The New York Times did a great Q&A with Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh about the importance of a strong company culture present in the workplace.
What really stood out in this interview is how seriously he considers his role in developing and maintaining company culture, something many CEO’s would not necessarily find to be a priority.
So when I joined Zappos about a year later, I wanted to make sure that I didn’t make the same mistake that I had made at LinkExchange [his previous company], in terms of the company culture going downhill. So for us, at Zappos, we really view culture as our No. 1 priority. We decided that if we get the culture right, most of the stuff, like building a brand around delivering the very best customer service, will just take care of itself.
Tony goes on to talk about how he’s involved employees, managers and especially HR in hiring the right employee to fit both the job and the culture.
Today, we actually do two separate sets of interviews. The hiring manager and his or her team will interview for the standard fit within the team, relevant experience, technical ability and so on. But then our H.R. department does a separate set of interviews purely for culture fit. They actually have questions for each and every one of the core values.
There is one thing that concerns me, however:
For example, for our offices in Las Vegas, it’s a big building. We’ve probably got 700 employees in Vegas. The previous tenants had multiple doors where you can exit, and the parking lot is in the back. We made the decision to actually lock all the doors so everyone has to go through the front entrance reception area, even though that means you might have to walk all the way around the building. The reason for that is to create this kind of central hub that everyone has to pass through to help build community and culture.
While I understand his reasoning, I really don’t think it’s a good idea to restrict methods of egress to a single exit when you have a staff of 700 people.
All in all, however, it’s very refreshing to meet a CEO who takes the softer side of business seriously.
This is an issue that has become very close to my heart as I joined the ranks of the unemployed recently. And while I applied for UI today, the availability of health insurance is far more crucial to my peace of mind.
That being said, this piece from the law firm of Moore and VanAllen is a great resource for employers and the unemployed both.
The premium subsidy for a terminated employee’s first nine months of COBRA continuation coverage was an important feature in last year’s federal stimulus law, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”). One of Congress’s last acts before its Holiday recess was to amend ARRA in an effort to preserve healthcare coverage for many who lost their jobs during the current economic downturn. The ARRA amendment, buried in a massive Defense appropriations bill, does three things:
Extends the nine-month subsidy to 15 months.
Expands eligibility for the subsidy to employees who are terminated through February 28, 2010. (Otherwise, employees who lost their jobs after December 31, 2009 would not have been eligible for the premium subsidy.)
Provides relief for employees who lost their COBRA coverage when the nine-month subsidy ended or who paid the full premium thereafter in order to keep their coverage. Employees who lost coverage can restore it by a retroactive payment of 35% of the back premium(s). Employees who paid the full premium can now get a credit against future COBRA premiums or receive a refund check from their employer for the overpayment.
This is great news for anyone whose involuntary release occurred prior to the recent extension.
After all, some of us need all the good news we can get.
Yesterday I was told that my job had been eliminated. After getting through the initial shock of the news, I went home and started planning. What is it that I want to do with my life?
As many of you know, my husband and I have made the decision to move to NYC in the Spring. I’m really excited about the move. That being said, San Francisco will still be a very big part of my life. I’ve spent a good part of my life here and have made some very wonderful friends and I plan to visit often.
So what’s next? Well, I’d really like to continue to develop my HR consulting business. I’ve decided to name my business (what else?) HRLori and I’m prepared to address the HR needs of startups and small businesses in both San Francisco and New York. However, if the right full-time position as an HR Business Partner and/or HR Director opens up, I’m certainly open to exploring that option as well.
If you are or know of a small business/startup who needs HR assistance or if you are aware of a full-time position in NYC that fits my skills, please send an email to lori at hrlori.com.
It’s funny, my mom would always tell me that when life hands you lemons, you make lemonade. Luckily, I love lemonade.
Citing his inability to obtain unemployment, a former worker of a construction company opened fire on a Baton Rouge office, killing two and wounding another.
A man described as a former employee shot and killed two people and seriously wounded another at a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, construction company before workers wrestled him to the ground, sheriff’s officials said…As he was escorted in for questioning, in response to a reporter’s question about the shooting, the Matthews replied numerous times: “I couldn’t get my unemployment, they wouldn’t give me my unemployment.”
My heart goes out to the family of these victims, particularly since none of these people had anything to do with providing unemployment to former workers. And it’s not because they weren’t in HR. Unemployment is state-run and the state makes the ultimate decision as to who gets UI and who doesn’t. A company can provide facts of the separation and even protest against the employee obtaining UI, but ultimately it’s the state’s decision.
Believe me, I’ve heard some really sad stories about the bureaucracy of CA’s UI process. I have no doubt that Louisiana’s, or any other state’s process can be much better.
May the victims of this awful tragedy rest in peace.
With so many stories about discrimination against the transgendered population, it’s nice to know that one more city is doing the right thing. Last week, the city of Tampa, Florida passed an ordinance against transgender discrimination in employment and housing.
While Tampa’s human rights ordinance already prevents discrimination based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and other factors, the Florida city’s new ordinance protects those against discrimination with an “inner sense of being a specific gender” regardless of their “assigned sex at birth.”
Tampa’s ordinance applies to employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and other organizations throughout the city and makes it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or decline to sell or rent someone a home based on his or her gender identity.
As part of President Obama’s stimulus plan, ARRA (American Reinvestment and Recovery Act), employees who lost their jobs through no fault of their own were given COBRA assistance to the tune of 65% of the premium so long as their employment ended between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009. This means that this benefit is set to expire in 2 weeks, with no relief for those who lose their jobs in 2010.
The good news is that the Extended COBRA Continuation Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 3930) was introduced to the House by Representative Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania).
According to Sestak, the new subsidy would extend:
The total allowable time an individual could receive the COBRA subsidy by six months (from nine to 15 months);
The subsidy to individuals who are involuntarily terminated between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2010; and
Eligibility for traditional COBRA coverage an additional six months (from 18 to 24 months) for individuals who were terminated at the beginning of the recession in 2008.
Under the proposed legislation, individuals who were enrolled in the original COBRA subsidy since February would continue to receive it until at least May 2010.
World at Work provides a chilling look at how the demise of this program would affect individuals:
According to a new report from Families USA, unemployed individuals who are in line to lose the subsidy will see their COBRA premiums rise from $389/month to $1,111/month, which would consume approximately 83% of the average monthly unemployment check.
It’s amazing how slowly the wheels turn. Let’s hope they can get this bill passed before January 1, 2010.
UPDATE: I just read today that Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has introduced the COBRA Subsidy Extension and Enhancement Act (S. 2730) to the Senate this week. Per BLR:
Brown’s legislation, the COBRA Subsidy Extension and Enhancement Act (S. 2730), would extend the program to provide a total of 15 months of subsidies. The legislation would make other changes as well, such as increasing the subsidy from 65 percent to 75 percent…The legislation would also extend the subsidy to workers whose hours are reduced to such a degree that they lose eligibility for employer-sponsored health benefits. Currently, only involuntary terminated workers are eligible for the program.
I stand corrected. These wheels are moving faster than I thought.
UPDATE 3: Looks like President Obama approved it!
From SHRM:
President Barack Obama signed legislation into law on Dec. 19, 2009, extending for six months a federal subsidy to help unemployed workers acquire health insurance through their former employers’ health care plans. The law takes effect immediately…he new law provides an extra six months of federal subsidy payments that allows unemployed workers to purchase health care coverage guaranteed by the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act, better known as COBRA. The new law extends eligibility for the subsidy program for two months. The extension was added to the Department of Defense spending package (H.R. 3326), which passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins.
Despite a November voter referendum in Maine that overturned the state’s same-sex marriage law and a very recent rejection of same-sex marriage by the New York State Senate, the year 2009 saw progress for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships…”
Ms. Ober’s article goes on to list the various changes in State Law across the US, including New York, California, Maine, Vermont and Washington State. It’s a short read, but incredibly fascinating and chock full of very interesting stuff.
This seems like a political post but I believe that this subject is very much related to HR. We, as HR Professionals need to stay on top of changing domestic partnership/marriage laws so that we know how to handle things like benefits, LOA’s, etc. Nothing is worse than getting hit in the face with a lawsuit because we were unaware of something happening in the outside world.
Okay, I’m off the soapbox now. Sometimes passion gets the best of me.
Here’s another example of why sexual preference and gender identity should be made protected classes on a federal level.
Zikerria Bellamy, a 17-year transgender female was not only refused an interview with a Florida McDonald’s on the basis of her gender identity (after filling out an online application), but was subject to further humiliation by the restaurant’s manager who called her later on and said “We don’t hire faggots”. Ms. Bellamy has since filed suit. In response to the suit, McDonald’s stated that they terminated the manager who made the disparaging remarks.
In Florida, while no law explicitly addresses discrimination based on gender identity, administrative agencies in Florida have ruled that transgender people are protected by the Florida Human Rights Act’s prohibitions on sex and disability discrimination. The Competitive Workforce Bill, which would add gender identity and sexual orientation to the Florida Civil Rights Act, was introduced in the Florida legislature on November 20.
At the federal level, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) (S.1584) would address discrimination in the workplace by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote an employee based on the person’s gender identity or sexual orientation at companies with fifteen or more employees. The legislation was introduced in the United States Senate on August 5, 2009. On November 5, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held the Senate’s first hearing on the latest version of ENDA. A version of ENDA was also introduced in the United States House of Representatives on June 24, 2009. The House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on the measure on September 23. Little has happened since.
No matter how jaded I think I am, I am always shocked by such cruel and unnecessary behavior, particularly from a manager who should know better.
Hear the offensive message for yourself:
Also, you can find McDonald’s score from the Human Rights Campaign “Corporate Equality Index” here. [via The Consumerist].
I guess 85 out of 100 isn’t bad, but it does show that more work does need to be done.
File this one under, “What was he thinking?”. It seems that a California man who had been working as an interior designer and even appeared on an HGTV interior design reality show despite the fact that he had been collecting disability payments for his inability to work.
Fifty-six-year-old Ronald Hunt of Los Angeles was sentenced Tuesday to 200 hours of community service and ordered to pay more than $180,000 in restitution, unpaid taxes and fines. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of fraud.
The state’s Franchise Tax Board says Hunt falsely claimed he was disabled for three years and collected almost $150,000 in benefits, while earning about $400,000 in income as an interior designer.
An employee of the insurance company that was paying Hunt’s benefits saw Hunt on a Home and Garden Television program and reported him to the state Department of Insurance.
I’m at complete loss as to why this man didn’t think that he’d be found out.
Lesson learned: Don’t mess with the State of California. You’ll never win. Especially if you appear on television.
I know, I know, I know I’ve been largely absent this past month and for that I truly apologize. I’ve been traveling and while doing so, I’ve come to many decisions about my life. First off, I’ve decided to expand the purview of this site beyond California HR. I’ve found that limiting myself to only 163,696 square miles of this big bad world is just that – limiting. So expect to see much, more about HR everywhere. And the way things are going, I’m going to be busy keeping up with it all.
Speaking of being busy, I’ve also come to the conclusion that I need to hang out my shingle. And being that I don’t work on Fridays, I have the time. So HRLori’s services are out for bid. Basically, I love helping start-ups get started. Employee Handbooks, Confidentiality Agreements, Corrective Action policies, Application Forms, implementation of HRIS and ATS and much more – you name it, it’s all sweet music to me. Please let me know if you know of anyone looking for an HR Consultant.
And if all isn’t enough for you, check out the new site re-design. It is definitely easier to manage and maybe even prettier than the original.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, but this one gets my dander up a bit. It seems that there are jobs that are up for grabs in San Francisco, but they are only open to people who have at least one child under the age of 18. Now I understand that it’s difficult when you have extra mouths to feed, but it doesn’t feel right to penalize those who made the decision not to have children. Fortunately, the Mayor of SF, Gavin Newsom, is going to DC to see if this can’t be discussed.
Newsom said he’s headed to Washington, D.C. next week to lobby House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for an extension of the money and to include people without children. He said he wants to see 2,500 or even more San Franciscans hired, and that the majority of California’s $1.8 billion pot is still sitting waiting to be grabbed by cities since so few are participating.
The other catch to this program is that the $$ is expected to run out in mid-2010, so even if this provides jobs to the city, the jobs will be temporary at best. Still, small employers like the plan since the program pays for 100% of the employee’s salary, although not for their benefits which are required by San Francisco.
If you or someone you know is interested in applying for one of these jobs, you can find the information here.
But, at least for now, make sure you have a kid.
I wonder if my catscount. After all, they are my babies.
After 5 years, I’ve done a bit of a re-design on the site. While (hopefully) keeping the same feel, I think that this new theme is cleaner and easier to read.
Let me know what you think.
If you’re reading this through RSS, take a look at it here.
