|
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>Is the Boss Not “Bossy” Enough?</h3>
<p>Among the most sweeping of changes in employee relations over the past twenty years would have to be the focus on “Employee Empowerment, the freedom of the employee to make decisions and have much more control of what gets done, who does it and how. Good management has come to mean individual freedom, flexibility and sensitivity. Companies have changed the way they manage in order to more address employee concerns.</p>
<p>This kind of management is a winner. We know it works. We know employees respond well to this and are almost always more productive under this kind of management. The results reported by so many employers can't all be wrong.</p>
<p>But as employers and managers adapted their companies and operations to focus more on employee concerns, many seem to have lost their focus on the basics. Where formerly the concentration was first on the customer, sales, productivity, profit or the quality of the deliverables, some employers have misinterpreted the true message of “Employee Empowerment” and have made it the primary focus of the company.</p>
<p>The true message was always meant to focus on the actual goals of the company and to do those things you went into business to do. And that “Employee Empowerment” was a more effective and responsible way to accomplish those goals.</p>
<p>Business & Legal Reports (BLR), the global business publisher, a few years ago published the results of an 18-month study by the firm of Rainmaker Thinking that brought to light this problem, which they referred to as ”Undermanagement”.</p>
<p>The surprising results of the study showed that employees said that they were <em>not</em> getting the <b>5 basic management activities</b> that they wanted:</p>
<ol>
<li>Clear statements of performance requirements and standard operating procedures that relate to the tasks and responsibilities.</li>
<li>Clear statements of boundaries, measurable goals and concrete deadlines for which they will be held accountable.</li>
<li>Accurate monitoring, evaluation and documentation of work performance.</li>
<li>Clear and timely feedback on work performance with guidance for improvement.</li>
<li>Fair distribution of rewards and consequences based on merit.</li>
</ol>
<p>According to the report:</p>
<ul>
<li>99% of managers fail to provide these 5 management basics to each employee each day.</li>
<li>90% fail to do so once a week</li>
<li>75% fail to do so once a month</li>
<li>35% fail to so once a year.</li>
<li>The report also showed that if a manger failed to do one of these, he/she likely did not do any of them. They also found that most managers do not know who is overworked or under-worked.</li>
</ul>
<p>The report identified several reasons for this “Undermanagement”:</p>
<ol>
<li>Managers/supervisors say they don't have the time and resources to spend on this, partially due to the paper work and administrative load they carry.</li>
<li>Managers want to be seen as “nice guys'. They refuse to accept the authority and influence they have been given. They call it “empowering” their employees but it's really just neglect and bad or weak management.</li>
<li>Most managers aren't trained enough in management basics and good supervision techniques.</li>
<li>Most managers are afraid to discuss employee's performance and provide coaching or criticism for fear employees will argue, get angry and take revenge in complaints or lawsuits. Most managers don't like confrontation.</li>
<li>Most “Under-managers” tend to hire and promote other “Under-managers”.</li>
</ol>
<p>The President of the firm that conducted the ongoing study added this to the report; “I used to think that good management was about warmth and flexibility, getting shoulder massages and being allowed to bring your dog to work. Now I believe that the best managers are pretty demanding with employees, setting high standards, checking in often to ensure they're being met, and offering plenty of guidance and coaching where it's needed.”</p>
<p>Being the “Boss” includes providing those 5 basic management activities. If you're not, maybe you're not being “Bossy” enough.</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 - A Reality Check</h3>
<p>Economists estimate that the U.S. needs to create a little over 400,000 jobs per month in order for the economy to recover by 2015. Although Uncle Sam says it has created over 5 million jobs since January 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) doesn't agree.</p>
<p>According to BLS there were 142, 099,000 people working in January 2009. They also report that there were 142,278,000 people working in May 2012. That's an increase of 179,000 jobs in 40 months, for an average of 4,475 jobs per month. So instead of the over 400,000 jobs we need per month were getting a little over 4,000. That's 1% of what we need. How long will it take at that rate to achieve the recovery?</p>
<ul>
<li>The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.2%, in May 2012 it is 8.2%.</li>
<li>If we count all those who dropped out of the labor market, or used up their unemployment benefits (and therefore no longer being counted as unemployed) the unemployment rate would be 14.8%.</li>
<li>We now have the lowest workforce participation rate in over 30 years.</li>
<li>Statistically, the workers who dropped out of the labor market were all women as the male participation rate actually increased slightly.</li>
<li>Statistically, the number of new jobs created were all part-time jobs as the number of part-time jobs increased by 618,000 jobs while the number of full-time jobs dropped so low that it wiped out all the previous gains for the last three months.</li>
<li>The majority of the unemployed workers have some college education (52%) while the number of unemployed workers who completed was 8%.</li>
<li>The average hours per week worked dropped to 34.4 hours. The drop is equivalent to the loss of 200,000 job lost.</li>
<li>Approximately half of all those unemployed have been so for over 27 weeks.</li>
<li>Over 70,000 Americans are set to lose their unemployment benefits in June.</li>
<li>The industry with the highest rate of unemployment is Construction workers at 14.2%.</li>
<li>The industry with the lowest rate of unemployment is Government workers at 4.2%.</li>
</ul>
<p class="quote">“I smile because I don't know what the hell is going on”<br />
- Maxine</p>
<h3>Where are the Jobs?</h3>
<p>Actually there are now over 700,000 jobs open that are not being filled. Those employers are getting desperate as recruiting and head-hunting agencies reporting a surge in business. Why aren't the unemployed filling those jobs?</p>
<ol>
<li>Unqualified</li>
<li>Undesirable work</li>
<li>Requires re-location</li>
<li>Poverty entitlements are greater than the jobs pay</li>
</ol>
<p class="quote">“I have a Liberal Arts degree.<br />
Do you want fries with that?<br />
- Mickey Gorman</p>
<h3>Are You Too Rich or Too Poor?</h3>
<p>We used to consider that anyone making over $1,000,000 per year was rich. So we didn't mind that the tax rates were higher for them. Some time ago that figure was reduced to $500,000 per year. We thought including them in that higher tax paying group was okay too.</p>
<p>But as Uncle Sam and the states began busting their budgets and looking for more revenue, the idea arose that those making $250,000 annually (which includes most small businesses) would also be considered too rich and must now be included in that higher tax group. So does the government feel that they have enough money coming in now? Does the spending stop? Did it slow diminish any?</p>
<p>Of course spending increased more than ever. So what's the next answer? Well the state of Maryland has a solution we never thought of. The state just ruled that those making over $100,000 must now be corralled into that unhappy, higher tax paying group. $100,000 a year is just too rich. But let's take a reality check here too. Almost 40% of the school teachers in Montgomery County Maryland make over $1,000.00 per year. Many government workers in retirement are making over $100,000 per year.</p>
<p>The oncoming dichotomy; Eligibility for some U.S. poverty programs allow incomes up to $74,000 per year! If you're too poor at $74,000 and too rich at $100,000 what's going to happen when the states decide to lower that higher taxed group to those making $75,000?</p>
<p class="quote">“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul<br />
can always count on the support of Paul.”</p>
<h3>Some Stuff You Might Like To Know</h3>
<p><b>Question:</b> Is overweight considered a disability within the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?</p>
<p><b>Answer:</b> The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently won a court case against an employer on this issue. The employer terminated an employee in a health treatment center who weighed 500 pounds because she had limited ability to move around and was unable to perform CPR. She later died of morbid obesity. The EEOC still filed the case saying that she should have been provided an accommodation under the ADA. A federal court in Louisiana agreed with the EEOC that Obesity is covered under the ADA if the employee is twice the normal weight.</p>
<p>New Social Security numbering system may cause a few problems: Those who are older may be familiar with the secret of decoding SS#s. The first three numbers told you the state in which the Social Security card was issued. The middle two numbers placed you in various groups and the last four digits were your actual serial number.</p>
<p>However, as a result of so many demographic changes and the rise of identity theft, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is abandoning that tidy system. It is now assigning SS# randomly and will for the first time begin using 7s and 8s as beginning numbers. This can be a problem for software programs that perform edits and checks of SS#. Such programs typically reject SS# that begin with 7s and 8s. So alert your IT providers, payroll services and 401(k) administrators to the change. Also consider using the SSA verification service that will almost instantly confirm that the employee's name and SS# are valid matches. You can register with the SSA to use this service at <a href="www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm">www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm</a>.
<p class="quote">“He who knows not and knows not he knows not: he is a fool - shun him.<br />
He who knows not and knows he knows not: he is simple - teach him.<br />
He who knows and knows not he knows: he is asleep - wake him.<br />
He who knows and knows he knows: he is wise - follow him.”</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">June 2012</td><td class="u">June 2011<td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Hourly</td><td class="b">$23.50</td><td class="b">$23.05</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Weekly</td><td class="b">$810.75</td><td class="b">$792.92</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">313.7 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>14</b><i> seconds;</i><br />
<i>one new immigrant every </i><b>44</b><i> seconds;</i><br />
<i>net gain of one person every </i><b>13</b><i> seconds.</i>
</p>
<hr />
<b>U.S. Civilian Workforce</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td /><td class="u">June 2012</td><td class="u">June 2011</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Total</td><td class="b">155,163,000</td><td class="b">153,409,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Employed</td><td class="b">142,163,000</td><td class="b">139,385,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployed</td><td class="b">12,749,000</td><td class="b">14,024,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Want A Job</td><td class="b">6,250,000</td><td class="b">6,531,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployment Rate</td><td class="b">8.2%</td><td class="b">9.1%</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>
<tr><td class="i">1st quarter 2012</td><td class="b">(-0.9%)</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>