Passing over the unemployed would be unlawful under new bill

Today's post comes from G.Neil's HR News Weekly:

Being out of work is hard enough. Not getting work because you’re out of work is even harder.

If a proposed bill is passed, employers will have a legal obligation to guard against this very situation. Shortly after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public hearing on unemployment discrimination, Rep. Henry Johnson of Georgia introduced a bill that would make this type of discrimination unlawful.

The Fair Employment Act of 2011 would add “unemployment status” to the list of protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, “unemployment status” is defined as “being unemployed, having actively looked for employment during the then most recent 4-week period, and currently being available for employment.”

Regarding the bill, Rep. Johnson stated, “Employer discrimination against unemployed job applicants is fundamentally wrong. With unemployment at about 9 percent and with nearly 14 million Americans out of work, this discrimination will only prolong the crisis.”

Check back here for updates on the proposed bill.

Passing over the unemployed would be unlawful under new bill

No excuses! Employees can't dodge a well-defined employee attendance policy

No matter how compelling the reason (and employees come up with loads of them), missing work without permission is unacceptable.

In a recent appealed court case, Matter of Rivers v. Commissioner of Labor, the ruling stands that an employee’s unapproved absence was properly deemed misconduct and as such, made the employee ineligible for unemployment benefits.

The employee, an automotive technician, requested time off to spend time with his son returning from Iraq. He was approved for one day. But when he decided to extend his family visit two additional days without approval, he opened an unintended door. When he returned, he was fired for misconduct and as a result, couldn’t file for unemployment.

If we were to step out of the “employer’s advocate” arena for a moment, we might feel an emotional pull regarding the employee wanting to reconnect with his son. But rules are rules. Most employers have a clear employee attendance policy that outlines the request/approval process … and specifies that a “no show” is grounds for disciplinary action or termination. That’s your first line of defense. Your second line, regarding using “misconduct” as a basis for denying unemployment benefits, is showing that the employee deliberately and willfully engaged in activity that showed a complete disregard for your workplace standards and policies.

This employee overstepped his bounds on both counts … and suffered the consequences.

No excuses! Employees can't dodge a well-defined employee attendance policy

Needed: Marketing manager who does computer programming, outbound sales and the tango

I’m used to seeing all the sobering statistics concerning our country’s dismal unemployment rate (just over 10 percent now!), but this headline caught my eye, “State’s jobless rate lets employers ask more from potential hires”.

While the article pertained to Washington, I’m sure the situation applies everywhere. It seems that the lingering recession and extreme competition for jobs have created a whole host of picky employers. The days of simple, streamlined job listings are over, as employers demand more and more from potential hires.

The Seattle Times article shares these examples:

=> Health-care clinic seeks someone who has both marketing experience and knowledge of computer-networking software

=> Environment nonprofit looking for someone to troubleshoot Apple computers, lift up to 50 pounds, work long hours and travel up to seven days at a stretch

=> Catering company needs an event planner who knows basic HTML and is willing to do “personal assistant tasks” for the owner

With companies having to stretch their resources thinner than ever and only cautiously bringing in new hires, this may be the new “normal.”

“Companies of all sizes are advertising such ‘hybrid jobs’ in an effort to save
money,” said Lanell Flint, Northwest vice president for Ajilon Professional
Staffing. "Everyone is trying to do more with less.”

The article states another possible reason for job listings demanding extensive (and sometimes random) job requirements and work experience: less time or money for on-the-job training. In lieu of training to fill in gaps or weaknesses for an otherwise qualified individual, employers want candidates who can “hit the ground running” on all counts.

This employment pickiness often makes for a longer, more drawn-out hiring process, too. It’s not unusual for employers to leave positions open for longer or bring people in for multiple interviews.

What about your company? How has your hiring process changed during the continuing recession? Have you revisited your job descriptions and what you need from new hires? And with more candidates to choose from, are you getting pickier with your selections?

Needed: Marketing manager who does computer programming, outbound sales and the tango

Recession is lifting - competition for jobs isn't

While most economists believe the recession is over and recovery has begun, unemployment rates remain alarmingly high. As a result, the number of U.S. job seekers competing for a single opening has reached the highest point since the recession began.

“There are about 6.3 unemployed workers competing, on average, for each job
opening, a Labor Department report shows. That's the most since the department
began tracking job openings nine years ago, and up from only 1.7 workers when
the recession began in December 2007.” (msnbc.mns.com)

The msnbc article states that the employment crisis will most likely get worse as companies remain sluggish to hire. In fact, many economists expect a “jobless recovery,” which will lead to added pressure on President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to stimulate job creation.

"Fewer people are facing job loss," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at Economic Policy Institute in Washington, "but once you have lost your job, you are in serious trouble.”

Shierholz says the economy faces a "jobs gap" of almost 10 million — the 7.2 million jobs lost plus the roughly 125,000 per month that would have been needed since the recession began just to keep up with population growth.

To close that gap and get back to pre-recession levels in two years would require more than 500,000 new jobs per month, a pace of job creation that hasn't been seen since 1950-51, Shierholz adds.

What about your business? How much of your workforce did you have to cut during the recessionary downturn? And are you feeling enough of an economic boost to start replenishing those positions – or even adding new positions? Or are you sitting tight and not hiring until the recovery is more robust?

Recession is lifting - competition for jobs isn't

More laid-off workers returning to old employers

More laid-off employees are finding new work in their old jobs, according to the latest labor statistics that show almost a fifth of displaced employees return to the company they were laid off from.

About 18% of laid-off workers who found work were rehired by the same employer that issued their pink slip, up 5% from 2005, according to Right Management’s outplacement services. (CNN Money)

"In some instances, organizations are realizing that they may have cut too deep and are bringing people back in consulting roles or for project work," Melvin Scales, senior vice president for global solutions at Right Management, said in a statement.

"Former employees have the organizational knowledge and skills to jump back into roles quickly to get the job done," Scales said.

Scales recommends that employers consider redeploying workers as an alternative to layoffs. "It's a way of leveraging the skills and talents of existing employees and reassigning them to new roles within the organization. It provides an opportunity to retain valued talent, reduce the cost of turnover and leverage knowledge transfers within the company," he said. (CNN Money)

Over the past two years, the U.S. labor market has experienced widespread job cuts. In the first half of this year nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost, on top of the 3.1 million lost in 2008.

More laid-off workers returning to old employers

Would you work for free to keep your job?

While getting ready for work this morning this story on Good Morning America caught my attention:

About 40,000 people work for British Airways, which means they show up, do their jobs and get paid. But now, the airline is asking workers to do their jobs for up to a month without the "getting paid" part.

British Airways asks its employees to work without pay for up to one month.

In a letter to employees this week, British Airways said, "The airline fights for survival ... people will be able to opt for one-week blocks of unpaid leave or unpaid work."

It's a twist on sacrifices being made by employees around the world. In Connecticut, for instance, Courtney Bosch was given a one-week furlough from Kodak.

"In these times, I was comfortable with it, you know I can honestly say I was happy to still be employed," Bosch said.”

Watch the story here.

Furloughs are one thing, but asking employees to work for free for up to one month is quite another.

With nearly one in 10 U.S. workers without a job, some people are so afraid of joining the ranks of the unemployed that working for free sounds like the only choice they have.

Employers should still use caution when considering such a plan. ABC News workplace commentator Tory Johnson went on to say that expecting people to work for free is “absolutely a slippery slope” for employers.

More than a thousand employees have signed up for British Airway’s “no-pay plan.” The airlines also said there is no sense of intimidation or peer pressure among employees regarding the plan.

Is asking workers to go without pay simply a sign of the times or is there a better way for companies to save money? Would you work for free to keep your job?

Would you work for free to keep your job?