|
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">
<h2>HR - On The Job</h2>
<h3>When Is An Applicant Not An Applicant?</h3>
<p>That sounds like it could be a question out of “Alice in Wonderland” doesn't it? But that is a very serious question in employment today and it has been for over 40 years.</p>
<p>Whether an individual is a bona-fide applicant for employment would seem to be a no-brainer. “You looking for a job?”…“Yes, I am”…”Okay, fill out this application form and leave it with the lady at the door and we'll call you if we've got anything.” “Nuff said, one more applicant!” Well, not quite. For a company with 5 or 6 employees, it may not be a serious problem. But for many companies it can be a complicated and expensive issue.</p>
<p>Assume that a minority candidate for employment is rejected by you and then files a charge of discrimination. His suit claims that you reject 90% of all the minorities that apply to you, but that you hire 90% of all Caucasians who apply. He can prove that eight of his friends, all minorities, called you on the phone or sent you an email and they never received a response. He can further prove that eight Caucasians applied to you and all were contacted again. So the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a court demands that you present them with a list of all applicants, by race and sex and what happened to each one.</p>
<p>Your records show that you had no minority applicants but had 11 who were Caucasian. Using the applications, you selected those with the best qualifications. How can there be such a discrepancy between your records and his? Apparently each of you has a different concept of what constitutes an applicant.</p>
<p>It's an important question. There are many circumstances that may require you to document how precisely, you process all candidates for employment. Some reasons are: that you are required to submit an affirmative action program in order to gain a county or state contract or if you are faced with a discrimination charge. In some cases obtaining a business loan or insurance coverage can require you to describe your hiring process.</p>
<p>In today's employment structure you not only must have a bona fide, auditable process for hiring applicants. But more specifically you should define, in writing what you consider to be an actual applicant for employment.</p>
<p>If your hiring process for example is to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Review all applicants for qualifications</li>
<li>Rank them in order of desirability</li>
<li>Start the interviewing process with the highest qualified</li>
<li>Re-evaluate and select the identifiably best candidate(s)</li>
</ul>
<p>That would seem appropriate.</p>
<p>So then you must determine what you will do with those not hired. Do you keep them on file? For how long? Six months, a year? Do you keep them informed as to their status? Do you review them for new openings. Resolve these questions keeping in mind that all applicants must be treated equally.</p>
<p>Once your process is documented, you have an “applicant tracking” process.</p>
<p>Now let's go back to the original question, knowing all the record keeping, follow up, re-interviewing and processing you have decided to follow, you have to determine <em>who are the individuals who must be so processed</em>.</p>
<p>If you consider that the phone call you receive from an interested party is an applicant, you will have to perform all those actions and provide all those services to that caller and every other caller who indicates such an interest.</p>
<p>If you consider all interested people for employment applicants, then you must trace and track all interested people. The casual caller, the person who meets your manager at the coffee shop who says they are interested, the candidate who doesn't complete the application form, the one who doesn't respond when called, the unqualified applicant, etc. If you consider all of these to be an applicant, then all of those people must be kept on files, all must be considered for all openings as openings occur. Did you tell one of them that you would keep them on file for six months for further consideration? Then you may have to do so for all of them.</p>
<p>A good description for your file might be that an applicant is someone:</p>
<ul>
<li>Who applies for an <em>existing</em> job opening, or one you have determined will need to be filled.</li>
<li>Who has supplied enough information via a resume or a completed application for you to evaluate their qualifications and to contact them.</li>
</ul>
<p>Only someone fitting this description and no other contact will be considered an applicant.</p>
<p>So are you no longer able to keep a promising individual who approaches you on file for future consideration? Yes, you can if you make that a part of your applicant tracking process. Identify in advance under what conditions (or what requirements) you would keep such a promising individual and then keep on file all individuals who meet those conditions or requirements. However, all others who use that same avenue to approach you who do not meet those conditions must be notified that you are not proceeding with their application.</p>
<p>You may drop the applicant at any time during the proceeding steps. For example, an applicant who doesn't respond when you attempt to contact them can be dropped. Show that as the reason. Then you must emphatically refuse to process any candidates who do not meet the identified requirements! You never want to process and hire someone who just calls or drops by unless you want to process all such candidates who do the same.</p>
<p>This will also limit the number of applicants on whom you must track and report.</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 />
<h2>Hitchhiking on the Information Highway</h2>
<h3>Unemployment Worsens But the Unemployment Rate Improves?</h3>
<p>In March the unemployment rate improved by going from 8.3 percent down to 8.2%. This was reported to be the result of adding 120,000 new jobs. That certainly sounds like good news. But in fact unemployment is continuing to get worse.</p>
<p>Here's how we know:</p>
<ul>
<li>Although 120,000 new jobs were added, 164,000 people dropped out of the labor market and are no longer being counted as unemployed.</li>
<li>When someone's unemployment checks run out, they are no longer considered unemployed.</li>
<li>Employee who are laid off before they become eligible for unemployment benefits are not counted as unemployed.</li>
<li>When a full-time, 40 hour per week employee is laid off, and later is replaced with two part-timers working one day (8 hours) a week each, that is reported as a creation of new jobs.</li>
<li>There are 12 million people unemployed.</li>
<li>There are fewer people employed today than in 2001.</li>
<li>5 ½ million people have been unemployed for longer than 6 months.</li>
<li>8 million people have been reduced from full time to part-time jobs. If their percentage of unemployment were included in the calculations the unemployment rate would be 11.5 percent.</li>
</ul>
<p>And one additional fact tends to throw some questions on the accuracy of the reports. The numbers of unemployed people seems to be regularly underestimated each week but then quietly adjusted upward a few weeks later. The number of unemployed was later revised upward in 56 of the last 57 weeks.</p>
<h3>Livin' The Dream</h3>
<p>According to a 2012 report by the Heritage Foundation, for the first time in American history the amount the government pays out to individuals as entitlements exceeds the amount of disposable income the average worker earns. The report states that the disposable income of the average worker is $32, 446 annually. While the average amount paid out as entitlements/assistance is now at $32, 748. It's almost like saying that the people who pay no income tax now bring in more money than the people who do.</p>
<p>Some related facts:</p>
<ul>
<li>The U.S. government now spends $2.5 trillion annually on entitlements. The U.S. government takes in $2.5 trillion annually. All the rest needed to run the country must be borrowed.</li>
<li>The top 50 percent of all income earners pay 97 percent of all the federal taxes. The lowest 50 percent of income earners pay 3 percent of all the federal taxes.</li>
<li>In 1984 there were 34 million Americans who were not required to pay federal income taxes. In 2010 there were 151 million.</li>
<li>The whole country was focused on the largest lottery jackpot in history when the enormous prize reached $640 million! That's what it takes to run the federal government for 80 minutes.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Let's Look For Some Better News Out There</h3>
<h4>IRS Showing a Little Heart</h4>
<p>Although April 17 is the drop-dead day for paying your 2011 taxes, The IRS just announced that jobless folks can get another six months to pay. The details:</p>
<ul>
<li>You must have been unemployed for at least 30-days between January 2011 and April 17 2012.</li>
<li>Or if you are a business owner and your business income shrank at least 25 percent in 2011 due to the economy</li>
<li>You must file your 1040 form and a form 1127-A by April 17, 2012 requesting the six month extension.</li>
<li>Individuals with incomes over $100,000 are not eligible.</li>
<li>Individuals owing more than $50,000 are not eligible.</li>
</ul>
<h4>Want To Save Money On Your Health Care?</h4>
<p>Everyone already knows that switching to generic drugs can save you lots of money. But not so many know how to find the right replacement or even if there is one. Kiplinger Personal Finance Advisor advises: Checking <a href="http://www.drx.com">www.drx.com</a> to see if your drug has a generic or therapeutic equivalent and what it is. Then ask your doctor if the switch makes sense.</p>
<p>If you need an X-ray, lab test or procedure ask whether the doctor works with other facilities. Then call local hospitals, clinics and outpatient centers to compare costs. Have it done there and have the results sent in.</p>
<p>If you need care but not necessarily an emergency room, you can save hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars by going to an urgent care center or a convenience care clinic.</p>
<p>Take advantage of new laws that forbid copays or deductibles for certain preventive care procedures. Check them out at <a href="http://www.healthcare.gov">www.healthcare.gov</a>.</p>
<h4>How About Finding Some Lost Money And Keeping It?</h4>
<p>Billions of dollars in forgotten cash is languishing in dormant bank accounts, insurance companies, tax records, property records and elsewhere. Check with <a href="http://www.unclaimed.org">www.unclaimed.org</a> and <a href="http://www.missingmoney.com">www.missingmoney.com</a> and <a href="http://www.treasuryhunt.gov">www.treasuryhunt.gov</a>.</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">March 2012</td><td class="u">March 2011<td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Hourly</td><td class="b">$23.29</td><td class="b">$22.92</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Weekly</td><td class="b">$806.96</td><td class="b">$786.16</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>July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012</p>
<table>
<tr><td class="i">business</td><td><b>55.5</b> cents/mile</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">medical or moving</td><td class="b">23.5</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">charitable</td><td class="b">14.0</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">29</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>Population</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">world</td><td class="b">7 billion</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">U.S.</td><td class="b">312.5 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">March 2012</td><td class="u">March 2011</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Total</td><td class="b">242,604,000</td><td class="b">239,000,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Employed</td><td class="b">142,034,000</td><td class="b">139,764,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployed</td><td class="b">12,673,000</td><td class="b">13,628,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Want A Job</td><td class="b">6,299,000</td><td class="b">6,500,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployment Rate</td><td class="b">8.3%</td><td class="b">9.4%</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</td><td class="b">+0.7%</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>