HR Metrics
clevahn
15 Posts
I am looking for some meaningful HR metrics, other than the usual absenteeism and turnover. Does anyone have some that are particularly valuable to the whole organization??? Thanks for your help!
Comments
Our program is in the infant stage and doesn't have near the data to even use yet. We are, however, focusing on weight loss vs. claims history the best we can with HIPAA and all. Got a pretty good weight loss program going with alot of people on the Larry Diet. Even then we will need some history underneath it to make it worthwhile and relavent.
Did you know that, on average, a loss of 1 BMI equals a 2 to 3% reduction in your yearly individual health care expense? Makes you want to drop your Twinkies, doesn't it?
Don, what do you mean by people being born with the symdrome? A predispostion or gene for CT? I never knew that. Interesting.
Getting HR in front of the owners and senior leaders with positive results helps them to understand how good we are or how negative we are or how "just part of the organization" we are or are not. I have been given the largest subjective bonus award as a single sum than any other manager in our company. A simple thing like cheering and demonstrating a positive attitude, when we receive back an employment security notice that someone we terminated was not awarded worker's compensation; reporting back to the CEO/GM when we have attended and presented a worker's comp case without the assistance of an attorney, especially when you are faced on the otherside the x-employee's attorney; and finally, when one receives back the win after appealing an unemployment claim that was previously lost. The ceo/GM understands $ollars and cents and an attorney is $175.00 per hour that the company used to pay, before I arrived. Now they pay me for the legal savings experience.
Good luck, I hope this helps, I agree with Don, absent and tardy is not one of those areas for which I care a hoot about, that is a performance concern for all managers. Your only ability to influence this area is through having a sound policy in place and then assisting the managers/supervisors to use the tools provided by the HR.
PORK
"The ceo/GM understands $ollars and cents and an attorney is $175.00 per hour that the company used to pay, before I arrived. Now they pay me for the legal savings experience."
I am curious about this conclusion. Is the cost of your salary and associated overhead to the company less than what the company formerly paid counsel? I'm doing the same analysis now and need to justify use or non-use of counsel. Also, what functions did you replace that counsel formerly provided? Just day-to-day HR stuff or handling some of the things normally farmed out to counsel, i.e., eeoc responses, policy drafting, termination notices, etc.? Thanks.
Employee relations is much improved and we have only been faced with an EEOC case 2 times in 6 years. We won both of those again based on documentation and the facts supported by same.
I wrote the Employee handbook and published it with only minimum attorney review.
I take on all of the Unemployment cases and have won all of them and there have been many.
I do all of the company required vehicle accident investigations. One does not win these, one minimizes the risk loss with quality and professional representation or accomplishes the investigation sufficiently to recover company losses.
I do all of the filing of charges for the company and represent the company in court for property damages and etc.
Now, understand, my salary is not computed based on $175.00 per hour worked and if it were then HR TN might have a point. I make sure the owners and the GM, my immediate boss, are aware of the time spent and the positive results of my work. I make sure that the work ethic demonstrated by quick professional action on any issue thrown my way is completed to the best of my ability. I make sure that ever HR positive event is broadcast from the highest hills and the largest banners. I attempt to minimize negative actions, but never never cover them up. Bad news is always carried into the boss with a recommended positive course of action.
When the owners of a multi-million $ollar operation tell you, they want you to stay and die in the HR seat; and the General Manager seeks my advise on how to get other managers on his team to cover their areas of responsibility with a operational blanket the way I have done and will continue to do, it will let you know you are there and the top subjective bonus award will or should come your way.
Our owner has a strong position of "SETTLEMENT IS A NON-STARTER". Since corporate law is feed off of the time spent on legal actions, it is very obvious that this HR was set for legal work. SETTLEMENT is the first thoughts of most corporate attorneys, earning a living in court is not what the marjority of our experiences has been. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS take a lot of time jocking the details for satisfaction of the requirement to settle. Their e-mails even have computer times in seconds, so also is the telephone and personal visits timed. Cut out their involvement as a direct result of your HR actions will give you a good comparsion.
Go to your accounting department and review the vendor files established for the law firm, go back three years and pull up the HR cost spent by the company for your HR legal actions, include the cost of settlements. Each document will breakdown the legal cost per hour down to 1/4 hour increments. This historical cost is what you want to compare your time and savings against.
Good luck, it works for me and I hope you can also benefit from showing the real value of an HR Team.
PORK
As a follow-up, approximately how many ees does your company have?
BTW- Are you an attorney turned HR? Some of your comments are suggestive of this possibility.
No, I am not an attorney, but having been in and around the legal issues for my entire work history, including the military, where I have been appointed as trial counsel, defense counsel, and jury, and judge rendering military penalty, my words do have a flavor of legalize.
I do not completely shut out the retained attorney, I have much reduced his weekly involvement. With W/C and the issue to controvert that is turned over to the attorney, but only after I have the case read for his ease of filing and dealing with the x-employees attorney. I simply am not recognized by the legal world as capable of handling these actions. When he wants something I get it for him, thus his clock is not ticking.
I encourage all of you to do as much as you can in the legal aspects of HR to save your company money through good documentation and preperation of the case to prevent the attorney from having to start a "A" in order to get to "Z". If you bring the attorney in at "X" and the attorney can close the case from there then you have saved your company a pile of money in saved time and thus expense.
In my firm opinion, HR professionals have devalued the profession by allowing attorneys to, in effect, run Human Resources at too many organizations. We shouldn't be in bed with anyone to get our job done.
It's also the right of any member to remain anonymous if they wish. And because of that right, I removed your "exposé" because it contained personal information that the poster wished not to reveal.
The fact that you (or anyone else) could click on the IP address icon and track the person back to a company website was a mistake on our part. That feature has been disabled for years for the sake of forum members' privacy and should not have been accessible. It should be fixed now. If anyone finds that that option is working for them, please have a conscience and let us know so we can fix it.
Thanks,
Christy Reeder
Associate Website Editor
HRhero.com
What I resent is the fact that he first pretended to be an employer requesting information from HR managers saying that he was trying to get his company to see the wisdom of settling other than paying the "*^&%^*% lawyers"; and, asking us to provide him with the amounts of labor law settlements and the source of that information. Any attorney already has access to that. Then secondly he engaged a regular in a conversation asking questions about law, again obviously already having the answer, leaving me to infer he was posing again as an HR Manager. It does none of us any good in the profession when people come on here and scam us and pretend to be serious questioners and posters.
So, in that context, I disagree with you that he has the same rights as we do. But, since he's a dues payer, let him run with it. He'll have to change his screen name to be taken seriously, however.
We all needed that assistance at one time and sometimes still do. But if the guy who referred to his own vocation as "the "*^&%^*% lawyers" is on a crusade to devalue our profession by having us feel inadequate to do those types of things, several of us will accept his challenge.
I know lawyers whom I would actually buy a drink. Then I know lawyers whom I wouldn't trust to return my ballpoint.
My $0.02 worth,
The Balloonman
How about catfish scampi?
Crout you had me laughing my a$$ off......
My $0.02 worth,
The Balloonman
I'm generally not into censoring, but today I was the designated pooper-scooper, and there was some poop that needed scooping. Sorry Crout's comment got scrapped in the process.
We delude ourselves if we think that attorneys respect what we do - they respect the law, that's it, and the money they get by practicing the law. In my opinion, the life of a labor attorney is a contradiction, if not an outright conflict of interest. Think about it, they are intimately involved in the dealings with employees (because so many of us have let them)so they know all there is to know about the circumstances, then, when it becomes a legal issue, defend what the company did (against their advice)as the proper thing to do, all the while trying to turn the employee into the bad guy. This has been a pattern over the years, including reading depositions when I am an expert witness. I guess that is doing their job on behalf of the employer - they can have it.
O, yes - our work is "junk science". The testimony of an expert (not me) was referred to that way in a recent California Newsletter. When someone like me testifies as to proper HR practice when we are on the employer side, it's all well and good, but when we are on the plaintiff side it is junk science. A high point recently was reading about a case in which I was involved as the plaintiff's expert, in the Ca. Newsletter. The company won at the first stage, but lost on appeal. The appelate court seemed to have quoted from my deposition when they gave their reasons for overturning the trial court. That's their "junk science". Oh, in the write up - not a word about my (the HR professional's) role in testifying as to proper HR practice.
If this site wants to exercise a true 'pooper scooper' it should be on the alert to admonish those who join in conversations pretending to be who they are not. There really ain't no way to defend the action of the Forum Police on this one. But, this will be deleted and there will be no need to defend it. I have no agenda other than to participate in an open exchange of questions and answers. I can't say the same for everybody else who posts.
It's about time for James to jump in here and defend the indefensible actions of Christy on this one. But, before you do, James, be sure you can tell us how an attorney subscriber, pretending to be an HR Manager, meets your earlier (often) published definition of those that will be allowed to participate unchallenged. I think you cannot do that. You should have admonished the man rather than protect him. Just own up to it and move on, lest this type of behavior be repeated. Regards and peace x:-)
Anyway, as you say, Don ... peace.
The FORUM is owned, business rules are set and we either abide by them or take our comments and our money somewhere else.
That said, the veracity of the forum is largely dependent on the ethics of it's members. The mechanics are owned by M. L. Smith, but the quality of the content is directly attributable to the membership.
I did not get to read the deleted comments, but it appears to me that the misrepresentation goes beyond the need for anonymity. Ethics are largely personal - one can judge what another holds high by observed actions. I won't judge any profession or discipline by the standards set by one individual - so this is not a rock thrown at attorneys - but it is a rock thrown at the apparent trickery utilized.
Some consequence to that individual is justified.
The FORUM is owned, business rules are set and we either abide by them or take our comments and our money somewhere else.
That said, the veracity of the forum is largely dependent on the ethics of it's members. The mechanics are owned by M. L. Smith, but the quality of the content is directly attributable to the membership.
I did not get to read the deleted comments, but it appears to me that the misrepresentation goes beyond the need for anonymity. Ethics are largely personal - one can judge what another holds high by observed actions. I won't judge any profession or discipline by the standards set by one individual - so this is not a rock thrown at attorneys - but it is a rock thrown at the apparent trickery utilized.
Some consequence to that individual is justified.