HR Is Caught in a Whirlwind of Political Wrangling

The Democrat controlled 111th House of Representatives flexed it's muscles today. Nancy Pelosi et. al. changed the rules on how bills are dealt with in the House. As stated in this Washington Post article House rule changes squander good will "The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn't survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation." Well that is just politics you say, why should it matter to human resources? That reason is this change:"The most contentious rule change places new restrictions on motions to "recommit" a bill for new amendments to the committee that approved it. In practice, that motion often meant a lengthy or even permanent delay in passing the measure. Motions to recommit would still be possible, but the new rules allow the full House to reconsider the bill almost instantaneously." Ok, so what, how does that affect HR?

It affects HR in that it makes it almost impossible for Republican Representatives to have legislation they think is bad for the country reconsidered. And for many this includes the two pieces of legislation that are being acted on RIGHT NOW, AS IN JANUARY 7TH. These are the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. Both of these may be noble in thought but are bad in execution. SHRM, The U.S. Chamber of Congress and other business associations are all lined up in opposition to these bills.

But this opposition, and the letter writing campaign SHRM called for may come too late. These bills are being pushed through the House as I write this and with the rules changes House opponents may have no opportunity to stop or have have the bills reconsidered. New Congressional Representatives are being asked to vote on something they have had no time to get educated on. (Of course, I believe most Representatives don't have a clue about how businesses operate anyway. Most have never had to make a payroll.)

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would effectively eliminate the uniform statue of limitations on pay discrimination claims and restart the time clock for filing such a charge with the EEOC upon the receipt of each successive paycheck. The bill would also re-start the time clock when a retiree receives an annuity check from an employer, and would thus keep employers liable to a discrimination claim potentially decades after an alleged act of misconduct. The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities.

A third piece of legislation, the Employee Free Choice Act, may also soon be offered on the floor but opinions vary on its immediate chances of success. The other two are considered "low hanging fruit" (after all who is not for fairness?). Here are two articles that offer slightly different points of view on these issues. Workplace legislation coming to a head in Congress from the Kansas City Star and Labor Unions' Top Priority Faces Delay from the Wall Street Journal. Check them out. I would offer to send you to SHRM's website for information too... BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY VISIBLE! Yes they sent a letter to the membership but how about posting it for everyone to see?? I am gravely disappointed.

Don't be passive with this legislation. Inform you legislator of your opinion, either pro or con. I wrote about this, here, in reference to the election. The advice offered there still applies.

E-Verify Just Can't Get Verification

E-Verify, the government program that all government contractors, with $100K or more, must use starting January 15th has been potentially stalled in the courts. According to an article in eWeek.com the Department of Homeland Security has been sued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and "...the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Society for Human Resources Management, the American Council on International Personnel and the HR Policy Association."

The article quotes Robin Conrad of the Chamber's Litigation Center as saying "The administration can't use an Executive Order to circumvent federal immigration and procurement laws. Federal law explicitly prohibits the secretary of Homeland Security from making E-Verify mandatory or from using it to re-authorize the existing workforce." The Chamber is hoping the suit will declare the new regulation null and void.

If you are a government contractor of at least $100,000 and 120 days and subcontracts of $3,000 stay tuned to this development, but be prepared to use E-Verify if you are not already.

Human Resources Salaries

I just received my November copy of HR Magazine. The cover story is the 2007 HR Salary Survey. I have not had a chance to read the article in depth. However, after a scan two things stuck out to me:

1. There is a greater number of HR positions that include short-term and long-term incentives in the compensation mix. This indicates that there is an increasing use of metrics in HR. How else do you give out incentives without having some metrics to measure.
2. The second thing I noticed was that HR generalist are close to the bottom of the totem pole. Specialization is where the money is, especially for a specialization in Compensation and Benefits.

Take a look at the article, assuming you get the magazine. (Right now the SHRM website is still displaying the October issue.) Where do you fit in? Get incentives? What are they based on?