I’m Not an Engineer! What Do I Care About Management of Change?!

Posted on October 18, 2013 by mavity2012

Although OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard may be the most challenging of OSHA’s regulations, the PSM standard, along with NFPA consensus standards about combustible dust have raised the topic of the importance of management of change (MOC) outside of refineries and chemical plants, and for the HR professional.

“Management of Change” or “MOC” to the enlightened ones,  might be described by labor lawyers as planning for unanticipated consequences of one’s actions.  Lawyers and HR Professionals have seen the unanticipated consequences of a merger, acquisition, RIF or restructuring wreak havoc on morale, productivity, quality and in a host of other areas.

Engineers obviously have a more scientific description of the term.  Let’s look at the OSHA PSM standard, which defines management of change obligations in 1910.119(l)(1)
as follows:

The employer shall establish and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for “replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered process.

The standard then explains the engineering, organizational, personnel changes which must be analyzed.

While the complexity of the PSM standard may be unnecessary in cases where PSM does not apply, every employer should inculcate a management of change approach into engineering and purchasing, and in the operation of manufacturing and other processes.  As an example, most manufacturers do not replace a conveyor and related machinery every time they update or change processes and products.  Instead, the employer modifies existing systems and adds new or used components.  OSHA standards are not product liability requirements and do not obligate companies to ship their new products with “OSHA-compliant” guards, interlocks and other safety features.  Moreover, even if a machine left the factory with proper guards and protections, its ultimate placement, installation and operation will require further analysis to ensure the new system has not created hazards.

Now consider these variations in facts.  Many manufacturers of paper, plastics and other products heavily buy used equipment from struggling or defunct competitors.  or a company makes multiple acquisitions of other companies, who are themselves the result of acquisitions.  In each case, customization is impossible, and in the case of acquisitions one may lose workers with “institutional knowledge.”  The result is that equipment is added in a way that may create new pinch points or other hazards, e-stops may not work and interlocks may not be connected.  Such problems are a constant challenge for safety professionals but they are probably not the ones who selected, installed and operate the machines.  therefore, employers must ensure that the other parties understand basic safety obligations and the hazards created by acquisitions and even maintenance without consideration of safety.  In other words, build MOC into a wide range of decision making.

Let’s discuss an even more pernicious threat … combustible dust.  Basically, five factors are necessary for a combustible dust event and deflagration.  Fortunately, all five factors are rarely present at the same time.  However, more than one catastrophe resulted from an employer enclosing conveyors because of food security or housekeeping needs, and thus supplying the missing factor of adequate “containment.” (LINKS to past posts and articles on combustible dust).

MOC for the HR Professional

Here’s where the topic gets interesting.  Personnel changes can constitute actions requiring MOC analysis under the PSM standard AND can certainly cause problems in the non-PSM scenarios I discussed above.  I’m betting not one in ten safety and HR professionals have read the 2009 OSHA Memorandum on Management of Organizational Change, which described when personnel changes must be analyzed under a MOC process.

The PSM standard requires employers to develop and implement written MOC procedures to address the safety and health impacts of contemplated changes, including organizational changes, as they relate to process chemicals, technology, equipment, procedures and facilities (29 CFR 1910.119(l)(1)). Some organizational changes, such as changes resulting from mergers, acquisitions, reorganizations, staffing changes, or budget revisions, may affect PSM at the plant level and would therefore trigger a PSM MOC procedure. Some examples of these include:

 personnel changes, including changes in staffing levels, staff experience, or contracting out that directly impact PSM covered processes; and

 policy changes such as budget cutting that impact PSM covered processes.

…. In other words, if organizational changes necessitate changes to process chemicals, technology, equipment, procedures, or facilities, an MOC procedure would be required to ensure that resulting changes are managed and implemented in a manner that assures continued safe operations. However, management changes that do not impact PSM covered processes are not affected by the MOC provisions of the PSM standard.

For example, when the number of employees operating a process is to be reduced due to an organizational change, operators may not be able to continue implementation of existing operating procedures. An MOC procedure must be implemented to manage the change, possibly by modifying existing operating procedures to reflect the new, reduced staffing level, and to ensure that operations remain safe under normal production and emergency upset conditions.

Oh, and what about “budgetary changes” in this era when many employers are having to do more with less, especially in the face of offshore competition?  Read further …

Budgetary changes can have a similar effect. For example, a significant cut in a maintenance department’s budget could require an employer to alter its mechanical integrity procedures concerning the timeliness or frequency of tests, inspections, repairs, or replacements of PSM-covered equipment. Because this represents a change to mechanical integrity procedures, an MOC procedure must be established and implemented to ensure the ongoing integrity of the process.

Other organizational changes may not impact any of the five elements listed in 29 CFR 1910.119 (l)(1) and therefore would not trigger PSM MOC. Organizational changes that have no relationship to plant-level PSM processes, as in the case of changes to corporate or administrative personnel whose duties do not relate to operations or maintenance functions, do not trigger PSM MOC procedures.

So going forward, even if you’re not under the OSHA PSM standard, incorporate management of change (MOC) analysis into acquisitions, purchasing, planing and operations.  And if you are operating under the PSM standard, do not neglect the effect of personnel changes on your processes.

Howard

 

Posted in combustible dust, consensus standards, hazard assessment, hazardous substances/chemicals, manufacturing, OSHA, plastics, safety programs | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Employees Discuss Evading Employer Management of BYOD Policies

Posted on October 17, 2013 by mavity2012

Management employment lawyers write a great deal about managing your workplace electronic communications and data because the proliferation of electronic devices and remote working has created so many ways to lose vital company data.

I have linked to the blog of employee-side lawyer, Donna Ballman, who writes about ways that  employees could circumvent employer efforts to manage data when they maintain “Bring Your Own Device”(BYOD) policies.  This gives you an idea of how “the other side” may view employer efforts, and their possible responses.

Your Employer Wants To Erase Your Personal Cell Phone And Computer

The concept of BYOD is all the rage in management-side circles right now. BYOD stands for Bring Your Own Device. Basically, the idea is that companies let employees do work for them on their own cell phones, laptops, tablets and other devices. Lots of dark-side, er, management-side lawyers are blogging about employer risks in having employees use their personal devices at work, and I don’t necessarily disagree with them. Some of my management-side colleagues even offer sensible advice on the issue, and even offer advice on how to reassure employees about their privacy concerns. I’m all for employers getting advice on how to get things right.

Then I saw this advice in a recent blog post:

Address what happens when the employee stops working for your company: As noted above, employers have a duty to safeguard sensitive company data. Therefore, when an employee terminates his or her relationship with the employer, the employer must ensure that all of its data is permanently erased from the employee’s personal devices. Yet, it is often impossible to separate relevant company data from personal employee information when “wiping” a device. Therefore, employers should require that their employees acknowledge and agree that all of the data on their devices will be erased when the employee stops working for the company.

Please continue reading at “Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home.”

Posted in internal investigations, performance management, privacy | Leave a comment

Pause Before Firing That Guy Objecting To A Work Practice By Quoting Misinterpreted Theology

Posted on October 17, 2013 by mavity2012

Eric Meyer posted a spot reminding us that even if the request seems weird, an employer has some level of duty to accommodate a religious practice.  In this case, a mining employee objected to a bio metric scanning system involving his hand because he believed that the scan was tantamount to accepting the “mark of the Beast” predicted in the book of Revelations.  The court pointed out that the employer should have at least investigated other options for timekeeping and security.  And yes, I recognize that the employee’s stated objection wildly misinterpreted the admonition in the book of Revelation.  As I am fond of saying, “do not make knee-jerk decisions.”

Howard

Posted in cultural changes, discipline and discharge, discrimination, whistleblower/retaliation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Dealing With Bad Behavior By The Top Dogs

Posted on October 17, 2013 by mavity2012

Fran Sepler recently posted an insightful blog, “I’m Sort of Sorry: Coaching the High Level Harasser” discussing coaching a high-level performer regarding harassment, poor behavior or insensitivity.  It takes wisdom and experience to deal with an executive who can fire you if your message is displeasing or who controls valuable business.

Often, the main problem is that the high performer’s bad behavior has long been tolerated because he or she is a high performer.  Odds are that the employer has looked the other way for some time when the high performer behaved in a churlish or unprofessional fashion because he or she is a “high performer.”  Lesson one is actually a question . . . when do you confront bad behavior that has not “yet” risen to the level of “harassment” but is inappropriate when viewed by any objective observer?  You already know what I’ll say next from my lawyerly ivory tower, “why have you allowed this behavior to go so far?”  Could you have dealt with these challenges in a “positive” fashion if you had stepped up earlier?  Probably.  What if the person is the top executive in the organization and you are an HR executive or subordinate?  How do you tee up the issue?  With scrutiny so high on public and private entities the person has to be addressed and both strategy and bravery may be required.

This leads to the second question, “who should confront the high performer?  Respect and preserving  “face” are critical.  You may need a  mentor, higher up executive, or someone who can quite lessen the blow and initially recognize their exalted status.  The operative word is “initially.”  If real legal exposure is presented, you may need to involve counsel in the meeting, both to show respect and to impart the fear of God.  Some of us are pretty good at focusing the discussion on the risk presented, and therefore the urgency.  Another plus to using outside counsel is that if the high performer reacts badly, he may only focus on the counsel, which is kind of hazardous for us.

The third question is who should counsel and work with the employee after the initial confrontation.  There are fine Industrial Psychologists and Trainers available, and many of them can try to sort through causes of bad behavior and work with the employee to overcome self limiting behavior.  Be prepared for a response from many high performers that they don’t need some @!$% shrink or impractical “PC” trainer.  Look for the person who can be tough and practical.  Express agreement that the organization needs a practical person who knows what the real work world is like.  Explain that this person focuses on helping high performers succeed.  But don’t back down.

The final question is how to approach the counseling and coaching.  I like Ms. Sepler’s comment:

These HLP’s generally aren’t sorry.  They are practical.  They want to know what they need to do to get past this speed bump.

Ms. Sepler then discusses the need to make the HLP understand the harm they have done to others, and the need to get the HLP to walk in that person’s shoes.  That outcome would be great; however, one may have to be satisfied with making the HLP recognize what a stupid thing they have done and how it may cost them money . . . their money.

I don’t actually disagree with Fran’s goal.  We must try to get these individuals to recognize the inappropriateness of their behavior.  We do not want counseling and retraining to depend upon a list of “what not to do’s.”  We want the employee to learn how to be “professional” and to show good judgment in all areas.  However, as Fran indicates, a first step is to provide “concrete” examples of unacceptable behavior.  I like her suggestion that “we generate a list of things that constitute ‘bad habits.’”

Even if one successfully navigates the HLP’s current debacle, if not addressed, their lack of judgment will inevitably lead to further and even worse problems.  From a utilitarian analysis, the question is when will the employer determine that this bad judgment outweighs the value of this high performer’s “production.”  Almost 30 years of cleaning up problems, I am convinced that bad judgment in one area will eventually affect one’s professional activities.

Read Ms. Sepler’s post.  She provides quite a few practical guidelines. My contribution is a recommendation that employers not be timid, and instead start addressing high performers’ behavior problems before these issues rise to the level of a legal challenge.  As in “selling” diversity and safety, we have to make the business case for professional behavior.  It’s not just that times have changed; a lot of that behavior was unacceptable even during the era portrayed in “Madmen.”

Howard

Posted in discipline and discharge, internal investigations, management and leadership, performance improvement | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Confusion About OSHA During the Shutdown

Posted on October 10, 2013 by mavity2012

Under OSHA’s Contingency Plan, all but approximately 10% of its employees are furloughed.  If one calls an Area Office, you’ll encounter an Area Director and perhaps an Assistant Area Director, who will respond to workplace fatalities or complaints of situations threatening a high risk of death or serious injury.  In some cases, senior compliance officers may instead  be involved.  Similarly, the five or six top managers in each Region and a core group in D.C. are working.  Below is a typical automatic email response from OSHA leadership:

Thank you for your email.  Although I am in the office today, due to a lapse in funding I may only perform certain “excepted” activities, those related to a fatality, hospitalizations, or an imminent danger.  If your message does not pertain to an “excepted” activity, I will not be able to respond to it until after funding has been restored.  If your message pertains to an “excepted” activity, I will respond as soon as possible.

If you need to report a fatality, hospitalizations or an imminent danger, please contact OSHA’s toll free number immediately: 1-800-321-OSHA (6742); TTY 1-877-889-5627.

This  skeleton crew must not only respond to workplace fatalities, but they must also somehow issue citations in pending inspections within the six months of commencing an inspection.  Despite the unusual circumstances, as recently as last year, the powerful D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the six-month requirement in AKM v. Secretary of Labor.

OSHA is determined to get citations out within the six month period.  Our clients have received citations this week.  On Monday, one hardworking Area Director scrupulously even carried out a telephonic  “Closing Conference” before mailing out the citations.   Hats off to these guys.

One consequence is that more complex cases may be issued with less attention to detail.  Employers may benefit from this scenario because OSHA may be forced to issue less expansive citations because the Agency does not have the resources to adequately complete the file.  On the other hand, the disruption may cause the issuance of unfounded or flawed citations because Compliance Officers had less time to complete the analysis or because the days away from the office cause Officers to forget facts or make understandable errors. 

If such citations are issued, we will almost certainly need to use Informal Conferences to try to correct factual and legal errors.  Once the government returns, put more time into your preparation for the Informals.  Generally, it’s better to supply the correct facts and legal argument at the Informal than to ignore it, and I fear that there may be a number of occasions where we need to at least try to correct misunderstandings.

Informal Conferences

And what about “Informal Conferences?”  OSHA simply does not have the resources to hold the Informal Conferences for most citations recently issued or issued during the shutdown.  Informal Conferences in the federal-OSHA system must occur within 15 working days of receipt, and the employer must accept or “contest” the citation at the end of the period.  Employers who miss the 15 day period almost never justify missing this deadline.  Various Area Directors have emphasized to employers that they should file their contests regardless of the shut-down. 

We suggest that the employer include a statement that “the employer was unable to schedule an Informal Conference due to the shut-down, but that the employer remains interested in meeting with OSHA at the direction of OSHA’s counsel (the Solicitors Office).  One assumes that OSHA will try to clear its backed up case load after business resumes and that the Solicitors will encourage some sort of informal meeting with employers before the Solicitors ramp up litigation.

OSHA Litigation

The Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (OSHRC) is shut down and almost all of the Solicitors for OSHA have been sent home.  We cannot guarantee that the OSHRC and its Judges will provide extensions for actions due in cases before the Commission, but we assume that the OSHRC will do so.  The Federal Solicitors are by and large solid professionals, and we expect that we’ll be scrambling to work with them on discovery and motion issues.  We’re treating OSHRC deadlines as still active.  Likewise, moving ahead with discovery responses and other actions may contribute to being able to restart disrupted cases.  This stasis is frustrating to both the Solicitors and employers, but with the Solicitors forbidden to work, there’s not much that we can do about settlement negotiations or moving cases along.  At least until October 15, Federal Courts are continuing work, but we don’t know if any OSHA  appeal cases will move forward.

 Abatement Efforts

Employers should continue abatement efforts for both legal and practical reasons.  Hazards do not disappear during a shut down, unless of course your workplace shuts down due to the effects of the government impasse.  Moreover, OSHA is unlikely to be able to respond to a petition to modify abatement.  If one needs more time than provided for abatement, contact your counsel.

State OSHA Plans

Twenty seven states run state OSHA-plans with Federal OSHA financial support or plans covering public employees.  Outwardly, those agencies are conducting business as usual, but what happens if the shut down drags on?  How long can the State Plans continue normal operations without Federal funding?   The answer seems  to depend upon how well the state has been financing its share of the plan’s operation.

An excellent BNA article this week and various inquiries have provided the following information.  The current chair of the Occupational Health & Safety Plan Association stated that Iowa OSHA began some furloughs on October 4, and that Michigan OSHA may have to start furloughs as soon as October 14.  New Mexico has limited programmed inspections due to travel restrictions but is otherwise normally functioning.  Nevada OSHA said that it is good for 90 to 120 days.  So far, it’s business as usual for Tennessee, Kentucky, California, Washington State, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Arizona, and Oregon.  We have heard that Tennessee may to make cuts in another week or so, and Kentucky perhaps a week or two later.  We haven’t heard any reports from plans in Virginia, South Carolina, Minnesota,

 Stay tuned.

Howard

Posted in Cal-OSHA, government inspections, OSHA, state osha plans, Washington | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Haz Com/GHS Training Due By December 1, 2013

Posted on October 2, 2013 by mavity2012

An excellent explanation and update on Haz Com and the GHS for Construction Contractors, courtesy of the AGC: LINK.

Our most recent F & P Blog post on GHS: LINK.

MOST IMPORTANT ACTION ITEM: TRAINING MUST BE COMPLETE BY DECEMBER 1, 2013.

Posted in combustible dust, employer policies, hazardous substances/chemicals, safety programs, training | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

More On the EEOC’s War On Criminal Background Checks

Posted on October 2, 2013 by mavity2012

More from my buddy, Matt Korn, on the costly battles caused by the EEOC’s war on criminal background checks:

Strike Two – The EEOC’s Failed Attempts To Limit Background Checks

Date: October 1, 2013

By Matthew Korn

(Labor Letter, October 2013)

On August 9, 2013, the EEOC suffered its second defeat of the year in litigation involving employer use of criminal and credit background checks for employment screening.  A federal district court in Maryland held that the EEOC’s expert analysis was statistically flawed, unreliable, and insufficient to demonstrate disparate impact. EEOC v. Freeman.

The district court characterized the EEOC’s lawsuit as a “theory in search of facts to support it,” and held that “[s]omething more, far more, than what is relied upon by the EEOC in this case must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim based upon criminal history and credit checks.”  (Continue reading).

Posted in auto industry, background checks/examinations, discrimination, EEOC, employer policies, government inspections, hospitality | Leave a comment

Customer Service and Workplace Safety

Posted on October 1, 2013 by mavity2012

I am writing this post as I sit on a bench in front of the Davidson, NC Homewood Suites.  As I sat working on documents, I struck up a conversation with an employee, who was emptying the trash and straightening up outside.  I’ll call him “Nate.”  One could and should use Nate’s example to train professionals, including members of my benighted species, lawyers.

Nate greeted customers, some of whom knew him from past visits.  As staff arrived, everyone received a cheery greeting.  At some point our occasional conversation veered to customer service.  Nate, like any professional, was “purposeful.”  I suspect that he is a genuinely good guy, and his friendliness was integral to his character.  However, he also told me that he knew that his job security at Homewood was intertwined with making people feel “at home.”  This statement was not corporate-generated.  Nate meant his words.

We talked about how a single good or bad experience can undue years of good efforts or can create lasting loyalty.  Nate explained that if he cleans a restroom, he is fastidious about it, because few things more turn off a guest than dirty public restrooms.  As a constant traveler, I pondered nice hotels whose public restrooms were dirty, and concluded that they never got my return business.  Nate was “analytical” about customer service.

Nate talked about what he liked about work and it was his co-workers and the atmosphere.  Later, I saw an attractive professional woman give him a quick hug in greeting as she entered the hotel.  The professional woman was the General Manager, and as she greeted staff with genuine pleasure, I better understood the hotel atmosphere.  Everyone takes pride in their job, feels a part of delivering the product, and takes an enterprise view of their job.  Just ask the kitchen staff, whose eggs I have eaten for five years, and they will express their pride in creating variety in those same eggs.  They want the hotel to shine.  Even when swamped, I have not heard them whine.  And keep in mind that while a nice property, it is not a luxury property or one of those extraordinary gems like the Davidson Village Inn down the road.  Yet their customer service is superb.

So what’s the relevance to safety?  We all know to do certain things to ensure an engaged and productive workforce, but we are inconsistent and we are not purposeful in our efforts to create this atmosphere.  So here’s my lessons for safety:

1.         Effective Safety Programs will not occur in an atmosphere where employees do not feel as if they have a role in the organization’s success.  We focus so much on self-actualization and meeting an employee’s psychological needs, but common sense and various studies show that employees’ greatest work need, after basic needs are satisfied, is to have a sense that they contribute to the organization’s success.  I am convinced that sense of one’s role is one of several reasons that the 9000 employee Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta is on the best places to work lists every year.

2.         Neglecting safety is a clear message that you don’t care about employees, so don’t be surprised if the employees in turn, do not care about their work and your customers.

3.         Especially in construction and the manufacturing sectors, involving employees in safety is an effective way to focus employees on their role in the enterprises success.

My readers already recognize these suggestions, but are we “purposefully” encouraging the atmospheric that keeps the Nates coming to work and impressing customers?  Do our actions substantiate our statements that we are “pro-employee” and that “safety is number one?”

Posted in attitude/culture, cultural changes, employee engagement, hospitality, management and leadership, retail, supervisor development | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Fatalities Result In Largest Ever Canadian Criminal Negligence Fines On Corporation

Posted on September 25, 2013 by mavity2012

One should never assume that safety regulation is the same in Canada and other English-speaking countries as in the U.S.  I often look to the U.K., Australian and Canadian Occupational Safety Administrations for practical ideas for compliance, but the systems are quite different.  Read the instructive article on corporate criminal exposure related to safety.

Ontario Court Triples Contractor’s Safety Penalty in 2009 Accident

09/24/2013

By Erin Richey

FROM ENR:  An Ontario Court of Appeals earlier this month more than tripled the criminal negligence fine against Toronto-based contractor Metron Construction in connection with the falling deaths of four employees on Christmas Eve 2009.

The court raised the fine from $200,000 to $750,000 (Canadian), resulting in the largest such fine imposed for criminal negligence on a Canadian corporation.

“It is a recent development that there would be court acceptance of penalties that may bankrupt companies,” wrote Jeremy Warning, a partner in the Toronto office of Montreal-based Heenan Blaikie LLP, a law firm. “It represents a touchstone case…and the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeal will be one by which subsequent penalties, particularly under the Criminal Code, are measured.”

Metron president Joel Swartz pled guilty on behalf of the company to four counts of criminal negligence in 2012. It was the first company convicted in Ontario under criminal negligence provisions of the Criminal Code, amended in 2004 to include corporate liability for senior officers’ actions.

Court documents indicate that the criminal court’s $200,000 fine “was three times the net earnings of [Metron] in its last profitable year.”

(Continue reading at ENR)

 

Posted in civil and criminal exposure, construction | Leave a comment

Firing Etiquette

Posted on September 25, 2013 by mavity2012

A senior HR professional asked when to have HR sit in on a termination.  As with many good questions, the answer is that “it depends on the facts.”  Here are a few initial observations before we get to the central question. . . .

1. A process should be in place so that HR is aware of the termination.

2. Processes should also be in place to ensure that  the supervisor’s boss or someone else in management has to approve a termination; even routine.  Even in  large companies, we learn of terminations carried out without oversight by frontline or site supervision.

3. Train “everyone who fires” to recognize that small percentage of potential “problem” discharges, and to contact HR.

4. Even better, build a culture where supervisors contact HR on a regular basis and not only when terminating an employee.

If the above steps are followed, hopefully HR or additional management is already involved in problem discharges.  I consider the following factors in whether it is wise to involve HR in the termination meeting.

1. How strong are the “people” and supervisory skills of the person handling the termination?  Lawsuits sometimes occur because of the way that a termination meeting is handled.  Even if the termination presents no meaningful legal risk, coworkers and potential hires will hear about shabby treatment meted out to an employee at termination.

2. Who will explain benefits, confidentiality and other “housekeeping” matters?

3. How high up is the employee and are there complex confidentiality, non-competition or customer issues?

4. Will the terminating supervisor keep adequate notes and complete forms?

5. What is the professional and “decent” way to handle the meeting?  Even when the soon-to-be ex employee (hopefully working for a competitor soon) is a truly sorry human being, nothing is gained by treating the person badly at discharge.

Notwithstanding these considerations, I prefer an additional person  to always sit in on a termination, and often that person is from HR.  Why?

1. To monitor personnel actions and to strive for consistent corporate behavior, or document when deviations are necessary.

2. Regardless of the routine nature of a termination, lawyers hate inheriting “he said – she said” situations.  I like a second witness to what the terminating manager testifies.

3. The HR professional may quite frankly be good at handling discharges, although I am not sure that they will revel in the role of everyone’s favorite executioner.

4. Employers seldom obtain much from exit interviews, or even persuade departing employees to complete an exit interview, which is a shame.  Employers often learn of theft, drug issues, discrimination and harassment occurring at the site when a teed off soon-to-be-former employee lets loose in the exit interview.  Remember the Memorex commercial where the sound is blowing the listener  back into his seat?  Of course, sadly, that analogy presupposes that you remember cassette tapes.  Maybe such information flows better with HR present, or with an additional manager present.

5. Sometimes an upper level manager or HR member is required to not –so-subtly send a message, positive or negative.

6. To handle the increasingly vital effort to protect data from walking out the door.

7. To better train supervisors who may seldom terminate an employee and probably have not received much training on how to do so.

8. Finally, if a termination is for rule breaking, attitude, or performance, is a termination ever truly “routine?”

What do you think?

As a parting recommendation, don’t terminate someone “virtually” as occurred in the outstanding movie, Up In the Air, even if you are as nice as Anna Kendrick (see clip).

One of these days, I am going to teach an MBA-level course using “Up In the Air” and “Office Space” as my source material!

Howard

Posted in discipline and discharge, discrimination, employer policies, management and leadership, managing legal matters, performance management, whistleblower/retaliation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment