Human Resources In Government

It’s almost a waste of keystrokes to say these are uncertain times. We hear it everyday. No matter what level of government you serve in, you’ve probably experienced economic ups and downs lately and your employees are probably asking or at least wondering:

• Is my job safe?
• Is the agency financially sound?
• What does the future hold?

In these scary times of budget cuts and layoffs, employees look to you, the Human Resources representative, for the critical information they crave. The reality is that you may not know the answers to their questions. Still, your responses send strong emotional signals about your ability to lead under pressure. Before you quickly attempt to respond to those answerless questions remember:

• We’re all human and humans naturally have fears. Don’t be surprised or take it personally if you are met with tears, anger, or other strong emotions. Everyone reacts in their own way during times of uncertainty.
• Tell them all you know. Hiding details or facts from employees rarely benefits anyone. And, employees eventually find out the full truth (often from the media). If you haven’t been 100% up front with the details from the beginning, your lack of transparency will work against you in the future. Guaranteed.
• Admit that you don’t know. In this environment no one knows all the facts or all the possible outcomes. The best thing you can do is to admit what you don’t know and let them know when you expect to have more information.
• Create a centralized “place” for keeping employee up-to-date. We know that employee communications is a central part of our role in human resources. Still, in these times, it’s even more critical to have a central place (website, hotline, Facebook page, whatever) where employees can find the most current information. A centralized spot for information also cuts down on the potential for rumors and gossip.
• Redefine your expectations for performance. Today we are faced with an opportunity to redefine performance expectations for each job. Employees need to know what will differentiate them from others. This is the perfect time to talk about superior performance and how to achieve it. Employees need to know what it is and your organization needs it now more than ever.

Finally, approach these conversations (and these difficult times) as an opportunity to focus on your own personal growth. It’s not going to be easy. You can choose to muddle through in a reactionary way or you can choose to learn new ways to be efficient, develop new skills, and develop the confidence you’ll need to successfully navigate these tough times. Choose to grow.

Public employers understand the many angles to the healthcare question. As employers they provide benefits to employees and their dependents sometimes well into retirement. They also administer workers compensation programs and comply with health and safety regulations. As public servants, they see state and local budgets hit by the high cost of providing healthcare to the uninsured. The February 24, 2009, issue of the Washington Post has no fewer than three stories on healthcare, leading with President Barack Obama’s plan to make healthcare reform his top fiscal priority.

One of the other two articles is about an agreement between Ford Motor Co. and the UAW on how to fund retiree health benefits. Unfortunately, what’s touted as a potential model for other car companies does not translate to the public sector. The agreement, which has yet to be ratified, calls for paying part of the cost of retiree health benefits in stock rather than with cash.

The third article that caught my eye was about a program in Howard County, Md., designed to provide health insurance at a very low cost (around $50 per month) to the uninsured. The Howard County program is one of only two such programs in the country, and while it may sound like an excellent idea, there is a problem—not enough people are enrolling. There are three reasons for this low enrollment: first, there is no extra money even for the small premium payment; second, there is a belief that insurance isn’t necessary because the individual is young and healthy; and finally, people don’t know the program exists.

Public HR professionals, because of their unique position in the community, should make their voices heard on the healthcare debate. What are some problems and what are some possible solutions? What would make it possible to continue to provide some level of benefits to retirees while maintaining the fiscal soundness of state and local budgets? Is universal healthcare the answer, and if so, are there concerns unique to the public sector that we should tell lawmakers about? The IPMA-HR Healthcare Taskforce recently came up with several principles to help guide the debate. We would welcome your input as well. Click here for more information.

Interesting things, blogs.  I participate in only a few, but on one (which centers on public HR) recently there was an observation that we in public HR are about to reap “windfall recruits.”  Once I got over the mental image of a roomful of applicants flying through space, it was clear what the guy was getting at.

Sure, with literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of otherwise good people dumping into the labor market each month, it would seem that those of us who labor in the government skin game would be perched perfectly to take advantage of other people’s disappointments.

But are we so perched?  Will we be able to?  For that matter, should we even try?

If you were in our business back in the 90s, or a certified old mossback like me who can remember the recession of the early 80s, we heard much the same thing.  What happened in reality, at least here in the Piney Hills, was something altogether different.

First thing is, today’s reality starts and ends with WE AIN’T HIRING.  Most other public employers AIN’T HIRING.  And that AIN’T GONNA CHANGE, at least for the next couple years.

Second thing is, that trying to place a bona fide long term, high achieving private sector type into a public sector opening can be something akin to a 220V plug into a 110V outlet.  Sure, it’s plugs, outlets and current.  They just don’t match well without some fiddling around.

And all that’s before you get to wrestle (or “wrassle” as we say hereabouts) with how it feels to offer someone a job under such circumstances.

The last time we saw a similar situation here was after The Storm, Katrina.  Lots of good people displaced against their will.  Need work, we got it, come on in.  Some have stuck and done well.   For some, though, it’s been a transitional period, one in which they get to re-think their life, and how they want to use it.  And many of those moved on, soon as circumstances permitted.

I expect we’ll all see applicants we otherwise never would have as the recession continues to search for a bottom and turning point.  Maybe the best thing we can do is be straight with those people about what we are and what we offer, and understand that if they can, they’ll eagerly seek to get their life back much as it was.

I try to read Bloomberg every day, mostly so I can say “I read in Bloomberg today…” Well, I read in Bloomberg today an article with the link title: Strip-Club Chief is What Obama Could Afford with Bank Pay Limit.”

Oh yeah? Well, the title sorta tells the whole story, but if you got the time, it’s interesting, though not persuasive reading. Mostly it’s the same old wailing and gnashing of teeth (not to mention renting of cloaks, etc) over SALARY CAPS in the financial sector.

All this agita over pay brings to mind an elemental question, one that underpins every pay decision ever made: if you make more, are you really worth more? It’s time for the nation to think that one through. My best friend, the smartest man I know, is convinced that the financial sector will cease to exist if salary caps are extended, ’cause the “best and the brightest” will simply take their toys and leave.

But, with love for my bro, so what? The best and brightest have been running things, and where they’ve run things to ain’t exactly where anybody wants to be, even them. Maybe we’ll be better off if they do leave, and make room for those who are less focused on compensation and more concerned with correcting the mistakes left them.

In a way, that’s what we do and have traditionally done in public service. And we’ve had salary caps for, oh, ever. So, I ask again: if you make more, are you really worth more? I don’t think so. Not any more than people with more of anything are better/more special/more capable than people with less. Let’s hope this rather petty part of the national economic crisis can help us focus more on what’s done than what’s in it for those who do it.