Those were the days:

Today, the lyric is now "St Peter don't you call me, cause I ain't free, they sold my soul for a kickback on the fee:"

A growing number of American workers are confronting a frustrating predicament on payday: to get their wages, they must first pay a fee.

For these largely hourly workers, paper paychecks and even direct deposit have been replaced by prepaid cards issued by their employers. Employees can use these cards, which work like debit cards, at an A.T.M. to withdraw their pay.

But in the overwhelming majority of cases, using the card involves a fee. And those fees can quickly add up: one provider, for example, charges $1.75 to make a withdrawal from most A.T.M.’s, $2.95 for a paper statement and $6 to replace a card. Some users even have to pay $7 inactivity fees for not using their cards.

These fees can take such a big bite out of paychecks that some employees end up making less than the minimum wage once the charges are taken into account, according to interviews with consumer lawyers, employees, and state and federal regulators.

Devonte Yates, 21, who earns $7.25 an hour working a drive-through station at a McDonald’s in Milwaukee, says he spends $40 to $50 a month on fees associated with his JPMorgan Chase payroll card.

Many employees say they have no choice but to use the cards: some companies no longer offer common payroll options like ordinary checks or direct deposit.

At companies where there is a choice, it is often more in theory than in practice, according to interviews with employees, state regulators and consumer advocates. Employees say they are often automatically enrolled in the payroll card programs and confronted with a pile of paperwork if they want to opt out.

“We hear virtually every week from employees who never knew there were other options, and employers certainly don’t disabuse workers of that idea,” said Deyanira Del Rio, an associate director of the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, which works with community groups in New York.

Obviously workers have been taking advantage of free payroll overhead for way too long.  Why should the employer bear the brunt of paying for the ink and paper needed to produce checks?

C'mon HR people...really?  With median weekly wages now less than a bottle of Cristal champagne, a fee laden card is the last thing employees need.

Instead, 

• Help employees find credit unions where there is direct deposit and free checking. 
• Offer financial literacy classes to employees

Advocating this approach for your business is lazy HR and it should be illegal.  Employees should not have to pay to get the money they rightly earned.

It was odd today (as a long-time Michigan State football fan) to read of Arkansas' hire of John L. Smith, as their interim head football coach.  Oy, this is painful....

Do they not recall his coaching gaffe (and subsequent rant) after MSU attempted a FG to go up 20-7 in Columbus in 2005 with seconds left in the 2nd quarter, only to have it blocked and returned for a defensive TD to make it 17-14 at the half.  "The kids are playing their tails off and the coaches are screwing it up!!!"


Do they not recall the slap he gave himself after his team gave up a 16 point lead in the fourth quarter to Notre Dame in 2006?



Do they not recall that he chose to climb Mt. Kilimanjaro, instead of being present at his own coaching camp, thereby alienating several potential MSU recruits? What kind of leader does that?

Do they not recall that he was hired at his alma mater, Weber State, 3.5 months ago, and just finished his first spring practice, leaving them high and dry?  Of course, you have the typical coach speak at the time of that hire at Weber State, "I have made it to big time. I truly believe that. I'm back and happy to be here. And thankful" as well as:

Our goal is to make Weber State a national champion in football. OK? We're going to spout it ... We're going to tell recruits about it (including those who signed in February?). Come here if you want to be national champ. Because that's what we're going to get done. That dream is there. That goal is there.

I guess that's true...until Arkansas calls.


Do they not recall how he was hired to MSU in the first place, where his players learned of his pending departure to Michigan State at halftime of Louisville's 38-15 loss to Marshall in the GMAC Bowl on Dec. 18, 2002?  What kind of leader does that?


And all of this is even more ridiculous in light of the recent strife between Wisconsin basketball coach Bo Ryan and former recruit Jarrod Uthoff. In short, Uthoff, unhappy with his time spent at Wisconsin, decided he wanted to transfer, only to find himself blocked from going to a number of schools because Ryan thought he might play that team in the near future.  Coaches get a free pass to come and go, while players are at the mercy of the system.  Oy.

It makes you want to stop following sports at times.

Would you take a chance on a guy like Smith?

Day 2 of the wonderful Transform HR conference kicked off with Billy Beane, GM of the Oakland A's, and focus of Michael Lewis' "Moneyball."   Given the emphasis on managing talent with an uneven playing field, having Mr. Beane as the keynote speaker couldn't be more apropros (especially given the multitude of blog posts on Moneyball (self-promotion alert: check out a couple of them in the 2011 season of the 8 Man Rotation)).

Beane started off with some stories about working on the film, saying Brad Pitt was a better option to play him than Zero Mostel or Ernest Borgnine.  He also shared travel stories about people next to him on planes asking him if he read the book or watched the movie.

Beane states that people want sports to be romantic, and don't want to be swayed with the numbers behind the scenes.  By trusting the data and numbers, Beane says the Oakland A's were able to compete with people making emotional decisions.  Meeting with Michael Lewis, Lewis said he understood what was going on with the A's, arbitraging undervalued assets.  Discussing his assistant Paul Palmer who argued, "in baseball, the math will work for you if you let it."

in the story that has now become familiar, Beane discussed the economic constraints Oakland operated under.  After being one of the leaders in payroll in the early 1990s, the A's would go bankrupt unless something changed.  Oakland had to change their approach to talent given limited payroll.  Looked for the statistic with the greatest correlation to winning - on-base percentage.  Other teams did not value this as much as the A's, and they were able to buy this asset at greatly reduced prices.  On-base percentage is now the #1 metric in baseball (was 7th or 8th 12 years ago).

Beane then delved into some heavy baseball statistics, such as "net expected run value," and "What % of drafted players get to MLB within 2 years" to highlight the kinds of detail needed for the A's to compete effectively.

Beane noted the impact of media on decision-making.  The 24-hour echo chamber, he argued, would clearly affect his decision-making if he paid attention to it.  Similarly, he can't react to emotion during the game and micro-manage it by calling the manager to take a player out of the game.  Beane waits until to the end of the game to make decisions.  Similarly, good decisions do not necessarily coincide with popular ones, Beane said after trading away Mark Mulder.

In sum, Beane provided an interesting perspective on the challenges of talent management.

Coming up next is Margaret Morford with the intriguingly titled "HR Fiddles While Organization Burn."

If you are not in attendance, you may follow the conference on Twitter at #TransformHR or follow it live where it is streaming at http://transform.tlnt.com/2012/live/

In the last part of the 1990s, and early part of the 2000s, like much of America, I was a regular viewer of "Everybody Loves Raymond."  Peter Boyle always was good for a laugh or two every episode.  But, is its humor translatable across cultures?  This is the challenge of "Exporting Raymond," a 2010 comedy by the co-creator of "Everybody Loves Raymond," Phil Rosenthal.

Wanting to maximize the success of the sitcom, Russian TV came calling to do their own version of the show, called "Everybody Loves Kostya."  However, Rosenthal meets resistance at every turn:
*A dark, dank studio ("is this where they filmed "Saw?" a nervous Rosenthal asks
*The Russians see Raymond as too wimpy
*The costume designer wants the cast to wear hip clothes, even when doing the cleaning.
*Comic setups, such as leaving one's luggage on the steps for weeks on end that turn into a power struggle among husband and wife (who will be the one to succumb and move it), fall on deaf ears.
*The actor desired for the lead can't get out of contract with the major theater company
* Writers toiling on multiple shows and can't dedicate their full-time effort on this sitcom

While a bit broad, Rosenthal provides a lighthearted look at cultural differences, a bevy of workplace issues, and the transcendence of comedy.

A new feature on True Faith HR for 2011: Research Wednesday.  Each Wednesday, I will take a recent HR article from an academic journal and attempt to provide the real world HR implications

As with change, surprise is part of our daily organizational lives.  Your day planner may be filled, but an unexpected crisis arises that cause those plans to be thrown out the window.  In their April 2011 Academy of Management Journal article, " Expecting the Unexpected?  How SWAT Officers and Film Crews Handle Surprises," Beth A. Bechky and Gerardo A. Okhuysen explore how individuals respond to unexpected events that allow work to continue.

To assess surprise, Becky and Okhuysen looked at 18 members of a SWAT team, ranging in tenure from one month to 17 years, with 12 members having more than five years of experience.  In addition to observation over a number of briefing and training sessions, members of the SWAT team engaged in semi-structured interviewers ranging from 45 minutes to three hours.  Similarly, four different film sets, ranging from small, short-term productions such as shooting a commercial or a music video to sets for full-length movies.

Both groups had commonalities, such as time pressure as well as pervasive uncertainty (i.e., weather or bystanders).  There were, however, differences.  The negative consequences of surprise for a film project might be reshooting a scene or lack of group continuity from set to set, while surprise for a SWAT team may very well mean significant physical harm.  However, both groups worked in environments where surprises were pervasive.

Findings
1.  The increasing use of organizational bricolage.

In there 2005 Administrative Science Quarterly article, Blake and Nelson define bricolage as"making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities" (p. 331).  Both film crews and SWAT teams became bricoleurs in three ways.  One such way is through role shifting.  For example, a SWAT team found more suspects than anticipated when breaking into a location.  As a result, the role changed from "trying to reach the furthest corner of the location to covering areas and suspects as they advanced."  This had a ripple effect as officers in the back had to change their mission as well.   A second way was to reorganize routines.  Workers had to change their approach to work.  For example, a marksman fires at a suspect and misses signaling to the suspect that he is under attack. "Recognizing the changed situation, the waiting break-in team executed a 'dynamic entry,' a well-rehearsed routine, without taking time for conversation."  A third way is through "reordering the work."  For film crews, this might mean shooting scenes in different order.

2.  Resources for bricolage

Two sociological resources were relied upon by both groups in response to surprises: a) Shared task knowledge - multiple members held process knowledge regarding how to complete a certain task, such as camera operators could respond quickly to the absence of one of the team members; b) common work flow expectations - a shared understanding of how events follow one another, such as prioritizing  arresting a suspect and engaging in a dynamic entry if a noisy floorboard signals the SWAT team's presence.

3.  Developing resources for bricolage

To develop resources, organizations rely on three approaches.  One approach is to draft agreement on the work.  Early on in shooting, a production designer or art director may have already scouted locations and would anticipate what would be needed for a set.  A second approach is to reinforce and elaborate task activities.  For a SWAT team, this might mean a trainee might have to take off and put on a bulletproof vest several times to identify the appropriate way to dress,  A third approach is to build cross-member expertise.  A paramedic might never need to use a gun, but it might be helpful to know how a gun works.

Implications for HR
1.  Prepare for the unexpected.  Build contingency plans and communicate their importance to all relevant parties.  Harken back to the days of fire alarm drills.
2.  Build in opportunities at work for routinization of some tasks; turn unprogrammed decision-making into programmed decision-making
3.  Engage in shared knowledge building, which may involve simple day-to-day interactions between team members.

I love this!

At the recent Republican Governor's Association meeting in Florida, Republican strategist Frank Luntz was trying to assist Republicans on how to address the growing dissatisfaction represented by Occupy Wall Street.

One such way is to focus on "jobs" rather than "careers."  According to Chris Moody, the conversation should go as follows:

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'

"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.

"So why are we talking about jobs?"

 Luntz further goes on to say:

Don't say 'bonus!'

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."


"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

 I love this...with millions unemployed and unable to find work, and countless others trying to make ends meet by holding 2 (or more) jobs, the answer to our economic woes is the continual Orwellization of the struggle.

• It's tough to talk about careers when people need a job first
• It's tough to talk about careers, when its not "careers" being outsourced to other countries
• Why talk about "pay for performance," when executives get the same "performance" enhancements at the same time each year?
• Careers are long-term.  They involve expectations of the future.  Most people are looking for work today.  
• People definitely want careers, but the current economy make it tough to turn a job into a career.
• Jobs are temporary; careers involve commitment by an employment partner.

How do these "solutions" being offered really create "careers" and the resulting "pay for performance?"

In today's wonderful edition of The Cynical Girl, Laurie Ruettimann cites that 82% of recruiters find evidence of discrimination against the employed.

This brings up the following conundrum:

1.  If recruiters and employers are not looking at the unemployed to fill vacancies, they must be looking at job seekers who are currently desiring to leave their current position, or trying to entice those who may be content at their current job.

2.  Wages have stagnated for the past 30 years....see graph:



So, riddle me this Batman, how are vacancies being filled if higher real wages aren't increasing.  Or, is the only way to get a wage increase in today's economy is to switch jobs with the expectation, that once the job is secured, one is unlikely to see significant increased in salary for several years?  Is pay compression (or even pay inversion) the "new normal?"

Growing up in East Lansing, MI and the Michigan State campus, one of the more polarizing figures was one Mark Grebner.

Thirty years before the advent of sites such as "Rate My Professors," he was self publishing "Rating the Profs," a short paperback that was available for purchase at the MSU Student Book Store to assist students in avoiding the "harder" professors (several were rated as "A Real Bastard!").

He has also ran successfully for  County Commissioner for many years under the slogan, "No Worse Than The Rest."  Which made me think...

Is this a winning slogan for HR as well?

Our HR strategy?...no worse than the rest
Our time to fill?...no worse than the rest
Our candidate pool? ....no worse than the rest
How do we train and develop our employees? ...no worse than the rest
How do we keep our employees safe? ....no worse than the rest
Our recognition program? ...no worse than the rest
Our compensation system?...no worse than the rest
Where do you rate the employees? ....no worse than the rest

Does it work?

Facing personnel problems (in this case, the star RB of the Detroit Lions, Jahvid Best, was suffering from a concussion), the Lions and Philadelphia Eagles engaged in a common practice - the trading of employees.  However, the trade had an uncommon result.  According to ESPN,

Detroit's trade with Philadelphia that exchanged seldom-used veteran running backs Ronnie Brown and Jerome Harrison has been voided.

Two league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that the trade was voided because Harrison has previously undisclosed health issues.

Brown arrived in Detroit but never got to practice.

Lions spokesman Bill Keenist said the team would have no further comment.

The Eagles announced Tuesday they dealt Brown to Detroit for Harrison and an undisclosed pick in the 2013 draft. Detroit wouldn't confirm the move because the franchise doesn't until deals are done.

The Lions were looking forward to adding Brown to a backfield that might be without starting running back Jahvid Best for a while. He had his third concussion Sunday in a loss to San Francisco.

Certainly, it was unlikely Detroit was trying to pull a fast one on the Eagles, particularly since most trades of this nature are contingent on the results of a physical.

However, it got me wondering why we don't see trades among employees more often outside of the sporting arena?  Could Ford make a play for a senior accountant at Chrysler?  Could Amazon be angling for an up and coming software engineer at Google?

Certainly, a number of things limit the possibility of such trades in the business world, such as:
1) Size of organizations - the sporting arena have limits on the number of employees to possibly cover.  There are only 30 Major League Baseball teams, with roster limits during the season of 26 players.  There are only 32 NFL teams, with roster limits of 53 players.  Organizations with 1,000+ employees were make such scouting very difficult

2) Transparency of performance - Pro athletes performance are on display on a regular basis.   Turn on the television on Sunday afternoons in the Fall (particularly on DirecTV) and you can see how an employee with another organization is performing.   It is tough to see how Bill in accounting is doing at another organization.

However, what would the business world look like if such trading became commonplace?  Would workers be more anxious knowing they could possibly be moving to another organization at a moment's notice?  Would that increase or decrease performance levels?  Would it create a whole new cadre of performance scouts evaluating talent at other employers?  Could it address potential staffing imbalances, as one organization may be flush with sales professionals while another could have extra HR managers?  Who would create the Trade Value Chart  that would assess comparable value of different charts?

And, would we see trades like we've seen in Major League baseball where players have been traded for a set of bats or a turkey?

I'm not sure I want to wake up tomorrow knowing that I've been traded to Lawrence University for a fax machine and a set of Bic pens.

So, I just got back from a showing of "Larry Crowne" with 100 of my 70 year old friends.

I'm going to spoil the first 5 minutes of the movie for you...so if you're going to see it, be prepared.  Over the opening credits, we see Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) as a model organization citizen for a Wal-mart clone called U-Mart.   He's excited to go to work, he picks up trash from the parking lot, he demonstrates a lot of camaraderie.   He spouts that even without organizational policy, sorting the clothes before leaving for the day is the right thing to do.

Over the loud speaker, he hears his name being called to the common break room.  He thinks he is going to receive employee of the month, an award he has won 9 times!  However, once he gets there, he is met by HR and the suits.  He learns that because he does not have a college education (he entered the Navy after high school where he served the country loyally for 20 years as a cook), he is not "management" material, and can't move up the corporate ladder.  Because the company doesn't want to prevent anyone from moving up, they decide....TO FIRE HIM.

That's right...they fire him.  No thought that the policy might be a bad one.   No thought that other positions might plateau.  No offer of tuition reimbursement to possibly keep one of their supposedly best employees.  No progressive discipline/warning that this might be a possibility sometime in the future if he doesn't start working toward a college education.  They fire him.

I understand that they needed the plot point to get him to go to community college to meet cute with Julia Roberts, but its just lazy writing by Tom Hanks and Nia Vardalos to get the movie going.

*But the 70 year old ladies loved the movie anyway