Blog

Gravity Minimum Wage- Will It Backfire?

4/15/2015

The internet is ablaze today with news that the CEO of Gravity is raising the minimum wage in his company to $70,000, and dropping his own salary accordingly. I applaud the reasoning, and I realize he is not doing it as compensation exercise but rather to make a statement about how difficult it is to survive on minimum wage. I also realize we are probably not getting the full story, and it probably is not as simple as everyone who was under $70,000 being raised up to that number and anyone above that number remaining at their original compensation.

The above is my disclaimer. The rest of this blog is a commentary on why we should have compensation equity and not equality. Compensation is used to motivate employees and reward them for the value they bring to the company. If someone brings more value to the company, then reason suggests they should be compensated more than someone who brings less value to the company. This provides recognition for a job well done and a career path for those who want to provide more value to the company and earn more money. Paying everyone the same regardless of contribution to the company fails to recognize your A team, and depending on the individuals involved, does a disservice to the ones who are making considerably more than the market demands for their skill.

We saw this at Nortel, back in the day. Employees at Nortel were making a lot more money than their counterparts in other companies. While this was wonderful for them while they were there, it did an incredible disservice to them when Nortel started laying off people. Suddenly individuals who had built their lives on making a certain salary and were making life decisions accordingly, were out on the open market realizing that any equivalent position was paying up to 33% less.

From the company’s side of things, if you pay far more than the market is offering, you are stuck with these people. You will not have natural turnover which is, in fact, healthy and necessary for a company. No employee in their right mind who is earning $70,000 is going to take an equivalent position paying $45,000 no matter what the situation at their current employment is. People do want to earn what they are worth, and that goes both ways. Individuals who make more than they feel they are contributing do suffer from cognitive dissonance, and feel guilt. Not all, but certainly some!

Now having said all that, I would love to get my hands on the compensation plan this CEO has rolled out, I like to think everyone benefitted from his benevolence and not just the employees who were being paid less than $70,000.

Ah...Target...what about that notice period then?

2/4/2015

There has been a media outcry about the way the front line workers at Target have been treated as the chain starts to wind down the Canadian operations. Reading through the comments on the various online articles is always interesting, there is some outrage at Target and then there are a number of commenters who do not seem to have much sympathy for the workers.

Could Target have done a better job? Of course they could have, it does appear that the general public heard about the Canadian shut down before the workers did. While not the end of the world, this certainly could have been handled better. There might have been leaks but Target has a very large and effective PR presence to deal with any such fallout or leaks. Just giving the workers the news 2 hours before the media was informed (and ensuring all impacted individuals did know before the media announcement) would have gone a long way to smoothing some of the ruffled feathers.

To be clear, Target has to provide 16 weeks of notice to the employees. This is an Employment Standards requirement, so there is nothing particularly benevolent about the organization providing the minimum amount of notice. In Ontario, should 500 or more employees be laid off in a 4 week period, the notice period is 16 weeks. This is just something they had to do. Now, they have the option, as the employer, of providing that as working notice or as pay in lieu of notice. Target has chosen to require some workers to work through their notice period. There is nothing egregious about this, lots of companies require their employees to work through notice periods.

Naturally, there is and should be concern about worker sabotage. I don’t imagine anyone is happy to be losing their job, and yes, there will be hard feelings. But there is nothing to stop any of these employees from looking for work during this 16 week notice period. And this is where I start to understand why people feel little sympathy for these workers. How many of us after working at any establishment for less than 2 years, received anywhere near 16 weeks’ notice?

At the end of the day, thousands are losing their jobs, and it is awful. But before we get too excited by the PR spin on how Target set aside a trust, remember they had to do that, and before we get too distraught over the way the employees are being treated, remember that they can act of their own free will with 16 weeks of pay to help them do so.

And while I am somewhat on the subject…can we bring back Zellers? Please?

Now that Christmas is over...let's talk vacation

1/7/2015

So, as an employer in Canada you are obligated to provide vacation to your employees. This is a tremendous thing but here in Canada, we are still behind a lot of countries in terms of the amount of vacation we offer to employees. Just to highlight this fact, Canada’s mandated minimum vacation entitlement is 10 days per year…only 2 more than the mandated minimum vacation in Honduras. Now why does Honduras ring a bell from a labour point of view? Oh YES, the sweatshops and child labour.

Obviously, our labour laws and standards (apart from our vacation entitlement ) are superior in most ways to Honduras and I merely provided the fact to show that we are behind on this particular issue. The worst part of this is that employees are not taking all of their earned vacation. (this from Expedia’s Vacation Deprivation survey results)

As someone who has the luxury of taking a vacation day any day she wants (and does!), I understand and truly appreciate the value of taking time off in order to rejuvenate. So why are any of us leaving earned vacation on the table? This makes no sense on either the employee or the employer side. From the employee’s side, it is obvious; vacation really should be more fun than working, right? Plus we can burn out if we do not turn off every so often. This should also be an employer’s concern…keeping employees motivated and rejuvenated makes for a more productive employee.

Some great ideas were presented in the January 2015 edition of the HR Professional. They include:

Take your vacation time BEFORE you need it.

Take a few shorter vacations throughout the year

Come back a day earlier in order to ease yourself into your routine before returning to work.

So now that Christmas is over, and maybe our thoughts turn to getting away from the snow, take advantage of vacation entitlement and USE it!

Workplace Bullying...Why You Should Care

12/17/2014

We have all been made aware of workplace bullying in the past few years. There have been changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to address this situation; employees have been awarded enormous damages due to workplace bullying (Boucher vs. Walmart Canada); businesses are popping up to address the new concerns that come along with workplace bullying (external investigators, training providers etc). And yet, it still happens.

Is it because there is a fundamental misunderstanding between what a manager believes is constructive criticism and what an employee feels is bullying? It is NOT bullying for a manager to correct or provide feedback or otherwise manage poor performance or behavior issues. As an HR professional, we often have to address this issue. Certainly, some managers could use some fine tuning in how they deal with performance issues, especially repeated issues that cause increased frustration for the manager or supervisor, but it does not follow that it is harassment or bullying. This is a fine distinction and can be a “he said/she said” type of situation.

There are plenty of websites that lay out in specific detail what constitutes bullying but the common theme amongst the definition is that it is sustained and repeated. A one time loss of control on someone’s part is not bullying, although depending on the severity of the loss of control, it certainly could be unlawful. In fact, even if the behavior is bullying, it is possible that the alleged bully does not have malicious intent, they could be frustrated, overworked, or just not that tuned into the perception they are projecting.

Regardless, bullying takes its toll on a business. Absenteeism, poor behavior, sick leave expenses, benefit claims, turnover, all will impact the bottom line. This is why businesses should care. Train managers on how to appropriately discipline employees, train everyone on what is bullying and what is not acceptable in your workplace. As business owners, take a look at the culture that you have…is it abusive, and contributing to a bullying environment? If so, get real about the impact on your bottom line, not to mention what the word on the street is about your business. Maybe you don’t care, but enough people out there do, and it will come back to haunt you. Just look at Walmart – a claim of bullying against them netted an award to the employee to the tune of $1,450,000.00, this has since been dropped to $410,000 appeal, but really, what company wants to incur a completely unnecessary expense just because a supervisor or manager promotes a bullying environment.

Apart from being wrong, it also makes no business sense.

A bit late to the kicking post - Weighing in on Ghomesi

12/9/2014

Dear God, what a Human Resources nightmare! It has been a couple of months since this story broke and I have been refraining from commenting as I feared I could not be objective. Immediately following the news that Ghomeshi had been fired, one was inclined to feel a bit sorry for the poor old terminated, if somewhat pervy sod. Big bad CBC had struck again. Then more news came out that Ghomeshi was actually a predator and abuser, but still, that seemed at best a moral issue, at worst, a criminal one…again not something one would expect an employer to weigh in on. And now, an outpouring of women, interviews with key players, charges that all seem to point this being quite the debacle. And I feel I can now be objective…all players in this pile of dung need a kick in the head:

Ghomeshi – obviously. I do not need to go into more detail as to why.

The CBC – their mishandling of the rumours, informal complaints and formal complaints is stunning. I have watched the Fifth Estate program on the issue and while worth a watch, it smacks of a cover up job. Someone is going down for this, we just have to wait and see who.

The Union – the latest to come out is that they have issued a statement to their members. If the reports I have read are true, one of the women went to the union regarding the harassment she faced, and the union also failed to do anything about it. It seems the union is now indignant about an investigation that surely should have begun the minute THEY had word of a complaint.

I do wonder what I would have done had I been in the Human Resources department at CBC. Would I have had the courage to stand up to the CBC and the union? I like to think I would have, but it is quite possible I would have just gone along with what seemed to be the culture – “Protect the Stars”. I would love to talk to an employee in the HR department at CBC, just to find out how truly deep this went, how much they knew and what the instructions to them were. I hope the investigation yields some of these answers. I am following this story with avid interest, but I worry at how long this will all take. Will we forget about all of this by the time a report comes out? And will anything change?

Look out, Ottawa Networking Events...

9/8/2014

I attended a seminar today at Invest Ottawa, it was called Networking for People who Hate Networking. I signed up at the last minute because the thought of even going to such a thing caused me to have mild panic attacks.

I know I have to network, I realize that getting the word out there about my fabulous business is crucial to being able to maintain the business. I hate networking; I have trouble even getting out of the car to walk into a building where such events are taking place. Given the number of people at this seminar, I am hardly alone in this sentiment.

I learned a number of very useful things, including getting into the mindset of “How can I help YOU?” so in that spirit, here is a shout out to the guy who was presenting: Majeed Mogharreban, his website is http://www.99networkingtips.com. You are welcome, Majeed, see I was listening! In all seriousness, I was hesitant and possibly a bit cynical walking into the seminar but I left with a renewed commitment to get out there and network.

Does it seem odd that an individual who had a (I like to think) successful career working with people and subsequently built a business out of working with people should absolutely hate social events where one has to schmooze? I am that person at any event that will glom onto one person and find out every detail about them over the course of the event, but do not ask me to mingle with people. I like to think that I am more of a relationship builder than a social butterfly. Apparently this will serve me well as I get out there with my new attitude and networking tips.

So I am setting goals for networking (2 events a month), for meeting new people (5 people per event), and yes, you will see me coming. I will be the one checking my notes for my talking points, muttering to myself so to remind myself of all the handy tips I have learned...and likely the one who, if you are ever so fortunate, will delve deeply into your psyche because that seems easier than moving on to the next new person.

See you at the next networking event!

Seeking Permission to Invade your Inbox

6/25/2014

I must admit I have been vaguely aware that the Anti Spam Legislation was looming, but it was not until I started receiving MORE e-mail asking for my expressed consent to continuing receiving e-mail that generally remains unread, that I realized the time was upon us to comply.

Granted this is not really a Human Resource topic but it is an issue that is impacting small businesses. I have read several articles, and heard arguments for both sides of the coin. I also am annoyed and I wish to make my annoyance known through my blog, since clearly I cannot simply send out an e-mail to everyone I have ever come in contact with, unless I first send them another e-mail asking them if I can send them more e-mail. Geez, now I am just dizzy thinking about this.

This legislation is about 10 years too late as far as I can tell. By now, we all have spam filters, we have been educated to not click on links sent from Nigerian princes, and most of us have learned not to open attachments that come from unknown sources. Now, of course, this is the worst kind of spam, the stuff that does most damage to the uneducated, but the legislation will not protect any of us from THAT kind of spam. Nope, the spam it will be “protecting” us from is the type of spam that is infinitely less annoying than the crap that gets stuffed in our physical mailboxes every day. It is the e-newsletter from the local business in your neighbourhood that will be impacted, or the mostly relevant articles that your financial advisor sends out on occasion. The only businesses that are actually following this legislation appear to be the ones I wanted to hear from in the first place. But now, I have to actually do something more onerous than clicking delete.

Now, on the other side of the argument, I see that larger businesses do have some responsibility to ensure they are not taking advantage of their size and resources to send me daily reminders about their latest sales (yes, HBC, I am looking at you), but again, I am quite capable of clicking delete, and at some time, I was stupid enough to provide my e-mail address, so I feel I have to take responsibility for some of the junk in my inbox.

I am looking forward to hearing about the first fine levied under this legislation, I am betting it won’t be that nice broker that offered to help me release foreign funds if I simply send a registered cheque for $10,000.

Ouch, that hurts...HR is not all bad.

4/15/2014

The Wall Street Journal recently printed an article about the increasing number of companies choosing to do away with their HR department, and find new ways of dealing with such HR related issues as hiring, firing and compensation.

The moral of the story is sometimes the only thing worse than having an HR department is not having one. Naturally, I took offense to this…for a number of reasons.

First of all, I am going to take the controversial stance that a lot of companies probably do not need a full fledged HR department, but they do need access to HR expertise.

Secondly, the implication is that HR is a necessary evil at best and a completely useless expense at worst. So do away with your useless expense, only to realize that you did need that necessary evil. This is not very flattering.

Sigh...us HR types take this stuff personally, for the most part, we like what we do and we think what we do adds value. We do understand that not everyone gets as excited about a well thought out and relevant Performance Appraisal system as we do, and seeing a compensation strategy come together does not cause the intake of breath for others like it does for someone who truly believes a good compensation program is the stuff of gods. We get it, we really do...but good HR advice, guidance and direction is necessary in the majority of organizations.

Managers can and should handle a lot of what has traditionally been punted to the HR department. Managers are the best ones to deal with their employees, they do know them best. However, sometimes they need guidance, or advice or someone to bounce ideas off. And let’s not forget the amount of legislation that comes with having employees. There is middle ground; it is not an all or nothing proposition anymore. If your organization needs occasional HR guidance and advice, hey, that is what someone like me is here for.

Thanks to the Wall Street Journal for giving me an excuse to talk about HR Matters and alternative solutions to investing in a full time HR person or department.

Privacy over life and limb, Part 2

3/26/2014

Back in June, I wrote a blog about a ruling regarding random drug and alcohol testing. This issue has reared its head again, as there was a ruling today during arbitration regarding Suncor and their application to apply random drug and alcohol testing to their employees.

More information can be found in this CBC news article.

I will be following this closely, and am interested in other people's thoughts and opinions on what seems to be an issue keeps popping up.

A (very) unfortunate choice of words..

2/10/2014

AOL CEO, Tim Armstrong managed to get the WWW world very upset this past week. His remarks over distressed babies sparked a firestorm of backlash, including a blog by an AOL employees’ wife who had had a premature baby and was one of the reasons cited for the decision Mr. Armstrong made to cut back on retirement benefits. He has since reversed his decision to cut back the benefits. And he has apologized.

His remark reached new heights of insensitivity and stupidity, I wonder how he even came out with such a statement, however, an apology would have been sufficient. There was no need to reverse a sound business decision because he made an incredibly ignorant comment, and dear God, it was ignorant. The fact is health care costs ARE rising, and companies are being hit as a result. Decisions do have to be made regarding the continued cost of covering certain employee benefits. Companies have a fiscal responsibility to their stakeholders to ensure that costs are being managed.

I do not believe the decision to cut costs was made in isolation, nor without some degree of angst and discussion amongst the management team. A lot of time and work and analysis likely went into the decision…and because the CEO made an asinine remark, all of that goes to waste.

I am not excusing the remark… it should have never been made. And it was an extremely costly one to AOL. Here is a thought, maybe AOL, and other organizations could have a stupidity fee levied against their executive team. In Mr. Armstrong’s case, his net worth is around $400 million according to www.celebritynetworth.com Maybe he could pony up a million or two as a gentle reminder to keep such thoughts to himself, and still be permitted to roll out the difficult business decisions that need to be made.