Government to Check I-9s in a Nationwide Audit

According to an article on SHRM's website (sorry you have to be a member to read this one) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued notices to 652 businesses that they will be audited. In all of 2008 they only issued 503. So obviously they are stepping up activity. The agency is trying to build criminal cases against employers before they conduct raids. According to the SHRM article:

"As part of its shift in strategy, ICE is going after employers instead of undocumented workers, according to Mira Mdivani, an immigration attorney with The Mdivani Law Firm in Overland Park, Kan., in a July 7 interview."

Apparently the targets of the investigations, which are widespread, were gathered from No-Match letter data, use of E-Verify, union instigation and other "investigative measures." The agency is being secretive. According to the article "...ICE officials “refused to tell us how to define substantive violations of I-9s versus technical violations. We thought we knew, but they won’t tell us.” And ICE wouldn’t disclose the guidelines that are being used to fine employers, ...."

Mary Pivec, an attorney with Keller and Heckman in Washington, D.C. provided SHRM with the following list of items that ICE might be looking for on an audit.

• Original I-9s. Forms I-9 must be retained for three years after the date of hire or one year after the date of termination, whichever period is longer.
• A spreadsheet listing alphabetically all current and terminated employees with hire and termination dates in electronic form Word or Excel, non-PDF, including the names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth of each employee.
• Copies of quarterly wage and hour reports and/or payroll data for all employees—current and terminated—covering the period of inspection, as well as quarterly tax statements.
• Business information, including the employer identification number, taxpayer identification number, owner’s Social Security number, owner’s contact information (e.g., address, information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses), articles of incorporation (if applicable) and copies of business licenses.
• Copies of Social Security no-match letters.
• A copy of any I-9 policy.
• The name and responsibility of those who complete I-9 forms.
• The date the business was established, form of the business, where it is incorporated and its revenue.
• The department or job titles of employees.
• Quarterly unemployment insurance reports with the state or quarterly returns for Federal Income Contributions Act taxes.
  

According to the article and the attorneys HR needs to own this process. My experience has been that too often forms are incomplete because HR does not own the process. And since this is a law that can result in jail sentences great care needs to be taken in completing the information on this form.

The advice in the article is "Designate a lead person to spearhead immigration compliance at the company and adopt an immigration compliance policy that incorporates recommended ICE best practices that make sense for your company, she recommended, and become thoroughly familiar with ICE’s I-9 handbook. Conduct annual immigration audits in cooperation with legal and provide annual training, keeping the big picture clearly in focus as enforcement strategies and laws change. That way, instead of scrambling after receiving an I-9 audit notice, Mdivani said, a company will be prepared."

So, depending on what your company does, what your history has been like and how you have things set up you may have a lot of work that needs to be done. But I hope this makes you sit up and pay attention.

Marketing Tips for the HR Department

As an HR consultant I am always working on bringing in new clients. There are many traditional methods of marketing and selling, which unfortunately are not working as well in today's economy as they have in the past. So it is time to look at new methods and since I am a blogger, and on Twitter and LinkedIn I thought I would look at using social media as a potential method. To this end I picked up and read David Meerman Scott's book The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use News Releases, Blogs, Podcasting, Viral Marketing, and Online Media to Reach Buyers Directly. It is a good book. I plan on using several of his ideas and I am looking forward to increasing business.

One of the concepts he talks about is understanding your buyer's persona. And it is likely you will have multiple buyers, thus you need to understand multiple personas. Certainly good information and an interesting concept for marketing. But it got me thinking that ALL Human Resources Managers should read this book because much of what he talks about in terms of social media use and understanding buyer personas applies equally well to the HR department and employees.

David Meerman Scott (you will have to find out from him why he uses his middle name) writes about having content rich materials as opposed to the one-size fits all products and features. Great marketing stuff that HR needs to pay attention to. Too many HR departments have one-size-fits-all handbooks, health insurance, compensation programs. We create the materials in terms of what we, the HR department, want people to know instead of creating multiple buyer personas and giving them the information they want to have. Does anyone really want to read a wordy stiff sounding handbook? Perhaps they would rather have an online FAQ site that is searchable. I know there are companies out there doing this sort of thing, but there are others that are not. How do you view the use of social media in your company? I know many that shut it off. Is this shutting off your best communication tool?

When was the last time you viewed all the potential "buyers" of HR? Managers, employees, the C-Suite, applicants, ex-employees, the press and vendors are just some to of the buyers for which you would need to develop a "persona". Have you? Or does everyone get the same story and material?

If you have not looked at your human resources department from a marketing perspective I suggest you do so and DMS's book is a good start. Check it out.

Ageism in the Workplace

As I was watching the reflection of my hair being cut the other day I thought out loud "Holy crap, look at all that gray hair." The woman cutting my hair consoled me with "At least that is better than loose." Not the greatest of consolation, but it got me to thinking. As many of you know, I had my birthday on July 7th, my 58th such day. Not a hallmark age by any means. But I guess it is better than not getting there.

Age is important to us, especially it seems in the US. And AGEISM exists everywhere. According to the WiseGeek, ageism is a term coined in 1969 by Robert Butler. Most of us think of it in terms of discrimination against older people, especially in the workplace. As The WiseGeek says "Many people use this term specifically to refer to discrimination against older people, but ageism can strike people of all ages." Teens can feel shut out of the workplace with "adultism", a preference for older workers, and older workers feel shut out by "jeunism", where workplaces prefer younger workers.

The legal protection in this country against discrimination based upon age is provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) enforcement of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)of 1967. The law states that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone over the age of 40 in all aspects of employment, unless age is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). There is no protection for workers under the age of 40. However, the fact that this law exists does not stop the discrimination from occuring, as you might have guessed. The EEOC reports that in 2008 it "...received 24,582 charges of age discrimination. EEOC resolved 21,415 age discrimination charges in FY 2008 and recovered $82.8 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation)." This is almost 25% of the total number of discrimination claims of all types.

I witnessed an act of "ageism" personally the other day. I was not the target, but I was involved. I was at a local Starbucks (I name the company, but not the location, because hopefully someone in their HR department will read this and realize they have some further education to do. I am sure it is more widespread than this one spot) and I was ordering coffee and trying to pay with my coffee card. However, it needed more money put on it so I also gave the gentleman a credit card. I asked him to load money on my coffee card and to then pay for the drinks with my coffee card. Perhaps I was not clear, but he did not understand me. We went back and forth a couple of times and finally he had to ask for some help. Now the guy was probably about my age or within 5 years. But we were clearly not communicating. So a younger worker, who did pick up on what I wanted, helped him complete the transaction.

End of story? No, the next day I was sitting in the same store, with my under 30 adult daughter, and one of the baristas came over and apologized for "the confusion yesterday." In that apology she said "What can you expect, he is old." Now, being in HR and of similar age, I immediately bristled at this and gave her a mild rebuke. (I would have given her a lecture, but my daughter gave me a look that said "don't go there.")

All this leads to my musings on age. Age is important to us. It colors our perspective on everything. In the US we celebrate "youth" more than older age. Witness the statement "50 is the new 30", or whatever variation you use. I was reading an article as I was waiting to get my haircut about how women over 40 can avoid behaving old. (Text with your thumbs not your index fingers and never wear a watch, among other advice.) Magazines are knocking actresses who are not wearing "age appropriate" clothing. We curse at old people who are driving the car in front of us and we avoid going to Kroger on Wednesday. None of us are immune. I swear at AARP everytime I get their offers to join. At least there are signs that some aging is being accepted. December/May romances between older women and younger men is more acceptable and "Cougars" are being celebrated.

The important thing, however, from an HR perspective is that discrimination in the workplace on the base of age (albeit older age) is illegal and it will cost the company money. Workers need to be trained to be more aware of what they say, how they say and what they do. You need to focus on JOB PERFORMANCE. In my Starbucks example, if the "older" worker was let go due to his actual poor performance, the "innocent" statements of "what can you expect he is old" may cost the company alot of money. So be aware and train your employees.

Carnival of HR for July 8th

Well darn! The day after I get a top 25 ranking I find out I missed yesterday's Carnival of HR. But you don't have to... here it is at Effortless HR. My good friend Cathy Martin has a great post about employee engagement and my blogger friends Sharlyn Lauby, Dan McCarthy, Wally Bock, and Mike VanDervort also have great posts. So check it out!

Top 25 Talent Management Blogs: We Made It A Second Time

The list of the Top 25 Talent Managment Blogs has been posted at Fistful Of Talent. If you are looking for some of the best blogs in HR this is were you will find them.

AND, I am very proud to say that HR Observations was on the list tied at 15th! Thanks!

I hope you keep reading, commenting and connecting us to other readers.

Update on EFCA: SEIU Rejects "Card" Signing: SAY WHAT???

According to an article in the LA Times (SEIU borrows business' anti-union tactics to fend off a rival) the SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, is rejecting exactly what they are supporting in the Employee Free Choice Act. The article states "...the union is urging federal officials to throw out petitions signed by tens of thousands of its own members who have asked to be represented by a rival upstart group." The article goes on to say " In lodging legal challenges to the roughly 80 petitions filed by its fledgling competitor, the SEIU has moved to block organizing elections at hospitals, clinics and nursing homes up and down the state. And it has used some of the same tactics that employers often use to thwart union drives."

Amazingly the SEIU, as the article states "One of the giant union's allegations echoes a key argument that corporate interests make against the proposed law, the Employee Free Choice Act: that labor activists can intimidate or mislead workers during organizing campaigns." Talk about being two-faced! The SEIU has turned to the NLRB and has charged the rival union with unfair labor practices (ULPs) and wants the petitions set aside. Yet Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, says this does not change his stance on EFCA. Sure, not as long as it will work for his benefit. But let it work against him and he is for using current labor law. Sounds like a good argument for not needing EFCA in the first place.

Read the article (link above) to get the full story, especially if you think EFCA is a good thing. This may help you decide otherwise.

A side note: Al Franken will be made the newest Senator next week. This will give the Democrats a philibuster proof majority. This is going to make it much more likely that the EFCA will be passed along with all the other pending legislation mentioned in yesterday's post. Read them and weep.

The First 100 Days of Obama: Fistful of Talent Saved Me An Update

The folks over at Fistful of Talent saved me a legislative update. Follow this link to Tough Love: The First 100 Days of the Obama Administration. It is getting very hard to be an employer these days and it is not going to get any easier. So read and learn and prepare. Or be active and contact legislators to express your opinion on the pending legislation.

Change you can believe in.... well you can believe there will be change and more change. Hang on to your hat the rollercoaster is leaving the platform!

Vroom Expectancy Theory: Should I Chuck My Career?

I was watching a show last night based upon a book I am reading. Germs, Guns and Steel by Jared Diamond. The book was published in 1997 and a PBS series was done in 2005, and that is what I was watching. I have found the book to be very interesting and the series was very good. As I watching it I made the comment "That is what I should have done, I should have been a historian." Both my daughter and wife almost simultanteously said "Well it is not too late." My wife then asked "What is stopping you?" My response was "This house, my paycheck, eating and the other things that could not stand me taking several years off work to pursue a degree." Her response was "Surely there is a program that you could do online." I said "I doubt it, not on the Ph.D. level." Of course I had not checked that statement for truthfulness, at least not recently.

But the nagging thought in the back of my head was "Do I really want to do that much work at 58 years old?" (well almost 58, my birthday is July 7th.) "Will the opportunity to do anything with that degree be there?" "Will it pay off for me beyond personal gratification to finally have the Ph.D. I have always wanted?"

This reminded me of Vroom's Expectancy Theory, which states that "... behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain."

Vroom's Expectancy Theory is based upon the following three beliefs (from Wikipedia):

1. Valence (Valence refers to the emotional orientations people hold with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money, promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management must discover what employees value.


2. Expectancy (Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing). Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision employees need.


3. Instrumentality (The perception of employees whether they will actually get what they desire even if it has been promised by a manager). Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that.
   

Vroom suggests that an employee's beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain. This force can be 'calculated' via the following formula: Motivation = Valance × Expectancy(Instrumentality). This formula can be used to indicate and predict such things as job satisfaction, one's occupational choice, the likelihood of staying in a job, and the effort one might expend at work.

In terms of this my situation is the following:

1. Do I expect that I can do a good job at getting a doctorate in history? (I have always been good in academics, I enjoy reading history, so I would probably to a good job.)


2. Instrumenaltiy : What's the probability that, if I do a good job, that there will be some kind of outcome in it for me? In other words would I, could I, get a job using that degree? (Given my knowledge of hiring practices, my guess would be probably not. Without alot of university teaching experience and my age I feel I would be a disadvantaged candidate. By the time I get the doctorate I would be 60 or so. I do have teaching experience but at the Instructor level in a Continuing Ed program.)


3. Valence: Is the Outcome I get of any value to me? (If I were to get the Ph.D. but no teaching job would the degree help my consulting practice? Would personal satisfaction at attaining a long held, but abandoned goal, be enough to overcome the effort required to get the degree?)

Given the formula form above:

MOTIVATION= VALENCE X EXPECTATION(INSTRUMENTALITY)

I would conclude that I am not motivated enough to pursue the Ph.D. in History because of the low expecation of a successful outcome of doing something with it. Do I want to shut down a career of almost 30 years in HR to do this? Or could I do this and perhaps do a Ph.D. in the History of HR? Is there such a thing? Can I do it online? Lots of unanswered questions.

Or maybe I have just gotten lazy? What do you think?

The Carnival of HR: Great HR Reading

The Carnival of HR, June version, is up at Inflexion Point. Some great reading here. Posts include the topics of employee engagement, hiring freezes, use of social media, selling HR, trademarks, executive pay, using your employees as guinea pigs and of course the ever popular putting lipstick on a pig. So for these interesting topics and more head on over to the Carnival by clicking the link in the first line.

Why Unions Are Bad For Companies, Employees and Customers

If you have ever read my blog you know that I am no fan of unions. They may have had their place in the past but not in today's world. I have mentioned in my blogs on EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) that unions cost a company. Not just in direct costs, but in indirect costs as well. Slowed work process, lessened productivity, poorer employee relations, and more have been cited as the costs associated with unionism. A study by the Heritage Foundation puts a bit more concreteness to this argument. What Unions Do: How Labor Unions Affect Jobs and the Economy can be read by clicking the title.

This study finds:

• "Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages..... Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.


• The average union member earns more than the average non-union worker. However, that does not mean that expanding union membership will raise wages: Few workers who join a union today get a pay raise. ....The economy has become more competitive over the past generation. Companies have less power to pass price increases on to consumers without going out of business. Consequently, unions do not negotiate higher wages for many newly organized workers. These days, unions win higher wages for employees only at companies with competitive advantages that allow them to pay higher wages, such as successful research and development (R&D) projects or capital investments.


• Unions effectively tax these investments by negotiating higher wages for their members, thus lowering profits. Unionized companies respond to this union tax by reducing investment. Less investment makes unionized companies less competitive.


• Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.


• Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else.


• Economic theory consequently suggests that unions raise the wages of their members at the cost of lower profits and fewer jobs, that lower profits cause businesses to invest less, and that unions have a smaller effect in competitive markets (where a union cannot obtain a monopoly).


• .....union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies... But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees.


• Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms."

Much more can be read in this study. If you truly want to know the costs, ALL THE COSTS, that are associated with unions read the article. It talks about how unions have cost GM and the US.

Probably the item I find the most disagreeable is this following statement on individualism. It is why I have never belonged to a union, it goes against how I was raised.

"Final union contracts typically give workers group identities instead of treating them as individuals. Unions do not have the resources to monitor each worker's performance and tailor the contract accordingly. Even if they could, they would not want to do so. Unions want employees to view the union--not their individual achievements--as the source of their economic gains. As a result, union contracts typically base pay and promotions on seniority or detailed union job classifications. Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability."

Just does not suit me.