Remember U.S. I?

When the Articles of Confederation benefitted state power, the new states felt like little countries and colonists abhorred the idea of centralized government?

The spirit of ‘76? Come on!

The battle between state government and federal government- one that has been ongoing since the United States’ birth – has zeroed in on hiring.

The most recent and most notable flare up surrounds immigration law – with Arizona being the major proponent – and the 5 – 3 Supreme Court ruling Thursday is considered a victory for those supporters of state level immigration reform.

CNN reports that the Supreme Court has “backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants.” The opposition, which includes the Obama Administration, says the latest ruling in favor of the reforms “steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.”

In contrast with a more controversial immigration statute, Thursday’s ruling has been referred to as a “judicial warm-up” – one that may set the stage for a statute that could give local police more authority in arresting suspected illegal immigrants; police could check immigration status on the basis of “reasonable suspicion.”

In a statement reported by CNN, Chief Justice John Roberts said, “Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law. It relies solely on the federal government’s own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government’s own system for checking employee status.”

The system, E-Verify, was created by congress as a “voluntary and discretionary” resource but when Arizona passed the Legal Workers Act in 2007, companies became required by law to use the resource and if businesses knowingly or intentionally violate work-eligibility requirements, the state has authority to suspend the business’ license.

Hiring managers may be familiar with a 1986 federal act which limited state power with regards to regulating hiring “unauthorized” workers. The law requires employers check the I-9 immigration form and though “civil and criminal penalties were strengthened,” CNN reports, “businesses making a ‘good faith’ effort to comply with I-9 procedures were generally immune from prosecution.”

A dissenting Justice, Sonia Sotomayer, said in a statement, “Permitting states to make use of E-Verify mandatory improperly puts states in the position of making decisions.”

The lawsuit decided Thursday was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and supported by civil rights and immigration rights groups as well as the Obama Administration.

In a recent article from HR Magazine on the benefits of automated I-9 verification, author Dave Zielinski notes the shift toward automated systems by HR leaders “amid growing audit activity and high-profile fines levied by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”

For example the articles reports a February government inspection where organizations like Chipotle Mexican Grill and Abercrombie & Fitch were fined substantially for I-9 violations and forced to let go of illegal workers.

Further the article reports how immigration attorneys believe this increase in government audit activities reflects a “shift in focus under the Obama Administration from targeting unauthorized workers to pursuing employers.”

Does this seem like a valid observation on the part of immigration attorneys?

And as hiring managers are increasingly under government scrutiny, is federal oversight enough or should the state take part in enforcement?

Those HR managers still using paper are at a greater risk for an ICE audit gone awry – automated systems like E-Verify which checks applicants against federal records offer a streamlined process with less risk of error.

But then another question is raised: ought the use of a government designed system like E-Verify be mandated as it is in Arizona and directly enforced by the state?

HRIQ is interested in how you process your I-9 forms, your thoughts on the limits of government oversight and your opinions on the politically charged situation in Arizona.

Feel free to share in the comments section below.

Okay so Obama really was born in Hawaii.

Hmm…what else is there to confirm?

Well, according to Donald Trump, the next step in this ongoing background investigation for the President of The United States nearing the end of his first term involves his academic records.

CNN reports Trump’s rather insightful statement, “Word is he (Obama) wasn’t a very good student.”

Well, Mr. Trump, word on the street is (to finish the gossipy phrase) an army of ex-pats will swarm out of the country if you ever take office.

Just saying.

Trump’s comments, as the Baltimore Sun Reports, probably stem from Obama’s 1995 memoir, “Dreams of My Father,” where he wrote of his careless approach to academics during his senior year of high school.

Despite explaining in the book he had learned ‘not to care’ (due to pot, booze, and cocaine when he could afford it), Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law.

In response, upon getting wind of Trump’s request for more ‘proof’ of Obama’s acceptance into Ivy League schools, Senior White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett called it “nonsense,” according to CNN.

And it sort of is a ridiculous request in our contemporary American context – there’s a plethora of more important issues at hand and aside from that, Obama is already in office and around 20 years out of college.

If anything, Obama was exaggerating the level of carelessness he professes when he attended high school.

The latest in this ignited political fiasco brings up some important issues in terms of talent acquisition.

When looking at applicants for a position in an organization, Human Resources professionals often conduct background investigations and reference checks.

A background investigation refers to the process of “verifying information supplied by applicants who are being considered for employment.” An HR professional may reach out to former employers, obtain education records, and request criminal or consumer credit reports. In addition, to ensure qualifications, a screening may include verification of social security numbers, past addresses, date of birth, drug screening, and skills and behavioral assessments.

A 2008 survey by CareerBuilder.com found 49 percent of 3,169 hiring human resources professionals surveyed experienced lying on an applicant’s resume. This explains and provides the reasoning for an increase in screening procedures.

Unfortunately, performing these background checks are becoming more challenging for hiring managers in terms of anti-discrimination laws. A 2011 prediction of trends in background screening by EmployeeScreenIQ reports the EEOC (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission) will be more closely observing hiring practices, increasing the potential for hiring lawsuits. The prediction also highlights legislation limiting the use of employee credit reports.

Creating an accurate picture of a prospective employee has become increasingly shrouded in restrictions.

The challenges are disconcerting, but the risk of hiring an applicant capable of harming an organization in any way ought to put those challenges in perspective.

In terms of academic history, an April 8 CBS article reports an N.J. teacher forged credentials to obtain a second teaching job. The fake credentials held she was licensed to teach students with disabilities when, in fact, she was only licensed to teach those without disabilities. She admitted she lied, lost two jobs and her real credentials.

Though losing your earned academic credentials may act as a deterrent to “sprucing” up your resume, misrepresentation still frequently occurs.

It’s especially important to confirm attendance at a particular university, specific degrees, and awards through checking references because the research will offer the employer insight into the KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities) of an applicant – the results of which will be indicative of a high or low performance employee.

So I see where you’re coming from Mr. Trump, but there’s a stark difference between rabble-rousing and legitimate inquiry.

Frankly, I don’t know why anyone would ever leave Hawaii in the first place.

Human Resources IQ is interested in your talent acquisition policies. Do certain factors in terms of type of organization or position limit the extent to which investigations are conducted? Or is there a strict standard for all applicants?

Feel free to share thoughts and opinions in the comments section below.

Pop Quiz:

Of the following people, who do you hire for the job?

1. A 24 year old woman with a drug and alcohol problem, battling a felony grand theft charge.
2. Normal person
3. Normal person
4. Normal person

Probably not A. – unless you’re a filmmaker.

Lindsay Lohan popped up at Tuesday’s press conference for John Travolta’s new movie “Gotti: Three Generations” and is apparently in talks to play the late Gambino crime family boss’ daughter, Victoria Gotti, according to the AP News.

I bet you think I’m going to be really hard on Lohan, but I’m not going to do that.

Over the summer of 2010, I saw Robert Rodriguez’s Machete with Danny Trejo and Lohan who played, most memorably, the “nun with a gun.”

She’s not bad at all! I think her highly publicized bad behavior (which is so publicized, I’m skeptical of its truthfulness) has had a positive impact on her acting ability, even with what little we have seen.

So, despite such negative press coverage of Lohan which has arguably depicted a shadow of a human being, would producer of the Gotti biopic, Marc Fiore, be in the wrong hiring Lohan for the role?

I think Lohan would do the role justice– considering both Victoria Gotti and Lindsay Lohan had/have weird dads!

No but seriously…

I guess what I’m trying to measure here is flexibility in hiring. It’s true Ms. Lohan has been dealing, almost consistently, with heaps of problems – but does that make her unfit for the role?

For instance, all jobs have well-defined requirements and many job candidates are either clearly fit or unfit for the job, but what happens when the right decision isn’t so obvious?

Let’s say you have two recently graduated candidates for a development role at your business. One’s GPA is too low but has a lot of experience and an excellent portfolio, while the other has a 3.9 GPA, but less experience and, as a result, less proven talent.

I don’t know about you, but I’d have more confidence in the former.

Drugs and alcohol problems are always a deal-breaker, but HRIQ is interested in how hiring managers may alter requirements/expectations based on particular roles.

I know the idea is to lower the percentage of risk, but what chances are HR managers willing to take?

Feel free to post your thoughts in the comments section below.

When Robin Roberts, co-host of Good Morning America, brought up Chris Brown’s less than civil relationship with Rihanna, I exclaimed the meme: Oh snap!

No I didn’t. I don’t really care.

But when he subsequently smashed a window in his dressing room and shirtlessly exited the GMA building, I was reminded of my all-girl high school days.

Not that we ever smashed windows or tore off articles of clothing in fits of rage, no. But there was quite a lot of drama.

After pummeling his dressing room last week, Chris Brown appeared on BET’S “106 & Park” where he apologized, expressed disappointment in his actions, and said he was caught off guard by Ms. Robert’s reference to his violent past. He referred to a talking point sheet he’d seen prior to the interview however ABC released a statement denying a talking point sheet had been provided, according to an AP News report.

To singer Chris Brown’s credit – at least he didn’t explode on air.

But drawing from this semi-public outburst, how do HR managers address, measure, and ultimately prevent disruptive employee behavior?

Whether or not an employee is provoked, as Chris Brown was arguably provoked by comments related to a pretty horrifying ordeal, he or she ought to always maintain professionalism; verbally and in demeanor.

But where does the slope become slippery?

People often spend more time at work than at home – they associate with various personality types, endure stressful working conditions, and probably deal with high tension conflicts from time to time. Depending on their company’s culture, employees may withhold all emotional response or may feel comfortable enough to react and confront.

In some cases however, early warning signs can be monitored and preventative measures may be applied.

Some employees may exhibit indicators of a disruptive behavioral breakdown. If an HR manager suspects drug and alcohol abuse (fairly easy to confirm in most cases) he or she may take the employee aside as soon as possible, ask for the employee to take a couple of days off, and decide further action in the interim.

But instances when there are unknown psychological disorders, problems at home and with finances, those in HR may find it difficult to prepare or prevent.

HRiQ is interested in your company’s policy on disruptive employee behavior. As an HR professional, do you follow a stringent procedure or is your approach more relaxed?

Feel free to share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section below.

On Friday, March 11, I woke to the news of Japan’s 8.9 magnitude quake and the subsequent tsunami.

In the few days since, mounting troubles continue to jar us – videos and pictures have shown a crumbling Japanese coastline, towns gutted and washed away by black water, and children, arms outstretched, undergoing radiation scans.

It’s difficult, first, to comprehend the fragility of our great cities and towns, and then to put it into words. The northeast of Japan, in just days, has experienced a hellish chain of events that the AP News reports has likely killed over 10,000 people.

As weakening tsunami waves made their way from Japan across the Pacific, Friday and evacuation plans for Hawaii and the west coast of the U.S. flashed on TV sets and computer screens, I questioned the extent to which we’ll ever be prepared for disasters like these.

As we focus on the lives lost, the shells of homes left and the very real possibility of a nuclear meltdown, we can imagine the impact on businesses across Japan.

Tragic events like these (think of Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake) command our attention and force us to make comparisons: how can we improve or lessen the impact of a similar situation in our area based on what we’ve seen unfold in others? For example, the near meltdown status of the Fukushima nuclear power plant has caused those living near the Indian Point power plant in Buchanan, NY to request a re-evaluation of its stability in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster.

So how do we increase business resiliency?

Many larger businesses have a systems focused Disaster Recovery Plan, complete with backed-up data in an alternative central hub at a safer location. But HR professionals become more prominent during Continuity of Operations Planning (COOP). A COOP program seeks to preserve the organization and the people in it versus a data and systems based disaster recovery plan.

HR plays one of the most important roles in an organization in the event of a disaster: from accounting for employees during an emergency evacuation to moving them back in when the dust settles, Human Resources’ primary responsibility is to take care of people. It should go without saying – the absolute latest employee information must be organized and easily accessible, whether your company has 100 employees or 20,000. You’ll need to reach out to families, employees abroad, and, if possible, keep an open line for communication at all times.

It’s your job as an HR professional to maintain calm and order when others experience panic and frustration. During day-to-day operations you may be handling employee complaints, benefits and compensation, and training and development, but during a leveling earthquake, fire, or flood, the HR role sort of undergoes a metamorphosis and the very concept of helping your employees rises to a drastically higher level.

Human Resources iQ is interested in your companies policies, personal ideas, and first hand experiences – please feel free to share in the comments section below.

Read more about HR and the disaster in Japan:

Aftershock: What Would Your Business do at 2:47 PM?

When Disaster Strikes: How HR Can Prepare Your Workforce for Crisis

I was one of the over one million people to follow Charlie Sheen soon after he created his Twitter account this week.

Why? Because I think he is the F18 he says he is.

We’ve all closely followed a celebrity train-wreck at one time or another, but this one is particularly spectacular because Sheen has been wildly confrontational – of course at the cost of his job (for now) and his kids (for a few days) – as opposed to taking the backseat and saying very little.

Oh by the way,

Can we all just accept there’s something hypnotic about famous people messing up and move on? Newsflash: we’re voyeurs by nature, so please get over it.

The truth is Sheen’s history is disgustingly misogynistic; he accidentally shot a fiancé, has been accused of assaulting several call-girls, and has threatened to behead a former wife.

While these are significant reasons to ignore Sheen’s riotous outbursts, the media continues to engage him, reinforcing American hegemony. If we were empowered consumers of media, we would be in an absolute uproar.

But I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t see this as, at the very least, mildly entertaining.

Another way to look at this is to consider how Charlie Sheen has sort of brilliantly, whether consciously or unconsciously, subverted the Hollywood and news media that shames and has created a brand. If he continues, he may kill the joke, but as of today, March 7, 2011, there are 2,042,472 Twitter followers who remain loyal.

So what can we learn here? Not much. We now know (if we didn’t already) you can’t publicly bash your organization without being punished or terminated. We’re also not as clever as “completely-clean” Charlie Sheen and will most likely be ignored by the media.

But for HR professionals in particular, this recent sensation raises some important questions.

How can an organization maintain the integrity of its brand when employees are terminated or resign? And how do you manage the way your employees represent themselves in the workplace or in the field when their actions will speak volumes about your company?

With available social media outlets such as Twitter, where people often vent and share personal opinions, companies need to create or update policies on business etiquette and organizational brand awareness.

What are some of the policies in your organization and how would you handle a situation similar to that of Charlie Sheen’s condemning of CBS?

I’m interested in learning how your HR department handles these issues.

Feel free to post your comments below.

Americans felt shock and grief in the wake of Saturday’s tragedy when a disturbed young man left 6 people dead and 14 wounded at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. In the aftermath, questions focus on missed opportunities for intervention and on how such horrors can be prevented in the future.

A New York Times article entitled “College’s Policy on Troubled Students Raise Questions,” by A.G. Sulzberger and Trip Gabriel, notes Arizona’s Pima Community College may not have taken appropriate precautions when handling alleged gunman Jared L. Loughner’s suspension because the school neglected to mandate a psychiatric evaluation, an easier feat in Arizona than in most other states.

The article also includes a statement from a co-author of a 2002 federal study on school violence who said that gunmen often experience a personal loss before acting out and that a suspension, though perfectly legal and in a school’s right, may only add to a collection of losses.

Pima College, according to the article, did what most colleges would do in a situation where the mental stability of a student was in question: they asked the student to leave, have a psychiatric evaluation, and to return only with the approval of the psychiatrist. Taking the extra step and mandating the evaluation might have been up to the college or Loughner’s parents (who were also notified), and while we can’t be sure that such an intervention would have prevented Saturday’s outburst, we can be sure a suspension wasn’t enough.

Nearly a week later, the violence in front of a Tucson supermarket is fresh in our minds- a painful reminder of the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings. It also brings back memories of recent workplace violence that occurred in August 2010 near Hartford, Connecticut where an armed employee at a beer distributing company committed suicide after he opened fire and killed 8 workers. Tragedies like these happen too often, but with a proper reaction, maybe we can lessen the chances of them happening again.

Congress created the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) following the Occupational Safety & Health Act of 1970 so that the working conditions for men and women are safe and healthful and standards are set and enforced with “training, outreach, education, and assistance,” according to OSHA’s homepage. It is an employer’s duty to uphold these tenets with the possibility of workplace violence in mind.

It is a liability to knowingly hire someone who has acted violently at a previous workplace and it is a liability if your employees are not properly trained for an aggressive outburst.

In a 2009 census of fatal occupational injuries, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that there were 521 workplace homicides in a preliminary count of 2009 in the U.S. With statistics like these, employers need to be aware of warning signs and sound off an alarm as soon as they become present.

The Centers for Disease Control released a conference report in 2004 on workplace violence prevention and identified strategies and research needs. Barriers to workplace violence prevention include:

• Corporate attitude, denial- refusing to acknowledge an existing problem.
• Workers lacking a voice
• Lack of information, access to information
• Lack of communication and training
• Lack of reporting actual incidents
• Lack of teamwork, partnerships

If employers can overcome these barriers by creating an open discourse, just as President Obama asked Americans to do during his poignant address Wednesday, employers and employees can work together more effectively to prevent future workplace violence.

I had been used to a retail environment. I spent a little over two years answering customers’ questions, guiding folks ambling up and down aisles of DVDs, and making recommendations while dressed in an unflattering blue uniform.

I began working retail looking for some pocket cash and structure in the summer before I entered Seton Hall University. It served me well and I stayed through November 2010, the first semester of my junior year.

Then I came to IQPC as an editorial intern.

In the strangeness of an office I noticed the low hum of people working together, bluish computer light flickering on their faces- the New York City well-dressed collection of them reading, typing, heads angling downward.

As a college student, I am expected to intern at organizations in my corresponding field of study in order to gain experience and knowledge. How many organizations? More than a couple, I’m sure- or at least until my resume is nine feet long.

It’s like being the cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead in Samoa, except I’m not studying sexual mores of adolescent girls. It’s also not the 1920s, but in 2011, countless college students will be entering a new world, uncertain, trying to catch the eyes of their superiors- the ones who have already made it and continue to.

An April 2010 article by Steven Greenhouse of the New York Times entitled, “The Unpaid Intern, Legal or Not” which, by the way was posted on my college advisor’s office door (as a warning?), highlights the conundrum students are often faced with: working for free and not being educated in the process. The article also reports that interns often don’t speak up for fear of being blacklisted. I mean, unless something particularly serious happens to an intern, why would he make noise about running errands when at the end of the day, he gets another notch on his belt of resumes? (I got that sentence from clichés.com.)

The article also reports results from a 2008 National Association of Colleges and Employers study that found 50 percent of graduating students held internships, up from 17 percent in 1992. Questions arise like: Have employers caught on? Or, are there more internship requirements for graduating students to meet?

At any rate, student interns need to understand that although a great company’s name will end up stamped on their resumes, if they haven’t really learned anything, it logically follows they’ll be unprepared and unqualified. It’s up to the intern to communicate with the aim of problem-solving. And if the problem doesn’t get solved, it’s perfectly reasonable for the intern to take his business elsewhere.

Students who receive college credit at my university, for example, are expected to fill out weekly reports and complete an essay upon the end of the internship. This way, the effectiveness, especially of an unpaid internship, can be monitored and regulated.

I, myself, am lucky to have been kept busy.

The intern-employer relationship, ultimately, is a relationship. Interns ought to remember to ask questions and make themselves available, while the employer must make a habit out of giving feedback.

And employers remember: your intern’s heads are full of equations, textbook examples, poetry, and hopefully, a little ambition. Make use of them!

(Guest HRIQ Blogger Taylor Korsak is a Journalism Major in her third year at Seton Hall University and is an editorial intern at IQPC, the parent company of HumanResourcesIQ.)

I never did much with the certification, although I did go out on a few calls with other EMTs.  Once I was able to help a man who had collapsed in the subway. And on another horrible and sad day, I held the hand of a homeless man as he died after being hit by a truck.

My EMT certification has long since expired. And I remember very little from my training. But sometimes I’ll see or hear something that brings back a piece of what I learned.

That’s what happened earlier this week when I read the terrible news about a human-resources manager being killed in India. According to news reports, Joginder Singh was attacked by factory workers when layoffs were announced. As I read that piece and mourned the man’s death, a phrase from my EMT training came to mind: scene safety.

EMTs are taught that scene safety is their first responsibility. Evaluating it is their first duty. In brief, scene safety involves assessing (and reducing) the risks to everyone at an emergency scene. In far too many cases, a patient or his family may be distraught and prone to anger. Sometimes bystanders or the patient are intoxicated and belligerent.  A patient on drugs may see an EMT as a threat. At a crime scene, angry crowds can form. Lots of things can, and do, go wrong.

At its most basic level, establishing scene safety means an EMT should not attempt to treat someone until the EMT himself feels safe. That may seem cold-blooded to an outsider. But imagine responding to a report of an injured man and arriving to find a young person, bleeding from what appears to be a leg wound, apparently intoxicated, holding what may be a weapon, and surrounded by a group of other young men. An EMT who understands the rules of scene safety won’t approach that patient until he’s put on protective gear (to reduce the risks of contamination from the patient’s blood) and until the police have secured the scene, removed the weapon and pushed back the crowd.

As I read the reports about the death in India, I began to wonder what scene safety might look like for human-resources personnel.  Is it possible that Joginder Singh would still be alive if he or his department had evaluated scene safety.

It’s not my intention to place blame on anyone other than the people who committed the crime. Joginder Singh and the others who were attacked that day are the victims.  But the incident in India is not an isolated one. It seems we see scenes like the one in India all the time. Here’s a story from Philadelphia. Here’s one from Florida. Surely all of us can agree that there are risks involved in firing people — and that we owe it to ourselves and our coworkers to reduce the danger in such situations.

So I ask: What, if any, steps do you take to protect yourself and others in such situations?

If you don’t have a formal procedure in place, perhaps it’s time you created one.  If you need some guidelines, here’s a good piece from EMS magazine on taking a tactical approach to scene safety.

It seems that the HR world has become so complex, so regulated and so litigious that it’s become difficult to offer an opinion without wondering what the lawyers will make of it.

Which brings us, of course, to the big news in the HR world this week: the National Labor Relations Board has issued a complaint against a company that fired a worker because of disparaging remarks she made on Facebook about her supervisor.

The case is more narrow than it may first appear. As the Harvard Business Review points out, the NLRB seems to be saying the worker’s comments were a “concerted action” — a federally protected form of speech tied to unionization efforts. No doubt lawyers on both sides will argue well and emphatically that writing mean things about your boss on Facebook is, or is not, a concerted action aimed at coworkers. And no doubt this will all drag on in the courts for quite some time.

But who cares? Not me.  Like I said, I’m not a lawyer. I’m fascinated by this case, but not because of the legal implications. Rather, I’m intrigued by the ethical and moral implications of this situation.

Consider for a moment the numerous allegations in this case: the worker says she was denied union representation during an investigation; the company says the worker violated its Internet policy; the NLRB says the company’s policies and actions violate workers’ rights; everyone would agree that the comments posted on Facebook were unpleasant and mean-spirited.

So while the lawyers argue about what was and wasn’t legal, I’m left thinking about how much here was simply wrong.

Perhaps everyone at the company in question, American Medical Response of Connecticut, is a monster. If so, they deserve each other; May they spend eternity filing motions against each other in some courthouse in hell. But it’s far more likely that folks at AMR are like folks everywhere else … but that something in the company’s culture has gone monstrously wrong.

I’ve worked in places like that before — companies where the air had grown toxic, the bosses had grown defensive, and the workers had grown combative. Maybe you’ve worked in a place like that too. Perhaps you work in one now.

So what to do? What is the role of HR in promoting civility? What obligations does HR have to protect workers’ rights? What role should HR play in sheltering supervisors from cruel comments or saving employees from cruel bosses?

Earlier this week we ran a column by Ron Jones titled “HR as Custodian of Behavior.”  Jones wasn’t writing about the Facebook case. His column appeared before the NLRB ruling. Rather, he was writing specifically about how HR can address the transgressions of senior staff.

But the closing line of that piece has stuck with me as I’ve thought about the Facebook case and the people at American Medical Response of Connecticut. I don’t think Jones has all the answers any more than I do. But I do think he has the right question:

“HR has a responsibility to exhibit moral courage – to challenge and deal effectively with inappropriate behaviors irrespective of the perpetrator. If HR is not the custodian of values and behaviors – who is?”

You can read Jones’ entire column here.

– Paul Conley