How should first-line supervisors deal with an agency head who continually encourages subordinates to bypass their supervisors in making reports about employee performance, work relations, and/or operations? Speaking to this agency head has already been tried and failed. This encouragement comes in the form of an "open door" policy, enabling behavior such a listening instead asking them to address with their supervisor first, and even sometimes via direct instructions to do so.
—Frustrated and Discouraged, government, Phoenix
Even though employers hold a legal privilege to provide a negative reference, the costs from potential litigation is enough of a deterrent to make negative job references almost non-existent.
Not only is this pending wreck happening in the dark, no one knows who’s steering and the owner’s manual contradicts itself.
We know that workplace fatalities are on the rise. What does this mean for your business?
Employers should continue to assume that non-student interns are paid employees and should consult with counsel on whether student interns should be paid.
Legalities aside, this issue asks a larger question: What kind of employer do you want to be?
This case has very little to do with the legality of criminal background checks and everything about two litigants buying off the risk of a trial.
Employees are still ignorant enough about social media to engage in very public online conversation about the alleged systematic harassment of a co-worker.
An employee continually shares tweets during the workday that don’t paint our company in the best light. He also uses profanity in his tweets regularly. But he doesn’t indicate where he works in his Twitter bio. And the profanity and perspectives he shares are part of the “personal brand” he portrays online. From an HR perspective, what are my options?
—Uncharted Waters, corporate communications director, financial services