Time Off Law in California is a bit Convoluted...

This is from Lawmemo.com a great site for employment law issues


Time Off In California: State And Federal Laws On Employee Leave, Vacations And Holidays
By Tyler M. Paetkau Bio emailLittler Mendelson P.C.

V. TIME OFF ISSUES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA "EIGHT HOUR DAY RESTORATION AND WORKPLACE FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1999"
Background And Overview Of AB 60
1. Name and Purpose of Law
"AB 60" misnamed the "Eight-Hour Day Restoration and Workplace Flexibility Act of 1999." It is the opposite of "flexible": It is restrictive, cumbersome and costly.

In AB 60, the Legislature declared that the eight-hour workday should be protected and reaffirmed the state's commitment to upholding the eight-hour workday as a fundamental protection for working people.

AB 60 was organized labor's reaction to the Industrial Welfare Commission's elimination of "daily" overtime in 1998. The supreme irony is that most union employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that pays premium wage rates are not even covered by AB 60. Unions now use AB 60 as an organizing tool.

2. Definitions

(a) "Workday" and "day" mean any consecutive 24-hour period beginning at the same time each calendar day.

(b) "Workweek" and "week" mean any seven consecutive days, starting with the same calendar day each week. "Workweek" is a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours, seven consecutive 24-hour periods.

(c) "Alternative workweek schedule ("AWS") means any regularly scheduled workweek requiring an employee to work more than eight hours in a 24 hour period

3. New Overtime Rules
Any work over eight hours in one workday; any work over 40 hours in any one workweek; and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day in any one workweek must be compensated at no less than one and one half times the regular pay rate.
Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day and any work over eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek must be paid at a rate that is not less than twice the regular pay rate. "An employee may be employed on seven (7) workdays in one workweek when the total hours of employment during such workweek do not exceed thirty (30) and the total hours of employment in any one workday thereof do not exceed six (6)."

These overtime requirements do not apply to employees working an alternative workweek schedule ("AWS") adopted under AB 60 (see Sections V(A)-(B) below).

4. Ridesharing Is Not Time Worked
When an employee commutes in a vehicle owned, leased, or subsidized by the employer for the purpose of ridesharing, it is not considered part of a day’s work.

5. Exemptions

The Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") may establish exemptions from the overtime provisions for executive, administrative and professional employees. The employee must be engaged in duties that meet the test of the exemption and the employee must earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment to be exempt.

The IWC must conduct a review of the duties that meet the test of the exemption. Based upon this review, the IWC may adopt or modify regulations pertaining to duties that meet the test of exemption by July 1, 2000. On January 1, 2001, the IWC adopted revised Wage Orders incorporating in the changes to the State’s wage and hour laws effected by AB 60; most of the Wage Orders have been updated as of January 1, 2002, and are available for downloading from the website of the California Department of Industrial Relations, which includes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), also known as the California Labor Commissioner.

See www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE.

The IWC may establish additional exemptions to hours of work requirements if it finds the hours or conditions of labor may be detrimental to the health and welfare of employees in any occupation, trade or industry. AB 60 does not require the IWC to alter any exemption from the provisions regulating work hours that was contained in any valid wage order in effect in 1997. The IWC may review, retain, or eliminate any exemption from the provisions regulating work hours that was contained in any valid wage order in effect in 1997.
(a) Registered nurses and pharmacists not exempt

Registered nurses and pharmacists shall not be exempted from coverage under any part of the orders of the IWC (used to be covered under "professional" exemption), unless they individually meet the requirements for established for executive or administrative employees. 2001 Wage Order, Section 1(A)(3)(f).

(b) New definitions of "administrative," "executive" and "professional" exemptions in New 2001 Wage Orders
New 2001 Wage Orders contain more detailed definitions for each of these three oldest exemptions, including some exempt duties.

(c) Public employee exemption
All public employees previously exempt from California wage-hour laws and regulations are exempt under AB 60. California Labor Code § 515, added by AB 60, provides that nothing in AB 60 requires the IWC to alter any exemption that was contained in any valid wage order in effect in 1997.

(d) Outside salesperson and "inside sales" or "commissioned" salesperson exemptions
Outside salesperson exemption applies if employee "customarily and regularly works more than half the working time away from the employer’s place of business selling tangible or intangible items or obtaining orders or contracts for products, services or use of facilities." 2001 Wage Order, Section 2(M).

"Inside" salesperson exemption applies if employee’s "earnings exceed one and one-half (1½) times the minimum wage if more than half (½) of that employee’s compensation represents commissions."

(e) Unionized Workforce Exemption
AB 60 does not apply to employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime worked and a regular hourly pay rate of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.

6. Meal Breaks
Any non-exempt employee that works over five hours per day must take a meal break of not less than 30 minutes. If the total work period per day is no more than six hours, the meal break may be waived with consent by both the employer and the employee. A non-exempt employee that works more than 10 hours per day must take a second meal break of not less than 30 minutes. If the total hours worked is no more than 12 hours, the second meal break may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee, but only if the first meal break was not waived. Unless the employee is relieved of all duty during a 30-minute meal period, the meal period shall be considered an “on duty” meal period and counted as time worked. An “on duty” meal period shall be permitted only when the nature of the work prevents an employee from being relieved of all duty and when by written agreement between the employee and the employer an on-the-job paid meal period is agreed upon.

If an employer fails to provide a meal period in accordance with the applicable Wage Order, the employer shall pay the employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided.

In all workplaces where employees are required to eat on the premises, a suitable place for that purpose shall be designated.

Exception for health care workers: Those employees in the health care industry who work shifts in excess of eight hours in a workday may voluntarily waive their right to one of their two meal periods. To be valid, the waiver must be in writing, signed by both the employee and the employer. The employee may revoke the waiver at any time by providing the employer at least one day’s written notice. The employee shall be fully compensated for all working time, including any on-the-job meal period, while such a waiver is in effect.

The IWC may adopt or amend working condition orders regarding break periods, meal periods, and days of rest for any workers in California consistent with the health and welfare of those workers and AB 60.

7. Other New Burdens on Employers (Final 2001 Wage Order)
a. Record-keeping
b. Meal periods from 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
c. Reporting time pay
d. Licenses for disabled workers
e. Cash shortages and breakage
f. Uniforms and equipment
g. Meals and lodging Change rooms and resting facilities
h. Seats, temperature, elevators, DLSE discretionary exemptions, and posting requirements

8. Penalties
Any employer or person acting on the employer's behalf who violates, or causes to be violated, a section of this chapter or any provision regulating hours and days of work in any order of the IWC will be subject to a civil penalty as follows:

(a) For any initial violation, fifty dollars ($50) for each underpaid employee for each pay period that the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

(b) For each subsequent violation, one hundred dollars ($100) for each underpaid employee for each pay period that the employee was underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.

(c) Wages recovered pursuant to this section will be paid to the affected employee.

The new civil penalties in AB 60 are in addition to any other civil or criminal penalty provided by law, e.g., "waiting-time" penalties under California Labor Code Sections 201-204.

A. Using Alternative Workweeks To Provide Employees With Time Off
"Upon the proposal" of the employer, employees may adopt an alternative workweek schedule ("AWS") that authorizes them to work up to 10 hours per day within a 40-hour workweek without overtime pay.

The alternative workweek may be a single work schedule that would become the standard work schedule for all workers in the unit, or several work schedule options that each employee of the unit would be able to choose.

Work beyond the hours scheduled under the adopted AWS, up to 12 hours in a day, or beyond 40 in a week, must be paid at one-and-one-half (1½) times the employee's regular rate; work over 12 hours in a day or any work in excess of eight (8) hours on those days worked beyond the regularly scheduled AWS must be paid double the employee's regular rate of pay.

The IWC is required to study the costs and benefits of AWSs and report its findings and recommendations to the California Legislature by July 1, 2001.

1. "Interim" And "Final" Wage Orders
Proposals for AWSs must designate a regularly scheduled alternative workweek in which the specified number of workdays and work hours are regularly recurring, e.g., "4-10." The actual days worked within that AWS need not be specified. "If the employer proposes a menu of work schedule options, the employee may, with the approval of the employer, move from one menu option to another." 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(1).

A work unit may consist of an individual employee as long as the criteria for an identifiable work unit are satisfied.
Any AWS adopted under AB 60 must provide for not less than four (4) hours of work in any shift.
"Nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer, at the request of the employee, to substitute one day of work for another day of the same length in the shift provided by the alternative workweek agreement on an occasional basis to meet the personal needs of the employee without the payment of overtime." (Emphasis added; note IWC uses the term "agreement," but it is actually a written "proposal" by the employer, which the work unit must "adopt" through a two-thirds vote, secret ballot election procedure.)

If an employer, whose employees have adopted an AWS, requires an employee to work fewer hours than those that are regularly scheduled by the AWS, then the employer shall pay overtime at one-and-one-half (1½) times the employee's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours, and double the employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve (12) hours for the day the employee is required to work the reduced hours.

2. AB 60's Effect on Prior Alternative Workweek Arrangements
Any AWS that is authorized by AB 60 and was in effect on January 1, 2000, may be repealed by the affected employees. (This provision is unclear because AB 60 did not "authorize" any alternative workweek until January 1, 2000; probably means any AWS adopted under AB 60 after January 1, 2000 may be repealed.) Any AWS that was previously adopted pursuant to Wage Order Numbers 1, 4, 5, 7, or 9 of the IWC is automatically null and void, unless the AWS is no more than 10 hours work in a workday and was adopted by a two-thirds vote in a secret ballot election pursuant to wage orders of the IWC in effect prior to 1998.

Any employee that is voluntarily working an AWS of no more than 10 hours in a workday as of July 1, 1999, may continue to work that alternative schedule without daily overtime, if the employer approves a written request of the employee to work that schedule.

3. Alternative Workweeks - Health Care Industry
Employees in the health care industry that have adopted an AWS by two-thirds vote in a secret ballot allowing for workdays that exceed 10 hours a day, but not over 12 hours in a day pursuant to Wage Orders 4 and 5 in effect prior to 1998, will be valid until July 1, 2000. Employers in the health care industry must make reasonable efforts to accommodate any employee who is unable to work the AWS established as a result of a valid election.

Any employer that operates a licensed hospital or provides personnel for the operation of a licensed hospital who creates a regularly scheduled workweek that includes no more than three working days of no more than 12 hours each within any workweek, must make a reasonable effort to find an alternative work assignment for any employees who participated in the vote that authorized the schedule but are unable to work 12-hour workday schedule. Employers will not be required to offer an AWS if there is no AWS available or if the employee was hired after the adoption of the 12-hour, 3-day schedule. This section remained in effect until July 1, 2000, and as of that date was repealed.

B. The Alternative Workweek Election Procedure
1. Adoption of an AWS

An AWS may be adopted only if it is approved in a secret ballot by at least two-thirds of the affected employees (or the single employee if applicable) in a "work unit." The employer must report the results of any election for an AWS to the Division of Labor Statistics and Research

("DLSR") within 30 days of the results being final:
Reporting election results to DLSR: (a) Mail to the Chief, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, Attention: Alternative Workweek Election Results, P.O. Box 420603, San Francisco, CA 94142; or (b) may be filed in person at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

The report to DLSR "shall include the final tally of the vote, the size of the unit, and the nature of the business of the employer." Furthermore, the report of election results "shall be a public document."

Election must be held during regular working hours at the employees' work site.
Employers "shall bear the costs of conducting any election held pursuant to this section." (Includes both elections to adopt and to repeal AWSs.)

"[A]ffected employees in the work unit' may include all employees in a readily identifiable work unit, such as a division, a department, a job classification, a shift, a separate physical location, or a recognized subdivision of any such work unit. A work unit may consist of an individual employee as long as the criteria for an identifiable work unit in this subdivision is met."

Prior to secret ballot vote, employer must disclose the effects of the proposed AWS in writing to the affected employees, including effect on wages, hours and benefits.

Such disclosure "shall include meeting(s), duly noticed, held at least fourteen (14) days prior to voting, for the specific purpose of discussing the effects of the alternative workweek schedule." 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(3).

Employers must provide the disclosure in non-English language if at least 5% of the affected employees "primarily speak that non-English language." 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(3).
Employers must mail the written disclosure to employees who do not attend the meeting.
Failure to comply with the above requirements "shall make the election null and void." 2001
Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(3).

Upon a complaint by an affected employee, and after an investigation by the DLSE, the DLSE may require the employer to select a neutral third party

Employees affected by change in work hours resulting from adoption of AWS may not be required to work those new work hours for at least thirty (30) days after the announcement of the final results of the election.

Note that AB 60 prohibits an employer "from intimidating or coercing employees to vote either in support of or in opposition to a proposed" AWS. But new provision adds: "[N]othing in this section shall prohibit an employer from expressing his/her position concerning that [proposed] alternative workweek to the affected employees." 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(8) [emphasis added].

2. Repeal of an AWS
Upon a "petition" of one-third of the affected employees, a new secret ballot election shall be held and a two-thirds vote of the affected employees shall be required to reverse the AWS. 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(5).

The repeal election must be held not more than thirty (30) days after the petition "is submitted to the employer."

Repeal election cannot be held within one year "after the date that the same group of employees voted in an election held to adopt or repeal" an AWS. (Employees cannot change their minds more than once per year.)

Generally the same election procedures for adoption of AWSs apply (see Section B(1) above), such as the requirement that the vote take place during regular working hours at the employees' work site.

If AWS is "revoked," the employer shall comply within 60 days, but the DLSE may grant an extension "[u]pon a proper showing of undue hardship," a phrase that is not defined either in AB 60 or in Final Wage Order 2001. 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(C)(5).

C. Make-Up Time For Personal Obligations
If an employer approves a written request by an employee to make up time missed due to a personal obligation, the make up work, if performed in the same workweek as the time lost, may not be counted as overtime, except for hours that exceed 11 hours of work in one day or 40 hours in one workweek. 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(M).

An employee must provide a signed written request for each occasion that they wish to make up time.

An employer may, but is not required to honor the employee's request for make-up time.
An employer is prohibited from "encouraging or otherwise soliciting" employees to request this approval to take personal time off. An employer may, however, "inform an employee of this make-up time option."

"If an employee knows in advance that he or she will be requesting make-up time for a personal obligation that will recur at a fixed time over a succession of weeks, the employee may request to make-up work time for up to four (4) weeks in advance."

Careful policy drafting and documentation.

D. The Duty To Provide Reasonable Accommodation Under AB 60

The employer may not reduce an employee’s regular hourly pay rate as a result of the adoption, repeal or nullification of an AWS.

The employer must make a reasonable effort to find a work schedule not to exceed eight hours in a workday that accommodates an employee who was eligible to vote in the AWS election but is unable to work the AWS. The employer is permitted to provide a work schedule not to exceed eight hours in a workday, to accommodate an employee who was hired after the election and is unable to work the alternative schedule.

The employer must explore any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance that conflicts with an adopted AWS, in the manner provided by subdivision (j) of Section 12940 of the California Government Code, also known as the "Fair Employment and Housing Act" ("FEHA"). 2001 Wage Order 4, Section (3)(B)((4).

E. Time Off Requested By Exempt Employees
Primary danger is the employer risks losing the benefit of an exemption for entire class of employees if the employer treats them as non-exempt. For example:
Docking an exempt employee's salary for absences from work of less than one day, even if the exempt employee has exhausted vacation and sick leave.

For certain other leaves that are legally required (e.g., jury duty), employers arguably cannot deduct pay from an exempt employee's salary for absences of less than one full week without risking reclassifying the employee as nonexempt.

Unlike federal law, DLSE takes the position that deductions from the salary of an exempt employee for the infraction of any rule are impermissible.

Requiring exempt employees to keep timecards and/or paying them on an hourly, as opposed to salary, basis. (Note: AB 60 changed California "remuneration" standard to a "salary" standard: In addition to satisfying the "duties" test for the particular exemption, exempt employee must also earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment.)

“Recission” of Miles Locker letter regarding “salary basis” test for exempt employees, and update on pending litigation against the IWC regarding its adoption of FLSA “weekly” salary basis test.

F. Recent California Legislation On Employee Sick Leave (AB 109) And Other Recent California

Time Off Legislation

1. Use of sick leave to care for ill spouse, child or grandparent
AB 109, effective on Jan. 1, 2000, does not require employers to offer sick leave to employees. It also does not prohibit policies that restrict sick leave to employees who fall into specific classifications (e.g., full-time, exempt) or who satisfy eligibility conditions (e.g., a probationary period or six-month waiting period).

However, AB 109 applies to all employers who provide sick leave. If an employer provides sick leave, it must allow employees to use a portion of their annual leave entitlement to attend to an illness of a child, parent or spouse.

The amount of sick leave that is available in any calendar year may not be less than the sick leave that would have accrued over a six-month period at the employee's then current rate of entitlement.

The calendar year is the 12-month measuring period used to compute the amount of sick leave that is available.

Equivalent to one-half of the annual sick leave accruals.
If employee already has used all of his/her accrued sick leave, the employer need not advance sick leave that the employee is expected to earn in the future.
Employers can impose restrictions and conditions on use of sick leave to care for family members (just as employers may do with use of sick leave to care for employee's own illness). E.g., employees must satisfy a waiting period or provide a medical certification of illness, reasonable notification rules.

Based on broad definition of "sick leave" in the statute, one could argue that paid time off and combined leave programs (leave "banks") that allow employees to use paid leave benefits for a variety of different absences, such as sickness, vacation and personal days, would be subject to the sick leave rules of new Cal. Labor Code § 233.

No extension of maximum leave under the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA") or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), regardless of whether the employee receives sick leave compensation during that leave.

§ Prohibitions against discrimination and remedies.
Note new legislation affecting “domestic partners.” New AB 25 affects employers in a variety of ways. For example, domestic partners can now use up to half of their accrued sick leave to care for a domestic partner. Employers are not required to offer sick leave. However, if they do, they must allow employees to use up to one-half of their accrued sick leave to care for a sick child, parent or spouse, and now, a registered domestic partner or child of a registered domestic partner. Cal. Labor Code § 233. AB 25 does not, however, extend to domestic partners rights under California Family Rights Act to care for the serious health condition of a domestic partner. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2.

2. Other Recent California “Time Off” Legislation
California bill-tracking website: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

G. Recent Wage And Hour Law Changes
1. Computer software exemption
New exemption (SB 88) for employees in computer software fields who:
(a) earn hourly rate of $41.00 (now increased to $42.64, tied to increases in Consumer Price Index);
(b) are primarily engaged in work that is intellectual or creative and requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment; and
(c) are highly skilled and proficient in the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized information to computer systems analysis, programming and software engineering.

2. Recent Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange "Administrative" Exemption Decision
Narrows application of the administrative exemption and relies on the "administrative/production worker dichotomy" from federal law under the FLSA.
For more information and updates, check the IWC's website: www.dir.ca.gov/Iwc.

3. Update on Wage-Hour Class Actions
Recent developments, including Sav-On Drugs appellate opinion reversing trial court order granting class certification in a wage-hour exemption case.

4. Lactation Accommodation (AB 1025)
AB 1025 adds Sections 1030 through 1033 to the California Labor Code. The bill requires every employer (private and public) to accommodate a lactating employee. Employers must provide a reasonable amount of time to allow employee to express milk. The break time shall run concurrently with the rest period already provided to the employee under the applicable Wage Order, if possible, and any additional break time shall be unpaid. However, employers are exempted from the break time requirement if the break would seriously disrupt the employer’s operations. Employers must make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with a room or other location, other than a toilet stall, near the employee’s work area, for the employee to express milk in private. The employee’s regular work area is acceptable if it otherwise meets these requirements. Finally, employers are subject to a $100 penalty per violation, and the Labor Commissioner may issue citations.

VI. USING TELECOMMUTING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TIME OFF

A. Advantages And Disadvantages

Employees enjoy the privilege, convenience and flexibility of telecommuting. Allowing it can be good for employee morale. An estimated 10% of the U.S. workforce now telecommutes, and the percentage is expected to increase over the next few decades. There are many reasons for this trend, including employee retention issues, technological advances that have made working from home more feasible, crowded freeways and the lack of suitable parking near work sites, and the increasing numbers of working parents who require more flexible work arrangements.
Even the government has joined the telecommuting revolution, as last year a Senate bill proposed giving telecommuters a $500 tax credit, mostly to cover furnishings and electronic information equipment needed for telecommuting. The Governor of Virginia also proposed $10 million in tax incentives for employers who permit telecommuting. Recent studies have suggested that telecommuting arrangements have improved employees’ productivity and efficiency.

By virtue of technology alone, employers may be swept into telecommuting arrangements without first assessing the business and legal implications, including potential liability issues that arise primarily in the context of employee work hours, home safety and accommodations.
B. Issues All Employers Should Consider In Conjunction With Telecommuting
Telecommuters are protected by most labor and employment laws, including the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code and the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA").

Under the FLSA, for example, an employer may not refuse to pay a non-exempt employee for overtime worked on the grounds that work was performed at home. Employers must comply with the FLSA without regard to an employee's place of working. This means that employers must be careful to collect accurate data from non-exempt telecommuters regarding the number of hours worked at home. Employers should not allow employees who they do not trust to telecommute, as the employer is to some degree relinquishing control over record-keeping, overtime and the like by allowing employees to work from home.

Although OSHA withdrew one of its advisory letters, employers should take care to assure themselves that employees are working in a safe environment at home. OSHA is not precluded from regulating home offices by statute. In keeping with its purpose, OSHA officials have indicated that the agency will inspect home offices in the case of serious injury or death, especially if manufacturing work is conducted at home.

Employees are entitled to workers' compensation benefits for injuries "arising out of and in the course of employment." There is no requirement that the employee be located on the employer's premises to sustain a compensable injury. More than 20 years ago, a California appeals court permitted a college professor to recover workers' compensation benefits when he slipped on his lecture notes while preparing his class syllabus at home. Similar cases are likely to arise in the future as more and more employees perform work at home. To prevent injuries and minimize liability, employers should be keenly interested in the safety of an employee's home office. Periodic home-office inspections are advisable. Employers should also consider requiring telecommuters to complete a self-certification safety checklist.

In addition to liability under labor and employment laws, telecommuting raises other legal issues. For example, telecommuting may involve the use of employer-owned equipment and the storage of the employer's proprietary information at home offices. These circumstances may require review of employer and employee insurance policies to confirm whether employer-owned equipment and other information are covered in case of loss. Such confidential information use and storage also makes it difficult to protect the employer's "trade secrets," such as customer lists, billing history, key contacts, data and preferences. Furthermore, employers should assure themselves that employees would return equipment and information upon demand.

Recent case law suggests that an employer should offer telecommuting as a form of "reasonable accommodation" for disabled employees under the ADA and FEHA. Employers should consult with their legal counsel regarding these issues, including the important legal issue of whether the employee is a "qualified individual with a disability."
Employers can minimize the potential liability associated with telecommuting arrangements by creating a telecommuting agreement or adding telecommuting provisions to an existing employee handbook. Such provisions should clearly set forth the terms of any telecommuting arrangement and might include provisions such as the following:

Define telecommuting and make it clear telecommuters are still subject to all of the employer’s policies and procedures even though they will be working off-site.

Agreement by the employee to return any employer-provided equipment upon termination of the telecommuting arrangement or termination of employment.

Agreement by the employee to return all of employer's proprietary information upon demand.
Acknowledgment by the employee that he or she received a home office checklist to ensure that the home working environment is safe. Any safety checklist for the home office should comply with current OSHA guidelines and should be designated as derived from those guidelines.

Set out the work hours and days for telecommuters.

Advise telecommuters that the employer retains the right to terminate the telecommuting arrangement at any time, without cause or advance notice.

Grant the employer the right to inspect the telecommuter’s home office and state when such inspections can occur.

Agreement by non-exempt employees to work no more than 40 hours per week without the express permission of a supervisor and to keep accurate time records.

Non-discriminatory standards for a telecommuting arrangement to protect employers from claims that telecommuting was denied to particular employees for discriminatory reasons.
Agreement by the employee to promptly report any accidents that occur while he or she is working in the home office.

Specific guidelines regarding reimbursement for expenses related to the home office.
Detail what equipment telecommuter will be using, who will be providing it, who is responsible for maintenance, damage, loss, etc.

Consider confidentiality and protection of trade secrets policies.
Agreement as to liability insurance for accidents that occur at an employee’s home office. Consider defining/limiting work space for which employer will assume some responsibility, e.g., no employer liability if someone drowns in the employee’s home swimming pool.

Every employer who allows employees to perform work from a home office, during or after normal business hours, should be aware of the legal issues raised by telecommuting. Employers should adjust the telecommuting arrangement with these issues in mind so that they may minimize potential liability while allowing employees to take advantage of the benefits of telecommuting.

Source Lawmwmo.com

Congressman proposes Paid Vacation Act
Updated: Thursday, 21 May 2009, 12:36 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 21 May 2009, 12:35 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (WOFL FOX 35) - Florida Congressman Alan Grayson introduced the Paid Vacation Act of 2009 on Thursday in hopes of improving productivity at American companies and providing a spark for travel and tourism industries, Grayson officials announced.

“Why are paid vacations good enough for the Chinese, French, Japanese, and German employees, but not good enough for us? In other countries, its a matter of right. Everyone is entitled to it. In our country, it is a matter of class,” Grayson wrote in a release.

“Over time we are coming to realize that whatever your background, wherever you grew up, wherever you live, there are certain basic elements that people need to have enjoyable lives. They need health care. They need a decent paying job. And for a good life, they need time off,” he added.

The Act would require at least one week of paid vacation for employees at companies with at least 100 employees. Full-and-part workers would be eligible for the vacation after one year of service.

FoxNEws

Personnel Record Keeping

• In general, employers must keep all personnel or employment records for one year.


• If an employee is involuntarily terminated, his/her personnel records must be retained for one year from the date of termination.


• If a claim of discrimination is filed, all relevant personnel records must be retained until final disposition of the matter.


• Under the ADEA, employers must also keep all payroll records for three years.


• Employers must also keep on file any employee benefit plan and any written seniority or merit system for the full period the plan or system is in effect and for at least one year after its termination.


• Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must keep payroll records for at least three years.


• Employers must also keep for at least two years all records (including wage rates, job evaluations, seniority and merit systems, and collective bargaining agreements) that explain the basis for paying different wages to employees of opposite sexes in the same establishment.

HR Village

What Records Should I Keep?

Private Demogrphic Records

• Emergency Contact information


• Home address


• Home Contact Information

Employee Registration and Personnel Actions

• Offer Letter


• Job descriptions


• Employment application and resume


• Test documents used by an employer to make employment decisions . College transcripts


• Signed acknowledgements


• Promotion or demotion


• Performance evaluations


• Disciplinary notices or documents


• Transfer or layoff


• Rates of pay and other forms of compensation


• General training records


• Letters of recognition


• Termination/resignation letter or form


• Release to provide reference information

Pay and Attendance Records

• Pay Records


• Deductions


• Paid Time off


• Garnishments


• W-4 Tax deduction authorization

Benefit Records

• Enrollment Documents


• Plan Change Notifications


• 401k Loan documents

Work Authorization Records

• I-9

Release to provide reference information

How Long Should I Keep Payroll Records?

In general, a good rule of thumb is to keep files for the longest amount of time required

• California requires employers to keep payroll records two years under the state's Labor Code


• Four years under the state's Unemployment Insurance Code,


• Federal government requires three years from date of last entry under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Source HR Resource

What Should I Keep?

How Secure do I Keep Records?

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, you also have important legal duties relating to how you keep staff records and what you do with them.

• In addition, employees are entitled to access certain records and can seek compensation for damage or distress suffered as a result of a breach of the Act.


• This means that you should take care when recording information about your staff.

What do Keep Records On?

More generally, you should keep records - eg minutes - of:

• meetings with workplace representatives


• any disciplinary action you have ever taken, in particular disciplinary hearings


• individual and collective redundancy consultation meetings and agreements


• negotiations relating to information and consultation agreements

Keeping staff records: the business benefits. Keeping staff records beyond those required by law may help you:

• match staff resources with production or service requirements
  avoid or defend tribunal claims when a dispute with an employee arises
  assess the performance and productivity of individual employees or teams
  ensure that you are treating job applicants and workers consistently and fairly


• make decisions in relation to staffing levels, eon recruitment and redundancy

The level of detail in staff records

Interview Stories

All HR pros have seen job candidates do dumb things. But these interview bloopers are just unbelievable.
Staffing firm OfficeTeam recently asked recruiters and hiring managers about the strangest things they’ve seen interviewees do.
Our personal favorite was the guy who performed well in the interview — but on his way out, he walked right through a glass door, shattering it.
Some of the other highlights:
One candidate took a personal approach and repeatedly addressed the interviewer by first name — too bad it was the wrong one.
Another realized halfway through the interview he was applying for the wrong position. He unsuccessfully tried to convince the company he was right for that job, too.
One particularly dedicated candidate was told he didn’t get the job — and then showed up to work the next day.
What strange behavior have you encountered? Let us know by leaving a comment below.
AKPC_IDS += "3604,";

Related Stories
The death of etiquette in interviews
Picking out the best in a crowded employment market
My best HR management idea: Stopping new-supervisor screw-ups – in 20 minutes
Best of HRRecruiting: Manager’s interview notes cost company big
37 Responses to “Candidate leaves interview — right through a glass door”
Cindy Says: July 24th, 2009 at 8:08 am
One I will NEVER forget is an applicant for a senior level IT job. He constantly was putting his little finger in one ear or the other, looking at it and then flicking or rubbing what was there onto the chair! It was such an unconsious gesture on his part but so distracting because it was all throughout the 30 minute interview. I was worried he was going to go fishing elsewhere before the interview was over. Luckily, his credentials were not as impressive as he had mad them sound through a background check. I wasn’t sure if he had OCD and if it would have been covered by ADA!
Kay Says: July 24th, 2009 at 8:40 am
1st place - I had a cnadidate show up for an interview drunk and was very upset when we told them we would not doing the interview due to thier impared state. Thier reply “Um ok I can come back tomorrow when I am “more soberer”. We respectfully declined.
2nd place - I asked an accounting/data entry clerk if they had 10-key by touch the response - with arm movement “oh no you didn’t”. I further explained that it was required due to the nature of the job, the response “I don’t know what type a place this is but I ain’t touching nobody”.
And folks think HR is boring….
Cindy Says: July 24th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Kay - love the accounting clerk one!!!!!!!! hilarious!
coriHR Says: July 24th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Cindy that has got to be the funniest yet grossest thing I’ve heard as far as interviews go. Too bad you didn’t have any QTips to offer him. I don’t think I could have made it through without getting sick. It does sound similar to a Turets type thing, at least with a manager I had who had Turets. He used to just yell at people and had weird actions while doing it over the smallest issues and used to always make one girl cry. Needless to say that guy stressed me out with all the yelling he did (he never yelled at me though) so I left..Oh did I mention the President of the company drooled when speaking?
RRS Says: July 24th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Funny Kay, can someone top this one….
I actually had a telephone interview for a high school student Intern position. The candidate stated that she just graduated from high school so I asked her how well did you do and what was your grade point average. She stated “I don’t know, I just took my diploma and put it on the wall”, I did not bother to open my report card. I then asked her “Have you ever had a clerical position before”? She stated “what, I repeated clerical…she said what, I spelled the word clerical and then she said “what’s that?”. I told her that I would let her figure that out and I ended the conversation quickly and as professional as possible. I have no idea if anyone ever hired her but for sure we did not.
Cindy Says: July 24th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Cori-I grew up with 5 brothers. Very little grosses me out to the point of extreme reaction. This interview was maybe 10 years ago and I still remember it the vividly!
Another incident I had was remember when nearly transparent clothing was all the rage to the point you could see a bra quite clearly? I had one very endowed applicant show up for an interview she was very articulate, was looking very nice, make up, demure skirt, heels, clothes fit well. She had one of those blouses on………..minus the bra.
Felecia Says: July 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I had a candidate that was having a bad hair day. When the interview was over and she left the room, one of her weave tracks had fallen on the floor. Her her was long on the sides but there was one area in the back of her head where there was barely any hair. It was a pretty akward situation.
Mike Says: July 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
The sans bra one has happened to me a few times. Not to mention applicants dressing like they were about to head to a night club, or had just returned from one.
One of the funniest I encountered was a gentleman who came into the lobby and told the receptionist that his father was the local fire chief and it had been arranged for him to start work. HR had never heard of this guy. We decided to interview him. He sat sideways in his chair and never looked at us across the table. He said the 10% of 400 was about 90 or so, then he said “I’m not great with that kind of math, but I can read a tape (tape measure). We pulled one out of our little box we use for mechanic interviews, he couldn’t tell us where the inch and 7/8″ mark was. At the end of the interview, he reminded us that his father was a fire chief and had 2 degrees, so obviously since he was his son he was no dummy. He re-applied 3 months later.
PS Says: July 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
We are a very professional office (financial services) and I’ve had more than one employee show up with children in tow. One such employee got mad at us because we suggested rescheduling her interview for another time when she could arrange a sitter. Her response, “I don’t have anyone to watch her during the day”. Seriously???? Then how was she planning on working? We passed.
Angie Says: July 24th, 2009 at 9:57 am
A number of years ago I was toward the end of 2 weeks of recruiting for a new manufacturing facility my employer was opening. I had been administering 2 different pre-employment tests, alternating every half hour, for most of that time. As anyone who does multiple presentations in a short time knows, it becomes difficult to remember whether you said something to this group of if that was the prior group. I either stumbled over words or repeated myself in giving directions for a test. One applicant looked up and asked, “Did you have a brain tumor for breakfast?” I brushed it off, got the test started, and promptly found the person who had interviewed her to make sure she wasn’t hired. Not surprisingly, the interviewer had already decided not to hire her, but this sealed her fate.
Kellie Says: July 24th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Funny stuff! Here’s my craziest interviews: One candidate, when asked why she wanted to leave her current position replied, “Just between you and me, my boss is a member of the Brazilian mafia.” If that’s true, I don’t think I’d be repeating it, and if it’s not, why say something so like that? One candidate for an administrative assistant position fell asleep in the reception area and was snoring loudly. Another candidate for an accounts payable position cursed at me 3 times during the interivew. The resume of the year goes to the candidate applying for a proofreader position, and in her cover letter she said, “I am interested in applying for the Proffreader opening.” If you can’t spell proofreader, then it’s probably not the right job for you!
HRDirector Says: July 24th, 2009 at 10:57 am
1 - I had one interviewee show up to interview for a clerical position in our outside sales department in bedroom slippers and what was clearly a pajama top. Her hair was uncombed and she looked as though she’d just rolled out of bed. She didn’t apologize for how she looked, so she may have been perfectly comfortable with it!
2 - The best one was an applicant for a fairly high level manager position. This candidate came in, could not sit still, and beside digging in his ear like Cindy mentioned, he constantly blew his nose into a hanky, and then checked it out. He also constantly adjusted various areas on his body throughout - very disconcerting! Seemed like a harrassment charge looking for a place to happen…
Nomi Says: July 24th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I’ve had several adult women show up for interviews with the kids. Screaming, unhappy kids who disrupt the office so badly I have to ask them to leave. I’ve also had several show up with their grandmothers, mothers, etc. We’re talking 35 to 40 year old women bring their family to an interview. You would think they would be experienced enough to know better.
The grandmothers are the worst. They want to be involved in the interview and they have had a tendency to chew me out when I don’t hire their granddaughters. I have a feeling they are desperately trying to get these women and children out of their houses by making them get a job.
This is an employee with drama that I don’t need.
Ann Says: July 24th, 2009 at 11:27 am
My favorite interviewee was about 15 years ago, the candidate was a man in his mid-50s. After a few minutes of small talk I asked him to tell me why type of office environment and management style he preferred and why. I can’t fully tell you his full response based on the numerous repeated racial/ethic slurs, but here is hte edited version: “I like an office where people are comfortable, I hate this PC cr**. I miss the days when you could make fun of b(slur for women), n(slur for African Americans), c(slur for Asian), s(slur for Latino), c(slur for middle Eastern), and f(slur for gay).” I thanked him for his time and explained to him that we were a diverse organization and that we do not tolerate language like that. He became indignant and told me I was missing out on a great opportunity to hire someone like him. A great opportunity for what?? A lawsuit?? The kicker- I got a call from the Dept of Labor a few weeks later, he tried to claim that I was practicing age discrimination. I repeated verbatim (no edits) what he had said during the interview. Needless to say, his age discrimination claim didn’t go any further.
GBERGR Says: July 24th, 2009 at 11:31 am
We once had a lobby full of applicants for a customer service representative position. Their appearance ran the gammut from hobo to hooker. One female applicant wore cut-offs and a t-shirt. The t-shirt had a hole in conspicuous area, and the lady wasn’t wearing a bra!! Another female applicant wore a red chiffon cocktail dress complete with rhinestone-studded spaghetti straps. Wow!
Cynthia Says: July 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am
My all time favorite is when an applicant was walking on the entrance to our building. He passed my window that had mirror reflective coating on the floor to ceiling windows - he could not see in and see me but I could see out and see him. As he passed my office he started looking at himself to see if he looked ok for the interview. He even checked out and adjusted his personal equipment (if you get my drift).
I did not know the person I saw was my candidate until I met him in the lobby and I had to keep a straight face during the entire interview.
Pat Says: July 24th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
OMG!! Thank you all for sharing your experiences! I was in tears (laughter) reading them all. Can’t say I have any story that will top any of them. However, I have had several candidates show up, inappropriately dressed for an interview either in very casual (t-shirt style and/or very revealing blouses/dresses). Once had two candidates (they were friends & applying for the same position) show up in sweat pants & shirt …. the position was for a Sales Assistant!! Thanks again, All!
Kathy Boyle Says: July 24th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
A few years ago I was interviewing for a position in our purchasing department. The male interviewee had written on his resume that he was a mime. During the interview his facial expressions ranging from toothy grins to exagerated frowns had me coughing and crying trying not to laugh, I could barely look him in the face trying not to laugh. It was the longest interview I have ever suffered through. At one point I thought it was a joke management was playing on me.
lwn Says: July 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I had an in-person interview scheduled with a male candidate whom I had interviewed over the phone. The HR rep informed me that my candidate Amanda had arrived for her interview. I told her that I didn’t have an interview with an Amanda that it was with Matthew. The HR rep looked at me and nodded her head indicating she knew that and said this is your candidate. I went out and met a person who was quite apparently a guy who was dressed in drag. She never said anything about interviewing over the phone as Matthew and it was really hard to conduct the interview because the appearance was so distracting. I don’t know if this was a case of schizophrenia, just a gender issue or if she was in the process of changing her gender. Definitely a strange experience I will never forget!
Jill Says: July 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I have an application from a guy who was applying for a Teller/Maintenance position. We didn’t have any openings for a Teller/Maintenance position at the time but we let him fill out an application anyway and this is what he wrote:
Employment HistoryFor the prior 3 months, he had been working at a local bowling alley as a “Pin Setter Mechanic”. His “Reason for Leaving” says “Wrongful Firing”. On the “May we contact this employer?” question, the guy checked “No”.
Now during that same 3 months, he also worked at a local Parts store, where he was a Delivery Driver. Reason for Leaving? He put “Fired, Question Motives”. He also checked “No”, we could not contact that employer either.
EducationHe received a 2 yr degree in Automotive Maintenance Repair at a Vo-Tech.He also received his 2 year degree in Nursing at a local college. He obviously was a man of many talents.
ReferencesThe first one listed both a first and last name.The second one had the initials “BJ”The third one said “Jeff M”He didn’t know any of their addresses but they all had the same phone number.And the frosting on the cake can be found on the back page. The question is “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or any offense including acts of dishonesty or breach of trust such as shoplifting?”Answer: “Possible, but not confirmed it so please let me know”
Please let him know what? Please let him know if he has been convicted of a felony or please let him know if we want to hire him? I was stumped
Joyce Says: July 25th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I will never forget the applicant I interviewed for a heavy truck driving position. It didn’t bother me that he showed up dressed in a wife beater t-shirt, it was the pot leaf earing in his ear that said DO NOT HIRE ME for a safety sensitive position.
Essie Says: July 25th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
A woman sloppily dressed in old jeans and a baggy T walked in the front door, talking on her cell. She stopped only long enough to look at me and say “Job Application”. I waited until she looked at me again, still talking, and pointed the building across from us, saying “Next door.” Before she could get there, I called over and said “Don’t hire the one walking in the door right now.”
Darla Says: July 27th, 2009 at 9:09 am
I once interviewed an obviously very angry man. Not only had he practically shaved his nose off that morning before coming in, leaving a big sore on it, but his fly was down and as he continually, casually rocked back and forth in the chair during the interview, his fly was opening and closing with the rocking motion as though his voice was coming out of his pants…needless to say, the angry attitude alone eliminating him from the choices.
KathyC Says: July 27th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Love these stories!
Howard L Says: July 28th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I was taking applications for a “reciever” at our recycling scales. We do background checks. On one of the consent forms it asks “are there any other names you have gone by?” I’m guessing so we can search maiden names as well…
Anyway, one guy put “Crimeboy” the other name he went by!! We got a roaring laugh reviewing that application…
Angel M Says: July 28th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I showed up to work one morning and my fisrt candidate to interview was passed out in front of the main door. He was out celebrating that he had gotten an interview.When i questioned the security guard why he left him there, he told me that he was here to see me so he let him sleep it off.So the guy was not interviewed and our security guard was terminated for not performing his job to our satisfaction.
Another HR Manager Says: July 28th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I was holding interviews for a tutoring center position working with children. One resume I received had a gap in employment. When I asked the candidate about it, she said she, “took time off to have a boob job.” She also shared that this was a job-related activity, as it related to her hobby as an amateur porn star.
Really, you think I am going to let you work with my students? What would you say to them?
Debi Says: July 28th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
We recently had a guy come to our office to fill out an application - and he was already wearing one of our logo-shirts! Talk about coming in with confidence. Evidently his brother had worked for us about 10 years earlier - still had our shirt.
HRP Says: July 29th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Of all my years in HR, probably the funniest experience was when we were accepting handwritten applications. We had an entry level job and we received an application from a Neopolitan Elff. In the box labeled “Sex” he had written, once or twice a week! True story.
Jim Rittgers, SPHR Says: July 29th, 2009 at 7:33 am
HRP –
“In the box labeled Sex” ????? Was that 40 years ago when some applications asked that question?
HRP Says: July 29th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Dear Jim Rittgers, SPHR……You are close…..39 years ago, I was a co-op in HR. Believe it or not, I was turned down for a job because my skirt was too short! I have stories that would probably curl your hair…….
stacy Says: July 29th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I am new to the HR world as I just graduated from college a little over a year ago. I never dreamed that half of the examples my professors used in school would really happened! I woke up from that dream a little over a year ago when I received my HR recruiting position with my current company. I can not believe the way people represent themselves in resumes, cover letters, and in interviews. It’s UNBELIEVEABLE!!
My most recent resume came from a person who was recommended from an internal employee. I don’t know if this applicant just assumed they would receive the job because they knew someone within the company? It really bothers me when people want to get a job so bad that they don’t put any time and effort into our company. With the economy the way it is, people should be particularly careful as there are NUMEROUS applicants applying.
In this applicants cover letter they mention several highlighted skills. One of the skills was “attention to detail”. The person even went on to describe how this skill is a good representation of them and how it is extremely beneficial. In the VERY next sentence, the person says, “I look forward to the possibility of joining your close knit team at - - - - (insert a company name here that is NOT our company!)” I could not believe it. How can you list attention to detail as a top skill and then have that as your next sentence?
This applicant also gave us a good laugh by mentioning an award received in college for perfect attendance. Okay, maybe that would tell us that they will be dependable at work, but our attention was quickly taken away from the intended purpose when the applicant mentioned the class in which it was awarded, “Human Sexuality”. I’m sorry, but we were no longer thinking about their dedication to their school work, but rather the interest in the particular topic of discussion!
Thanks for all the great laughs this morning! =)
HR Mgr Says: July 29th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Several years ago I worked for a company as a recruiter hiring oilfield workers. Our application included the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” One classic applicant wrote, “No, but I did have one Mister Meaner”. I have kept a copy of that application in my humor file ever since…
Cheryl Says: July 29th, 2009 at 10:35 am
About twice a year I get a resume from a gentleman who encloses lengthy explanations for why he left each prior employer. It reads like a soap opera. He left his first employer because they were discriminating against him. He got an attorney to represent him and it’s still an open case. He was fired from his second job because he spent too much time on the phone with his attorney discussing the lawsuit from his first job. He currently has a restraining order against him from our state senator because he called his office so many times to complain about his second job that a restraining order was placed on him by the senator’s office. (His second employer was apparently also harassing him because his new supervisor was friends with the supervisor from his first job so they were obviously out to get him.) I mean there are 3 pages of explanations that involve lawsuits, complaints to the EEOC, DOL and the state capital! Does this guy actually think someone is going to bring him in based on this resume?? His last cover letter also stated in big letters that he DOES NOT NEED INSURANCE unless he gets hurt at work then he would expect the employer to pay for it.
Unbelievable.
Mary D. Says: July 29th, 2009 at 11:49 am
While escorting an applicant to my office for an interview, the applicant answered his ringing cell phone while exiting the elevator. He held up one finger to indicate “wait a minute” and ducked around a corner and proceeded a short distance down a hallway in the opposite direction from the way we were headed. I continued on to my office and shut the door. I don’t know what happened to the applicant. But, since he didn’t attend the interview and never called again, I think he got the message.
A little off the subject is my most memorable…an individual’s attempt to get a job interview. Our receptionist tells most individuals to send their resume that I don’t take walk-in appointments. So, one day our receptionist calls telling me that I have a surprise waiting for me in the lobby. After questioning if it was flowers, a gift or something similar she said no it was someone from my past who wanted to surprise me. Again after much questioning she told me he was very good looking, wanted to surprise me and to please come to the lobby. Upon entering the lobby, I saw two seated gentlemen. I approached the receptionist and asked her where is my surprise as I looked around the lobby. She giggled and pointed to one of the seated gentlemen. As I approached the gentleman I introduced myself and asked if I could help him. I heard our receptionist in the background gasp and say oh no. Then the gentleman introduced himself stating that he was looking for a job. My response was, “So, you claim to be someone from my past.” He immediately responded, “No, but I would like to be someone in your future.” As I walked away, I told him it was obvious that we don’t have a past, but it was even more obvious that we don’t have a future. Then I called our receptionist and told her to call her relief because I wanted to see her in my office immediately. No, she wasn’t in trouble, we just had a really good laugh over some people have all the nerve.
Janet Whitaker Says: July 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
About 16 years ago, a young man came in for an interview carrying a very large convenience store soft drink. When he sat down, he said, “Sorry about the drink, but the Prozac makes me very thirsty.” Yeah, that’s just what I wanted to hear…
HRD Says: July 29th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
About 5 years ago I was interviewing candidates for an internal training position. The incumbent would present training sessions to all employees from VP-level to blue-collar, union workers. I was looking for someone with confidence and poise along with our other pre-reqs to fill the position. I couldn’t afford someone whose feathers were easily ruffled. A woman came in for the interview. Her resume looked perfect for the role.
She got stuck in the turnstile going through security. She tripped over her own feet walking to my office. She heard a noise, turned quickly and her glasses fell off. Then, during the interview, she laughed so hard at one point that mucus came flying out of her nose and onto my conference table. She wiped it up with her hand and then on her pants.
I couldn’t get out of that interview fast enough.

HR Morning