The topic of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime violations came up several times during last week's Employment Law Symposium, hosted by the Mid-Cities Human Resources Association and sponsored by Imperative Information Group.

As this bizjournals.com article suggests, many employers don't understand all of the variables in calculating overtime, particularly in relation to bonuses. The small business in the article was sued for overtime violations by three employees after paying their employees a bonus for doing a good job. The employees alleged that the bonus increased their regular rate of pay and sued for the additional overtime due them for the period covered by the bonus. The business owners spent $400,000 defending the lawsuit before settling.

"The difference between the amount actually paid and the higher rate was trivial, but all the fees made it an exorbitant amount," said one of the owners.

Under the FLSA, non-discretionary bonuses such as might be paid out in pay-for-performance plans, change an employee's "regular rate" of pay retroactively. So, that $2,000 year-end bonus for meeting performance objectives may adjust the regular rate of pay for a full-time employee who worked 150 hours overtime during the year by 89¢ ($2,000 / 2,230 regular and overtime hours).

So, the employer is liable to the employee for one-half of the extra 89¢ for each overtime hour worked for a total of $133.50.

[NOTE: I had to double check my process with the DOL's website. Initially, I only applied the bonus to the hours that were regularly scheduled (assuming 40 hours per week), which resulted in a slightly higher "regular rate" and a higher overtime rate. I believe some states' own wage and hour laws may calculate bonus overtime this way.]

Performance-based bonuses are probably still preferable to many other compensation schemes in a tight economy, but employers need to plan ahead to make sure they don't have to defend a lawsuit next year due to the impact of this year's bonus.

The rap artist Shaggy had a hit song a few years ago called "It Wasn't Me" about a man who's girlfriend caught him cheating with another woman. (Cheating so bad in fact, that I dare not link the music video to this posting. I'm still blushing.) His friend's advice was deny, deny, deny. "It wasn't me!"

Job applicants sometimes make this claim, as well.

The Philadelphia Daily News ran a column today entitled Tainted record, the result of ID theft, foils work quest for father of 5. The column focuses sympathetically on Charles Canty, who claims that he has had a difficult time finding a job because of an identity thief who has apparently committed several crimes under his name. He claims that background checks continue to report the cases, all of which have been dismissed, and that employers are not hiring him based upon those records. (Jump to the end if you can't wait to get the full story on his situation.)

As a background screening firm, we often get calls from job applicants who are upset that they've been eliminated from consideration because of something on their background check. (See my previous post: An Angry Consumer is on Line One) Because we don't rely on criminal records databases and we select our local court research provider relationships based on quality rather than price, we know that the information we provide to our client matches the information in the court's files.

But what happens when the court's records are wrong or incomplete or there are two people out there with the same name and date of birth and one of them is a criminal? Maybe it really wasn't him!

Identity theft in criminal records is uncommon but we certainly see more of it than we did ten years ago. On rare occasion, we come across people who share the same name and date of birth, as well. Often, there are enough inconsistencies between the court's records and other information we have verified about the applicant during the rest of the background check process to flag us to the stolen or mistaken identity. 

A couple years ago, we conducted a background investigation on a candidate for a professional position. His employment history was solid for over a decade and there were no gaps in employment. All indications were that he had lived in the same city for the last fifteen years.

However, our search of a multi-jurisdictional criminal records database (other firms call them "national databases" but we know that greatly overstates their reliability) reflected records for a defendant with this individual's very unique name and date of birth. We verified the records with the courts - the problem was that the defendant had served jail time is counties hundreds of miles away from where our client's applicant had lived and worked for the last fifteen years.

Something was obviously amiss, so we ordered copies of the court documents and mug shots from the two sheriff departments (one in South Texas and the other in South Carolina). When we received the documents and photos, we learned that the defendant was a five foot, five inch tall white male. We also learned that he had provided two different social security numbers when he was arrested - further checking determined that one belonged to a woman and the other had never been issued. Additionally, the drivers license number he used in his Texas arrest belonged to yet another person!

 

These are the mug shots we received from the sheriff's offices.

A quick call to my client confirmed that their candidate was a black man over six feet tall. Obviously, the guy in these photos doesn't match that description!

This confirmed that either his identity had been stolen or that he was the victim of an unfortunate coincidence of having the same name and date of birth as a criminal offender.

While the client received a clean and accurate background check, we contacted the applicant directly to inform him of the situation, which is sure to come up again.

Now, to Mr. Canty, the subject of the Philadelphia Daily News column. The sound of sad violins playing in the background were a little too loud, so we did a little quick research just to check.

According to the Pennsylvania courts, Mr. Canty still has an active case in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas with counts including attempted burglary and trespass (case CP-51-CR-0015243-2009). Perhaps this case will also be dismissed due to identity theft but the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the column makes me wonder if it was inconvenient to the theme of this column ("downtrodden man as victim").

Also according to court records, in 2007 Mr. Canty pled nolo contendere (no contest) in case MC-51-CR-0043783-2007 to possession of a controlled substance and served twelve months probation. Perhaps the identity thief was also responsible for this case and served the probation but if that were the case, why wouldn't it have been mentioned in the column? There's no mention of any claim of actual convictions for crimes committed by others - that would have certainly made the degree of injustice even more outrageous.

He also has a 2004 conviction for retail theft in case MC-51-SU-0002945-2004, which was apparently before the identity theft occurred.

If any of these cases do belong to Mr. Canty, they are a far cry from the vague reference the columnist makes to the "'stupid stuff' he did in his faraway youth." (I still wear ties I bought in 2004!) They are, however, most likely the reason he has been unable to land a job for Comcast working at Temple University's Liacouras Center, a position that would put him in contact with the public and place him on a college campus.

The takeaway for employers in all of this is that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, the law governing employment-related background checks, lays outs a specific process to ensure that job applicants are treated fairly when anything in their background check may result in an adverse employment decision:

1. Before making the adverse employment decision, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of their background check and a statement of their rights under the law, which includes the right to dispute any incorrect information directly with the background screening firm. There's not a specific requirment in the FCRA that the name and contact information of the background screening firm be provided to the applicant at this time, however it just makes sense to do so.
    
2. After the applicant has received this information and reasonably had an opportunity to respond, the employer can evaluate the background check information and make the appropriate employment decision. If the applicant decides to dispute any of the information in the background check with the background screening firm, there is no requirement that the employer hold the job open for the applicant while the screening firm reinvestigates the disputed information. In the case of a dispute, however, it is a good idea for the employer and the background screening firm to stay in communication as to the actions each is taking to ensure that negative decision is not made based upon faulty information.
    
3. If an adverse employment decision is made in whole or part based upon the background check, the employer must provide the applicant notice of the action and other information, including how to contact the background screening firm.

Working with a good background screening firm and following this process will ensure that when an applicant says "It wasn't me," everyone's interests are protected.

With the medical use of marijuana deemed legal in Colorado, employers face competing legal issues in deciding how to respond to positive drug screens. Safety and legal issues may be at odds and with no case law to guide them, Colorado employers' compliance efforts may be up in smoke.

Read more at Portfolio.com.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last week announced that 93,277 workplace discrimination charges were filed with the federal agency nationwide during Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, the second highest level ever, and monetary relief obtained for victims totaled over $376 million. The total number of charges was actually more than 2,000 fewer than in FY 2009, a record-setting year.

Race, sex, and retaliation claims were the leading charges filed. The number of retaliation charges (charges that the employer has taken punitive action against an employee for taking some legally protected action) has increased by 50% in the last five years.

The comprehensive enforcement and litigation statistics for FY 2009, which ended Sept. 30, 2009, are posted on the agency’s web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm.

Now might be a good time to revisit your supervisor training and your employment practice liability insurance limits.

The recently passed law amending the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act places statutory obligations on employers that use E-Verify. Effective January 1, 2010, Illinois employers now are required to complete an attestation at the time of E-Verify enrollment.

More info from Ogletree Deakins...

The Wall Street Journal ran an article today titled More Job Seekers Scramble To Erase Their Criminal Past discussing how job seekers are seeking to legally delete their criminal records for minor offenses.

Though written from the job seeker's point of view, the article does a fair job of highlighting the increasing flexibility by legislatures and courts to erase or limit the use by employers of "minor" criminal offenses. There was, however, one significant error by the author related to the legal use of criminal records.

The heat continues to rise on employers who use credit reports in making hiring decisions. 

Workforce Management just ran a piece about stepped up EEOC enforcement actions against employers who use credit reports in a manner that adversely impacts protected classes.

Josh LeTourneau, one of the bloggers at Fistful of Talent, did a great job of arguing against the indiscriminate use of credit reports in an article posted today.

When I was on the HR manager side of the desk, I was always dubious of using credit as a predictor of dishonesty. Now, after more than a decade as the owner of a background investigations firm, I routinely try to dissuade clients from even looking at applicants' or employees' credit reports. In many cases, I've just refused to sell the reports to employers who I believed were going to use them unwisely.

I have yet to see a study that correlates bad credit and dishonesty.

Like so-called "national" criminal records and other database-based screening products, credit reports are instant, relatively inexpensive, and easy to sell. They are also full of information that is often neither job-relevant or accurate. The problem is that too many HR folks aren't educated by their screening partners in the appropriate use of these and other selection tools (personality assesments come to mind).

While we would all like to have perfect employees without any financial. personal, or professional blemish, they don't exist. Employers who paint candidates with less than ideal credit or a criminal history with a broad brush will often miss opportunities to add qualified and committed employees to their organizations.

Smart employers have a plan on how they will evaluate any screening results before they ever order the background check. They make sure the criteria is job-related and that there is a clear business-necessity for any adverse decisions that may be made. That will help keep you out of court and help you build a competitive workforce.

Last week, I had a chance to visit with Dr. Don Mills, Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs at Texas Christian University, and Jonathan Roark, TCU's Director of Emergency Preparedness and Business Continuity, about the Horned Frog's H1N1 preparations. Their insight should be useful for other employers are preparing for this unusual flu season.

TCU began their business continuity planning six years ago when the avian flu became a world-wide health concern. Then, when H1N1 surfaced this spring, they began preparing for this fall's flu season.

TCU's planning efforts focused first on education and prevention efforts. "We knew we couldn't beat it, but we might be able to manage it," said Dr. Mills.

One major concern for employers like TCU is controlling the infection by limiting employee's exposure to the virus, which means encouraging those with influenza-like illness (ILI) to stay home. While TCU didn't formally change their attendance policies, they deciding to handle each circumstance on a case-by-case basis. TCU made it clear that "nobody is going to lose their job because they are sick and we don't want anyone to suffer economically because they get sick - but mostly we don't want them coming to work and other people getting sick," said Dr. Mills.

All of their planning was put to the test during the first week of the fall semester when 200 student flu cases were reported. Because of their preparations and the relatively short duration of the flu strain (3 - 5 days), they were quickly able to move past that initial challenge but they are still experiencing 35 - 50 cases per week. Dr. Mills said that the current case load is very manageable. "We feel pretty fortunate. We think it is because we've been aggressive in telling people what they need to do."

Although they don't expect a major outbreak of the flu to occur on their campus, Dr. Mills believes that TCU is ready for a worst case scenario. Their business continuity plan in the event a large number of employees be unable to report to work at the same time includes:

• Plans to consolidate work units in key areas such a food service,
• Cross-training employees, and
• Identifying temporary sources for employees.

Jonathan Roark has been coordinating TCU's preparation efforts with state and local health officials, as well as maintaining regular communication with other area institutions about their preparation efforts and experiences with infections.

Thanks for Dr. Mills and Mr. Roark for their willingness to share TCU's experience and insight with the community. Enjoy the video!

On a side note: This was our first effort at video blogging (vlogging). Two things I learned:

1. Don't forget the dang tripod (that's why it has a Blair Witch Project shake).

2. If you're going to interview two people with one camera, have them sit next to each other!

Also, thanks to our marketing intern, Christina Quezeda, for her efforts in coordinating this interview!

<div class = "gray_content">Mike Coffey is president of Imperative Information Group, a Fort Worth, Texas-based background investigations and business due diligence firm dedicated to clients who can't afford a cheap background check.  For more information about Imperative Information Group's services, contact Mike at 877-HR-FACTS (877-473-2287) or visit us online at <a href="http://www.imperativeinfo.com">http://www.imperativeinfo.com</a>.</div>

H1N1 - the swine flu - is back with a vengance. While the severity of this fall's H1N1 outbreak is unpredictable, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has described as "plausible" that 30-50% of the US population may be infected and as many as 1.8 million Americans may be hospitalized with H1N1. Because most of those who are infected will be employed, many employers may scrambling to keep their doors open with a reduced workforce. Later this week, we'll talk about disaster planning (disaster may overstate it - unless you're one of the employers who loses half of their workforce to the flu), but first, let's review what action the experts are suggesting employers take to help keep their workforce healthy.

Planning for the 2009 H1N1 Influenza: A Preparedness Guide for Small Businesses, published by the Department of Homeland Security, covers a number of topics from health tips to emergency planning suggestions. One section of the guide shares ten tips for keeping employees healthy during seasonal outbreaks of viruses like the flu:

• Develop policies that encourage ill workers to stay at home without fear of any reprisals.
• Develop other flexible policies to allow workers to telework (if feasible) and create other leave policies to allow workers to stay home to care for sick family members or care for children if schools close.
• Provide resources and a work environment that promotes personal hygiene. For example, provide tissues, no-touch trash cans, hand soap, hand sanitizer, disinfectants and disposable towels for workers to clean their work surfaces.
• Provide education and training materials in an easy to understand format and in the appropriate language and literacy level for all employees. See www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/business.
• Instruct employees who are well but who have an ill family member at home with the flu that they can go to work as usual. These employees should monitor their health every day, and notify their supervisor and stay home if they become ill. Employees who have a certain underlying medical condition or who are pregnant should promptly call their health care provider for advice if they become ill.
• Encourage workers to obtain a seasonal influenza vaccine, if it is appropriate for them according to CDC recommendations (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm). This helps to prevent illness from seasonal influenza strains that may circulate at the same time as the 2009 H1N1 flu.
• Encourage employees to get the 2009 H1N1 vaccine when it becomes available if they are in a priority group according to CDC recommendations. For information on groups recommended for seasonal and H1N1 vaccines, please see www.flu.gov. Consider granting employees time off from work to get vaccinated when the vaccine is available in your community.
• Provide workers with up-to-date information on influenza risk factors, protective behaviors, and instruction on proper behaviors (for example, cough etiquette; avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth; and hand hygiene).
• Plan to implement practices to minimize face-to-face contact between workers if advised by the local health department. Consider the use of such strategies as extended use of e-mail, websites and teleconferences, encouraging flexible work arrangements (for example, telecommuting or flexible work hours) to reduce the number of workers who must be at the work site at the same time or in one specific location.
• If an employee does become sick while at work, place the employee in a separate room or area until they can go home, away from other workers. If the employee needs to go into a common area prior to leaving, he or she should cover coughs/sneezes with a tissue or wear a facemask if available and tolerable. Ask the employee to go home as soon as possible.

In addition to the information above, there is also a set of tips tailored toward individual health maintenance within the CDC's guide. Employers might also share this information from the CDC's Germ Stopper site with employees. The CDC also has downloadable posters on how to "cover your cough" that you might post around your workplace - or the door to your kids' bedroom.

Hint: Cough into your elbow. Your coworkers (and your dry cleaner) will thank you for it. 

There are more extensive details on each of these tips on the www.flu.gov website.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's website contains a fact sheet titled What Employers Can Do to Protect Workers from Pandemic Influenza that explains a “hierarchy of controls” employers should address to limit workplace exposure to hazards of a pandemic flu outbreak. In order from most to least effective, OSHA lists

• engineering controls,
• administrative controls,
• workplace practices, and
• personal protective equipment.

When employees are out with flu-like symptoms, they shouldn't rush back to work. While the CDC has reduced the time that they recommend that those who appear to have recovered from the flu, they still recommend "that people with influenza-like illness remain at home until at least 24 hours after they are free of fever (100° F [37.8°C]), or signs of a fever without the use of fever-reducing medications." During the spring H1N1 outbreak, "most people with the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus who were not hospitalized had a fever that lasted 2 to 4 days; this would require an exclusion period of 3 to 5 days in most cases." Employers should communicate this to employees and encourage them be cautious about returning to work.

According to the Department of Human and Health Services testimony before Congress, about 25% of businesses do not reopen following a major disaster, so smart employers will take steps to minimize the effects on H1N1 on their employee populations.

Coming Wednesday: Disaster planning - what if half (or more) of your employees can't come into work?

Doctor's offices and hospitals around the country have been flooded with cases of H1N1 - the swine flu - and Texas is a hotspot. The Texas Department of State Health Services has classified the flu as "widespread" - it's highest measure of infection rates - meaning "there are increases in flu-like illnesses and recent lab-confirmed flu cases in at least half of the state's regions."

Huntsville closed their public school campuses for a couple days last month due to flu-related absences and a hospital in Austin erected tents to treat the influx of patients complaining of flu-like symptoms. Closer to home, Dallas and Tarrant Counties both recorded their first swine flu-related deaths in the last month.

According the the CDC, the H1N1 vaccine won’t be available until mid-October and the currently available seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against H1N1. The longer individuals are able to delay the spread of both H1N1 and seasonal influenza, the higher the likelihood people accessing the vaccination in time to prevent falling ill.

Flu prevention and contingency planning will be very important for businesses this fall. Illness in their workforce, employee's families, or even elsewhere in the supply chain could significantly injure the bottom lines of firms just beginning to recover from the recent recession.

In the coming week, the Imperative Blog will include links to resources about workplace flu prevention measures and planning to ensure business continuity in the face of a significant outbreak. 

Stayed tuned...

Last Friday, I attended the TCU Neely School of Business' conference on business uses of social media. It was a great event that included a speaker from LinkedIn, Hubspot, SABRE Holding's Cubeless team, and Handango, as well as authors of recent books on Twitter and Facebook.

Using LinkedIn and Facebook for recruiting candidates was a hot topic, especially given the fat-free diets many recruiting departments are on these days. A couple mentions were also made with regard to using social media sites to background check applicants (executive summary: a bad idea... read on).

Worforce Management published an article last week on the same topic. In that article, my friend Pam Devata, an partner in Seyfarth Shaw's Chicago office, points out:

"Sourcing from professional network sites such as LinkedIn carries a risk that the method could be challenged on discrimination grounds,” Devata says. “It represents a hiring pool that is not open to the general population. Using a limited network may have a disparate impact. If hiring through these networks can be challenged, it will be."

Notice that Pam doesn't say "don't use LinkedIn to recruit." She simply points out that there is a disparate impact risk in limiting your recruiting tools. Lawyers from other firms make similar observations and advise against using the social media websites as background checking tools. All great advice.

So, I was surprised when one of my favorite HR bloggers, Kris Dunn at Fistful of Talent, responded with an article called 'Hey Employment Law "Experts", You're Killing My Profession.'  Kris isn't having any of it and argues risk-averse HR departments may take such advice as gospel to their own detriment. Jessica Lee had a similar but more gentle response. I agree that there is a risk there but at the same time I believe that there is a bigger risk of using social media as a recruiting or background screening tool without first evaluating it's place in the larger legal and talent management framework.

My response to Kris's article at the FOT website follows:

Anyone who has been through an OFCCP audit or defended an employment discrimination claim recognizes that the advice in the Workforce Management article is on target. On the flip side, though, I agree that too many HR departments are too-risk averse and take legal cautions as gospel.

The government and juries will look at the composition of your applicant pool and your outreach efforts to traditionally disenfranchised populations. You'd better be ready to defend your practices, whatever they are. Identifying and sourcing candidates through social media is great IF your pool of candidates is sufficiently diverse. If not, you better be reaching out to other recruitment sources (ethnic chambers of commerce, traditionally-minority institutions, groups assisting older workers or veterans transition to new jobs, etc.) to at least try to identify qualified candidates. Otherwise, you are painting a target on your back - not to mention potentially excluding some extremely qualified candidates to whom you may not have been exposed otherwise. But by all means, use social media (particularly professionally-orient social media like LinkedIn) to identify potential candidates.

Once an individual has formally expressed interest in a position (ugh, the old quandry about when in your organization an interested party becomes an applicant) the use of social media should be extremely cautious. Using a candidate's personal blog or facebook page to evaluate their freak-factor is lazy and would be hard to defend against discrimination claims. The EEOC's E-RACE initiative is targeting these sorts of unvalidated selection procedures.

I'm told that LinkedIn's Recruiter platform has a means of eliminating photos and other potentially discriminatory information from information received by recruiters. That's smart. It protects the recruiter from claims of bias (intentional or unintentional).

And while the FOT authors are very professional and deliberative recruiters who will do whatever is necessary to land the best talent for their firms, I've known some recruiters and many hiring managers for whom the first impression is as far as they ever get. If that first impression is a five-year-old picture of the candidate doing something stupid in college posted on flickr.com or tweetpic by someone else, that otherwise qualified candidate is out of the game and everyone loses.

The best advice I have for employers who believe that their employees’ online presence is job-relevant, need-to-know information is to create a firewall between the individual conducting the “social-media background check” and all hiring authorities. The person conducting the research should have clear guidelines about what information would be relevant to the position for which the candidate is being considered. Any potentially relevant information should be shared with a neutral member of management who can assess the information fairly without risking prejudicing the hiring manager prematurely. This reviewing authority might be a senior member of HR, Security, Risk Management, Legal, or perhaps even someone in the chain of command above the hiring manager. In some cases, your background screening firm might provide this service with a strict understanding of what will and will not be reported.

I know that seems a lot more complex than just googling candidates because your CEO “doesn’t like freaks,” but I’ll bet he doesn’t like all the lost productivity that comes from employee relations headaches and lawsuits, either.

Intelius, the online data broker notorius for selling information most people would consider personal to anyone who wants it, has released an iPhone application that is a must-have for the on-the-go stalker.

Their Date Check app is touted as a way for users to check out potential hook ups while they are still sitting next next to you at the bar. For a few bucks, you can use Date Check to check out your prospective paramour's background - criminal history, address... even an asset check - by providing as little initial information as their cell phone number.

This is an insanely dangerous idea for at least two reasons. First, all criminal records databases miss a lot of records. A LOT. This means that anyone relying on Intelius to determine whether the Prince or Princess Charming they just met at the monster truck after-party has a criminal record are potentially missing important information. The danger in this, as in relying on any criminal records database, is that users may rely on the information to make critical decisions... with potentially devastating consequences.

Of even more concern to me about this app, however, is the giant potential for abuse. This app obviously doesn't have any way of measuring the intent or goodwill of the user. Want that cute blonde's address so you can show up at her front door to convince her that you are soul mates? This is the app for you! Have a more nefarious intent? No problem!

This is such a bad and dangerous idea that I won't even post a link to their site. Google it and you'll see what a bad idea this really is.

Last Wednesday, I attended the DFW SMA’s Diversity Strategies panel discussion at the Gaylord Texan Resort in Grapevine. The group of five panelists not only represented a variety of perspectives, but brought a lot of value and insight to the table. Here’s a run down of the panel:

• Melissa Wallace, Manager of Diversity Strategies for American Airlines
• Elizabeth Otenaike, Diversity and Inclusion/Change Strategist for Lockheed Martin
• Gracie Vega, Vice President HR for Gaylord Texan Resort 
• Sherri Elliott, President of Gen InsYght and Author of Ties to Tattoos
• Nancy Ruth, Program Manager for Cultural Awareness International

Generally, diversity and inclusion are topics that can begin to sound redundant to employers and employees alike, but I found the contributions from these five professionals refreshing. During the discussion, they covered several topics including the scope of diversity, recruiting, and understanding diversity as a competitive advantage within an organization. As far as diversity goes, many of us have mastered "talking the talk", but how many companies actually "walk the walk"?

Recruiting strategies can have both a positive and negative impact on an organization, and implementing methods that take diversity into account doesn’t necessarily translate into race and gender considerations, according to Sherri Elliott. When asked how an organization can recruit and attract a diverse set of employees, she emphasized that although there are many factors to consider in the process, age and generational differences must be thoroughly understood.

Understanding the nature and impact of these generational differences may be to an organization’s advantage, particularly in times of economic distress when keeping valuable employees involved is crucial. Today, for example, more “Gen Yers” place more value on contributing worth to a company as opposed to reaping monetary benefits. 

Another, perhaps more prevalent, diversity issue was touched on frequently throughout the discussion--differences in values, nationalities and backgrounds. From an HR standpoint, it is not enough anymore to ensure your workforce is diverse. In fact, this reality often creates unintended and completely avoidable problems that affect productivity and profitability within a company. 

For example, Nancy Ruth, the program manager for Cultural Awareness International, cited a particular cross cultural conference call she encountered that underlined the consequences that can arise from not familiarizing oneself with cultural differences. This particular discussion, like so many others, faltered because of a lack of awareness--something organizations can help prevent by implementing the right programs and asking the right questions.

Perhaps the main send home in this entire panel discussion was that organizations and all individuals involved in running them must understand the intrinsic value and competitive advantage diversity provides. Greater success lies not only in the recognition of a problem, but also in the assessment of solutions. 

As Nancy Ruth put it:

“We tend to give platitudes for being diverse, but leave that value of it on the table... find the value that the diverse workforce brings.”

In summary, simply ensuring you have a diverse workforce is not enough. Effective articulation of goals, self benchmarking and assessing and initiatives by all levels of management to ensure understanding among employees and employers is the cornerstone of today’s more productive and profitable organization. It’s not only an opportunity to strengthen and establish commitment and security. It’s a business case for diversity.

For a  more in depth look at this subject, check out Mike's podcast interview about workplace diversity with Scott Airitam of Leadership Systems.

As an applicant, providing information to potential employers is routine when you’re looking for a job, but using discretion about who exactly you disclose it to is imperative. In this CraigsList Scammer article from the News-Sentinel, Aaron Organ cites just one of many unfortunate incidents that occur on a daily basis. 

A man in Michigan posing as an individual who needed a babysitter required applicants for the position to provide personal information in addition to a twenty five dollar background investigation fee, something employers typically do not require applicants to pay. Luckily, police were notified of the strange activity and arrested the scammer in a sting operation, but individuals answering classified ads must educate themselves and remain careful about internet scamming and phony employers in order to prevent something much worse than losing a few bucks—identity theft. 

The CraigsList website actually provides a link to a list of personal safety tips that should be followed when making a transaction with an individual you don’t know. You can find the list of helpful pointers here.

How many people in your organization are "happily employed, using their skills, with a sufficient feeling of security to plan the future, and a minimum of stressful overload?"

In an article on the Harvard Business blog, Rosabeth Moss Kanter calls hitting this "sweet spot" the goal of progressive companies employing value-based management techniques to encourage innovation and profitability. This, says Kanter, involves a shift in corporate mindset from managing employees to giving them the tools and opportunities to be successful. It's an interesting read that highlights what Kanter calls "vanguard companies" in this area, including Procter and Gamble and IBM efforts.

On a related note, during the upcoming HR Southwest Conference, Al Lucia will be presenting presentation title highlighting the importance of maximizing employee engagement and commitment. Register today!

I read three very insightful articles about social media, Twitter and Facebook to be exact, today.

Over at Fistful of Talent, Jessica Lee lists ways companies should use Twitter to enhance their employment brand. "Using Twitter will only work if you've got a kicking brand already - you can't buy this stuff and you can't make any of it up."

HR Capitali$t Kris Dunn asks "Hey Twitter: Do You Want to Be MySpace or LinkedIn?" in a great article about the rising tide of spam on Twitter.

Finally, over at the Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Bernstein has a funny but too true piece on the frivolous posts that populate many Facebook feeds. Great advice:

To improve our interactions, we need to change our conduct, not just cover it up. First, watch your own behavior, asking yourself before you post anything: "Is this something I'd want someone to tell me?" "Run it by that focus group of one," says Johns Hopkins's Dr. Wallace.

Happy reading!

Scott Nishimura at The Fort Worth Star-Telegram just published one of the most well-rounded articles I've read about using social media as a background checking tool. I'm not just saying that because he interviewed me for the article!

According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal, email is still the most common culprit in security breaches of company-confidential information. Blogs and other social media tools were also common sources of investigated breaches.

Companies have had email security policies for years. Many are now developing social media policies, as well. Social media policies often walk a fine line between protecting a company's reputation and proprietary information and making sure that social media consumers (blog readers or Twitter followers, for example) are engaged by the content. Two of my favorite bloggers, Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalst and Jessica Lee at Fistful of Talent, tackle this topic regularly. Click on the links to learn more.

A Canadian school bus driver who refused to consent to a background check conducted by a US-based firm has won a change in policy from her employer, according to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation story.

First Student Canada had previously run background checks through Canadian law enforcement but opted this year to procure background checks through a US firm - presumably the same firm used by their parent company, Ohio-based First Student, Inc. However, Stephanie Sydiaha refused to provide the necessary consent for the background check, citing concerns that US privacy laws are more lax than those in Canada.

I had the privilege of speaking to the Texas Association of Licensed Investigators' annual conference last Friday. It's always gratifying when there is a break in the middle of your presentation and everyone returns! In fact, it was standing room only during the second half of the presentation. (There were around 300 people in the session.)

The National Retail Federation just released a report that organized retail crime (ORC) has jumped by 8%. This increase is attributable in large part to economic pressures on retailers who've had to cut back their staffing and loss prevention efforts.

ORC often involves collusion with retail employees. In fact, according to the University of Florida's National Retail Security Survey, almost half of all retail shrink (loss of products between manufacture and point-of-sale), is related to employee theft. This is the single largest source of shrink.

Imperative is one of the three founding members of ConcernedCRAs, a group of  background screening firms collaborating in an effort to raise the marketplace's awareness of consumer protection issues .  In less that six months and with no advertising other than word of mouth, the group has to over 60 members! We released the following press release today.

Entre Nax Karage is one of the many wrongfully convicted murder defendants in Texas proven innocent by DNA testing and the Innocence Project. Although he was pardoned by Governor Rick Perry (the actual perpetrator was identified with DNA testing) and his criminal conviction was erased from Dallas County's records, he has continued to pay the price of his wrongful conviction.

LISTEN NOW:

In many organizations, few training topics suck the air out of the room faster than diversity training. However, succesful companies are finding that diverse workforces provide new depths of innovation, customer service, and brand recognition... in essence, making them more competitive in the marketplace. So how do we get past the basics of counting people in certain categories and move into an area where the company can really draw on the diversity of experience and background in its workforce?

Our guest today on the Imperative Podcast is Scott Airitam of Leadership Systems. Scott is a consultant, trainer, and co-author of Ethics for Everyone, The Handbook for Integrity-Based Business Practices. Scott will be the luncheon speaker at the North Texas SHRM's March 24th luncheon meeting.

LISTEN NOW:

Despite all the talk of HR's "seat at the table," in many organizations, HR is still a paper-pushing function. In others, we're the equivalent of Dr. No. Is it any wonder that HR is still not seen as a partner in many companies?

In this much-delayed edition of The Imperative Podcast, I interview Lisa Autry. Lisa is an employment law attorney and consultant who was actually in HR before she sold out and went to law school. She's got some great things to say about how HR has contributed to the sometimes negative perceptions opertions managers have toward us and how we can change them - especially when economic times are tough.

Lisa will be the speaker at the April 1st Mid-Cities HR Association Meeting.

LISTEN NOW:

Every day, we all face problems that cry out for creative solutions. And, if you’re like me, you’ve worked with people who can look at a seemingly complex problem and say, “Oh, here’s what you need to do” and then proceed to outline an elegant solution that solves the problem.

Man, I hate those people… but their creativity is invaluable to an organization’s survival in this economy.

Our guest on this edition of the Imperative Podcast says that we all have a creative genius hidden away inside of us. Stephen Thomas King is a “personal creativity coach” who consults with organizations of all sizes to help bring out the personal genius of their employees, from the C-suite to the shop floor. Stephen is author of The Creativity Code and the brains behind geniusforrent.com.

Stephen King will be the speaker at the North Texas SHRM Chapter’s February 24th luncheon meeting. You can register for that event by visiting www.northtexasshrm.org.

LISTEN NOW:

Like every other department, human resources managers are being asked to measure the effectiveness of their activities and report their impact on the organization's bottom line.

Most HR professionals are familiar with measurements like cost per hire and HR expense as percentage of company revenue. But do those kinds of measurements really reflect HR's contribution? How do you really measure HR - particularly as HR moves from a strictly transactional function to a consultative business partner?

Our guest today on The Imperative Podcast is Dr. George Benson. Dr. Benson is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Texas at Arlington. He is also an affiliated researcher with the Center for Effective Organizations at USC. Dr. Benson has a Masters in Public Policy from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in Business Administration from USC. Dr. Benson's research and writing has focused on a variety of HR issues.

One would be hard-pressed to find someone unaware that the government is currently trying to pass a stimulus bill to help jump start our economy.  However, finding someone fully aware of the specific details outlined in both versions of the bill (i.e. House and Senate versions) might prove more difficult. 

The New York Times reported that the two versions of the stimulus overlap on "90-plus percent" of the issues.  But after the Senate passes their version today, a conference committee will begin drafting a final version of the bill, making the necessary compromises on the other 10 percent of the issues. 

It is in this 10 percent where employers and HR professionals can find a signicant difference between the two bills.  The House version of the stimulus plan included the following stipulation:

SEC. 1114.  REQUIRED PARTICIPATION IN E-VERIFY PROGRAM.
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to enter into a contract with an entity that does not participate in the E-Verify program described in section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

This provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill, but it could be reinstated as compromises are discussed later this week.

E-Verify is the federal government's program for verifying online new hires' authorization to work in the US. President Obama has put on hold until May a Bush Administration Executive Order that would required all federal contractors to utilize the system.

LISTEN NOW:

In this episode of The Imperative Podcast, Mike interviews Dr. Lon Roberts on the subject of his February 19th presentation to the Fort Worth Human Resources Management Association. The title of his presentation is "Mastering the Art of Multitasting." As Lon points out, multitasking is on the rise in our never-ending quest to "do more with less." While acknowledging that multitasking is here to stay, Lon makes it clear that there is a sane and "insane" way of going about it.

Lon is a Principal Partner with the Texas-based training and consulting firm, Roberts & Roberts Associates. He is the author of four books and numerous articles, including several dealing with multitasking. From his research he also developed a training program on this topic that has been delivered to the U.S. Army and private sector companies.

Lon recently wrote an article for Defense AT&L magazine. The article is titled "Too Busy To Think: Cost, Consequences, and Causes of Multitasking Mania," and you can download a copy of the article below.

Download a copy of "Too Busy To Think"

You can register for the February 19th presentation online at www.fwhrma.org.

For more information about Roberts & Roberts Associates, visit their website at www.R2assoc.com. Or contact Lon at (972) 596-2956.

We hope you enjoy the podcast!

Three ways to listen to the podcast:

1. You can listen using our java-enabled player at the top of this post.

2. Or you can listen to the podcast in your computer's mp3 program by clicking the "Play mp3" button below (or right-click on the button and select "save target as..." to save the mp3 to your computer).

3. Or you can download the podcast and subscribe to future podcasts via iTunes.

According to the Washington Business Journal, the government has agreed to postpone the E-Verify requirement for federal contractors until May 21st.  This is the second time the requirement has been postponed.

The regulation would require all contractors working on government projects to check the E-Verify system to determine if workers are legally eligible to work in the United States.  The requirement was originally set to be enacted on January 15th, but then was pushed back to February 20th. 

For more information about the E-Verify requirement, please read Mike's original post regarding the details of the E-Verify system. 

LISTEN NOW:

The Texas Legislature is currently convened in its 81st Regular Session. As legislators grapple with the state's economic woes, other issues important to Texas' employers are also under consideration.

On February 12th, the Texas State Council of the Society for Human Resources Management will host a legislative conference for HR professionals in Austin. Imperative Information Group supports the efforts of both SHRM and the Texas State Council, and we are proud to sponsor this event.

Lon Williams is a partner in the Dallas office of Bracewell and Giuliani. He is the Director for Legislative Action with the Texas State Council, and he is our guest today on the Imperative Podcast. We hope you will listen as he discusses what HR professionals can expect at the legislative conference.