Can you ban an employee, for just smoking???

 More companies than ever won’t hire people who smoke. But is that legal — and is it worth it for employers?

The University of Pennsylvania Medical System is the latest employer to announce it will no longer hire smokers.

The firm joins a number of companies who’ve closed their doors to tobacco user, as Molly DiBianca of the Delaware Employment Law Blog pointed out in a recent post.

But just because these organizations have decided not to hire smokers doesn’t automatically mean that you can.

Banning smokers – is it legal?

First, you and your supervisors should understand there’s no federal law that protects smokers or entitles them to equal protections when it comes to hiring, promotions, etc. That’s because the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission doesn’t recognize smokers as a protected class.

That said, there are 29 states (along with the District of Columbia) that do offer protections for smokers.

If your company is in one of those states, you can’t refuse to hire people just because they smoke (although you can turn them down for other, legitimate reasons).

Here’s the list of states that provide employment protections to smokers, according to the American Lung Association:

§  California §  Colorado §  Connecticut §  District of Columbia §  Illinois §  Indiana §  Kentucky §  Louisiana §  Maine §  Minnesota §  Mississippi §  Missouri §  Montana §  Nevada §  New Hampshire

§  New Jersey §  New Mexico §  New York §  North Carolina §  North Dakota §  Oklahoma §  Oregon §  Rhode Island §  South Carolina §  South Dakota §  Tennessee §  Virginia §  West Virginia §  Wisconsin §  Wyoming

Is it worth it?

If you’re not located in one of those states, you’re likely permitted to enact a smoke-free hiring policy and keep people who smoke out of your workplace.

But is a ban on hiring smokers really the right way to go? Opinions differ.

On the one hand, a 2009 study by the Journal of Tobacco Policy & Research did find that smokers take more sick days than their non-smoking co-workers.

It also found that even if a smoker is in relatively good health (isn’t obese, doesn’t have chronic health conditions like diabetes, etc.), there’s a good chance he or she will still have higher medical costs than a comparable non-smoker over a three-year period.

But a smoking ban is worthwhile only if smokers quit for good. If the prohibition causes people to quit until they’re hired — and then they take up smoking again as soon as they pass the nicotine test — it’s not an effective cost-cutting tactic.

The results point to a need for constant testing to ensure former smokers don’t fall back into the habit after they’re hired — which can get expensive.

Cons of a ban on hiring smokers

Another study from anti-smoking journal Tobacco Control found that a tobacco-free hiring policy might not be a good idea. Here’s why:

§  It’s a slippery slope. If the decision were based on health-related costs, couldn’t a case be made for banning people with with weight-related problems, such as high cholesterol or diabetes? And wouldn’t that raise discrimination concerns?

§  Would you be turning away good talent because of a smoking addiction — an addiction that could be licked with some help?
Sure, when unemployment is high and lots of people are job hunting, you can be choosy. But do you really want to lose that top salesperson or IT manager to a competitor because of smoking?
And what about when the employment market turns around, and you find yourself scrambling for good people?

Researchers at Tobacco Control instead say employers should push hard to get employees into smoking-cessation programs, especially ones sponsored at work.

Every analysis of such programs shows they’re cost-effective in improving absentee rates and time lost because of smoking-related illnesses.

 Source :  HRmorning.com

Read More

The crucial steps to make performance reviews easier for everyone

This new case study highlights how employers can make appraisals work for HR, managers and employees. 

Periodically, we like to offer success stories from HR pros from across the U.S. This account comes courtesy of Suzanne Benoit, director of HR at Wright-Construction, Inc., in Portland, ME, and Jathan Janove, director of Employee Engagement Solutions and Portland Managing Shareholder at Ogletree Deakins.

____________________________________________________________________________

We weren’t getting the results we wanted from our annual performance reviews.

That was for a number of reasons.

One, the computer program that managers used to evaluate employees was complicated to use.

Two, the rankings that managers gave didn’t always match up with business results – and sometimes veered toward being too subjective.

And three, our managers had to evaluate staffers twice: once for a salary review and a second time for an incentive compensation program.

We knew this needed improvement.

8 areas

We began by identifying eight areas of accountability for every job within the company.

Next, we revised job descriptions so each employee’s work was linked to those eight accountability areas.

That meant that job descriptions became less about tasks and more about results.

We also simplified the review process, looking at it from the perspective of a busy manager juggling reviews with other work.

Now, instead of having managers complete a time-consuming form, supervisors simply fill out a one-page document and assign ratings in the eight accountability areas.

Managers have additional sections where they can add comments that elaborate on the ratings.

In addition, we added a brief mid-year review where managers have a face-to-face discussion with staffers about the eight accountability areas and their annual goals.

Finally, we blended the two annual evaluations into one to save time.

That all helped managers. Now we wanted to focus on employee needs.

Staffers helped, too

So we created a self-evaluation form where we asked workers to assess their performance in each accountability area.

In addition, we asked them to identify projects that they’d worked on, their accomplishments and anything they wished they’d done better, but had learned from.

Finally, we asked for feedback about their supervisors, including what qualities they appreciated and what their supervisors or the company might do differently to help them succeed.

Helped supervisors, staff and firm

The new process has been quite successful, for four main reasons.

First, there’s better communication between managers and staff and a better understanding of our goals.

Second, it engaged supervisors and employees in discussions that connect staffer performance to company strategic goals.

Third, it’s helped us with early warnings, making HR staff more effective in heading off trouble.

Last, the improvements have demonstrated the value of good HR programming to our company.

source: hrmorning

Read More

Has HR been wrong about social media recruiting? [INFOGRAPHIC]

Finding new employees via social media is the next “big thing” in recruiting, right? Maybe not.  

The folks at Link Humans looked into applicants’ use of Facebook — and it doesn’t quite line up with what many HR pros have heard.

How do people use Facebook for searching for jobs?

• Nearly 70% have never used Facebook to look for work, and
• Almost 95% of people said they’ve never found a job and subsequently been hired via Facebook.

When people did find a job via Facebook, according to Link Humans, it was either because “a friend of a friend became my employer” or ” a friend saw I was looking for a new job.”

More relevant info:

• Only 68% of respondents have filled out their professional info on Facebook, and
• More than half of those surveyed said they wouldn’t connect with current or former co-workers.

Facebook and recruiting don’t mix

Facebook appeared to be more useful to people looking for general information about a company — nearly 80% of applicants said the social media site was good source of info

But when looking for employment, only half of respondents said Facebook was worth looking at.

Perhaps the most alarming responses were:

• More than half of the respondents said they didn’t want recruiters approaching them on Facebook, and
• Nearly 90% of respondents said they’ve never gotten in touch with a recruiter via the social media site.

The results don’t spell the end of social media recruiting, of course. But they do point to the fact that Facebook isn’t the place many candidates go to look for jobs — nor do they want it to be that place.

source: hrmorning

Read More

HR ready for the future? No way, report says

The highly connected and global 21st-century workforce is here. And if a massive new report from Deloitte is to be believed, employers are simply not ready for the challenges that workforce will present.  

The Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends 2014 report combines 15 years of research as well as a global talent management survey, incorporating the views of more than 2,500 business and HR leaders in 94 countries.

According to the report, the single biggest challenge cited by most (86%) respondents is leadership development, followed by retention and engagement (79%), and “reskilling” the HR function (77%).

The bad news: Most respondents say that their organizations aren’t prepared to address those challenges, the report said.

“As the world’s population grows, the global workforce is simultaneously getting younger, older, and more urbanized,” Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, said in a press release. “Millennials are reshaping the talent markets with new expectations; new technologies are changing work in countless ways; and we are more frequently competing and racing with machines for knowledge work. The findings of our global survey reveal that a majority of global organizations are not prepared to deal with these trends that are reshaping the workforce.”

Developing leaders is the top issue facing these organizations, the research says. Yet only 13% percent of respondents believe they do an excellent job in providing leadership programs across all levels; 66% believe they are “weak” in their ability to provide leadership programs for Millennials, and about half (51%) have little confidence in their ability to maintain clear and consistent succession programs.

The second top challenge cited by respondents — retention and engagement of employees — is another area where executives rate themselves as either “weak” or just “adequate.” More than one-third (38%) reported they are “weak” at integrating social, community and corporate programs, and aligning employee and corporate goals. Four-in-ten respondents (40%) said their organization is “weak” in helping employees balance their personal and professional lives, and only 8% believe they have a strategy to help employees manage the barrage of information they receive every day.

HR under the microscope

HR gets an especially critical look in the Deloitte report: 43% of respondents to the survey indicated that their organizations are “weak” when it comes to providing HR with appropriate training and experiences. Forty-seven percent ranked their organizations “weak” on preparing HR to deliver programs aligned with business needs.

According to the study, many HR teams lack the skills and data they need to understand today’s global business environment, local labor markets, evolving workforce demographics, shifts in technology and the changing nature of work itself.

In fact, more than one-third (34%) of the respondents said their HR and talent programs are just “getting by” or even “underperforming.” Moreover, less than 8% of HR leaders have confidence that their teams have the skills needed to meet the challenge of today’s global environment and deliver innovative programs that drive business impact.

Jason Geller, a national managing director for Deloitte, said that “today’s HR departments are not equipped to face the challenges of this new role. When you add to this the rapidly changing landscape of HR technologies, such as cloud and big data, and their impact on attracting, retaining, and developing talent, it becomes clear that reskilling HR teams is arguably the most critical mission for organizations today.”

A closer look at some of the trends covered in the report:

Hiring — and keeping — the best employees

Reinventing talent acquisition: Even as the majority of respondents (62%) said their organizations rely on social tools for sourcing and advertising positions, when it comes to fully utilizing analytics for recruitment and staffing, more than half (54%) indicate that their practices are “weak.”

The overwhelmed employee: Information overload and the always connected 24/7 work environment are overwhelming workers, undermining productivity and contributing to low employee engagement. Sixty-five percent of executives responding to the survey rated the overwhelmed employee phenomenon as being an urgent or important trend, while 44% said that they are “not ready” to deal with it.

Engaging the 21st-century employee: Millennials will make up 75% of the workforce by 2015, and 66% of the respondents reported “weak” capabilities when it comes to providing focused leadership programs for Millennials. Fifty-eight percent of executives reported “weak” capabilities in “providing programs for younger, older and multi-generational workforces,” underscoring the challenges associated with a multi-generational 21st-century workforce.

Shifting from diversity to inclusion: Nearly all respondents say their organizations promote diversity, but most fail to realize the business benefits of a diverse workforce. About one-third (34%) of respondents say their organizations are unprepared in this area, while only 20% claim to be fully ready.

Leadership and development

Developing leaders at all levels: Eighty-six percent of respondents in the Deloitte survey rated leadership as “urgent” or “important.”  But only 13% said they do an excellent job in developing leaders.

Time to replace “rank and yank”: Even as the nature of the work done by a majority of employees has changed dramatically, the way organizations evaluate employees has not. Only 8% of respondents believe their organization’s performance management process drives high levels of value, while 58% said their current performance management process isn’t an effective use of time.

Corporate learning redefined: More than two-thirds (70%) of respondents surveyed see new learning methods, such as free online and mobile learning platforms, as “urgent” or “important” — yet only 6% say they have mastered the content and technology capabilities needed to make online learning accessible and compelling for their employees.

Meeting the future

Delivering on big data: Talent analytics is starting to enable HR departments to make informed talent decisions, predict employee performance and enable advanced workforce planning. While 78% of respondents from large organizations (with 10,000 or more employees) rated HR and talent analytics as “urgent” or “important,” enough to place analytics among the top three most urgent trends, 45% of the same respondents rated themselves “not ready” when assessing their readiness in HR analytics—among the lowest readiness rankings for any of the 12 global trends.

Racing to the cloud: Organizations are rapidly moving away from legacy systems to implement a new breed of highly integrated, cloud-based talent and HR systems. More than two-thirds (68%) of Deloitte’s respondents say that HR technologies are “urgent” and “important” and yet 56% report no definitive plans for their HR systems.

The global and local HR function: Global HR and Talent Management, an integrated global operating model that allows for customizable local implementation, is the second most “urgent” and “important” trend for large organizations around the world (those with 10,000 or more employees), according to the survey.

Read More

Demolishing some of the popular myths around telecommuting

Like it or not, telecommuting is here to stay. Employers that refuse to budge when it comes to flexibility are likely to lose out on promising workers — and send some of their own top performers packing. But simply offering telecommuting options isn’t enough.  

The Flex+Strategy Group recently rolled out some new research on telecommuting, and what they found could help dismantle some popular beliefs on this increasingly popular practice — and help you improve your own telework efforts.

Stereotypes, fears & advantages

Here are four of our favorite takeaways from the study:

1. Employers need to rethink their idea of a “typical” telecommuter. There’s a prevailing stereotype of telecommuters mainly being women who are working from home in an effort to juggle the responsibilities of raising children with the demands of a career.

And that’s simply not the case. According to the study:

• 71% of teleworkers are men, and
• there is no significant difference between teleworkers with or without kids, or in the age groups of teleworkers.

2. Telecommuting can help with increased workloads. Ever since The Great Recession, employers have been asking workers to do more with less. In fact, the study found heavy workloads and lack of time were the main things getting in the way of a healthy work/life balance. Allowing employees to do their work when and where they see fit is a great way to lessen this burden.

3. Working remotely shouldn’t be referred to as a “perk.” Putting telecommuting in a category with things like health insurance and retirement plans gives employees the impression that working remotely is something the company is simply giving to them. Instead, try painting telecommuting as a recruiting/retention strategy — and a way to best meet the needs of the entire company.

4. Many employees are still afraid to take advantage of telecommuting. One of the best ways to improve your telecommuting program is to make sure workers understand their will be no stigma attached to those who do take advantage of it.

The study found that:

• 21% of employees believed they’d make less money if they telecommuted
• 16% were concerned they’d lose their jobs
• 11% believed their peers would think they don’t work hard, and
• 13% were worried their boss would flat-out say “No.”

source: hrmorning

Read More