In the booming 2000′s – the european HR community watched with fascination what was going on in the US. Everytime there was negotations between the unions and the companies, they threatened the unions with “Off to Mexico”, often with great succes. Nothing beats the possibility of loosing jobs to now-paying regions.

when I entered HR, I really held my ethics high and proud. Never would I suggest “Off to Mexico” as a possible senario and negotiations-tool.

My life taught me that there are nuances to it. I have dealt a lot with unions through my career. I met trade-unionists that were full of commitment for the benefit of the company. They wanted to contribute albeit being the spokespersons for the rest of the employees.

In Denmark we have agreements that transends several sectors – general agreements between the unions and the representatives for industrial sectors. This makes HR much more easy. One agreement – and when you get a hold on it, it proves to be a book of solutions, just looking for a company representative and a trade-unionist that sits down and work out a local agreement. This normally takes the pressure of- and need for - the Danish equivalent of “Off To Mexico”. The system is based on  understanding and a shared interest for the company.

Now GFC is rolling over so many sectors and many a local agreement bears traces of being negotiated when money was in abundance, workforce hard to recruit. When I listen to the HR-grapewine I hear that when trying to negotiate – based on a crisis and perhaps a liquidity issue – a new local agreement, outsourcing rears it’s head again. Some use it as a wakeup-call for the unions some consider it a final solution, because the unions aren’t listening.

What would I do? hm… The prospect of outsourcing several jobs and the subsequent disaster for so many people makes it a tool I really would hate to pull out. It is a final solution not to be considered lightly.

But I am a company represenatative – and I would have to look at the greater picture and act on the benefit of the company, with due respect for the employees. I would have to be creative it the union-representative. But it really requires a union-rep that is in tune with the market, the company situation and most importantly understands that ultimative demands, will be met with the opposite from the management. Trench-warfare from WW-I proved that it is only the grunts that gets chewed up, rarely the Rear-Echelons that gets to taste the blood and gunpowder.

When looking at the danish system of agreements between the unions and companies, it is based on negotiations. It is really flexible with social security that enables the companies to fire people more swiftly and often in more controlled numbers; making the ajustments more swiftly and appropriate. so when companies threaten to either outsource or close down a part of the company, I can promise you one thing – it is NOT a hollow threat. It will most likely have been discussed at upper-management level, and a contingency plan will exist. It is NOT a tradition to threaten, but unfortunately it is a point lost on unions that through the last 5-6 years have been used to companies desperate to employ their members.

Two things must be my conclusion:

if you are in management and HR: if you pull the outsourcing card out, be ready to either be called as a bluff or you will have to go through with it. It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

if you are in a union: you are responsible for keeping a good relationship with the management while representing your members. Please think big and forward. You might be able to call the outsourcing as a bluff, but you might end up paving the road for it later, as no management likes to be humiliated. Please be flexible and choose the battles best fought and won; some are more appropriate for a GFC some more appropriate for a GFB (Global Financial Boom).

For both parties: keep flexible and be creative. You are dealing with so many people and their financial situation. Do not let it get personal. Keep it professional. Take a timeout during the negotiations if they get heated. But be prepared to walk the walk …

Kindest,

Steen

Studies refute common stereotypes about obese workers

“Employers concerned about the fair and effective management of their work force,” Roehling said, “should be proactive in preventing negative stereotypes about overweight workers from influencing employment decisions.”

 

Published: July 18, 2008

EAST LANSING, Mich. — New research led by a Michigan State University scholar refutes commonly held stereotypes that overweight workers are lazier, more emotionally unstable and harder to get along with than their “normal weight” colleagues.

 

With the findings, employers are urged to guard against the use of weight-based stereotypes when it comes to hiring, promoting or firing.

 

Mark Roehling, associate professor of human resource management, and two colleagues studied the relationship between body weight and personality traits for nearly 3,500 adults. Contrary to widely held stereotypes, overweight and obese adults were not found to be significantly less conscientious, less agreeable, less extraverted or less emotionally stable.

 

The research, done in conjunction with Hope College near Grand Rapids, appears in the current edition of the journal Group & Organization Management.

 

“Previous research has demonstrated that many employers hold negative stereotypes about obese workers, and those beliefs contribute to discrimination against overweight workers at virtually every stage of the employment process, from hiring to promotion to firing,” Roehling said.

 

“This study goes a step further by examining whether there is empirical support for these commonly held negative stereotypes. Are they based on fact or fiction? Our results suggest that the answer is fiction.”

 

The findings are based on two separate but convergent national studies. Roehling, who’s also a lawyer, said the practical implication of the research is that employers should take steps to prevent managers from using weight as a predicator of personality traits when it comes to hiring, promoting or firing. He said such steps could include:

 

• Adopting a policy that explicitly prohibits the use of applicant or employee weight in employment decisions without a determination that weight is relevant to the job.
• Structuring the interview process to reduce the influence of subjective biases.
• Using validated measures of the specific personality traits that are relevant to the job if personality traits are to be considered in hiring decisions.
• Including weight-based stereotypes as a topic in diversity training for interviewer

Så kan I måske indse, at der er ingen grund til at mistro fede for at ikke at trække deres vægt – undskyld ordvalget – på arbejdsmarkedet.

Hilsner,

Steen

ENG Summary – visit my good “fellowblogger”, Lauries website:

http://punkrockhr.com/2008/07/18/work-obesity-and-common-employment-myths/