The 11th annual West Michigan's 101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work for, 2013, was held in Hudsonville last week.  The event, put on by The Michigan Business & Professional Association (MBPA), was co-sponsored by The Employers' Association.  After more than 500 individuals participated in two Educational Sessions put together by TEA, 101 West Michigan companies demonstrating the best and brightest HR practices were recognized and honored during a luncheon presentation. 

The first presentation was The World of Re-Recruitment by Jodi Royse (Herman Miller).  Jodi shared the value of providing a positive work environment so that employees could succeed and thrive in the workplace.  She emphasized the need to educate and train our workforce in their current positions for success while preparing them for future opportunities within the organization.  The concept expressed was to treat current employees as if they were job applicants - always providing opportunities for development and growth.

Jodi stated that the Human Resources department posts all openings internally before looking "outside" so that employees have a chance to review opportunities and talk with HR and their supervisor about new challenges.  She shared how Herman Miller is trying to keep the talented pool of human capital they have intact while, at the same time, recruiting a higher level of talent for the future.  One of the success areas for their employees has been the flexibility that Herman Miller tries to provide.  If an employee works better from home or a variety of home, office combination, the organizations tries to assist the employee so that they can be the most productive.

After hearing Jodi speak, all participants talked about ways they engage employees then shared them with the larger group.  During this time where available jobs do not always align with talent, all participants realized that we need to do all we can to recruit, retain and (if possible), promote the people already working for us to help avoid the "talent gap."

The second presentation of the morning focused upon Employee Appreciation.  Lynda Cribari (Davenport University) spoke on The Importance of Providing an Appreciative Environment.  Lynda reminded us of the value employers receive when treating employees with dignity and respect.  She shared ideas on how to highlight achievement, teamwork and goal attainment by working creatively with staff.  After Lynda presented, each table shared ideas used within their organization and encouraged each other to reward team members with recognition for goal achievement.

One insight from these discussions was to set a glass jar in the middle of the office and deposit a smooth rock into it every time a team member reached a goal. (New client, under budget project etc...) then continue to fill the jar until the end of the month.  If the jar is full, the team celebrates by doing something special together.  It has taken time to adjust to this method, but as the team has seen the jar fill everyday, it motivates the team to reach their goals because they receive a tangible reward for their daily actions.

The West Michigan's 101 Best and Brightest companies are recognized for excellent communication and shared vision, community initiatives, compensation, benefits and employee solutions as well as employee achievement and recognition.  There are a total of 11 different categories recognized - all focusing on best HR practices demonstrated throughout the year.  The organizations selected by MBPA (through a stringent analysis process) have demonstrated they want to succeed by investing in their team and rewarding their employees for working together as they operate efficiently in a manner that fosters sustainability.

The Employers' Association has worked with the MBPA since the inception of West Michigan's Best and Brightest program and we value our partnership with the group.  The Employers' Association offers training, employee engagement and performance review analysis to members seeking to become one of the "best and brightest" and serves as consulting partner to the MBPA for any organizations seeking to enhance their rating or improve their employee relations activities.  Being one of the best means treating employees fairly, honestly and with respect and TEA offers a number of programs designed to help employers accomplish that objective.  

Please contact us at 616.6981167 or visit our website at www.teagr.org for more information.

We've had a number of "hotline" calls lately from TEA members who are concerned about the amount of employee turnover they are experiencing and want to know the turnover statistics for their particular industries.  What is the optimal level of turnover at your organization? According to a recent survey, nearly half of the respondents believe their ideal turnover would be 10 percent or less, and one-fifth consider it 10-20 percent. Almost one-third of respondents don't know what is best for their organization.

The survey, conducted by AMA Enterprise, a division of the American Management Association, asked respondents, "Is there an optimal level of turnover at your organization?" Here are the results:

"Certainly no company wants or could achieve zero turnover, and every organization needs new people, new ideas, new energy," said Sandi Edwards, Senior Vice President of AMA Enterprise. "But runaway turnover can be a nightmare with skyrocketing recruitment and training costs, causing significant impact on the rest of the organization."

Moreover, employee turnover varies by industry, acknowledges Edwards. "Each organization must find what works best and seek the right equilibrium. What surprises us among the findings is the vagueness on the very subject of turnover. For instance, too many managers don't seem to have a clear fix on what's happening, and presumably on the relating costs, fiscal and otherwise."

As the economy continues to slowly improve, more employees may be willing to voluntarily leave their jobs to find new employment. Downsizing has increased employees' workloads and decreased their job satisfaction. Employers should be sure they are doing all they can to avoid losing top talent by identifying factors that might be contributing to the turnover rate.  Reasons can include below-market compensation, lack of flexible scheduling, inadequate training, lack of career growth, or poor supervision or management.

Studies have shown, however, that the primary cause of employee turnover is POOR JOB FIT.  As we've outlined in previous articles, your company's employee selection procedures, interviewing techniques, use of background investigations and pre-employment testing are key factors in making the right hiring decisions.  TEA offers assistance in many of these areas, so please view our Employment page on our website www.teagr.org or contact Rob Strate, rstrate@teagr.org.

The conventional wisdom is that age discrimination claims are difficult to prove. Age must be the motivating factor for the discriminatory act; a mixed motive won't cut it. Moreover, direct evidence of age discrimination is hard to find. Employers rarely make self-incriminating remarks ... or do they?

In the last several months, at least four federal district courts have considered whether employer comments - specifically questions about older employees' retirement plans - were enough to get these employees in front of a jury on their age discrimination claims. Every time, the answer was "yes."

"You should be retired now, playing golf." In mid-April, the federal district court in Colorado allowed the oldest and highest-paid store manager in his district, a 60-year-old who was fired after others complained about his yelling and use of profanity, to avoid summary judgment against his age discrimination claim. The employee had worked for the store for 40 years. In addition to evidence that no other managers had been fired solely for using profanity (in fact, the district manager who fired him regularly used profanity at work), the court was persuaded by evidence that several managers made comments about his age and inquired into when he planned to retire. For example, a retail operator asked, "Why are you still working? You should be retired by now, playing golf." Two district managers asked when he was going to retire. For these reasons, and because there was also a question on whether he was performing his job satisfactorily, a reasonable jury could find that the store's decision to fire him was not based on profanity but was motivated by his age (Roach v Safeway, Inc, DColo, April 18, 2013). 

"At your age ... you hadn't even thought of retiring?" Just a few days earlier, the Southern District of Mississippi found a vice president's comment that he couldn't believe an employee hadn't considered retirement "at his age" was direct evidence of age discrimination. After almost 40 years with the company, the 73-year-old employee was terminated when he refused to retire, resign, or accept an offer from his employer to stay in his current position for another couple of months to transition his responsibilities to others. His termination notice came one week after this conversation with the vice president, who asked him about his retirement plans and said, "At your age, David, you hadn't even thought about retiring?" The court found it noteworthy that the vice president's comment not only spoke of the employee's retirement but also specifically referenced his age. This direct evidence of discrimination created a question of fact that precluded summary judgment (Hawthorne v Truck Trailer and Equipment, Inc., SDMiss, April 15, 2013).

"We're thinking along the lines that you'll be retiring." Similarly, in March the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that comments made by decision-makers - hospital executives who expressed their belief that the 63-year old physician whose contract they refused to renew would be retiring - were sufficient to give rise to a plausible inference that the hospital acted with age bias. When the physician's contract was not renewed after more than 30 years, his position was replaced by one for a hospitalist, and that position was then filled by a 29-year-old physician. That evidence was enough for the court to deny the hospital's motion for summary judgment on the employee's age discrimination claims (Sesso v Mercy Suburban Hospital, EDPa, March 13, 2013). 

"Do you plan to retire soon?" Finally, an older pharmacist terminated ostensibly for performance issues could advance his age discrimination claims based on pretext evidence of his supervisor's age-related comments, the Northern District of Alabama ruled in late January. In essence, the employee alleged that his district supervisor made age-related remarks, and that after he complained about them to his supervisor's superior, he suffered a series of reprimands that led to his termination. Over a period of three years, there were three age-related comments alleged, with the most recent uttered months before the employee's termination, so the court wasn't convinced these were direct evidence of age discrimination. However, they amounted to significant circumstantial evidence; for example, during his first annual review, the supervisor asked him when he planned to retire, and at his next annual review, the supervisor asked how old he was now. He also called the pharmacist an "old man" in front of other workers. Because the supervisor was the decision-maker in his termination, and a reasonable jury could infer age-related bias from his remarks, the jury could also infer that the supervisor continued to harbor age-related bias when he made his decision (Harris v CVS Caremark Corporation aka CVS Pharmacy, NDAla, January 29, 2013). 

To be fair, in most of these cases the comments by management weren't the only evidence of age discrimination. But in every case, they were found to be significant evidence. So can we agree that, at the very least, it really isn't a good idea anymore to ask our older employees when they plan to retire?