Q:  What’s wrong with Florida governor Rick Scott signing a law requiring state workers to submit to random drug testing?  

A:  According to The Miami Herald, Scott said the drug testing legislation is no different than what already goes on in the business world.  “Private companies do the exact same thing," he said. At face value, his statement sounds perfectly reasonable. We all want state employees to be subject to the same rigorous standards as private sector employees.  However, this law goes far beyond that, and will require much more than what’s now common in the private sector.

First, a primer.  There are generally 4 types of drug testing.

1. Pre-employment

2. Reasonable suspicion 

3. Post accident/injury and

4. Random

Most private companies who have a drug-free workplace program only require the first three.  Private companies generally do not conduct random drug testing of their general workforce. Why? Because it’s unnecessary, expensive and intrusive. The shotgun approach doesn’t address a need or correct a problem.  In other words, it’s not good business.  In the rare cases when random testing exists, it’s targeted to safety-sensitive positions.

The governor implies that the law was needed because state and public sector employees had more lenient testing than their private sector counter parts, when in fact the opposite is true.  Public employees are already subject to all four types of testing including random, if, for example, a job requires the employee “to carry a firearm, perform life-threatening procedures or work with controlled substances” or a job “in which a momentary lapse in attention could result in injury or death to another person.”

So why pass a law that serves only to expand the pool of employees who must be randomly tested so that it now includes the entire state workforce?  Why spend all that money on a problem that doesn’t exist?  I frankly don’t know. 

What I do know is this: private sector employers don’t routinely randomly test employees indiscriminately, across the board.  Any politician who claims otherwise in order to justify passing a wasteful law is being disingenuous at best.

So, don’t be fooled by the sound bite.  Learn more.

Next week: a follow up with additional details and examples.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio

Published in The Gainesville Sun  March 18,  2012

  Q:  I’m in my early 50s, employed as an executive assistant in a government office. With many people criticizing "big government" and technology making executives more independent, I’m increasingly concerned about job security.

I need to work until retirement age, but don’t know if there’s a future in being an assistant. What should I be adding to keep myself viable? I fear that my weak technical/math skills will be a hindrance for future opportunities. I'm really frightened and don't know what to do.

A:  First, don’t waste your time and energy being frightened.  Fear is not only unproductive, it’s debilitating.  Instead, focus your energy into purpose and resolve.

So let’s assess your situation objectively and determine how to position you most favorably in the event you were laid off. 

1) You are an older worker in a field that isn’t growing, that’s true. But assistant positions won’t disappear overnight, so the jobs will be there long after you’re ready to retire.

2) You’re afraid your government job makes you particularly vulnerable. I agree but for entirely different reasons.  You think the threat comes from “big government” budget cuts.  But the truth is, budget cuts are just as brutal –perhaps worse– in the private sector.

The real vulnerability I see is that people who work in government tend to isolate themselves from their peers in the private sector.  I’ve noticed that many of them, neglect to network with counterparts on the “outside”. Since this is as true of administrative assistants as it is of engineers and accountants, I imagine you are no different.  This could become a big disadvantage when searching for work later.

That’s why I recommend you join your chapter of the International Association of Administrative Professionals www.iaap-hq.org (or something similar).  Attend meetings, get certified, bring your technical skills up to what’s expected of someone at your level.  Network, and connect with private sector colleagues in person and via social media.  Do it now while you have a job, so that if you ever find yourself looking in the coming years, you’ll be a well-skilled, known commodity, regardless of age.  And that fear you expressed before?  Vanquished.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio 

Published in The Gainesville Sun  March 18,  2012

Q:  Last week you answered a reader’s question by labeling the problem as “bullying at work”, but I thought that “harassment” covered any bullying at work.  Am I wrong?

A:  Yes, you are.  Actually, harassment and bullying -although similar- are quite different.  For starters and most importantly, harassment is illegal, whereas bullying at work is not.  It may be poor practice, bad for business and unethical, but it’s not illegal. 

Let’s contrast and compare harassment vs. bullying:

Target and motive - Harassers are usually motivated by some sort of discriminatory sentiment -be it gender, race, nationality, religion-- so their victim will fit one these categories, the most common of course is sexual harassment.  In contrast, bullies are motivated by insecurity and cowardice and will target someone they perceive as a threat -or conversely as weak- and over whom they can exert power. 

Obviousness:  Bullying usually involves covert and repeated undermining of the target’s reputation or confidence. It’s often psychological; in fact, targets may not realize they are been bullied for weeks or even months.  Harassment is more overt in nature, and has more physical manifestations -texts, cartoons, inappropriate touching. A person who’s being harassed usually knows it quickly.

The negative effects – Studies have found that those who are bullied are more stressed, anxious, develop more health problems and have lower self esteem than those who were victims of (sexual) harassment.  Whereas most companies have a clear way to report harassment, it’s more difficult to complain to management about bullying, and this adds to the target’s feelings of powerlessness.

Unlike the US., Canada, Australia and the U.K. have legislation addressing bullying at work.  But, I’m not one for more legislation of the workplace; I think we have plenty and most of it would be unnecessary if companies had –and enforced- good policies.

My advice?  Prevention. Discuss differences between harassment and bullying, and make them both culturally unacceptable.  Then add some teeth by creating a policy that’s part of a wider commitment to a safe and healthy workplace.  Get the full support of top management by pointing to one big negative these two have in common: they’re both terrible for business. For more info Visit:  http://www.workplacebullying.org/

© Copyright Eva Del Rio

Published in The Gainesville Sun  March 11,  2012

Q:  A manager in another department has a notorious reputation for general rudeness, bordering on hostility.   He is disrespectful towards everyone although he is particularly offensive with his subordinates.  Complaints have been made, but management has done nothing.  I’d heard stories, but until recently had never witnessed it firsthand. Now that I have seen him berate an employee, I’m determined this can’t be allowed to continue.  I too am a manager, but -as a peer, not in a position to address the problem directly. Any suggestions for bringing this up to upper management?

A:  Sometimes, things become clearer, when we call them by their name.  What you are describing is a textbook case of workplace bullying by a supervisor.

If the leadership knows about the bullying and it’s being allowed to continue it could mean several things.  First, they may think the problem is exaggerated or not that serious.

Second, your organization may have accepted bullying as part of their workplace culture, which is doubtful, or third, they’re just chicken.  This is understandable, because confronting a bully is no fun, even for upper management.

For me, the fact that the "bully manager” behaved blatantly in your presence –instead of behind closed doors- is telling.  He obviously feels comfortable his behavior is known, tolerated and accepted by management, and further assumes you’re complicit.

However difficult it may be -and it will be- it’s imperative this behavior be stopped.  You offer a good opportunity.  If you bring what you directly experienced to the attention of your chain of command, it will certainly carry more validity than an anonymous complaint by an employee.  In fact, if you called it bullying it could become something they can no longer ignore. 

Strengthen your case by mentioning the price tag of bullying on the organization.  For instance, bullying affects worker’s health, resulting in increased absenteeism and doctor’s visits -wouldn’t you want to call in sick if you worked for this guy?  The organization is also hurt by increased turnover, transfers and reduced productivity since worker energy is directed toward coping. 

Take heart. Find determination in knowing you aren’t doing the easy thing -looking away- you’re doing the right thing.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio

Published in The Gainesville Sun  March 4,  2012

Q:  While processing applicants for an open position, I was stunned to receive an e-mail from a parent submitting a resume on behalf of their adult child, complete with a recommendation lauding the child’s character and qualifications.  I replied explaining I couldn’t accept a resume from a parent and in order to be considered, the applicant would have to apply themselves.  He did apply later.  But because I now question the commitment --and dread the parental involvement-- he’s at the bottom of my pile.  Am I being too harsh?

A:  I don’t think so.   You’re simply asking the actual applicant to actually apply.

What you’re describing is behavior emblematic of a helicopter parent -defined as “one who pays extremely close attention to their child's experiences and problems”.  But I would also add “while attempting to remove obstacles, protect and rescue.” 

For years, they’ve been a common fixture in education, playing interference in college admissions and course registration; with professors and roommates.  So it’s no huge surprise they’re now showing up in the job search as well.

A University of Michigan study found these parents don’t just submit resumes, negotiate salaries and make interview arrangements, they also complain if the child is not hired.  Participants also reported instances where the employee refused to meet with the supervisor or respond to a reprimand, before checking with the parents. 

Don’t get me wrong -I’m all for parental consultation when young adults are making a major life decision like relocating, buying a car or condo, signing a contract.  I know over-involved parents mean well. 

But for me it boils down to the type of employee we expect to hire:  

We want someone who has reasoning skills and sound judgment, who can make good decisions, interact maturely and handle consequences.  In other words, someone who can think for themselves.  Now ask your self, what are the chances that Little Johnny will have these skills?

Call me a curmudgeon, but I’m with you.  An applicant with a hovering parent has a strike against them and I would avoid him --and his parents.  Unless of course, he had perfect qualifications, and no one else in that pile did.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio 

Published in The Gainesville Sun  February 26,  2012

 Q:  I recently started as a manager at a new company where I was surprised to learn the Employee of the Month is perceived as a big joke by most employees.  At previous companies, the award was an honor.  What happened here?  How do we change it into something employees will be proud to receive?

A:  When comedian Demetri Martin says:  “I think Employee of the Month is a good example of when a person can be a winner and a loser at the same time” he gets a laugh from the audience.  Why?  Because most of us know that it’s all too common for these well meaning programs to be mismanaged so that instead of the intended employee recognition, they result in employee cynicism.

What went wrong in your company?  Maybe the selection criteria --who makes decisions and why-- was surrounded in mystery.  Perhaps employees noticed that only brown-nosers and those who fawn over management were awarded.  Perhaps management thought this is all they had to do to make employees feel appreciated, and did little else.

But Employee of the Month awards are not a magic bullet.  They can be effective, but only if they’re part of a larger environment of recognition and appreciation. 

How to turn things around?

Be transparent on who is involved in nomination and selection. Encourage employees to nominate co-workers – they’re closer to the action and often notice good things a manager may never see; plus it will increase the variety and types of nominees.  Caveat, employees shouldn’t make the final selection, since they may not be privy to hidden problems known to management. 

Final selection should be made by a group of managers which changes each month in order to diversify the mix and avoid rigid opinions.

Have criteria.  Figure out what the organization wants to recognize and reward.  Is it customer service?   Productivity?  Innovation?  Sales?  Create a nomination form with good examples.

Lastly, change the name.  Instead of rehabilitating the old award, you might want to start fresh with a new focus and title.  For instance:  The Extra Mile award, The Outstanding Rookie, The Most Valuable Player.  You get the idea.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio 

Published in The Gainesville Sun  February 19,  2012

Q:  I was recently fired from my job.  During the termination meeting, I was given the choice to resign.  They had a pen and pad ready for me to write a resignation letter if I chose that option.  Frankly, I didn’t know what to do, so I declined. Now I’m having second thoughts.  Did I pass on a good opportunity?

A:  Probably.  Giving someone the option to resign is not standard procedure, and when offered it’s usually done in the spirit of goodwill.  You were probably offered the option because –even though they had decided to let you go- they also wanted to lessen any negative impact on your future employment and lessen the stigma attached to getting fired.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t unscrupulous companies who might offer you this option simply to better position themselves and challenge your unemployment claim later.  Those are rare, but use your judgment.

PROS OF RESIGNING

Ease of finding employment - When asked a “reason for leaving” on an application or an interview, you can answer truthfully. 

Talking to colleagues and associates – It’s easier to say “I resigned” than the other thing.

Clear company record - Even though organizations now disclose little information about former employees, if you ever undergo a thorough background check, your company record will likely be accessed.  Then, you could rest easily that under reason for leaving, the record will reflect “resignation”.

DRAWBACKS OF RESIGNING

Uncertain unemployment benefits - Generally, if you quit (resign) any job, you’re not eligible to receive benefits. 

That could be overcome by either explaining the circumstances when you file the claim, or by asking your employer before you resign, if they intend to fight or contest your unemployment claim. They customarily won’t challenge it –some even state so up-front. This increases the probability that you’ll be approved for benefits. 

Note: Although unemployment office decisions on who is granted or denied benefits usually lean pro-employee, their decisions are sometimes unpredictable, defy logic and baffle the mind.

BOTTOM LINE

Being given the option to resign is usually an advantage.  Choosing to resign is mostly pros.  Next time, you’ll know how to judge the offer, and choose wisely.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio

Published in The Gainesville Sun  February 12,  2012

Q:  I’ve been in my entry-level job for two years, and I’m anxious to move up.  My supervisor tried several times to promote me but cant’ get approval for a new position.  During the last year, I’ve assumed increased responsibilities, so now I’m virtually doing both my first job and the one I aspire to, but with no change in pay or title.  I don’t mind proving my self, but now it feels like I’m been taken advantage of.  Suggestions?

A:  During the recession, the incidence of a single employee doing the work of two or more became increasingly common.   You probably did so gradually and willingly, but many others took on more work hoping to avoid being laid off.   Regardless of reason, many employers became accustomed to employees increasing their workload with little or no additional compensation.

But this trend may be ending.  In 2012, it’s predicted that 33 percent of all employees plan to jump ship.  The main reason:   feeling overworked and wanting higher wages.

Regarding your situation, I see two possibilities:

One, there’s no chance a new position will be approved, no matter how well you do or what business case your supervisor makes.  It’s simply not in the cards.  Two, the position will eventually get approved, but it’s unclear what factors are affecting that decision. 

Whichever scenario is true, the quicker you figure it out the better.  So don’t just wait.  Ask to meet with your supervisor for a “career planning” session and ask questions like:

−         When is it reasonable to expect a decision?

−         In the meantime, are there any options for sharing my workload?

−         How can I help you make your case?

−         If the promotion is denied, do you have other suggestions for career advancement?

Keep in mind, the whole point of the interaction is to diplomatically convey that even though you’re willing to prove yourself and have done so, the current status quo (you doing two jobs) is not acceptable indefinitely. 

If after that conversation you still feel like you’re being given the run-around, it’s time to look at greener pastures.  Who knows, you might be one of the 33 percent.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio 

Published in The Gainesville Sun  February 5,  2012

 Q:  After working for over a year as a manager at a large company, I was unexpectedly asked to resign.  I was offered a severance package equivalent to a few months’ pay, but there’s a catch.  In order to get the big check, I must sign an agreement –several pages of single-spaced legalese- where I wave all my rights to sue the company. 

I’m suspicious of their offer.  It makes me wonder if they know they did something illegal and are covering their back side.  Have you heard of this?

A: Yes, I’ve had the unfortunate task of handing those packages to employees more times that I care to remember.  They’re called separation agreements.  They’re commonly used when large companies ask an employee to resign, especially if they’re in management.  They’re also frequently used during layoffs, or whenever a substantial severance is offered.

You’re mistaken to suspect that the offer of a separation agreement implies any company wrong doing.  However, you’re correct in thinking the company is covering their “assets”.  From their point of view, this is basic risk management.  Companies -especially large ones with deep pockets- would much rather give an employee a large chunk of their salary to part ways peacefully than to worry about defending an unfounded, frivolous lawsuit later.  It’s simple, if a $10,000 or $20,000 severance check can prevent a $100,000 or $200,000 legal bill later, it makes perfect business sense.  In other words, they’re buying some insurance, and you get to keep the premium.

It’s no picnic have lost your job.  But, I see several silver linings if you accept the offer:

• You’ll be able to truthfully say on future applications that you resigned from that position. 
• You have some cushion money, so if you find a job sooner than the severance runs out, you’ll have some savings. 
• You may have been unhappy or forcing yourself to fit there, now you can start fresh somewhere else, plus the economy is improving.

Lastly, if they offered outplacement or job-search assistance, take it.  These services offer a great opportunity to self-assess, learn something new about your self, and maybe even change direction.  Good luck.

© Copyright Eva Del Rio

Q: Telephone interviews seem to be more prevalent now than in any of my previous job searches.  Any tips on what works?

A:  It used to be that phone interviews were short and used mostly as a brief screening before  scheduling a regular interview. So, you could almost “wing” them.

That’s changed. In order to reduce costs and time invested in applicants, companies are now using longer and more in-depth telephone interviews before inviting candidates to a face-to-face interview.  This makes sense and saves every body time.  But it means that a phone interview could now carry as much weight as that first “regular” interview used to.  Logically, this means you must prepare for the former with the same care as you would for the latter.  Here’s a round-up of my favorite tips, most of which apply to any type of interview.

Before:

• Research the job opening and the company
• Anticipate and practice your answers
• Be ready 5 minutes early
• Take deep breaths if nervous
• Wear business clothes (details are important, no pajamas!)
• Research the interviewer (Google, Facebook, Linked-in, company website)
• Have interviewer picture up during the call (it helps)
• Keep your resume handy
• Pen and paper for notes

During:

• Choose a quiet location, (no dogs, kids or interruptions, close windows)
• Preferably use a landline to lessen your risk of dropped calls or loss of signal
• Disable call waiting and mute computer, alarms and fax machines
• Don’t smoke, chew gum, or eat
• Stay formal, use Mr. or Ms. when addressing the interviewer, use first names only if  asked
• Speak clearly, with a smile (it comes through) and slowly (we speak faster when nervous)
• Avoid “er” “umm” as space fillers (this habit is especially noticeable over the phone)
• Prepare a 20-second closing statement, pitching why you should get an interview in-person
• Don’t talk about money unless asked. “It’s negotiable” is always safe.
• Ask about the next steps and what the expected time line is
  

After:

• Send a thank-you email the same day.  Reiterate strengths or highlight something you forgot.
• Remember to keep your eyes on the prize: The object of a telephone interview is to get a face-to-face interview -where you’ll do it over again, in person.
  

© Copyright Eva Del Rio

Published in The Gainesville Sun  January 22,  2012