"HR people eat unrepresented employee victims for lunch"
I think the real quote should have been:
"In Effort To Increase Income, Greedy Barrister Instills False Sense of Fear In Employees".
Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)
First I'm wondering if this individual were not an AAF would she even be questioned in such an accusatory, you have got to be kidding, race discrimination does not happen in America, no not in our country kind of way.
Would she even be questioned to the facts of her salary or professional background. Or the fact that she had to explain that she had a degree, how degrading.
The first fallacy in your argument is that you do not have the first clue as to the race, sex or age of any of the respondents to this thread. All you know is that we're all HR professionals with a need for facts before we offer analysis and opinion, and to that we are entitled. We are trained to question and probe. That's HR 101. There is always a need for clarification when posts such as this question seem so tilted one way or the other, especially when they are posted by those for whom this Forum is not meant in the first place. The rules are posted and they are what they are. Would you have been perfectly satisfied had we all bought into the 'victim mentality' immediately and not asked for details?
By the way, we would welcome your participation and input on this and other threads. We need all the help we can get. Try not to just visit occasionally for a slam. Come out of the bleachers and sit with us and give us your thoughts. We need other HR professionals to join in the discussion. x:-)
I don't know what HR 101 you took but I would certainly forewarn future HR professionals to refrain from taking this class! As HR professionals we certainly don't attack a complainant when they complain. We look at the facts of the evidence compiled and make recommendations based on that. Based on the information presented in her post she certainly makes some good points. With the information that she has presented would certainly equate to a prima facie case. But if you knew anything about discrimination law you would know that, now wouldn't you Mr. Don? Again, based on the information presented the company doesn't seem to offer a legitamite business reason as to the inequities listed in her post. The burden of proof that has to be met in a case such as this is preponderance of the evidence meaning >50%. If you file with the EEOC your company will be hard pressed to not divulge additional information to the Federal government, unless they just want to go ahead and write you a check. Stay with it and force them to give you upfront answers to your questions. It is always a shame that employers aren't more upfront with their employees. Based on experience, when an employer isn't upfront that is usually due to a hidden agenda, inexperience, ignorance, or just downright discrimination.
Just in case non-HR people are viewing this. True HR professionals are supposed to be just that, PROFESSIONAL. Don's approach to your complaint is the wrong approach. I would most certainly hate to be an employee with an issue and have to discuss it with Don. Certainly not a people person. All HR professionals do not take this approach!!!!
LV, Of course Don can speak for himself, but I interpretted his words in this way: When a complaint rolls in, an investigation needs to be done. An HR person needs to investigate to see if something really occurred or not...not just believe the complaintant outright (or believe the alleged perpatrator outright either). Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, miscommunication, rumors, lies, etc. Or perhaps it really did happen and there are witnesses. You never know until you investigate. THAT is HR 101.
I certainly agree that one does have to conduct an investigation, but one does not automatically attack the complainant. You may want to reread the post #1 of which Don sent. It has to do with approach and this is the wrong approach. Do you honestly think that people just sit in bed at night and create these complaints in their heads for no reason? 99% of the time the issues are real to the complainant. That is what matters. I also agree that yes there maybe a miscommunication issue but that is what the investigation is to unfold. You remain unbiased during an investigation. Use a little empathy if possible. You let the facts speak for themselves. You remove your own personal opinions and biases from the process. Hr 101 doesn't teach you that. One may need to take HR 601 instead.
I didn't think he was attacking the person making the complaint, not even when I took your advice and reread the post. I felt he was taking a straight forward and direct approach. He mentions he's leary of the posting since it's an ee posting on an er board but if he's wrong about that then so be it. Nothing "wrong" with that approach.
If this issue was at his company and he was the HR person taking the complaint from the ee, and he said to the person that he is leary of what she was telling him, THAT would be the wrong approach. But that is not the situation at hand.
No, I do not think MOST people sit in bed at night and create these complaints in their heads for no reason. However, I certainly believe that people do and have done that very thing. I also believe that some have had every right to make a complaint and haven't. And I believe that some have made legitimate complaints and have not found justice.
The HR findings said they found that the company lacked policies, such as salary guidelines, titles, responsibilities.
They also said they found some issues "that others could perceive as discriminatory" - what does that mean?
Throughout their findings - they alluded to "problem areas" "issues" that would need to be fixed, that several of my statements were corroborated - but that they would take "actions to resolve issues"
But then when it came to me - I was flat out under attack! If I was such a problem employee - why no documentation of that, why no write-up's, no bad reviews, but to the contrary - raises, bonuses, opportunity.
My whole issue was the preference of young white males on our team, all jocks, and my pay differential.
LV, I believe Don was "attacking" the poster right above him. If you go back and read post #3, he admits to the legitimacy of the originator's request for information. I also read that Don's HR 101 boiled down is to investigate, not make assumptions as the one poster ostensibly did. Not that Don needs my help in defending his positions, but this seemed quite obvious.
Where did this come from? I re-read the post and could find no mention of this person being AAF. Did I just miss it? She offered up, without being asked, that she had an HR degree. The more relevant facts forumites have, the more relevant the answers (usually).
I was just mystified as these comments seemed to come from left field. I am kind of dense sometimes (no comments pleasex;-) ), but what does the Martin comment mean?
I didn't see anything degrading at all about what was asked. One must always be prepared to answer difficult and unexpected questions upon entering and participating in this forum. Furthermore, this is a forum for employers and HR professionals, NOT for EE's looking to seek affirmation of their decision to sue an employer. From your post I can see that this is your first visit to the Forum. Welcome. If you'd like to take the time to look around, you'll see that all Q&A sessions are handled in the same manner that this one was handled. Nothing degrading - just gathering the FACTS. That's what we do in HR.
I understood the grave-rolling remark, but didn't pick up on AAF until now. I'm dense too, I suppose. I don't know that the poster is AA but I assumed her to be F. What difference does it make anyway? I must recuse myself from this thread at this point.
What is AAF? Asian American Female? African American Female? I've never seen that acronym before (but I'm an HR newbie still so that doesn't mean anything).
Well I am not an HR newbie and the AAF and the Martin remark went right over my head. Guess I had better give up my AAAF (Authentic African American Female) status. What a ridiculous posting for a first time forum poster.
After rereading the original post very carefully I am sure she is indeed not African American. If she were, her lawyer would have certainly included discrimination on two fronts -- race and gender.
Also, I do not know of any black people who would say "Martin try not to roll over" or "dog gummit". Of course -- I don't know everything. LOL
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-03-04 AT 06:27PM (CST)[/font][br][br][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-03-04 AT 02:57 PM (CST)[/font]
I've deleted my response. I am not going to be goaded into an argument. Deja Vu all over again. Who does this poster remind me of? See y'all on another thread. x:-)
Don - I want to encourage you to not delete your responses. If what you say is unpopular/offensive/whatever to someone then SO BE IT. No one and nothing ever grows, learns, changes or is enlightened by sitting in a room full of people that pat each other on the back and agree all day long. I don't always agree with you but I enjoy reading your posts and I have learned something from them more than once. -The Glass Slippered One
AMEN SISTER. I agree 110%. Don - I also encourage you to not delete your responses. You can't please everyone, and this is obviously a prime example. I consider your posts and comments to be very valuable and insightful, and to heck with those that you may offend. Never have I seen you post anything unprofessional or uncalled for. You may not water it down or sugar coat it...you get down and dirty and straight to the point. A trait not appreciated or practiced enough, in my opinion.
LV: let me tell you a few things, Newbie. I've investigated over 200 harassment and discrimination complaints, to resolution. When you reach 1/20th of that number, come back and comment. There's a helluva lot of difference in having an employee come in and sit face to face and file a complaint and having somebody post one on an internet forum. They're 180 degrees apart in realism, believability, approach and credibility. It's quite appropriate for us to question a poster who is anonymous. People who post to an anonymous board like this have no stake in the resolution and have no promise of truthfulness. That's why they are often questioned. We owe it to ourselves and to our profession to offer credible responses and to question those who post anonymously before we offer up an educated explanation. That's why we often try very hard to get to the very bottom of the issues and sometimes that requires a certain degree of inquiry, probing, doubt and cynicism. You will learn, as you advance in your career, that it is never wise to take every complaint and every grievance at face value, especially those given birth anonymously. They all deserve some degree of inquiry in order for a professional to fully investigate and arrive at fair and equitable decisions. You will gain nothing by attacking my approach on the Forum. You will perhaps, however, gain much if you will sit back and learn from those of us who know what we're talking about. If it makes you feel better to harshly criticize my comments, then, by all means, append your remarks below.
If you want to compare resumes in this arena I will certainly step up to the plate. To so sadly disappoint you I have worked on more complaints than your 200 and in a shorter amount of time than you because by using context clues I can assume you are older than my 34 years of age. I have worked on more complaints in the local government, federal government and private businesses. I also own my own Human Resources Consulting firm, Dorsey and Associates which EEO is one of our focuses. I have been trained at both the state and federal levels (EEOC). Not to include my bachelor's in economics and MBA, and hold numerous Human Resources certifications including an EEO investigators certification from the Federal Government. I also would like to include my own first hand personal experiences to my resume. Your intent if fine, I would never use your approach, comprende?
Comments
I think the real quote should have been:
"In Effort To Increase Income, Greedy Barrister Instills False Sense of Fear In Employees".
Note: The preceeding is my personal opinion and has no value beyond that. Although it may be 'sorta offensive' or 'indeed offensive' to someone out there, it is offered without regard to that possibility. Should you find yourself alarmed by my post, you may privately mail me to protest or you may alert the principal's office. x:-)
Would she even be questioned to the facts of her salary or professional background. Or the fact that she had to explain that she had a degree, how degrading.
Not surprised again, but dog gummit!
Martin try not to roll over today ok!!!!!!
By the way, we would welcome your participation and input on this and other threads. We need all the help we can get. Try not to just visit occasionally for a slam. Come out of the bleachers and sit with us and give us your thoughts. We need other HR professionals to join in the discussion. x:-)
When a complaint rolls in, an investigation needs to be done. An HR person needs to investigate to see if something really occurred or not...not just believe the complaintant outright (or believe the alleged perpatrator outright either). Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, miscommunication, rumors, lies, etc. Or perhaps it really did happen and there are witnesses. You never know until you investigate. THAT is HR 101.
If this issue was at his company and he was the HR person taking the complaint from the ee, and he said to the person that he is leary of what she was telling him, THAT would be the wrong approach. But that is not the situation at hand.
No, I do not think MOST people sit in bed at night and create these complaints in their heads for no reason. However, I certainly believe that people do and have done that very thing. I also believe that some have had every right to make a complaint and haven't. And I believe that some have made legitimate complaints and have not found justice.
They also said they found some issues "that others could perceive as discriminatory" - what does that mean?
Throughout their findings - they alluded to "problem areas" "issues" that would need to be fixed, that several of my statements were corroborated - but that they would take "actions to resolve issues"
But then when it came to me - I was flat out under attack! If I was such a problem employee - why no documentation of that, why no write-up's, no bad reviews, but to the contrary - raises, bonuses, opportunity.
My whole issue was the preference of young white males on our team, all jocks, and my pay differential.
I was just mystified as these comments seemed to come from left field. I am kind of dense sometimes (no comments pleasex;-) ), but what does the Martin comment mean?
Marc, I think the Martin reference was to Martin Luther King Jr..
Furthermore, this is a forum for employers and HR professionals, NOT for EE's looking to seek affirmation of their decision to sue an employer.
From your post I can see that this is your first visit to the Forum. Welcome. If you'd like to take the time to look around, you'll see that all Q&A sessions are handled in the same manner that this one was handled. Nothing degrading - just gathering the FACTS. That's what we do in HR.
After rereading the original post very carefully I am sure she is indeed not African American. If she were, her lawyer would have certainly included discrimination on two fronts -- race and gender.
Also, I do not know of any black people who would say "Martin try not to roll over" or "dog gummit". Of course -- I don't know everything. LOL
"AAF signing off... and we'll be right back after eating our employees!!"
TGIF..
LFernandes
Thanks for the Friday afternoon giggle...
I've deleted my response. I am not going to be goaded into an argument. Deja Vu all over again. Who does this poster remind me of? See y'all on another thread. x:-)
-The Glass Slippered One
Don - I also encourage you to not delete your responses. You can't please everyone, and this is obviously a prime example. I consider your posts and comments to be very valuable and insightful, and to heck with those that you may offend. Never have I seen you post anything unprofessional or uncalled for. You may not water it down or sugar coat it...you get down and dirty and straight to the point. A trait not appreciated or practiced enough, in my opinion.
Your intent if fine, I would never use your approach, comprende?