Recruiting has never been easy. It’s not getting easier. Organizations across the country are facing a double dose of hiring difficulty. The workforce is facing a brain drain as Baby Boomers near retirement. And, as one generation prepares for its exit, another is preparing its entrance. The challenges that this generation brings are novel. Smart recruiters are using creative solutions to manage these new challenges.

1. Get to Know Them. Recruiting to Millennials means you have to get to know who they are, what they like, and what they are looking for in a career. Before you recruit Millennials, go out and meet some Millennials. Find out what they want from an employer, how they think they would get it, and what makes an organization appealing to them. Remember, Millennials are not motivated by the same things as either Baby Boomers or Gen-X-ers, so before you set out to recruit some Millennials you need to know what your organization has or does to make it attractive to the best Millennial talent.

2. Think Digital. There is no doubt that Millennials are wired into all things digital. In order to reach the best candidates, you need to adapt your recruiting practices to their digital world. That’s not to say that you need to launch text-messaging recruiting; however, you do need to seriously consider the best way to attract Millennials to your organization. You also need to promote how tech savvy your organization is, otherwise, Millennials will not consider your organization at all.

3. They are Team-Oriented. Millennials are peer-oriented and are accustomed to working in teams. Instead of trying to recruit a Millennial to your whole organization, consider recruiting Millennials to more discreet areas of your business which already work as a team. Also, make sure when you promote your organization’s atmosphere, you emphasize group dynamics rather than individual performance. Millennials don’t necessarily like to “go it alone.”

4. They are Civic-Minded. Millennials are likely to grow up like their civic-minded Baby Boomer elders, which means that recruiting Millennials is a great way to boost your company’s community profile. If your business is already involved with charitable organizations, make sure you highlight those efforts when you recruit a Millennial. If your organization is not involved with charitable efforts, consider allowing employees to create opportunities for your organization to do so. The result may be that your new hires are quickly folded into your organization’s culture and they have an immediate attachment with their peers and their new boss. Plus, your organization gets the PR benefit.

5. They are the Future. Finally, your organization’s leadership must understand how important Millennials are to your business’s future. Despite the bad rap Millennials seem to be collecting (i.e., the new MBA who won’t travel without advance notice or the new hire who won’t look at his Blackberry on the weekends), they are unavoidable. Employee recruiting, management, and retention will absolutely change as a result of the infusion of Millennials into the workforce. HR experts predict that more employees will seek out companies that allow flexible schedules, reward creativity (rather than long hours), and provide meaningful challenges (rather than merely putting in time to climb the corporate ladder). The consequence is employers may need to re-vamp their culture and commit to some of the changes Millennials demand. In short, your organization’s leadership needs to buy into the idea that in order to recruit the most talented new hires, you may need to emphasize different aspects of your organization’s culture and reward structure.

The bottom line is Millennials remain a largely untapped asset and your organization will benefit from their talent. As long as you remain creative and strategic, your company has the opportunity to recruit the most talented Millennials.

Recruiting, Managing, and Retaining Millennials

The HR world has been abuzz with discussion about the generational dynamic between the aging baby boomers and the Web 2.0 world of Millennials. This five-part series is designed to give the rest of us some perspective.

A “Millennial,” demographically speaking, is a person born after 1980. They are the youngest members of today’s workforce. Experts estimate that by 2010, Millennials will outnumber both Baby Boomers and Gen Xers. Millennials (a/k/a “Gen Y”) are our society’s “digital residents,” which means that they have enjoyed the luxuries of digital technology their entire lives, including the massive world of video games. Their digital residence has given their generation characteristics employers never seen before.

Some sociologists believe that as a result of their residence in the digital world (think instant messaging, Facebook, and MySpace), Millennials are significantly peer-oriented and constantly seek instant gratification. The bottom line: Millennials don’t necessarily buy into the idea that in order to succeed at work, you need to get in early, stay late, and consistently work hard.

These characteristics can make it difficult for employers to adapt how and who they recruit, and how they manage and retain their new human resource. In short, Millennials are changing the way employers do the business of, well, employment. The next three installments provide tips on how your organization can tap into Millennial talent.

For more insight on Millennials and how they fit into your organization, consider the text “Millennials Incorporated” by Lisa Orrell. Ms. Orrell hosts the blog “Lisa’s Generation Relations Blog.” And, on May 20, 2008, HRHero.com will host Dr. Diane Gayeski, contributor to the Wall Street Journal and consultant to some of America’s top employers, in an audio conference titled “Are you ready for the Millennials? What HR Needs to Know to Recruit and Manage the IPod Workers.”

The focus of the next post in this series is Recruiting Strategies for the Next Generation.

Some recent reports about law firms trying to persuade associates to dress better, and even hiring coaches for them, are a reminder that the pendulum seems to have swung back from the days when even old timers were “dressing down” to try and “connect” with the wealthy young techie entrepreneurs.

I, for one, am pleased to see a move toward more moderate dress.

There has been silliness on both sides of the continuum. Some years ago, the Delaware Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, issued an edict that lawyers appearing before it had to wear white shirts. So much for sartorial creativity.

But if I were seeing a lawyer, I’d feel more confident if he or she were wearing a white shirt than jeans or running pants. While I don’t think we need to force associates to pore over “Dress For Success,” I think that dressing up a bit is a step in the right direction, both for the lawyer’s self-image and the clients’ confidence in the attorney. Maybe ties can be optional, especially in the summer, but there’s nothing like a suit or at least a sport jacket to establish a tone of authority (deserved or not).

Interviews are the usual starting line for pregnancy-discrimination suits and, more recently, FRD claims. I often get questions from clients or seminar attendees about the perils of interview questions.  A common theme is why is it that they shouldn’t ask candidates about their family, i.e., spouse, kids, etc. 

It seems natural. "Oh, I see you volunteer at the North East community center.  My kids take swimming lessons there.  Do your kids take any classes there?" Heck, I can give you a real-life example that happened to me last week. 

I was at the local greeting-card store.  As I was checking out, the [female] employee looks up and says enthusiastically, "Do you have any little ones at home?" 

I nearly choked on my Lifesaver.  I kid you not.  (No pun intended, really).  I stood there, mouth open, speechless. 

She turned around and grabbed a toy Schnauzer from a counter lined with little stuffed animals.  "You get one of these for free for a purchase of $20 or more."  I lifted my chin off the ground and nodded while she stuffed the toy toy (ok, pun intended) into my shopping bag. 

The employee was probably all of 23 years old.  She had no intention of forming opinions of me based on my answer to to her question.  She was just trying to give me the free toy.  But the question caught me off my guard. 

I can almost guarantee that if you went back to the store and asked her about it, she would have positively no idea who I was–one of many customers she’d seen that night.  She certainly would not recall what she’d said to me. 

It’s that easy.  Despite best intentions, it is so easy for an interviewer to ask a question that leads to a lawsuit.

Pregnancy Discrimination, Maternal Profiling, Family Responsibilities Discrimination (FRD), and Mother’s Day.  A natural combination.  You can add one more to that list.  Off-limit interview questions. 

When I teach seminars about best hiring practices, I usually get at least a few dirty looks when I talk about interview questions that should be avoided.  Employers and HR professionals often comment that interviews should be conversational to put the candidate at ease so the interviewer can get to know the "real" candidate.  Not a good idea.

Here’s why:

1. Every candidate that you interview except one is going to be rejected.  Remember that.  Every candidate except one goes home a loser. 
2. No one thinks they’re a loser.  No candidate who made it as far as the interview thinks that they shouldn’t get the job. Of course they should get the job! 
3. When rejected, blame-shifting is inevitable.  Do the logic.  If they were sure they were hiring-material but they don’t get hired, what can be the explanation?  Someone else made a mistake. (Namely, you, The Employer).
4. The interview becomes the target.  Well, what else is there?  The candidate had only one face-to-face interaction with The Employer–the interview.  Every word, every gesture, every question is analyzed to try to find what went wrong. 
5. Lawsuit. 

Sure, nobody likes a story with a sad ending.  But "it’s for your own good," ok? 

Interviewers (often untrained in employment discrimination) are just trying to make the candidate feel natural and at ease.  They want to know whether the interviewee will be a good fit, whether they have the technical skills needed, whether they understand the job’s requirements, etc.  They aren’t angling for prohibited information. 

But when a candidate doesn’t get hired, every question becomes suspect and the potential starter for a discrimination lawsuit. 

For those of you who want to know how to solve this problem, the best way to find out is to attend one of our seminars, especially those on lawful interviewing.  For now, I’ll say this: Every interviewer at every interview for every candidate should (no, must) use a script of pre-prepared questions.  And that script should be the same one used by every other interviewer for every other interview (at least for the same position). 

Autonomy in interviewing is a bad idea.

Maternal Profiling (a subset of Family Responsibilities Discrimination, "FRD"), is employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children.  Firing a newly pregnant employee. Interview questions designed to elicit details about child-care arrangements.  Just in time for Mother’s Day, here are some key points for employers about this type of workplace discrimination.

Profiles of Maternal Profiling

In late April 2008, ABC News aired a piece on World News With Charles Gibson about Maternal Profiling.  As a follow-up to the piece, the ABCNews website posted an article called, Are You a Victim of Maternal Profiling, featuring women from Pennsylvania who had personally experienced this type of discrimination.

One woman believed that she was having trouble landing a new job because she was the mother of three.  She indicated that interviewers would often ask her outright whether she had any children.  She said that one employer told her that it would cost too much in health care.

Can He Ask That?

Can employers ask candidates whether they have children, or whether they have adequate child-care arrangements?   The answer is "yes," much to the surprise of many, including many of my HR clients.  Some states do have laws that prohibit these questions from being asked during job interviews.  But neither Delaware nor Pennsylvania are included among them.  So the short answer is, Yes, employers may lawfully ask job candidates about their "family status," including questions about whether or not the applicant has children, is married, etc.

Like Mom Always Said, "Just because your friends jump off a cliff doesn’t mean you have to!"

We teach a lot of seminars.  We counsel a lot of employers.  We answer a lot of questions.  And I can say with great certainty that we would never, ever, ever, advise our clients to ask something as foolish as "Are you planning to have children?" to anyone, and certainly not to a potential or current employee!

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s smart, right?  No good can come of these questions.  So don’t ask them.  Just don’t do it. 

Employers need to plan for the aging workforce—the “gray-haired demographic” is here to stay.

Aging Workforce News (AWN) talks about a newly introduced piece of legislation, the “Incentives for Older Workers Act.” The proposed bill is designed to provide incentives and eliminate barriers for older Americans wishing to stay in the workforce longer, and encourage employers to recruit and retain older workers. AWN explains some of the bill’s highlights:

Given the statistics on Baby Boomers in the workplace, this law could help employers deal with what Forbes.com calls the “Gray-Haired Workforce.” By 2010, the number of workers aged 35 to 44–or those typically moving into upper management–will decline by 19%; the number of workers aged 45 to 54 will increase 21%; and the number of workers aged 55 to 64 will increase 52%. These statistic show that the workforce will include more and more employees aged 45 and over for several years to come. And they’re not going anywhere—AARP reports that 79% of baby boomers say they have no plans to retire any time soon.

Workplace Theft requires employers to respond quickly and effectively. Of course, the best tool is prevention. Employers should implement be aware of the best practices for preventing theft in their organization. But, if a theft should occur or a complaint of theft is reported, employers must be prepared to react using predetermined standards and guidelines to ensure consistency and avoid liability.

The Delaware News-Journal is reporting the arrest of a manager of a local Wendy’s restaurant for allegedly taking $1,800 from the till.

Employee theft has been and will probably always be a problem. Recent estimates indicating that it costs U.S. employers anywhere from $4 billion to $40 billion per year.

So what’s an employer to do? How do you prevent — or at least control — employee theft? Our friend, John Philips, at The Word on Employment Law Blog, suggests the following:

1. Watch for telltale signs like an unexplained rise in an employee’s living standards.

2. Hire people you can trust through the use of good background checks.

3. Make it hard to steal by careful supervision, the use of commonsense procedures and controls, and routine auditing.

4. Partner with employees to create an environment in which reporting theft is a job responsibility.

5. Give alternatives to stealing by providing employees with assistance when they get in a real bind with heavy medical expenses and the like.

6. Establish clear written policies on ethical behavior to be signed by each employee and to be enforced consistently, no matter the employee’s position.

Once theft is suspected, John suggests the following to avoid a defamation action by the accused employee:

• Thoroughly consider the source and validity of any information that alerts you to potential theft.

• Obtain as much information or evidence as you can find about the alleged theft before you take action.

• Review all policies that govern this kind of situation to make sure you’re following them.

• Don’t speculate about what the facts could be; find out what they are.

• Consider what you have done with employees in similar situations to be sure that consistency is being applied.

• Consult legal counsel to make sure you’re on solid legal footing before taking action.

Women don’t win by playing the anger card, according to a new study from Yale University psychologist Victoria Brescoll.

Brescoll and Eric Uhlmann at Northwestern University recently completed three separate studies to explore a phenomenon that is all-too-familiar to many women in leadership positions: Anger is not a pretty thing. The studies conclude that men who get angry are accepted and even rewarded but women who lose their temper are perceived to be less competent.

The studies, published in the March issue of Psychological Science, provide women with recommendations for navigating emotional hazards of the workplace. Brescoll says it pays to stay emotionally neutral and, if you can’t, at least explain what ticked you off in the first place.

One method employed by the studies was to show both men and women scenes of men and women (actually actors) who were ostensibly applying for a job. The study participants were then asked to rate the applicants on (1) how much responsibility they should be given; (2) their perceived competence; (3) whether they should be hired; and (4) how much they should get paid.

Male and female participants reached the same conclusions:

Angry men deserved more status, a higher salary, and were expected to be better at the job than angry women.

The study participants provided the same responses regardless of the type of job for which the candidate was applying. Executive- and entry-level candidates were ranked equally.

Emotions, however, had a much greater impact. When the actor-applicants expressed anger, the men were selected as the preferred candidates. And when the actors expressed sadness, the bias seemed to lessen, and women applicants were ranked equally to men in status and competence. Emotions did not have any impact on the participant’s opinions about salary–in both scenarios, the viewers awarded male applicants a higher salary.

A final study showed another way bias against female anger could be mitigated. When women actors explained why they were angry, observers tended to cut them more slack. Men, on the other hand, could actually be hurt when they explained why they were angry - perhaps, says the Yale psychologist, because observers tend to see this as a sign of weakness.

The study seems to lend some credence to the saying, “Kill ‘em with kindness.”

AMERICANS WANT NEXT PRESIDENT TO FOCUS MORE ON SAVING U.S. JOBS AND HEALTHCARE; LESS ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

With the spotlight of the political world shining on the Delaware Valley today, a new “America at Work” national opinion survey by the non-partisan Employment Law Alliance (ELA) shows that Americans overwhelmingly want their next President to focus more on improving their standard of living, providing universal healthcare, and stemming the outsourcing of jobs overseas than making it easier for immigrants to live and work in the United States.

The poll is based on a sampling of 1,125 working Americans surveyed between April 4 and 9 and is believed to be the only national survey to date focusing exclusively on a wide range of workplace-related issues that will likely confront the next President.*

You can not walk outside today and not hear people talking about Wednesday’s debate and the impact of the upcoming elections on jobs and healthcare. Life in the workplace is often the centerpiece of concern for so many Americans getting ready to elect a new president.

While issues such as immigration get much of the press, I believe that the poll shows that what a typical voter is interested in might vary.

A summary of the results reveal:

· 87% of Americans want their next President to focus on increasing the proportion of the workforce earning at least a living wage, closely followed (86%) by making it tougher for companies to outsource U.S. jobs to foreign countries, and (83%) rounding out the Big Three, providing healthcare coverage for all U.S. citizens.

· 76% of Americans are also concerned - but not at the same intensity level - with having the next President work toward increasing workplace safety regulation, 70% support focusing on expanding family leave rules and 69% think beefing up enforcement of workplace discrimination laws should be a priority.

· In sharp contrast, 40% said they are concerned that their next President focuses on immigration issues, ranging from making it easier for professionals to work in the U.S. to granting amnesty for illegal aliens.

· Workers were also significantly split along racial lines regarding both views on workplace issues and immigration reform with, for example, 55% of non-whites supporting relaxing immigration laws for professionals versus 36% among whites.

· Geographically, 46% of workers in Western states thought the President should make increasing legal immigration a priority compared to a low of 25% among Midwestern workers.

· 45% of Americans want to make it easier for unions to organize workers.

ELA members concentrate on labor and employment law issues in every American state and more than 75 countries. The survey was conducted prior to Wednesday’s democratic debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd.

“The message to the next President is raising the standard of living and getting better healthcare is more of a priority than organizing unions or immigration concerns,” said Sandler.

Dr. Ted Reed, President of Philadelphia-based Reed group and Poll Director for ELA, said the input from ELA’s attorneys around the country was invaluable in shaping the questions for the survey. According to Dr. Reed, “This survey is important because of the extent of demographic detail, including gender, race, income, education, and geography. The focus on pocketbook issues across the board as a Presidential priority is unmistakable.”

*The error interval is +/- 2.99% at a 95% level of confidence.

********************************************************************
Sheldon N. Sandler, a partner in the Employment Law Department at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor in Wilmington, Delaware, members of ELA.

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, one of Delaware’s largest law firms, counsels and represents national, international and local clients, handling sophisticated advisory and litigation matters involving bankruptcy, corporate law and intellectual property. Now in its fifth decade, Young Conaway also guides regional businesses and individuals through a myriad of employment, real estate, tax, estate planning, environmental, and banking issues from the firm’s offices in downtown Wilmington.

The Employment Law Alliance is the world’s largest integrated, global practice network comprised of premier, independent law firms distinguished for their practice in employment and labor law. Comprised of more than 3,000 lawyers, there are member firms in every jurisdiction in the United States and over 75 countries around the world. For further information, including access to the survey charts and graphs, visit: www.employmentlawalliance.com

If you have an interest in Leadership and Managment skills, then you’ve probably tapped into the great resources offered by the Harvard Business Review. In the April edition of HBR, there is an article titled, “Be a Better Leader, Lead a Better Life.” The article argues that a good work-life balance is an essential qualification for those who seek to be good leaders.

This concept probably doesn’t come as a surprise to most managers. Being locked in an office all day and night will inevitably skew perception of the “real world.” And, let’s face it, the “real world” is where your staff lives. If you fail to prioritize your life outside of the office, it’s easy to see how quickly a divide can develop between you and your reports.

And let’s not overlook the obvious–if your work-life balance is in line, you’re destined to be a happier person. Everyone likes happy people. And nobody likes a grouchy boss. If you have happiness outside of your work, people will want to work for you.

Really, it’s true. Just ask attorney Barry M. Willoughby, Chair of the Emloyment Law Department at YCS&T, who is pictured above. The picture features Barry on a recent fishing business trip to Florida, where he managed to wrestle in a 25 lb. grouper. See how happy he looks? Trust me, his loyal team appreciates a good work-life balance in our leaders.

Another thing that should make you happy: During the month of April, the normally subscription-based Harvard Business and Harvard Business Review are both totally free.

Well, Monday mornings aren’t exactly the favorite part of the workweek, at least not for most of us. But they don’t have to be that bad, really. Here’s a little cubicle humor to start your week off on a positive note.

Happy April!! You’ve survived the first week of the month of April 2008. And, if you’re as seasonally focused as most, this means that you are one week closer to Spring! But wait, there’s more to love about April. This week, April 7-11, is “Explore Your Career Options Week”? (Last week was “Laugh at Work” week. I suppose this week’s title means you probably weren’t laughing.)

And the celebrations and merriment don’t stop there.

~Today (7th) is No Housework Day. I’d like to nominate this one to get an entire month. A day just isn’t enough.

~Wednesday (9th) is National Cherish An Antique Day. For the Generation Y’ers out there, No, this does not include the senior management team.

~Thursday (10th) is National Sibling Day, which I am happy to celebrate given I have the world’s best sibling.

~But Friday (11th), for certain, is the best day of the week this time round. There are two, yes, that’s right, two reasons to celebrate on Friday. First, Friday is Barbershop Quartet Day. And, second, Friday is also International “Louie Louie” Day.

With a barbershop quartet and at least one office karaoke version of “Louie Louie” in your future, how could you NOT be glad that it’s Monday!

That’s right, March Madness is here. Again, it’s the the time of the year eagerly anticipated by college basketball fans. The entire college basketball season packed into 63 action-packed games.

And what does all of this frenzied excitement have to do with employers? Lots.

$3.7 billion lost to March Madness basketball?

First, there’s the cost. March Madness costs employers big bucks. It’s estimated that the average American employee spends 13.5 minutes per day surfing the web for college basketball updates, video, and betting forums. I’m sure there are some who would say that estimate is fairly low. But, at even 13.5 minutes per day, 58.5 million college basketball fans times the average American hourly wage equals $1.7 billion, spread out over the 16 basketball tournament days.

That’s right, $1.7 billion in 16 days.

Other Financial Costs
Lost productivity is obviously a monster-sized problem for employers. But that’s not the only cost incurred during the tournament season. With games being broadcast both live and recorded on the internet, employees don’t have to worry about the trouble of finding a television within viewing distance. Instead, they’ve got the whole world wide web of sports action at their fingertips. And, while productivity goes down, so does your network’s speed. It doesn’t take many employees watching live-streaming video to slow your system to a crawl.

Now, all of the employees who actually aren’t watching the games can’t do work, even if they wanted to.

Other Employer Considerations

Productivity issues require employers to make (or avoid) decisions about internet usage monitoring. But there are other issues, as well. For one, there’s the issue of the office pool. Is gambling at work illegal? Does it put employers at risk legally? Well, it is unlikely that your workplace will be surrounded by a SWAT team in an ambush attack on your illicit gambling ring over an office basketball pool.

Yet, employers should decide what exactly their position actually is. If an employer allows staff to participate in a pool, the company cannot take any of the funds from the pool. The ante should be small, $5 or less. And the pool must be strictly voluntary. Persons who have a religious objection to gambling, for example, should not be made to feel “left out” of the comraderie just because they declined to toss their $5 into the pot.

And there is another, broader legal implication. Someone set up the pool. Someone is collecting money from participants for the pool. Someone is monitoring the status of the pool. And, likely, everyone is e-mailing about the pool. Also likely is that all of this hard work and dedication (towards non-work activities) is happening during working time.

This is where it really doesn’t pay to be the nice guy, just this once. This is soliciting at work. Just like employees who sell their daughter’s Girl Scout cookies is soliciting. Just like asking for donations to a charity is soliciting. Just like an employee who hands out catalogues and ordering forrms for a “jewelry party” (the modern-day incarnation of the Tupperware party) she is hosting soliciting.

And just like union salters who try to plant the seeds for a union campaign is soliciting.

The reason employers have non-solictitation policies is to avoid all of the above. By permitting employees to solicit at work, even just this one time, you risk liability later when the union representative wants to solicit your employees to go union.

But There is an Up Side

Okay, okay. I know that I’ve painted such a grim picture of such a fun time but have faith. Here’s the upswing. Employers need to know about these risks and consciously decide how to handle each one. But, by “handling it,” I don’t necessarily mean firing everyone who participates in the pool or scans the web for the latest updates. There are more reasonable alternatives.

For example, get involved. Instead of being on the outside looking in trying to scope out the secret world of workplace spoots pools, companies can consider organizing the pools. Of course, this isn’t a free ticket to ignore the rules of the game, as discussed above. But you could put a positive spin on it.

Why not have a portion of the winnings go to a local charity. Maybe one that the company has a history of supporting. Or maybe the pool winner(s) get to decide. Or even assign charitable organizations to each team and, when that team wins, the charity wins.

Another example might be sanctioned viewing. If you are inclined to restrict internet access to sports websites, announce that the restrictions are lifted and employees are free to view the games at certain designated times.

If your workplace has televisions in conference rooms or the cafeteria, make it a company-sponsored social time. Sporting events are as much “team-building” as any nature hike or rock-climbing experience. At Young Conaway, I’m proud to say that we practice what we preach. On Monday evening, before the game, our firm hosts a now annual Alumni event. All of the former attorneys who have gone on to don a black robe, opened their own practice, or went off to any other adventure, are welcomed back to talk sports and law, and eveything in between, and, while they’re at it, to catch up with former colleagues. We have a tremendous turn-out for what has become a really great event.

So, the moral of the story is, make a decision, communicate the decision, and, whenever possible, include comraderie in the solution. It’s a win-win all around.

Some thoughts from others in the know:

The Baltimore Sun discusses the upside to March Madness and how employers can utilize the basketball season to bring employees together. See the full article here.

The HR Capitalist has some quick-witted insight on the unavoidability of March Madness at http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/817654/27180064.

The N.Y. Times has an informative Q & A on the office pool here, which Representing Management discusses with a legal focus here.

The Beazley Source tackles the cost of March Madness to productivity and the bottom line here. CNN’s Money page does the same here.

Today’s headline from Fox news says, “Despite Perceived Effectiveness, Most Employees Who Participate in Wellness Programs Do Not Stay Committed.”. The survey, conducted by Guardian Life Insurance Company North America, reports the following statistic:

Nearly half of employees who have participated in wellness programs in the past three years admit that their commitment trails off after just a few years

Wellness programs have been all the rage for the past several years. Employers have been advocating a healthy lifestyle for their workforces by implementing a whole host of rewards programs. Employees are encouraged to get healthy by giving up tobacco, keeping their cholesterol in check, exercise, and eat right.

And, how, pray tell, do employers make this healthy magic happen? With a wave of the magic wand called “cash,” of course! Employees who participate in their employer’s wellness program are often rewarded with cash prizes, reduced health insurance premiums, or, maybe, just the satisfaction of a healthier lifestyle.

And what’s in it for employers? For one, the hope of healthy employees who cost less in insurance premiums. You know the saying, “an ounce of prevention,” . . .. Some subscribe to the theory that healthier employees are more productive employees who make more money for their employers and cost their employers less. Go figure!!

Why whistle while you work when you can walk? Another invention for the healthy-office initiative.

********************

So why, according to the survey, aren’t employees sticking with it? Could it be that money really doesn’t motivate? Could it be that a healthy lifestyle requires more effort than the average American worker is willing to give it?

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), having come under attack by nonprofits such as The Epilepsy Foundation for its opposition to the ADA Restoration Act, has issued a statement explaining its position. In its statement, SHRM says that it supports the purpose of the ADA but is concerned that the proposed bills would expand the definition of “disability” so much that it would cover people with temporary, minor physical or mental impairments like headaches, skin irritations and sprained ankles.

Good point. Having to “reasonably accommodate” people with temporary mental or physical impairments does not seem to be what the ADA was ever intended to do.

SHRM is also worried about the provision that would shift the burden to employers to prove that an individual with a disability was not qualified for a position. Currently, the employee must prove that he or she is an “otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” SHRM says the proposed provision would hinder rather than help efforts to employ more individuals with disabilities (the SHRM statement does not explain why, however). Clearly, it is a benefit to employers not to bear the burden of proof on any legal issue.