A Workforce Magazine article titled "Home Depot Slashes HR Staff By Half, 1,000 Will Go" caught our attention and may be a signal event. Despite the fact that HD bulked up on HR during its "GE" phase, HD may revert to more typical retail ratios of HR - something like 1 to 1000 or 2000.
The ratio of HR to a manufacturing or service related industry has traditionally been around 1 exempt to 1000 employees (including the staffing function). Might check how you fit in the range. What would happen to staffing if your ratio was 1000 to 1 for all HR?
On the other hand, according to a CollegeGrads' survey list, the Top 200 Intern Employers for 2008 are not pulling back on their projections for entry hires for the year.
We're pretty sure the MBA and critical needs areas like engineering and research will continue to compete for scarce talent but there are too many internships and related entry positions tied to the health of the economy for us to believe these numbers will hold. Note to self: Will interns we don't hire full-time become part of our "Alumni" pipeline?
In its March 25 notice the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced that it no longer will seek to change the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures' (UGESP) definition of "applicant" to clarify when Internet job seekers become applicants for federal reporting and recordkeeping purposes. The end.
For those not paying attention - on March 4, 2004, the EEOC, OFCCP, the U.S. Department of Justice and the OMB issued recommended additions to the definition of "applicant" to clarify UGESP- specifically as the guidelines relate to the Internet and related technologies. The OFCCP then issued its final rule on the definition of "Internet applicant" on Oct. 7, 2005, and the OFCCP's final rule took effect Feb. 6, 2006. We think this was the right move by the EEOC. Now non-federal contract employers can stop looking over their shoulders.
We've had an unusual number of inquiries about the calculation of cost per hire recently. Wonder why? We don't.
We're not fans of cost per hire as the sole means for evaluating the performance (specifically the effectiveness) of a recruiting team but, as an internal measure of efficiency it's unavoidable - and pressures on CPH always get tough in a down year. We have several criticisms about the traditional means of calculating CPH and wonder what the interest is in establishing a benchmark among Colloquium members for comparison purposes? Gary Cluff, now at Mitre has long been one of the experts in this area and perhaps it's time to update the methodology.
In an effort to defend the Gen Y focus (it seems to the exclusion of all others), a SHRM article noted that a survey of 2500 senior HR executives claimed they (Gen Y) were the "toughest to deal with."
We disagree. We just think the Gen Y case for employment is funnier and more entertaining than trying to figure out how to find and retain engineers, PhDs in clinical research and candidates for similar positions regardless of their age who (even if they are in the right age cohort) are almost certain to have none of the Gen Y characteristics - since they are more likely sons and daughters of immigrants, members of less advantaged groups, etc. What we really need is a global understanding of the differences we bring to the workplace based on cultural heritage as well as age. Wake us up when that speaker gets here.
John Sullivan's excellent article detailed some of what we (Gerry was one of the judges) found in reviewing this year's crop of candidates.
If you are reading this it's more than likely your firm has a staffing practice or protocol that should be submitted for an award, or shared at a conference like SHRM, ERE etc. Let us know and we're more than happy to offer some suggestions for getting out there.
An excellent AP article (byline Jeff Karoub) eloquently described the difficulties of recruiting Arabic speaking Americans for the military. Modest goals of 300 a year are being met but barely. Hint: It's not a sourcing problem.
We're sympathetic and, after our gig with the intelligence community last June, we're also convinced that even the most competitive firms have 1 or 2 mission impossible positions. Studying challenges that dwarf your own might offer new insights.
Earlier this year Joseph Juran, one of the premier metrics and quality pioneers of the industrial age, died at the age of 103. He was once asked what it would take for US business leaders (as opposed to the Japanese who began improving their processes from the beginning) to invest in measuring quality. He answered: "Pray for things to get worse." Hmmm could be his prediction of a century of quality will happen sooner rather than later.
Juran was known for (among many other things) the Pareto principle. We bet 80% of staffing results can be attributed to 20% of the staff.
The January collapse of a large vendor management system left staffing firms holding millions in debt. Corporations had paid for the service but the agencies that had supplied the services never got a dime.
The American Staffing Association's effort to suggest standards for vendor management is laudable but late. We would not be surprised to see additional systemic failures.
How appropriate that the stampede for H1b visas occurs on April 1.
Whether the 65,000 cap was exceeded in minutes, hours or days this year is immaterial - another lottery is inevitable. So, the question is - if a lottery is the mechanism for how we get the "prize," how can we improve our chances of getting someone a permit to work here?
One way (there are many which is why immigration lawyers are having a field day) is to buy multiple tickets. Firms have learned that multiple "entries" to get an H1b significantly increases a candidate's prospects of being one of those 65,000 winners.
What a sad state of affairs. Companies with the most money and the canniest lawyers are incented to pay for and submit dozens of applications if they really want a candidate. Ever wonder what this looks like in a company meeting? "Hey John, let's try 2 apps for Helena. Natasha is more important than Helena so double that to 4 applications and, Ben, we've got to have Ben, he's our best bet for clinical research so he needs a 20 app package."
According to a recent SHRM article (available to members), DHS Rule Limits H1b Visa Applications, an attempt to make a fairer process resulted in a new ruling where, "The federal government will reject multiple H-1B visa applications filed by a single employer on behalf of a foreign national whom the company wants to hire." However, there is an exception (there are always exceptions). If you file multiple times for different 'divisions' or subsidiaries of your company, these applications will be accepted."
If you want to win here in the US, you have to learn the rules and "game" the stupid system - or, if that offends your sensibilities then just move the functions to Vancouver, Shanghai, Mumbai or any European Union country for that matter where more rational business processes prevail. It's simpler, fewer hassles and a ready supply - given our attention and investment. The window to fixing immigration is rapidly closing.
April Fool America