I traveled with my family to Almost Heaven, West Virginia this weekend to watch my alma mater play Syracuse in its homecoming game, and though I left greatly disappointed, it made me realize once again how important relationships are in my life.
I happen to have very good high school and college memories, and I look back with great fondness at the relationships that I had during those years. Can anyone really say that they feel as connected now as they did when they were in high school and/or college? I know I don't, and I miss it. If you have the opportunity to reconnect with old friends, you will be amazed at how quickly you pick back up with that special relationship. Don't you wish it were that simple at work?
HR Executives preach it. Trainers sell it. Building healthy relationships is the key to success in any business relationship. Most take this as self evident, but is it? Think back to those football players that were your teammates from the time you were six until you graduated. You may do bad things to each other, may even hate each other from time to time. However, you trusted in the fact that your common interests, your mutual friends or your history would eventually win out over any hard feelings. You TRUSTED. Healthy relationships depend on trust to function. Without trust, you cannot have a relationship. Period. Tell me - do you trust your boss? Your co-workers? Your subordinates? Your friends and family?
Show me a truly great executive, and I'll show you someone who probably makes a great friend. He or she is probably someone people would describe in words such as, "He'd give you the shirt off his back," or "You never have to worry about her doing the right thing, because that's who she is." You trust your friends, and you must trust your boss and your subordinates. If you don't have trust, you must ask yourself if you have been trustworthy in return. If the answer is truly yes, yet you still don't trust a person, then you shouldn't have a relationship with that person. That may mean leaving a job or changing careers, but life is too short to surround yourself with people that you don't trust. You won't be happy, and you won't ever be the best person that you can be. Relationships are more important than ever - take the time to assess them all and act accordingly.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Does the Employee Free Choice Act Meet the Definitions of Free Choice?
It seems more and more that the word "freedom" is becoming dependent upon one's interpretation of that very powerful word. Freedom is the condition of being free; The power to act or speak or think without imposed restraints. The Employee Free Choice Act could therefore be summarized as a law that defines an employee's freedom to choose union representation or no union representation without restraint. On first glance, titling this proposed act the Employee Free Choice Act is extremely intelligent in design. Who in their right minds would vote against free choice?
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 define employer and employee rights regarding the unionization of the workforce. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces those acts, and certifies the election process of a vote for union representation. What the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) introduced in 2005, reintroduced in 2007 and 2009, and sure to be reintroduced again in the near future, aims to do is become the most far-reaching proposal to amend federal labor laws in more than 60 years.
So is this truly a proposition on free choice?
Currently, the method for most workers to form a union in a workplace is for at least 30% of the workers to sign a petition or authorization cards to be represented by a union. Once that is done, the petition or authorization cards are sent to the NLRB who then verifies the signatures and orders secret ballot elections. There is a campaign period (42 days) for employers and the union to attempt to persuade employees of their positions on unionization, and then the secret ballot is held under the supervision of the NLRB. Over 50% vote yes, the company is unionized. Under 50%, the company remains union-free. Once a union is certified, there is a negotiation period for the initial contract. There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, this is how it is done under current law.
The EFCA would significantly amend the NLRA. It would abolish the right to a "secret ballot" election process by which employees decide whether or not to be represented by a union. This effectively eliminates the campaign period in which employers and the union can attempt to persuade employees of their positions on unionization. Under the EFCA, the employer will be required to recognize a union upon being presented with authorization cards or a petition signed by a majority of employees without the benefit of a campaign period. Without a secret ballot process, employees lose their ability to vote anonymously, thus threatening their ability to freely choose without restraint. It also limits the freedom of speech right for employers as is defined under the NLRA. Finally, once a union is certified, there is a 90-day window to collectively bargain for the initial contract. If agreement is not reached, there is a 30-day mandate to reach agreement or binding arbitration will occur. This means an arbitrator will decide the contract parameters, not the employees nor the employer. Does this sound like free choice?
There are certainly pros and cons to unionization, and debating those pros and cons would take me a lot longer than one blog. However, in my opinion, there is no debate that Employee Free Choice Act is not about free choice. It is not about freedom. It is simply an act designed to strengthen the labor movement in America. If you want to talk about freedom, talk to a United States soldier.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 define employer and employee rights regarding the unionization of the workforce. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces those acts, and certifies the election process of a vote for union representation. What the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) introduced in 2005, reintroduced in 2007 and 2009, and sure to be reintroduced again in the near future, aims to do is become the most far-reaching proposal to amend federal labor laws in more than 60 years.
So is this truly a proposition on free choice?
Currently, the method for most workers to form a union in a workplace is for at least 30% of the workers to sign a petition or authorization cards to be represented by a union. Once that is done, the petition or authorization cards are sent to the NLRB who then verifies the signatures and orders secret ballot elections. There is a campaign period (42 days) for employers and the union to attempt to persuade employees of their positions on unionization, and then the secret ballot is held under the supervision of the NLRB. Over 50% vote yes, the company is unionized. Under 50%, the company remains union-free. Once a union is certified, there is a negotiation period for the initial contract. There's more to it than that, but in a nutshell, this is how it is done under current law.
The EFCA would significantly amend the NLRA. It would abolish the right to a "secret ballot" election process by which employees decide whether or not to be represented by a union. This effectively eliminates the campaign period in which employers and the union can attempt to persuade employees of their positions on unionization. Under the EFCA, the employer will be required to recognize a union upon being presented with authorization cards or a petition signed by a majority of employees without the benefit of a campaign period. Without a secret ballot process, employees lose their ability to vote anonymously, thus threatening their ability to freely choose without restraint. It also limits the freedom of speech right for employers as is defined under the NLRA. Finally, once a union is certified, there is a 90-day window to collectively bargain for the initial contract. If agreement is not reached, there is a 30-day mandate to reach agreement or binding arbitration will occur. This means an arbitrator will decide the contract parameters, not the employees nor the employer. Does this sound like free choice?
There are certainly pros and cons to unionization, and debating those pros and cons would take me a lot longer than one blog. However, in my opinion, there is no debate that Employee Free Choice Act is not about free choice. It is not about freedom. It is simply an act designed to strengthen the labor movement in America. If you want to talk about freedom, talk to a United States soldier.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Brett Favre Would be Fired if He Worked For My Company
Brett Favre should be fired. OK, I'm assuming that he is guilty of sending sleazy voicemails and pictures of his...Favrehood to Jenn Sterger while employed with the New York Jets. Do I care as a fan what he does outside of his marriage vows? Sure, because I am a fan of Brett Favre the quarterback. I lived in Wisconsin during the Favre years, and I still believe I was witness to one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game. I watched a number of games at Lambeau over the years (usually to watch the Packers beat my Lions), and I can tell you first hand that it was a thrill to watch him play. I don't want to think of Brett Favre as another Tiger Woods, cheating on his wife because he can. At some point, you pick an athlete to follow, and he is one that I have always appreciated. You start to identify with your favorite athlete, dreaming about being the one in the huddle calling that last second pass play to beat the Lions in the playoffs at the Silverdome (no I haven't forgotten!) I still have a Favre Packer jersey that I wear all the time. I loved cheering for #4. Do I know Brett Favre as a person or employee? No, of course not. However, if he were my employee and I had evidence that he did the things that he is accused of doing while working at my company, I would fire him.
From an HR perspective, he was an employee of the New York Jets when the alleged improprieties occurred, a team (company) from which he is obviously no longer employed. He now works for another company, the Minnesota Vikings, who probably didn't do a background check of his previous employers. Even if they did, they obviously felt that his ability to throw a touchdown pass superseded his sometimes maddening inability (ineffectiveness) to make timely and accurate decisions that has been witnessed throughout his career. Whatever their decision, the Vikings hired Brett Favre, so his previous employer (Jets) don't have to deal with him as an employee. Unless he lied on his "application" to the Vikings, he is now their employee to deal with, and there has been no evidence that he has sent his Favrehood across the ethernet on company time, equipment or as a representative of the Vikings. If the Jets can actually show that his behavior was one of the reasons that he was not re-signed by them a few years back, it probably helps their locker room case that made headlines earlier this year (assuming it's documented!).
Did he help create a hostile work environment for certain reporters while employed by the Jets? Sounds that way, though I'm not sure who has actually claimed a hostile work environment at this point other than media outlets. Aside from possible civil suits, the Jets (previous employer) probably can't do anything to Favre. The Vikings, on the other hand, may have put something into his contract about public persona, conduct detrimental to the organization, etc. In that case, having an employee whose past actions while employed on another NFL team hurt the reputation of the current team (employer) might give the Vikings ground for dismissal. I'm sure the NFLPA would have a heyday with that comment, but as an employer whose very livelihood depends on fans who believe in their product, allowing Brett Favre to remain the face of your organization seems like a risky short and long-term gamble if the situation isn't handled swiftly and fairly by the Vikings.
Like all investigations, all allegations should be investigated and facts verified. Normally, these types of investigations should always remain extremely confidential, though it seems like impossibility for this to occur with pro athletes. Most cases stem on he said/she said scenarios, and the truth seems to always fall somewhere in the middle, though it seems that Ms. Sterger has evidence of Favre's inappropriate behavior. Disciplinary measures should be fair and should match the level of improper behavior or conduct, though how to measure the impact of Favre's behavior on his current employer is problematic at best. However, HR professionals in most companies in the United States would most certainly fire an employee for sending sexually graphic pictures of his/herself to another employee if the other employee claimed that he/she was exposed to a hostile work environment because of the offending employee's behavior.
It's going to be hard for Favre to get through this if he is proven guilty of these actions, but probably harder on his wife and children. He has already left the Jets, so all this does is lend credence to the claim that the Jets let this type of behavior occur as the employer. The Jets are on the hook there. The Vikings need to peruse the contract that Favre signed with them as their employee, and make the appropriate decision on his employment status. The risk for the Vikings as an employer is that now they know about this behavior. If he were to exhibit this type of behavior again as an employer of the Vikings...watch out. As for Favre, if the allegations made against him turn out to be true, then he has lost a fan. If he were my employee and all of the allegations prove to be true, he would lose his job.
From an HR perspective, he was an employee of the New York Jets when the alleged improprieties occurred, a team (company) from which he is obviously no longer employed. He now works for another company, the Minnesota Vikings, who probably didn't do a background check of his previous employers. Even if they did, they obviously felt that his ability to throw a touchdown pass superseded his sometimes maddening inability (ineffectiveness) to make timely and accurate decisions that has been witnessed throughout his career. Whatever their decision, the Vikings hired Brett Favre, so his previous employer (Jets) don't have to deal with him as an employee. Unless he lied on his "application" to the Vikings, he is now their employee to deal with, and there has been no evidence that he has sent his Favrehood across the ethernet on company time, equipment or as a representative of the Vikings. If the Jets can actually show that his behavior was one of the reasons that he was not re-signed by them a few years back, it probably helps their locker room case that made headlines earlier this year (assuming it's documented!).
Did he help create a hostile work environment for certain reporters while employed by the Jets? Sounds that way, though I'm not sure who has actually claimed a hostile work environment at this point other than media outlets. Aside from possible civil suits, the Jets (previous employer) probably can't do anything to Favre. The Vikings, on the other hand, may have put something into his contract about public persona, conduct detrimental to the organization, etc. In that case, having an employee whose past actions while employed on another NFL team hurt the reputation of the current team (employer) might give the Vikings ground for dismissal. I'm sure the NFLPA would have a heyday with that comment, but as an employer whose very livelihood depends on fans who believe in their product, allowing Brett Favre to remain the face of your organization seems like a risky short and long-term gamble if the situation isn't handled swiftly and fairly by the Vikings.
Like all investigations, all allegations should be investigated and facts verified. Normally, these types of investigations should always remain extremely confidential, though it seems like impossibility for this to occur with pro athletes. Most cases stem on he said/she said scenarios, and the truth seems to always fall somewhere in the middle, though it seems that Ms. Sterger has evidence of Favre's inappropriate behavior. Disciplinary measures should be fair and should match the level of improper behavior or conduct, though how to measure the impact of Favre's behavior on his current employer is problematic at best. However, HR professionals in most companies in the United States would most certainly fire an employee for sending sexually graphic pictures of his/herself to another employee if the other employee claimed that he/she was exposed to a hostile work environment because of the offending employee's behavior.
It's going to be hard for Favre to get through this if he is proven guilty of these actions, but probably harder on his wife and children. He has already left the Jets, so all this does is lend credence to the claim that the Jets let this type of behavior occur as the employer. The Jets are on the hook there. The Vikings need to peruse the contract that Favre signed with them as their employee, and make the appropriate decision on his employment status. The risk for the Vikings as an employer is that now they know about this behavior. If he were to exhibit this type of behavior again as an employer of the Vikings...watch out. As for Favre, if the allegations made against him turn out to be true, then he has lost a fan. If he were my employee and all of the allegations prove to be true, he would lose his job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)