HR pros are writing about The Paycheck Fairness Act and The Employee Free Choice Act, and I think the discussions are — for the most part — fair & interesting. I respect many of the writers out there, and I know their opinions are intelligent and well-researched.
Unfortunately, I am sensing a trend — on the blogs, on Twitter, and in general conversations — where Human Resources professionals feel the need to overcompensate for our profession’s poor reputation by criticizing the US government’s involvement in the business world. I think the Senate could introduce a piece of legislation to make chocolate the official flavor of America and some Generalist with her SPHR certification might say, “Wait a second, now. Let’s not be hasty. We should be strategic and consider the impact of the Chocolate Act. What will this do to our businesses? Does this mean more paperwork? More compliance issues?”
Here’s my advice to HR professionals out there:
- Sometimes, despite the best efforts of Grover Norquist and the US Chamber of Commerce to convince you otherwise, the government has a good idea.
I am not here to tell you whether or not you should support the Paycheck Fairness Act or the Employee Free Choice Act, although I’m sure you can tell that I support both pieces of legislation. I am just tired of coaching and mentoring HR professionals who consider themselves to be strategic thinkers and wonder why they can’t impress their clients or prove their ‘free-market-bona-fides‘ in the work environment.
Let me give it to you straight: you don’t change the world and end HR’s identity crisis by jumping all over smart and thoughtful legislation. This applies to legislation about pay equity, unions, and chocolate.
It’s time for a change, my fellow HR peeps. I’m ready.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Get real, Laurie. What HR pro in his or her right mind would not immediately and wholeheartedly endorse chocolate?
Interesting post. I agree, it does seem strange to take a blanket approach against employment legislation when, without it the profession itself would probably not exist. The first good kickstart to the IR field came from the new deal legislation in the ’30s, and then the boom time for HR began after the civil rights regs in the US. Both of these led to significant interventions in the free market in the interests of public welfare. Since then, the technologies developed regarding fairness and ‘good management’ have spread around the world. HR pro’s should be taking a balanced view on the question ‘how can the legislative environment positively influence our profession in the future’.
Laurie, it’s situations like these that I consider a “perfect storm”, a confluence of mediocrity and closemindedness, misinformation, and graft of proportions seen but once in a lifetime (by once in a lifetime, I refer to the lifetime of a common housefly, because if you have had access to a TV, newspaper, or the Googles at anypoint in the last 6 months, you realize that this perfect storm may be our new status quo). I support the paycheck fairness act, I’m saddened that in a country of presumed equals, we have to legislate “fairness” it’s a sad commentary that as a society that we have to be reminded of the golden rule, shame on us.
The EFCA personally scares me. I’ve lost faith in a governement, regardless of political party, that makes a majority of decisions not based on the need of their constituents, but instead on the wants of their donors. I add to the equation that the Unions have contributed to this legislation with the same zeal that the banks and financial companies poured money into efforts to loosen regulation and oversight (how’d that work out for us). To the mix now add a strong dash of knee jerk reactionary ignorance from the companies (way to really Chicken Little this one up HR), multiply it by two, once for the ignorance of never taking the time to fully understand the proposed act (wait maybe reading a headline in an HR magazine could count…) as well as the ignorance about the needs of their workers (affordable heathcare anyone?). Finally, subtract the voice of the workers from the equation, who’s involving them in these decisions that have the greatest impact on their ability to support themselves and families?
It’s a shame you can’t legislate common sense, but I believe, more often than not the answers lie in the place we fear most to go in this great county of ours: the middle.
Also, I must note I am firmly agains any chocolate legislation. It is clear that neopolitan is the one flavor that unites us all!
What seems to be missing a great deal of the time is the delicate balancing act, or as Jimmy put it, meeting in the middle.
Businesses exist for one reason, to provide a return for the investors. Businesses need employees to run. The vast majority of us do not have independent sources of wealth and need to work for businesses to meet our basic needs. So businesses need employees and employees need businesses.
I believe that are basic human rights that should be met and that employees should have a good working situation including such things as being treated fairly. But the government sometimes gets carried away with its legislation and makes it difficult for businesses to continue to earn a return, therefore to continue running and employing people.
I think some legislation is absolutely necessary because there are those business owners who lack common sense, and there are also those business owners who are greedy and try to profit at the expense of others (though definitely not all). But legislation cannot eliminate all profits or we’ll REALLY have unemployment problems.
Overcompensating for HR’s poor reputation? I don’t think that’s the reason most people in HR are against some of the pending legislation.
The most obvious reason is that we have the unfortunate duty of trying to comply with some of the laws that have been poorly implemented and that these laws seem to be written in a similar fashion. When you have recent rewrites of laws like FLSA, FMLA and ADA that end up more convoluted and confusing than the original convoluted and confusing laws, how are we supposed to react when we see more of the same?
The choice isn’t between blanket skepticism and open arms acceptance. I think both are bad. I haven’t felt that anybody (including you) has made an argument based on that ideology. Though I do find it interesting that the tactic of this post is to mock HR professionals who oppose the laws instead of arguing the merits of the laws. I don’t see too much of that on the other side of the argument from HR pros.
You can’t change the world with poorly written legislation either. I support a rewrite of PFA. I’d support more punitive penalties for companies that union squash. I don’t support current legislation because it is screwed up. Perhaps I am just overcompensating for my inadequate career choice though?
@Perrik I know some HR pros out there who wouldn’t accept chocolate as an inclusive choice.
@James Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I’m very rarely about balance, myself.
@Jimmy This is really smart — and maybe what I’m responding to is the Chicken Littling (love that) of HR. I’m not afraid of EFCA, by the way. I’m afraid of a world that tries to force Neapolitan ice cream on me because it’s a safe bet and offers a little bit of mediocre ice cream to everyone. Give me chocolate or give me death.
@Darcy I agree that government can’t eliminate profits. I’m pro-money and I like nice things. I just think the knee-jerk reaction to legislation is a little silly.
@Lance What bothers me most is that HR isn’t represented by a strong voice when legislation is rewritten — so you’re right that we are left with the mess. I’m not offering up a choice between blanket skepticism and open arms acceptance, either. I’m just sick of the strong rhetoric that puts HR people in a corner. You’re either anti-government (and on the side of your business leaders) or you’re an idiot. There’s nothing strategic about HR when we blindly choose a side.
Also, I’m not mocking HR professionals who oppose this legislation. (See first paragraph.) I have a sharp tongue, but I really respect my HR colleagues and peers who have well-informed opinions, yo.
Having just gone through one of the largest corporate smear campaigns by a union in the country, I have to ask the question as to why specifically you support the EFCA or “card-check” legislation?
I have spoken with employees who were stalked by union members in order to get cards signed. They went to their grandmother’s house, they approached their pastors, they would do anything to get someone to sign a card, including telling them they were only signing a card to get “more information.”
I would agree that current board law needs to be changed, but I would never substitute the right to vote in a democratic, secret-ballot election, with repeated and unending home visitations, pressure from your pastor/minister, using family to encourage you to sign a card, etc. I have seen too many people sign a card to “get information” or because they were pressured. The unions also tend to focus on the least educated employees, so people tend to sign many things without reading the fine print or understanding the gravity of their signature.
If card-check legislation passes, I hope that a provision is added that a decertification can be done by the same easy card signing/petition method!!!
We had the opportunity to see both sides of a story in the presidential election and make a choice in a voting booth. The same should be afforded to employees. Maybe we should conduct all elections by home visit?
Change is Coming
http://humanracehorses.blogspot.com/2009/01/making-case-for-debate.html
Most legislation related to Human Resources or economic policy is typically begun based around the intent to address a controversial topic in a positive manner. The problem with much legislation is that the concepts and positive intentions often wind up going astray during the implementation process.
The potential package of legislation currently being discussed for implementation in the 111th Congress represents some of the most sweeping reforms and changes in work force and labor policy in the United States in decades.
No matter your opinion on this legislation, or any singular piece of legislation, there is one truth for 2009: No matter what else, we will see change and reform alter the way Human Resources and Labor Relations works in the United States.
Every person who has anything to do with the HR field, and beyond will be impacted directly. It is critical that HR professionals sharpen their skills and prepare to adapt for these changes, and the skills required are going to cover many areas beyond those required to do talent management or benefits or compensation well.
Conflict resolution, mediation, arbitration, negotiation, change management, creating the right kind of culture, and persuasive communication are all going to be very necessary skills for HR going forward, like it or not. We will see change, but it may not be the change that either side in the currently raging “Generalist or No Generalist” debate foresees right now.
Looming Legislation
Here is a list of some of the most significant:
1. Universal Health Care
2. Ledbetter/Fair Paycheck Act
3. Healthy Families Act – paid sick leave
4. The Employee Free Choice Act
5. Elimination of Striker Replacements
6. Elimination of 14(b) of the NLRA – Right to Work
7. RESPECT Act
8. TRADE Act
This list is not intended to be all-inclusive, but does cover a number important initiatives that will have significant impact on economic and labor policies in the United States.
Rather than being single-mindedly for or against issues, or even a complete agenda, I think it is important to analyze the implications of such changes, and understand the potential impacts they may create.
Debate and Argument
So, fellow HR peeps, lend me your eye, your ears, and your voices, and be a part of HR-guments – a point/counter-point format for discussing the HR policy and legislative matters of the day
HR-guments – a forum for HR peeps to engage in agitation, altercation, argument, argumentation, blah-blah, cogitation, contention, contest, controversy, controverting, deliberation, dialectic, disputation, dispute, forensic, hassle, match, meditation, mooting, polemic, rebutting, reflection, refuting, tiff, words, and wrangle with the hottest topics of the day!
What a great discussion, I love it! However I do have one concern with all of the pending legislation. If this is going to occupy so much time, who can assure me that we will still have the 1st Monday in June Lunch Break Bean Bag Toss? I’ve really come to count on winning that $5 coupon to the employee store.
I’m not nearly as kind as Laurie is.
If one more HR blowhard says “if you support/don’t support X legislation then you are ___________” I’m going to kick someone in the shin.
You don’t necessarily have to work in HR to have an opinion on EFCA!
This is what Home Depot’s founder Bernie Marcus said on EFCA:
From The Huffington Post November, 2008:
“If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to Norm Coleman and these other guys,” Mr. Marcus said, apparently referring to Republican senators facing tough re-election fights, then those retailers “should be shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs.”
@Nomaaaahr Dude, I know the card check legislation is flawed. The current way we vote for unions is flawed, too. I’m all about a third way, but I can’t write a 4000 word post on the nuances of the card check legislation — and the positions I support — because no one would read it.
Thanks for your comments, though.
@Jimmy Holy crap. This is a book, your gems.
@Jenn You don’t see the value because you aren’t strategic.
@Michael Holy crap, we need to publish this as a post. Let me email you about it.
I’m sorry, I assumed form your post that when you say you support the legislation, that you support it “as written.” I guess that’s what happens when you ASS-U-M-E.
And I’m not a dude (there aren’t many in HR anyway). And I like chocolate. I am just so vehemently opposed to this legislation I thought you’d offer some opinion as to why you “support” it as you say. We must have different definitions of support.
@Nomar [I did assume you were a dude, but I also call everyone a dude. Sorry about that.
] I’ve been worked in HR organizations that have illegally worked to subvert unions. I support the idea of empowering employees to choose representation based on facts. The new legislation could inappropriately push unions on unwilling employees; however, if employees really knew how much corporate money and time was spent on union avoidance and wage deflation — as opposed to putting that money into benefit programs and back into wages — they wouldn’t need this new legislation. They would support unions with more gusto.
Right, I forgot! Whew, that is a relief.
Badconsultant would be pleased to tender a statement of work for our “Make your shin kicks strategic… And Win!” ((r) 1/16/09) health, wellness, spirituality and ass-kickingness development framework.
We too enjoyed the chicken little nomenclature – and will add it to our knowledge management database.
Yours, uber-strategically,
BC
Dear Laurie;
In my opinion, the Paycheck Fairness Act may become a good thing. The proven gender pay inequality needs to be more proactively, and if necessary, reactively addressed and resolved. This includes at least this tripod of fairness – equal, education, experience.
The Employee Free Choice Act is poison from several perspectives, practices and philosopies. I will address these on my blog.
Thank you for the challenge and opportunity to coalesce my thoughts.
I flat out don’t support either act.
I also don’t think that all companies spend a tremendous amount of time trying to keep unions out while simultaneously lowering pay and benefits. Heck, one of my responsibilities at a former employer was to analyze our competitors’ union contracts, document the benefits and propose pay and benefits strategies so that our employees were always paid better than the unions.
Most of our hourly workforce had, at one time or another, worked for a unionized competitor. Overwhelmingly they had chosen to give up the safe union job for an opportunity to be recognized on their own merits.
Card Check legislation could only serve to enrich union coffers and deny people the chance to really understand what they were getting into. If a group truly wants to unionize, fine, but they deserve the opportunity to understand what they are signing up for.
@BC Please consider adding “HR Generalist and Best Practices in the Strategic Initiatives Space
Laurie;
As promised. http://mainehrcafe.com/2009/01/18/the-employee-free-choice-act/
More laws regulating what we can and can
@RSM I stumbled you!
@Brandon The solution to legislation is more legislation!