|
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>
<hgroup>
<h3>Dealing With A Stressful Workplace</h3>
<h4>8 Areas To Examine</h4>
</hgroup>
<p>Stress has a bad reputation. But not all stress is bad. Stress that causes you to think sharper, be more productive and to “reach beyond your grasp” can be very positive. But too much stress, or the wrong kind, can also be a killer. It can kill motivation, quality and people. At work, stress needs to be an issue of concern.</p>
<p>Not all workplace stress is caused by the workplace. Many people create their own frantic pace as part of their lifestyle. They may over-schedule their life; use poor time management and bring a lot of personal and social problems into work everyday. The causes for these problems are neither found, nor can they be solved in the workplace.</p>
<p>Having recognized that, it’s still fair to say that most workplace stress is caused by the workplace. The way things get done at work; the environment and the atmosphere are how we define “Corporate Culture”. There are ways to make your “Corporate Culture” less stressful.</p>
<p>Here are 8 areas to examine for stress in your “Corporate Culture”:</p>
<ol>
<li><b>Communication Style.</b> Take a look at how you communicate now. Is it done formally, in writing, at scheduled meetings? Or is word-of-mouth the way it happen? For general information, do you e-mail everyone or send out a printed memo or just pass it along to those you pass in the hall? Are all problems examined in a “whose to blame” mode? Find out from each other how you want to communicate. Everyone may need to make compromises in order to find the style that works best for your group. But also remember, communicate often and communicate to everyone.</li>
<li><b>Hierarchy.</b> How defined is your “chain of command”. Does everyone rigidly stick to the hierarchy? How formal do you want the process of getting work done to be? Can an informal process do it better? Some companies need a firm structure to manage the complexities of a growing, dynamic company. Some companies are not so large or complex. For them teamwork is the best process. Which do you need? Which does your group want? </li>
<li><b>Teamwork.</b> Are projects and information shared freely, or are you expected to work entirely on your own? Do you have group brainstorming sessions (formal or informal) or are ideas saved for a one-on-one with the boss? Are coworkers pleased or offended when someone offers suggestions about their work? Does your company need individual loners who take personal charge in getting things done, or teamwork players who share the load and support each other? What works best for your company, your employees?</li>
<li><b>Leadership.</b> What is the role of the boss? Does s/he do the thinking, solve the problems and delegate the functions? Or does each individual produce the results with the resources s/he has or can generate? Does management lead or support? Do they guide, coach or micromanage? Does the person in charge have the respect and trust of the group? Should there be buffers between the executives and the crew that gets things done or should the top folks and the crew folks be communicating face-to-face? In some companies, the best leader is one who stays in the background and draws the best from everyone to the surface. They let the leaders emerge from the group. In other companies, the best leader may be the one out in front leading the team in his/her direction. What kind of leadership do you need or want? What kind works best for you?</li>
<li><b>Appearance.</b> Is there a dress code? Is it a formal written policy? If standards of dress are too casual or even unkempt, self-respect can deteriorate. The way people dress when they meet is still a sign of respect to each other. Of course overdress can make the workplace too stuffy and uncomfortable. Individuality may be a virtue, but the more one does to separate themselves from the group, the more they will be separated from the group. Set the standard that works for your company.</li>
<li><b>Your Workspace.</b> Prisons are cold, hard colorless places where drabness, silence and regimentation is the standard. They are intimidating environments that discourage interaction, creativity and teamwork, because that’s the way wardens want prisoners to feel. Is your workplace colorful, open and alive? Do employees feel free to call out to someone in another group, to go beyond the defined boundaries of their work and extend themselves into every area where they are needed or where they feel they need to be? Do walls and cubicles work best for your group? Would the newer “open office” or “virtual office” concepts work? Ask employees for their feelings and suggestions.</li>
<li><b>Office Relationships.</b> Do these people like each other? Have they had a chance to do anything together except work? Do they know about a coworker’s mother’s hip surgery? Do they go out together? Are there any company off-job events or activities for the group? Some employees want to be left alone to do their work. Others really want to be part of a larger family. Create a culture that provides those activities and that interaction for those that want it and still allows a loner to be so.</li>
<li><b>The Pace.</b> Many successful companies have workplaces that are hectic, stressed and fast paced. Most of us would rather be at the beach or a party. But all human endeavors require focus, involvement and intensity. Few companies can survive if everyone in their workplace were focused on comfort, fun and going home. Employees can live with and thrive on stress. But it cannot be constant. It cannot be a non-stop train of panic and worry. An Olympic long distance runner doesn’t win by going full speed all the way. Winners are those who can pace their effort. A stressful, frantic, pace may be part of the job, but don’t let it be a continuous river of activities. Manage this problem and see that there is a break between the rushes.</li>
</ol>
<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>Just Who Should Have “The Right To Work” Anyway?</h3>
<p>Most of us have heard a lot about The Right To Work Law just passed in Michigan. But we sometimes receive calls from members who confuse the regulations on The Right To Work with the regulations on Employment at Will. Here's a quick comparison:</p>
<ul>
<li><i>The Right to Work Law</i> states the no citizen can be forced to join a union in order to have a job.</li>
<li><i>The Employment at Will Doctrine</i> says that both the company and the employee have a right to cease employment at any time and for any reason.</li>
</ul>
<p>These seem like laws that everyone would agree to and want to have as the law of the land. So what's wrong with these two laws?</p>
<p>Let's start with the <i>Employment at Will</i> (EAW) doctrine. The primary entity that opposes EAW is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In order to protect individuals from illegal discrimination the EEOC forbids using Employment at Will to terminate employees due to their race, age, religion, sex or for any other such discriminatory reason. Of course this also applies to whistleblowers. The company may not terminate an employee for ‘blowing the whistle” on company wrongdoing. Such opposition to the EAW sounds reasonable and something I assume most of us support.</p>
<p>But let's take a look at the issue of Right To Work (RTW). Now who could be against that? The primary (and possibly the only) entity opposed to RTW are unions. Unions feel that once they have unionized a company, then the company should be responsible for unionizing every new employee for them. They feel that no one they do not approve of should ever be allowed to work there. Further, they require the company to enforce their position by automatically deducting the union dues from every employee's paycheck and sending it to the union and, to terminate anyone who should ever get behind in his dues (due to refusal to allow the deduction or long leaves with no paycheck etc.) That way, no employee can ever decide to quit the union or to neglect paying his union dues on time. As a point of interest; If companies would refuse to deduct the union dues from the employee's paycheck, unions would likely lose most of their members in short order.</p>
<p>Unions from all over the country were in Michigan to fight against the RTW law, even those unions that have no members in Michigan. Auto workers, truck drivers and state employees called in sick from all over the state to show up for the big protest. They lost the battle and the law passed which now says:</p>
<p>No individual can be required to do any of the following to obtain or continue employment:</p>
<ul>
<li>Become a member of a union</li>
<li>Remain a member of a union</li>
<li>Resign their membership in a union</li>
<li>Refrain from financially supporting a union or paying dues</li>
<li>Pay to any charity or third party the dues equivalent required of union members.</li>
</ul>
<p>So why did the state of Michigan, one of the founding states of the labor movement, decide to go to battle against the unions with this new law? There are two primary reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>
The 24 states that have Right to Work Laws have a much better economic standing. Examples include:
<ul>
<li>Over the last 20 years, of the top 10 performing states, 9 were RTW states. (The 10th Washington state, ranked high because it has neither state sales tax nor state income tax.)</li>
<li>Of the lowest 10 ranking states, none are RTW states.</li>
<li>The average unemployment rate across the country is 7.7% The average unemployment rate in RTW states is 6.9% The average unemployment rate in non-RTW states is 8.7%</li>
<li>The cost to employee someone in a non-RTW state is almost 20% higher than in RTW states. That's why companies are leaving those states and moving to RTW states, and employees are moving there because that's where the jobs are.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The states of Wisconsin and Indiana, also founding states of the labor movement, recently became RTW states while their neighboring state, Illinois, one the most unionized states in the country refused to consider it. Hundreds of companies packed up and left Illinois and moved to Wisconsin and Indiana, who are now experiencing economic growth and state debt reduction.</li>
</ol>
<p>And that's why Michigan did it.</p>
<p class="quote">
“Reality is the leading cause of stress,<br />
for those in touch with it”<br />
– Jane Wagner</p>
<h3>What You Don't Know Can't Hurt Me</h3>
<p>For some of the information in the article above, we accessed the government reports that show the tax rates and economic standings of states. Those reports also show the movement of companies and individuals between states. It allows everyone the ability to track the migration of companies and people out of states that are non-RTW states, have high labor costs, high taxes and even overly burdensome labor restrictions. It also shows which states they are migrating to, those that are RTW, have more reasonable labor costs, tax rates and labor regulations.</p>
<p>But once the government agencies began noticing those migrations, they realized that their records were being used to identify that activity. In December that information was not available. When contacted they announced that the data was no longer being provided.</p>
<p class="quote">
“Safe upon the solid rock, the ugly houses stand.<br />
Come and see my shining palace built upon the sand”<br />
– Edna St. Vincent Millay</p>
<hgroup>
<h3>Unemployment Is A Numbers Game</h3>
<h4>(And Someone's Not Very Good With Numbers)</h4>
</hgroup>
<p>Uncle Sam keeps telling us the economy is improving and people are slowly going back to work. They say that over 5,000,000 new jobs have been added since January 2008. Last year at this time the unemployment rate was 8.7%. This year it's down to 7.7%. Who could argue with that? Well the numbers they report tell a different story.</p>
<p>The unemployment rate is calculated using a complicated process of incoming reports, outgoing phone calls and some mystifying legerdemain. Such machinations include no longer counting people as unemployed once their unemployment benefits run out, counting an employee who loses his full time job who later finds a job working 2 days a week as a gain in employment, and forgetting to count the unemployment numbers of our largest state thereby lowering the unemployment rate.</p>
<p>But there's a pretty simple method to knowing whether the unemployment rate is higher or lower. Here's an example: The number of people unemployed is reported monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) as is the unemployment rate. By their reports:</p>
<table>
<th>Number of People Unemployed</th>
<tr><td>January 2008</td><td>8,221,000</td></tr>
<tr><td>January 2009</td><td>11,616,000</td></tr>
<tr><td>January 2010</td><td>14,852,000</td></tr>
<tr><td>January 2011</td><td>13,863,000</td></tr>
<tr><td>January 2012</td><td>12,758,000</td></tr>
<tr><td>November 2012</td><td>12,829,000</td></tr>
</table>
<p>In January of 2008 there were 8.2 million people unemployed. In November of 2012 there are 12.8 million people unemployed. There are 4.6 million fewer people working today than in January 2008.</p>
<p>But Uncle Sam is trying to do his part. Since January 2008, the federal government has hired 101 new federal employees … every day. 10,000 new federal employee were hired one month before the election. The average wage for federal workers is now $84,000 annually, that's $13,000 more than in the private sector.</p>
<p class="quote">
“What experience and history teach us is…<br />
that people and government have never learned anything from history”<br />
– George F. Hegel</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 2013</td><td class="u">March 2012<td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Hourly</td><td class="b">$23.82</td><td class="b">$23.40</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Weekly</td><td class="b">$824.17</td><td class="b">$807.30</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>Federal Povery Level</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">one person</td><td class="b">$11,945</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">family of four</td><td class="b">$23,283</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>IRS Mileage Allowance</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">business</td><td><b>56.5</b> cents/mile</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">medical or moving</td><td><b>24</b> cents/mile</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">charitable</td><td><b>14</b> cents/mile</td></tr>
</table>
<hr />
<b>Postage</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">1 oz</td><td><b>46</b> cents</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">postcard</td><td><b>33</b> cents</td></tr>
</table>
<p>On January 27, 2013, the 1 oz rate will increase to <b>46</b> cents and the Postcard rate will increase to <b>33</b> cents.</p>
<hr />
<b>Population</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td class="i">U.S.</td><td class="b">315.7 million</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">world</td><td class="b">7.1 billion</td></tr>
</table>
<p align="center">
<i>one birth every </i><b>8</b><i> seconds;</i><br />
<i>one death every </i><b>12</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>14</b><i> seconds.</i>
</p>
<hr />
<b>U.S. Civilian Workforce</b>
<hr />
<table>
<tr><td /><td class="u">March 2013</td><td class="u">March 2012</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Total</td><td class="b">155,025,000</td><td class="b">154,707,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Employed</td><td class="b">143,286,000</td><td class="b">142,020,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployed</td><td class="b">11,742,000</td><td class="b">12,686,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Want A Job</td><td class="b">6,722,000</td><td class="b">6,315,000</td></tr>
<tr><td class="i">Unemployment Rate</td><td class="b">7.6%</td><td class="b">8.2%</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">2012</td><td class="b">+0.7%</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>