A resource for HR professionals in case they didn’t know. This seams a little early for major elections but this refers to all voting days. HR beware!
This one made me think. I have mixed feelings about the people who are sueing T-Mobile for back pay and OT because they were working outside normal hours on business. On one side, if T-Mobile was requiring them to work after hours AND punished them for not working then they did push the envelope and should be in hot water. On the other side, the culture of the young working professional is as such. They perform these functions (working after hours, answering emails, responding the customers through their mobile devices) as a large part of their lives. They are communicating with clients and potential clients through social media. Why these professional do this is because most business is client driven and the clients know this all to well. The most responsive and social business professional usually gets the deal. Most of the time, it is not price the client is buying but the person. T-Mobile must have really pushed this too far for them to get into this deep of trouble, but then I wouldn’t put anything past a lawyer and a disgruntled employee.
Dangers of letting non-exempt workers go home with cell phones.
Just thought you might want to know. Useful if you are doing business with the Feds. I am sure the list will expand in the near future.
Question
We’re thinking about having a question on our job application asking if the applicant has ever been charged with a crime.
Is it legal to ask? Can the question cause problems?
ANSWER -> Answers to tricky HR questions: OK to ask about criminal charges?.
If you’re not careful you’ll miss the subtlety of the syntax of the answer. Just as lady justice is blind, a charge does not mean a conviction. A charge has no bearing on guilt just as guilt has no bearing on the conviction. Notice that guilt is really not part of the equation between charge and conviction. Guilt is ours to own and take up with our maker – the real victim. Whoa, that was deep – sorry.
I knew it! I have seen this coming. Whether or not this will be a movement remains to be seen. The following is an article regarding the restriction of credit reports for the purpose of employment. While in the past the credit report was a decent resource for trends of potential employees, it is just not so in our current environment. I am for “the more information the better” but I am on the fence for the credit reports at this time.
I am not talking about the legality of obtaining and using, but that the credit report is not going to be a good measure of the trends of potential employees. The credit card companies and banks have gone on a rampage.
They are lowering balances (if not closing all together) accounts without or very little notice and nothing you can do about it. These payoff programs offered by the credit card companies offering to pay the last $500 of an account is another case of sleight of hand with your credit score. They kind of close the account by continually lower the “available amount” as you pay the card off and then finally close it at the end. Anyone who watches their credit, knows how much this hurts them. Banks are no better, they get saved by the feds and you get harassed at the dinner table if you’re a week past due these days and try getting a loan to shore up a bad period of income.
All of this action hits your credit report at some time or another and does not accurately represent a person when applying for a job. Layoffs, pay reductions (if you’re lucky), unpaid furlough and mandatory vacations among other reasons has put many good people in situations they have not created themselves but will pay for in their credit reports. I personally feel credit reports are a hazard to hiring processes until they figure out how to sort out their “formulas” for their scoring system.
Enough of my ramblings, below is the original article and contact information.
By John Canalis, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/23/2009 05:15:13 PM PDT
Updated: 09/24/2009 07:52:26 AM PDT
A bill by a Norwalk assemblyman would bar employers from checking the credit histories of most job applicants.
Legal in California when prospective employees grant consent, credit inquiries are an increasingly common component of pre-employment background checks.
But the bill by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza would limit credit screenings to law enforcement and managerial slots, as well as positions that handle large amounts of cash, jewelry or valuables or those that deal with sensitive financial information.
Opposed by the business lobby, which argues that credit checks can weed out financially irresponsible employees and help uncover liens and bankruptcies, Assembly Bill 943 recently cleared the Legislature and is headed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Mendoza, a Democrat, plans to stage a rally and news conference in support of the bill at 1 p.m. today in Room 82 at the Southeast Regional Occupation Program, 12940 E. Foster Road in Norwalk.
“He’s going to urge the governor to break down the barriers that currently exist for the thousands of Californians denied a chance for gainful employment,” said Richard Garcia, spokesman for Mendoza.
Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has not taken a public position on the bill.
“He typically waits for the bill to reach his office,” said Mike Naple, a spokesman for the governor, who has until Oct. 11 to sign or veto the bill.
Garcia said that Mendoza does not see a correlation between a person’s borrowing and employment histories, particularly in the current climate of foreclosures, layoffs, divorces, high student loan debt and identity theft. Without jobs, those harmed by the financial crisis cannot pay their bills and repair their credit.
“These people deserve a fair chance at recovery, and the only way they can do that is through gainful employment,” Garcia said.
The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill. Denise Davis, a spokeswoman for the Sacramento-based organization, referred a call to the chamber’s position paper, which argues that job candidates’ suitability for a position does not always show up on résumés.
“Adverse credit situations that go unexplained could raise a red flag of the applicant’s suitability for some job responsibilities that involve access to employer or client assets or confidential information,” according to the position paper.
About 43 percent of employers check credit, according to a news release from Rep. Steve Cohen, a lawmaker from Tennessee who examined the issue in July.
Despite credit wrecked by outstanding medical bills, Debra Banks said she is a good worker, one who has been offered jobs in the toughest employment market in a generation.
The Hawthorne resident has been doing temporary data entry for about five years. Employers have offered her full-time positions – one after 20 months of temping, another after six months.
“I had already proven that I was trustworthy,” she said.
But she didn’t get the jobs.
john.canalis@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1273