|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/highlandlabs/cqi-bin/ALFA_DATA/alfasymlink/root/domains/hrahg/hru/otj/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>HRA - On The Job</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta name="robots" content="noarchive, nofollow" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="hronthejob.css" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="header" align="center">
<img src="../../graphics/logo.jpg" style="height: 100px; margin: auto; display: block; text-align: center" />
<b style="color: blue">Human Resource Associates</b>
</div>
<div id="wrapper">
<div id="content">
<span class="heading">HR - On The Job</span>
<p class="issue">When The Recruiting Starts, The First Job Is Yours</p>
<p>That doesn't mean that <em>your</em> job is on the line, at least we hope not. It does mean that before you start hiring you need to take another look at what you are doing and how you are doing it. The recruiting season is starting and many companies will be hiring this year. Many of us, however, tend to have problems with recruiting and hiring. Either we don't get the applicants we like and/or we choose the ones who don't work out. There are many ways to combat such problems, but the first step starts with the job we often overlook. That job is to clearly understand and identify what and who we are looking for. </p>
<p>In a recent seminar, we discussed the No. 1 mistake employers make when interviewing and hiring. They hire by chemistry more than qualifications. All too often, employers choose to hire someone who impresses them during the interview; someone who finds and pushes their hot buttons. “He thinks like I do,” “She belongs to the same organization I do,” “I like his opinions and his personality,” “She's confidant and likable,” and so on. These may be nice things that could enhance a person's ability to get the job done, but they are only enhancements, not qualifications. They are seldom the reason to hire.</p>
<p>To clearly understand and identify what and who you are looking for, start by looking at what is the core purpose of the job you are seeking to fill. Let's assume you are trying to fill a sales position. If the position description is just a list of functions, of things to do, it needs to be rewritten. The position description should clearly define the purpose and responsibilities of the job. Why does it exist at all? What is the primary accountability of this job? Is it to sell $50,000 a month? Then sales ability at this level is the core purpose of this job. What unmet goals would cause you to fire this person? Then, identify the characteristics of your best sales person. Is it experience? Is she a self starter? Does he have great self confidence? Is she a great networker? These are all good items to identify and put on your list. Add such things as likeability, good conversationalist, seems to fit your company's culture, and any other items you feel are of value to the success of this job.</p>
<p>Now take a good look at that list and start ranking everything you've listed into three groups. For group one, ask yourself, “What single item (or possibly two) is so essential that you would not consider hiring anyone who doesn't have it?” That item(s) makes up group one. Group two is made up of items you feel are good for a new hire to have, such as they have worked for a company you know and respect, they are being recommended by someone you know, they have a good work ethic, or they know something related to the work that you don't know. You wouldn't hire someone just because he has these characteristics, but if you had two candidates who had everything in group one, the candidate who has the best of group two would be the tie-breaker. In group three, consider those things you think would be nice to have, such as he has charisma, lives close, there's a good chemistry, you know people she knows, you like him, and she seems smart or has a good attitude. It's your list. Fill it up with those characteristic you know are needed for success in this job.</p>
<p>So, to recap:</p>
<ul>
<li><b>Group One</b>: Those one or two required items that define the purpose of this job, without which no candidate will be considered.</li>
<li><b>Group Two:</b> Those characteristics that would be very good to have, but are used only as enhancements to group one or as tie-breakers.</li>
<li><b>Group Three:</b> Those items that would be nice to have but are not as important as either of the primary groups.</li>
</ul>
<p>When you've chosen a candidate, use this list as the foundation for the job. Use it to describe the job to potential applicants, to review résumés, to guide your interview, and to help you choose that successful person you want to work with.</p>
<hr />
<p align="center"><b><i>Have an employment question?</i></b></p>
<p align="center">Send it to <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=From HR On The Job">[email protected]</a>.</p>
<p align="center">Please include Company Name and Association in your e-mail. Company identification will be kept confidential.</p>
<hr />
<p class="heading">Hitchhiking on the Information Highway</p>
<p><b>Dateline:</b> June 2011</p>
<p><i>(Note: Although we attempt to provide the HRU update on the first of each month, we are normally delayed awaiting the release of several monthly government statistical reports. We will hereafter update the information as each report becomes available without waiting for all of them to be released.)</i></p>
<p class="section">Some Observations on Unemployment</p>
<ul>
<li>The unemployment rate has been at 9% or above for 23 of the previous 25 months.</li>
<li>The average unemployed person has been unemployed for 39 weeks.</li>
<li>If you include the number of people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits (and are therefore no longer counted as unemployed), and the number of people who left full time employment and are now working part time (counting only their unemployed hours), the unemployment rate is 18%.</li>
<li>In some states an unemployed person can collect unemployment benefits of over $500 per week for 99 weeks.</li>
<li>Many employers in high unemployment areas report that they are unable to fill current jobs as potential workers want to first exhaust their unemployment benefits.</li>
<li>In Europe where unemployment benefits could continue for up to five years, the unemployment rate didn't improve until after five years and two months. When the benefit allowance time was reduced to three years, the unemployment rate didn't improve until after three years and two months. When the benefit time was later reduced to two years, the unemployment rate didn't improve until after two years and two months.</li>
<li>In the U.S we are going in the opposite direction. In 2009 we increased the time limit from approximately 24 weeks (differs by state) up to 99 weeks and the unemployment rate is stuck around 9%. But then the 99 weeks are not up yet.</li>
<li>In order to return to the 5% unemployment rate we had just before the recession we need to add approximately 400, 000 jobs every month for two years.</li>
<li>In order to meet the 7% unemployment goals of the stimulus plan, we need to add 300,000 per month.</li>
<li>In order to stay at the 9% unemployment level we now have we need to add 150,000 jobs per month.</li>
<li>We have been averaging 80,000 jobs per month for the last two years.</li>
<p class="quote">
“Too bad that all the people<br />
who really know how to run the country<br />
are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair.”<br />
— George Burns
</p>
<p class="section">The Fat Cats Just Don't Pay Their Fair Share</p>
<p>Whether we attribute it to human nature or call it the American way, it seems to be in our DNA to blame our troubles on those we see as better off than we are. Those wealthier or more successful than us must be doing something underhanded or unethical to be where they are. And we all know that the rich just don't pay their fair share of the tax burden. With all their unfair deductions and smart tax attorneys most don't pay any taxes at all. It's a fundamental complaint, universally accepted that sometimes even politicians use, it's called class warfare. Who's to deny it?</p>
<p>Well first in line to deny it is the IRS. From the annual IRS report the following data arises:</p>
<table>
<tr><td>Who Pays?</td><td>How much?</td></tr>
<tr><td>The top 50% of all income earners</td><td>pay 97% of all income taxes</td></tr>
<tr><td>Lower 50% of all income earners</td><td>pay 3% of all income taxes</td></tr>
</table>
<p>Further the reports show that the top 5% of all income earners pay 59% of all income taxes and that the top 1% of all income earners pay 38% of all income taxes.</p>
<p>What could be more fair than that?</p>
<p class="quote">
“An election is coming. Universal peace is declared,<br />
and the foxes have a sincere interest<br />
in prolonging the lives of the poultry”<br />
— George Elliot<br />
(Real name — Mary Anne Evans)
</p>
</ul>
<p class="section">Be Careful Which State You Move Your Company Into</p>
<p class="subtitle">The Union May Not Let You Move Out</p>
<p>Let's start this item with a definition. What is a Right To Work state? It sounds like something unions would like and should be fighting and striking in favor of. But unions hate Right To Work (RTW) states and they fight and strike against them.</p>
<p>In a RTW state an employee has the right to join a union if he or she chooses. But he/she cannot be forced to join a union. You cannot require a job applicant to join a union and you cannot refuse to hire someone who refuses to join a union. However, if an applicant hires into a company that has a fully represented union workforce, the union can require the new hire to pay a share of the union dues, but they cannot force the individual to join their union.</p>
<p>There are 22 RTW states in the nation. Those 22 states are where employers are moving to and where they are building their new plants. Those states tend to be more business friendly, have lower taxes and in many ways better workforces. Many companies are leaving the other states called <em>Closed Shop States</em>. RTW states on average are experiencing an 11.9% economic growth rate compared to <em>Closed Shop</em> states which are averaging 6.1%. Over the last decade personal income growth in RTW states has increased 53.3% compared to <em>Closed Shop</em> states increase of 40.6%. The 2010 census indicates that one worker is now moving to a RTW state every second of every day, 4.8 million since the last census.</p>
<p>Boeing Corporation builds airplanes in Washington state. They also build airplanes in South Carolina. Recently Boeing gained a new contract to produce 787 <em>Dreamliner</em> passenger planes. They intend to build them at their South Carolina plant which is a RTW state and not a union plant. The <em>closed shop</em> Washington state plant is union and they don't like the South Carolina non-union plant at all. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company saying that Boeing was retaliating against the union for past union strikes and difficulties.</p>
<p>The NLRB agrees with the union and intends to force Boeing to build all the planes at the union plant in Washington state. This would result in the closing of the South Carolina plant all together. Further, <em>the NLRB and the administration intend to initiate a new law that will deny any union company the right to locate work to any new state or to build any new plants there without first submitting the detailed economic justifications to their unions.</em> The NLRB plans to closely review all such plans on a case-by-case basis and to prosecute selected cases. The intended consequences (as earlier stated by NLRB representatives) are that all major business decisions will become subject to approval by the unions. NLRB representatives have previously stated their feelings that there should be union representatives on the board of directors of all major corporations.</p>
<p>This is a case that may take years to fight and could end up at the U.S. Supreme Court — but not during the upcoming election campaign. It's expected that Boeing will be allowed to stay in South Carolina but will be forced to make significant concessions to the union to do so.</p>
<p class="quote">
“The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people,<br />
but they have demonstrated time and time again that they have the management skills of celery.<br />
They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow set your car on fire.<br />
I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy.<br />
Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop<br />
because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club”<br />
— Dave Barry
</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: center"><sub>© William J. Cook</sub></p>
</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<span class="heading">Labor Stats</span>
<hr />
<b>Federal Minimum Wage</b>
<hr />
<p align="center">
<b>$7.25</b>/hour<br />
</p>
<hr />
<b>Average Income</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td /><td class="u">May 2011</td><td class="u">May 2010<td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Hourly</td><td class="b">$22.98</td><td class="b">$22.57</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Weekly</td><td class="b">$790.51</td><td class="b">$771.89</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>Federal Povery Level</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">one person</td><td class="b">$10,956</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">family of four</td><td class="b">$21,954</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>IRS Mileage Allowance</b>
<hr />
<p>As of January 1, 2011</p>
<table>
<tr><td class="i">business</td><td><b>51</b> cents/mile</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">medical or moving</td><td class="b">19</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">charitable</td><td class="b">14</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>Postage</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">1 oz</td><td><b>44</b> cents</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">postcard</td><td class="b">28</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>Population</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">world</td><td class="b">6.9 billion</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">U.S.</td><td class="b">311.9 million</td></tr>
</table>
<p align="center">
<i>one birth every </i><b>8</b><i> seconds;</i><br />
<i>one death every </i><b>11</b><i> seconds;</i><br />
<i>one new immigrant every </i><b>45</b><i> seconds;</i><br />
<i>net gain of one person every </i><b>15</b><i> seconds.</i>
</p>
<hr />
<b>U.S. Civilian Workforce</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td /><td class="u">May 2011</td><td class="u">May 2010</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Total</td><td class="b">153,693,000</td><td class="b">154,237,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Employed</td><td class="b">139,779,000</td><td class="b">139,353,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployed</td><td class="b">13,914,000</td><td class="b">14,884,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Want A Job</td><td class="b">6,227,000</td><td class="b">5,733,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployment Rate</td><td class="b">9.1%</td><td class="b">9.6%</td></tr>
</table>
<br /><hr />
<b>U.S. Workforce Productivity</b><br />
<sub><i>(The amount of goods produced, divided by the number of work hours it took to produce it)</i></sub>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">1992</td><td class="b">3.7%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1993</td><td class="b">0.5%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1994</td><td class="b">1.3%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1995</td><td class="b">0.9%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1996</td><td class="b">2.5%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1997</td><td class="b">2.0%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1998</td><td class="b">2.6%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">1999</td><td class="b">3.3%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2000</td><td class="b">3.4%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2001</td><td class="b">2.9%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2002</td><td class="b">4.6%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2003</td><td class="b">3.7%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2004</td><td class="b">2.8%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2005</td><td class="b">1.7%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2006</td><td class="b">0.9%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2007</td><td class="b">1.9%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2008</td><td class="b">1.8%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2009</td><td class="b">+5.8%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2010</td><td class="b">+3.6%</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">2011 1<sup>st</sup> quarter</td><td class="b">+1.68</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>