I confess, that I found myself feeling powerless as HRM guy in a changing environment. Doing cleanup work while in fact I had to be sitting in a drivers seat…. Then it dawned on me that sitting there doing the lousy cleaning up wasn’t doing myself or my profession any good. I have a vision and the only way that I can bring about the change needed is by “just doing it”

This might seem to simple HRM is not about KISS, but getting out and actually placing myself uninvited on meeting lists did help to get our department being taken serious. We are part of a solution now, and actually asked for our opinion on strategic matters outside of HRM.

Acting as if HRM is we are as equal as any other didn’t raise much questions. We were a party to be considered the moment we acted as one..

Companies should invest in the HR arm of the organization and make sure all of management knows how to assist the recruiter in screening out “bad eggs”. At the same time managers should also know how to manage people, not just duties. Coach, develop and mentor employees. Work to make sure they are a good fit and successful. No your employees will not agree with everything in the organization, but diversity of thought encourages innovation. As with the all things there are limitations and if an employee isn’t aligned with the culture of culture of an organization, it is in their best interest both mentally and sometimes even physically to seek a better environment.

In the end it boils down to documentation and being proactive. I suggest trying the following three steps. 1. Above all try to make informed hiring decisions. 2. Don’t wait for a problem to become unbearable. 3. When you see flags address them and manage them. I’m sure if companies spent a little more time on those three steps it would save time and money.

We need to re-think how we direct youth into career paths and open the doors wider for those wanting to make mid-life carerr changes.

Unfortunately, managers in the workplace tend to do the same thing with policies and procedures (as well as the law from time to time). For organizations this is the danger zone. Having policies that are clear and that are consistently applied are vital to ensuring fair treatment in the workplace. Additionally, rational, clear and well documented explanations are really the only way that terminations (including some at will ones) will stand up in court.

The idea of someone walking into to work being told they no longer have a job (for no particular reason) may be legal but in many states in the Union the action might land the employer before the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries or a judge. As a society, we do not like the idea of people being tossed aside from something as important as their job thus many cases find their way to court when on their face they should not.

Be fair, be consistent and as much as possible be transparent,these are the best ways to avoid explaning your actions in front of a jury.

I work in an industry where a majority of my company is unionized. If the interview process isn’t doing what it’s supposed to then potentially you could end up not being able to rid your organization of the “C’s”. The unions have protections in place that make it VERY difficult to terminate underperformers.

Personally, I believe that in all fairness one should thoroughly screen the resumes/applications to the point where it’s the applicants’ job to lose once they come in for the interview.

So, to answer Jeff’s original question (and I can only respond as unionized employee) I believe that there are too many protections in place whether legal or otherwise.

In a union environment it has become so difficult to terminate someone, that management usually doesn’t want to put out the effort or face the critism, and that’s wrong! (Although), I am still a week away from starting my first class here at Capella, so what do I know? I thought the topic sounded interesting. Just my $.02.

As Gail stated, it is a waste of time, effort, money and human capital to hire someone who will be terminated for not fitting in. Today’s employment market is too competitive to waste resources.

Jeff- You wrote, “[I]t would be nice if legal precedence could be constructed to protect employees with differing perspectives”… While diversity of opinion is incredibly valuable to an organization, it can sometimes be seen as threatening. It is difficult to legislate intellectual tolerance and many would say inappropriate to do so. Shouldn’t an employer have the right to implement his/her own views as long as they are not discriminatory in nature and have the right to terminate those who don’t “buy-into” this vision? Richard makes a good point about self-governing behavior but fairness is difficult to legislate

Tammie and Gail raise an interesting question. Often attorneys use official policies, procedures and handbooks as a basis of showing that there were “implied promises”. They are a great source of exceptions to at-will employment. Courts are however hesitant to find implied contracts unless such policies, procedures or handbooks are very specific.