Back From Vegas With Great Links

Just got back from a quick vacation in Las Vegas with a picture from the top of THEhotel at Mandalay Bay from my Blackberry (to the right) and some great links (below):

-Yahoo! HotJobs starts us out with some truth about resume lies and some advice to people looking for jobs about how to make the truth sound better (H/T Wendy). There is some good advice in here for Human Resources about how to treat resumes and how other people define "embellishment".

-This is not something for Texans to be proud of from WFAA:

In one of the largest civil rights investigations ever undertaken in Texas, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declared that at least 100 African-Americans worked in a hostile environment and were subjected to racial graffiti, nooses, and symbols of hate while employed by Turner Industries in Paris, Texas.

-Harvard Business Review asks if all employees are knowledge workers? One bolded point from the article: "Perhaps the single greatest lesson from Japanese auto manufacturers is that all employees are ultimately knowledge workers and that the role of the firm is to both encourage and support problem-solving by all employees."

-Lastly, Simply Hired Blog has the winners of their Dream Job Contest. I like the most creative: "Rainbow Chaser and Pot of Gold Location Expert, also skilled in the identification of Silver Linings"

The HR Impact of Sterling Cooper in 2009

If you don't watch AMC's hit show Mad Men, you should start immediately. It's a fabulous show about a fictional 1960s Madison Avenue advertising agency named Sterling Cooper and the trials of tribulations of the agency and the main character, Don Draper.

One of the things that's great about the show is how they keep everything authentic for the time. That means that people drink, smoke, and take part in a lot of other activities that make Human Resource professionals cringe today, including excluding all minorities (and Jews), gender discrimination, and sexual harassment. But how much of what takes place in Sterling Cooper would not be allowed to go on today? Halogen Life did a great look at that and determined that while the drinking and the smoking may fly in certain states and certain companies, the sexual harassment and discrimination would not (H/T Jay for the article). Here are their conclusions:

• Smoking - A smoke-filled Madison Avenue boardroom couldn’t legally exist today as New York, along with 22 other states, has laws banning smoking in the workplace, but unless the federal government or your city steps in, you’re free to light up in your office in over half of the states.

• Drinking - For white-collar workers, there’s nothing legally wrong with knocking a few back in the office, per se. Federal law only deals with alcohol consumption in the workplace if it would threaten the health and safety of other employees or the public — like if the employee must drive or operate machinery. Obviously providing drinks to those under 21 can land you in hot water, but unless you happen to live in a particularly “dry” community where the sale and possession of alcohol is regulated, you’re probably in the clear. Office worker bees who don’t have those concerns are free to imbibe, so long as the boss approves.

• Discrimination - Up until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination was only prohibited by state and federal governments. Private businesses were free to hire and fire on any criteria they chose. Though actual change was slow coming, the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibited businesses with over 15 employees from discriminating based upon race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

• Sexual Harassment/Gender Discrimination - While women were covered in the discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee didn’t explicitly forbid sexual harassment as discrimination until 1980. Today, in the era of mandatory sensitivity trainings, Sterling Cooper would be hit with lawsuits faster than you can cry “sexual harassment.”

• Their conclusion? - It’s unfortunately fathomable that the kind of womanizing and discrimination rampant at Sterling Cooper could still occur today, but if you’re looking to inject a little bit of a Mad Men-esque feel to your work day, be safe and stick with the scotch. And maybe a smoke — outside.

Our conclusion? Show Mad Men at work...during training sessions of what NOT to do in the workplace. There are many more aspects of the show that would garner the attention of Human Resources such as women not being promoted past secretary status (save a token promotion for Peggy). Although romanticized on the show, some aspects of Sterling Cooper are best left in the 1960s, especially if your company wants to avoid fines and lawsuits.

What I’m Hearing…The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Compensation came to the forefront of the nation last night, as Democratic Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaigns to return to Washington, D.C. to vote on pending legislation. The topic at hand? The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The legislation failed to pass in the Senate, with a 56-42 vote. The bill is likely dead for the rest of 2008.

The Ledbetter Act’s main focus was to extend the statue of limitations for filing pay discrimination claims. Had the law been passed, individuals would have been able to file such lawsuits years and decades after the alleged discrimination occurred.

I don’t disagree with the need to ensure equal pay between the sexes. With all other factors being equal, paying someone less simply because she is a woman is wrong. However, the concept of statute of limitations is an important part of our legal system. We cannot allow new legislation on matters including and beyond Human Resources to erode this foundation. Otherwise, our already litigious society will become even more so, with far reaching effects including higher insurance costs, increased money spent on legal fees, greater court backlog, and general ill will. Let’s instead focus our time on preventing such discriminatory actions from occurring in the first place, and proactively remedying any that may have unfortunately already occurred.

Washington's Rulings

We go to Washington and the Washington Post for our blog articles for this Thursday...

First from the Post, word about the Supreme Court declaring that FedEx Workers can sue over age discrimination: click here

More from today on the same case (in some articles they called it ageism and some called it age bias...all the same idea) and some of the reasons involved and repercussions for Human Resources and what happened with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the case: click here

Lastly from the Post on an unrelated topic, an article about an upside for the Middle Class: click here

Too Old? Not in the Workplace

One of the forms of discrimination that may be more prevalent than people think and which many people know very little about is age discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has facts about age discrimination here: click here

And the United States Department of Labor has information here: click here

But this issue is not as cut and dry as many people would think. Recently my dad was unemployed for a while and while trying to get a new job, he did everything he could to hide his age because of his perceived bias on the part of the people who he was interviewing with.

And he's not the only one...the Supreme Court will hear five Age Discrimination cases according to the Washington Post: click here

The Christian Science Monitor also takes up the issue putting out the issue of: when can people sue for age discrimination: click here

Although this would seem to be a cut and dry area, many companies have policies against older employees and many fire older, tenured employees to bring in younger ones.

And then there's an article from the Boston Globe saying that colleges, companies, and state officials in Massachusetts are giving incentives for young people to stay in state: click here

Although this seems like a good, practical idea with many Baby Boomers retiring and a need for these young workers, how can giving these incentives to young workers and not to the older ones NOT be age discrimination? Would someone have a case against these organizations that provide this incentive?

We'll find out quite soon after the Supreme Court ruling...