I am in a position just under a person who is, alone, our entire HR Department. That person’s degree is not in HR, which may explain some of the kerfuffle now swirling about. They want to keep references to certain rights guaranteed by the federal government out of the handbook given to all employees and just have the notification of those rights solely in the standard breakroom posters we’re familiar w/ here in the US.
Background: I was in a meeting w/ this person and the other supervisors of the company and it was specifically mentioned that the regular employees should be as unaware of these rights as possible, as they would then try avail themselves of them and possibly cost the company money or lost work time. It’s become obvious to me that most of the employees are thought of as parasites who should feel rewarded just b/c they have a job; I’ve long suspected the HR person of being a racist by their comments toward certain groups. This cements it, as there are no persons of color in leadership but are a higher percentage in the regular employee population. When I once suggested a bonus for perfect attendance, this person huffed and said that having the job was a bonus enough.
I didn’t say anything at the time; I want to know if I have a leg to stand on.
The company is not in any way required to provide the employees with notification of their rights except for the ones on those legal-requirement break room posters. That’s why those posters have the things they do.
IANAL, etc. etc.
You will find that a large number of employers feel that employees are parasites.
From a pure accounting standpoint, it’s VEEERY tempting to get into that frame of mind. You pay a salary, then another few percent to the government, then tens of thousands in benefits… you wind up wishing you had less employees, and feeling like all the ones that don’t do their impression of Superman or a prepared Batman aren’t earning their keep.
Speaking personally, I’ve had multiple co-workers who were genuine parasites.
As far as accusing this individual of racism, you may or may not be correct, but nothing you have said is enough to flag him or her as racist in my mind.
You complain that the organization has lots of minority worker bees and no members of said minority in management.
Ask yourself if qualified minority workers have been passed over repeatedly or if the people who work in the general labor pool have something setting them apart from management.
Do your managers have college degrees?
Do the non-promoted minorities you see have the same degrees?
Do you have good low-level minority employees with the same education, industry experience and work ethic as your ethnic majority management types?
If you answered yes to that last question you may have a systemic issue.
I can’t comment on the legal question, except that I’ve never heard of a requirement like what you’re thinking of regarding notices to employees of their rights…
It might help if you’d elaborate on what leads you to think that your employer is legally obligated to explain certain federally-guaranteed rights in the company handbook.
Ask a good number of employees if they have read the hand book. You will be very sad.
I read the hand book at my current job and found mistakes. They were fixed in the next printing. No one else had noticed either way.
I got you beat, Booker57.
I work for a US-based Fortune 1000 with NO HANDBOOK.
All we have is a bunch of policies hidden on an obscure part of the web site inside of a web app that crashes your web browser half of the time.
I mean, legalistic bastard I am, I printed all of them and highlighted the interesting parts, but most folks aren’t like me, although perhaps most Dopers would have done what I did.
I don’t believe they are legally required to put them in the handbook if they are on the posters. As long as they are posted somewhere that, in theory, employees can find them, they are all set. That being said, what their doing is unethical, so it could be said that you have someting in the way of a civil violation/grounds for a civil suit. And their is definite grounds for a lawsuit as far the whole racism thing goes. All you probably have at this point is heresay though, so depending on how much leverage you want to have over these guys, you may consider getting something more concrete. Can you go over this jackass’s head?
My concerns about legality/lack thereof is the seeming concerted and combined effort to keep the employees ignorant of some of their rights because the exercising of those rights could be inconvenient to this smallish company.
It was noted in this meeting that some employees had approached the HR person together, handbook in hand, with questions about our attendance and vacation policy. The bosses have decided they want to now remove that section from the handbook completely so that employees can’t ‘plan something’. This lead to a discussion of the FMLA and what it could potentially cost the company if ‘some people’ found out about it. The HR person had only recently learned about the FMLA in a seminar and had concerns that it could be referred to in the handbook and the possible problems that could cause.
I don’t think an employer is required to provide a handbook at all, under law; I think I may be spoiled b/c my last job was at a large, publicly-held company w/ a commitment to transparency. At this new job, they don’t let people know their co-workers have been fired until you go ask the HR person, for example.
A BIG thank you to Mr. Slant for the suggestions about how to look hard at what may/may not be discrimination; that’s a very clear way of putting it and I appreciate it.
Not telling the employees about their rights isn’t the same thing as keeping them ignorant. You can’t keep them ignorant unless you lock them in a box. I haven’t mentioned in any of my posts what the capital of Florida is, but I’m not keeping you ignorant of that fact. You can look it up yourself.
It is not the employer’s responsibility to relate every conceivable aspect of labour law to the employees. When you think about it, they couldn’t possibly tell the employees everything they have a “right” to anyway; the law being the way it is, it’d take so long to tell them you’d never do anything else.
There’s nothing unethical about it, either - unless the employer is actually asking the employees to do things that are illegal for them to ask the employees to do.
Now, having said everything I’ve said, clearly your employers really do have a jackassesque attitude.
In my job I get to work with maybe a hundred companies a year. The attitude towards the employees really runs the gamut of possible attitudes. Some employers are good to the employees, some are awful. Some are good at some things and not at others. It really depends on the culture of management and personalities of those at the top.
OK, now that’s just scary considering that the FMLA is one of the more fundamental pieces of HR-related legislation in the U.S. ANd your HR person had never heard of it? Sheesh, maybe I should go into HR.
Perhaps you will find my naivete charming, but does anyone believe that HR should actually, well, be concerned for employee’s well-being?
I recently left a job where I believed my superior did not have a good handle on the best interests of the organization or of its employees.
How will you retain or attract good employees if HR views them as ‘the enemy?’
I sure wouldn’t want to work for a company that thought it was important that I not know what federal laws were relevant. Is this even a problem? Does this person have any evidence that it has cost the company in the past more than it would have had references not been present. My WAG is that this is a solution without a problem.
In the interests of clarity, I must stress that the HR person’s degree is NOT in in HR; I think it’s in Business Admin or somesuch, and they’re a hard-nose anyway. When I suggest bonuses for things like attendance or exceeding productivity goals to encourage harder work and loyalty, the HR response is that they have a job and that’s more than some people have. Ergo, the job is its own reward. (Our HR person is, and apparently always has been, pretty well-off and has likely never worked for the wage we’re paying the majority of the employees; heck, they’re not even on OUR insurance, as their spouse’s is far better and doesn’t cost them anything in a monthly premium.)
So, I guess the basic result of our discussions here is that the ‘Us versus Them’ mentality of my company will likely net them the result they deserve, their actions aren’t yet illegal, just unappetizing. I’m keeping notes, though, and not planning too long-term w/ this company. At first I was hopeful and optimistic, as they’re booming and young, but - I’m not getting into these stupid and mean games w/ people’s livelihoods.
I am (cringing into thread) an HR person. All of these various federal laws (and some state laws) have their own ways employees are required to be notified, generally covered by the required “breakroom” posters.
It sounds like your company’s HR person really does need to get up to speed if they are just learning FMLA. Also, not sure how big your company is, but usually a 1 HR person to 100 employee ratio is typical. Having only 1 HR person may not be realistic, especially if they are new to the field.
It is generally advisable to have legal go over any handbooks or revisions to handbooks. If that isn’t already being done, and you have the opportunity to suggest it, that might be a good idea.
HR is way too often seen as the “school counselor’s office” of the workplace. It’s not. It should be making rational, well informed decisions about people’s employment. HR is not an employee advocate, its role is to advise management.
However, none of this is to justify behavior that is illegal, intentionally cruel, racist or unkind.
It sounds like you’re right to be concerned about your workplace, but should keep an open mind and do your homework before making any specific accusations.
As an aside, whenever I worked for idiots^H^H^H^H^H^Hpoor-performing undertrained persons, I wound up wishing I was somewhere else. Your boss appears to fit the bill. I heard of FMLA while I was still in college, 8 years back, and I’m a freaking computer specialist, not an HR guy.
As an HR person, FMLA is one of a half-dozen substantial federal legal requirements that you have to plan policy around.
This is definitely not House Slant’s business, but I’d consider taking another job if you find a good offer, or maybe someone from your last job hunt decides to give you a belated job offer.
Og forbid your boss’ boss realizes your boss is dead weight and decides to clean house; you may get kicked to the curb too.
Ready to cringe some more, Harriet? Guess who **‘legal’ ** is, due to a previous job as a legal assistant before going into HR at my company… They weren’t even hired for HR initially, our company was so small one of the partners was doing that work.
I’m seriously thinking about giving the HR person’s name to a headhunter and getting rid of them that way. Their boss, my boss’s boss sees on a nearly daily basis what tasks we both so I think I’ll be okay should an HR bomb (lawsuit) blow up. Or maybe by then I won’t be around to care?
Thank you to all the management and HR people who’ve chimed in, I’m new to this and have much to learn; I’m glad to do so from those worth listening to.