Cathie's Corner Blog

(Published November 3, 2009)

In the current job market, I'm sure we're all receiving far more applications than we can use, whether or not we're even hiring.  I had a conversation with someone the other day about pre-screening these applications that got me thinking about the process.

The manager I was talking to wanted to ask a series of questions before he would even allow applicants to complete the application.  At first glance, this seemed fairly reasonable.  But after I looked at the questions he wanted to use, I had to stop and think.

The first question had to do with the applicant's willingness to clean (it's a small company where everyone has to do a little bit of everything, including cleaning).  The second and third questions had to do with shaving and haircuts.  The final one had to do with the applicant's willingness to work on holidays occasionally.

While the first question seemed fairly straightforward, I wondered what would happen if someone who was physically disabled applied.  Would they be eliminated from contention because of their inability to clean the bathrooms?  The second two had obvious difficulties; there are both medical reasons (for some races) and religious reasons why a man might not shave, and religious reasons why a man or a woman might not cut his or her hair.  The last question also raises religious implications, though not as strongly since there is no religion that would require all holidays off.

My concern was with the way these questions could be used.  It appeared that they would be used as a method of elimination — if the answers were not "yes" right down the line, the individual would not even be allowed to apply.  This has the potential to put the employer on the wrong end of a discrimination lawsuit.

On the other hand, I do recognize that employers are being overwhelmed with applications, and they need to do something to trim the overload.

So what I suggested to him was that he provide the applicants with a way to explain any "no" answers, and that he make it clear that a "no" answer to one or more of the questions would not necessarily eliminate them as a candidate.  Therefore, someone who answered, "I cannot help with the cleaning because I am in a wheelchair," or, "I cannot shave my beard because I am a Hasidic Jew," would still be able to apply, whereas someone who said, "I am not willing to help with the cleaning because that's not the job you're hiring me to do," or, "I am not willing to cut my hair because it's none of your business how I wear my hair," could be eliminated.

Is it still risky?  Certainly, it is.  I don't think the questions are a wise idea at all.  A candidate who gives honest answers that include one or more "no's" and who is eliminated later in the process for other reasons, might well believe that they were eliminated for a discriminatory reason and the employer could still get sued.  It's just not a wise set of questions to be asking.  I would imagine that most smart applicants would give the employer the answers they want to hear and then discuss any "no" answers if it appears that a job offer is forthcoming.  At least I hope they would.  It's what I'd do.

But at the same time, the percentage of people who would be eliminated by these questions and by a reason that is prohibited by law is probably pretty small.  Truth be told, there is no such thing as a risk-free method of elimination.

Just be certain, when you do any pre-screening, to keep the questions business-focused.  There will be plenty of time to address holiday policies, dress codes, or non-essential job functions as you go through the process.

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.

Did you know that AHI offers discrimination training? Click here to learn more or call Fran Goggin at 800-879-2441. 

(Published October 26, 2009)

The economy must be getting better, in my opinion.  The number of questions I'm hearing from people who have successfully found new jobs is increasing.  But the question that comes up most often is one that disturbs me somewhat.

I don't know if it's paranoia or if the questioners have reason to ask, but I'm getting numerous questions along this line: "If I give my notice and I'm immediately walked out the door, does my employer have to pay me for my notice period?"

The answer, of course, is no; there is no such requirement outside of a legally binding contract or collective bargaining agreement.  But it worries me that the question arises so often.  I have never worked for a company that would not pay a resigning employee if it indeed found it necessary to release the employee early.

It's not that I don't understand why an employer might not allow an employee to work out their notice.  I completely understand that in some cases, it's necessary.  When your top salesperson gives notice, you don't want to wonder whether they're promoting your product or that of their new employer.  Or if it's a problem employee, you just want them out as quickly as possible before they can cause any more trouble than they already have.  I've accepted notice early when it was warranted, but I've always paid the employee for the time.

There are several reasons for that.  One, it's just plain good manners.  If they had the courtesy to offer you notice, and you're unable or unwilling to allow them to work out the time, it's rude not to provide them with the pay they would have gotten if they did.  Then there's the question of unemployment.  In many states, if you do not accept notice that is offered and do not pay it out, part or all of the time can qualify the employee to receive unemployment benefits.  Is it really worth a potential increase in your rates to save a few days' pay?  Even in these tight times?

Hopefully, cases where an employee gives notice but is released immediately and without pay are the exception rather than the rule.  You don't really want to get a reputation for early, unpaid releases when an employee gives notice; otherwise, you'll soon find that none of your employees give notice at all.  It's all very well for you to decide that you don't need the employee in question to hand off his work to someone else and that he can leave immediately, but it's another thing to have all your employees quitting without notice, leaving you with no idea what their passwords are or the status of the Johnson account.  You want to be the one to make the decision; you don't want it taken out of your hands.

So consider the long term when your employees give notice — there's more to think about than just the immediate pay period!

Catherine Bannon is an HR consultant in Marshfield, MA (catherine.bannon@gmail.com). Bannon worked for 10 years in HR management before starting her consulting practice.