BRIEF

SHRM: 83% of employers struggled

to recruit suitable candidates in past
year
 With a wide and worsening skills gap to contend with, 83% of
HR professionals said they struggled with recruiting suitable
candidates in the past 12 months, according to a new research
study by the Society of Human Resources Management
(SHRM). The study highlights the need to address staff training
and improve public policies governing the workplace, according
to SHRM.
 In the SHRM Skills Gap Survey, 52% of HR professional
respondents said the skills gap has "worsened" or "greatly
worsened" in the past two years, and 83% said that the quality
of job applicants decreased. More than a quarter said their
organizations partner with schools to create a pipeline of
candidates, but nearly half said the education system has done
little to remedy the problem. Respondents identified the most
 effective ways to address the skills gap as providing onsite and
offsite training for employees, starting or expanding training
programs to improve new hires' skills, and increasing
compensation.
 Although three-quarters of respondents said foreign-born
workers make positive contributions to the U.S. economy and
help drive innovation, more than one-third said their businesses
found the insufficient number of available H-1Bs challenging.
One-third called the immigration process "lengthy and complex
with unpredictable outcomes." Respondents called for more
employment visas, mandatory E-Verify registration and the
creation of a trusted employer program for low-risk employers
that comply with immigration laws.
 Viewpoint: The Changing
Role of HR
Editor's Note: SHRM has partnered with the Association for Talent
Development (ATD) to bring you relevant articles on key HR topics
and strategies.

Skills for the Job

As far as soft skills, I ask her how she feels about forging ahead with
no defined guidelines. There are no clear answers to the questions
that HR professionals struggle with. They use their experience and
knowledge to figure things out as they go—how much information to
share, how much structure to impose in an ever-changing
environment, which legal risks are worth taking and which are not. I
explain that she needs to be comfortable with ambiguity, because
people are complicated and unpredictable—and so are organizations.
 Sometimes imposing structure on an organization that is amid growth
and change can be challenging.

Impact
"A good HR director knows the contract inside out," he explains. "They
also know when to call the lawyers and head off lawsuits before they
begin." He points out that truly outstanding HR professionals also train
supervisors in the ins and outs of the contract. "New supervisors need to
be taught the details of the contract. Up-to-date, mandatory training is
critical."

In companies that are not unionized, bridging the gap between

employees and management is a big part of the job. The impact HR has
often depends on the person the HR director reports to—preferably the
person who is running the organization. "The HR function must be
aligned with the leadership of a company," says Jane Smith (name
changed for privacy), an HR executive in a public financial services firm.
"If you aren't aligned with key stakeholders, you are not able to get
things done."

Some companies simply want HR to efficiently handle the

documentation to keep them in compliance with a multitude of
government regulations. In such workplaces, HR ensures that
employees receive a comprehensive packet of information when they
enter and exit the company, manages benefits and leave administration,
and ensures that the company meets government reporting and filing
requirements. The HR function needs someone who is detail-oriented
and loyal, efficient and knowledgeable, and thoroughly grounded in the
legal aspects of employment issues. These CEOs don't want someone
to tell them what's wrong with the organization; they don't want to spend
money on HR; and most importantly, they don't want to change anything
So, let's imagine an HR director is working for a CEO who approves of
what HR is doing and is getting things done. Here comes the second
biggest challenge HR management faces: managers who resist the
changes the company is trying to implement. Initiatives often fail or stir
widespread resentment because there isn't support from middle
management. And middle management can indirectly derail an initiative
despite giving it lip service for the CEO's benefit. How does HR combat
that challenge? Here are some guidelines based on my conversations
with HR executives and my own experience throughout a career as a
consultant and practitioner.

Resist Isolation

Don't assume managers understand the value HR brings. The

department often becomes isolated from the rest of the company;
sometimes it is easier not to reach out to managers who may be difficult
to work with because of their prior history with HR.

HR professionals often attend conferences about HR issues where their

peers are speaking. Therefore, they should disseminate the information
they receive, train managers and supervisors in what they have learned,
and even invite managers and CEOs to these seminars. The HR team
should build relationships with a broad cross-section of business people
both inside and outside the organization.

Learn the Business

HR's job is to help the company achieve its goals. To do that, the HR
function needs to know what those goals are. When HR explains the
reasons for a decision, rather than saying, "It's always been done this
way" or "Our lawyer told us to do this," it should note the risks and the
research that was done before suggesting the change.
Karen Bolden, senior vice president and chief people officer at Eat'n
Park Hospitality Group, says that when she has to give bad news, such
as an increase in health insurance premiums, she talks about the
business necessity of the decision. "Managers and other employees are
more likely to accept an increased cost if they understand the connection
to the bottom line. In the end, they all want to keep the company healthy
and keep their jobs."

Communicate the Reasons for Changes

This is where training professionals come in. HR professionals may

know instinctively that a new HR information system will save money or
feel strongly that a more flexible work schedule will lower turnover. They
may realize that efforts to increase diversity will positively affect the
company and understand that paying overtime when it is due will lower
potential legal risks. But they often don't know how to make a case for it.

"HR should be asking themselves, 'How can we communicate it better?'

Sometimes it is simply about walking senior leaders through their
frustration," Bolden explains. Smith echoes this: "If your compensation
system creates behavior that is not in the best interests of the firm, you
need to explain why that is. Explain the cost of being misaligned with the
market. You need to communicate. And then communicate again—in
town halls, team meetings, and by training supervisors."

HR should embed the change in every system, make it a part of

performance reviews, and structure incentives and promotions based on
the desired outcome.

Find and Use the Data

HR should know such data as each department's retention rate, the
company's turnover rate, time to fill, why people leave and how they feel
about the company after six months or a year, and how much it costs
when someone walks out the door.

With those data, HR professionals should calculate how much the

company could save by implementing solutions that could improve that
turnover rate, engagement rate, or the time to fill—and justify an
investment in those initiatives. Then measure the results to prove that
hypothesis. Then communicate. There's a connection between
employee commitment and profitability. HR must find out what it is for
the company and then use it to justify mentorship programs, a flexible
workforce, a change in the benefits plan, a change to the compensation
strategy—whatever changes it is recommending.
 Manager Who Clocked Out
Late Loses Discrimination
Claim

federal district court dismissed an employee's race-discrimination claim

by finding that any alleged demotion by the employer was justified by the
employee's continuously clocking out of her shift late.

The plaintiff was employed as a shift manager at Aldi Food Market. The
shift manager's responsibilities included opening or closing the store, but
the manager could work as a store associate when another store
manager was working at the same time. On closing shifts, shift
managers were expected to complete work and clock out by 8:30 p.m.,
even though they were scheduled to work until 9 p.m. On several
occasions, the plaintiff clocked out after 8:30 p.m.

On July 26, 2016, in a meeting attended by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's

supervisor reiterated her expectation that employees clock out on
time. The plaintiff clocked out at 9:06 p.m. that night.

On July 28, 2016, the plaintiff was told that she would be assigned store
associate shifts while receiving one-on-one training with her supervisor
and would be assigned management shifts once she was able to clock
out on time. However, the plaintiff testified that the regional manager told
her that she was being demoted. In late July, the plaintiff was granted a
transfer to a different store, where she continued to work until November
2016, when she was terminated for missing work.

The plaintiff alleged her demotion was the result of race discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity]

In the case of termination or demotion based on race, a plaintiff can

bring a claim by showing that he or she:

 Is a member of a protected class.

 Was qualified for the position.
 Experienced an adverse employment action.
 Was replaced by someone outside of his or her protected class or
received less-favorable treatment than a similarly situated person
outside of his or her protected class.

Aldi did not dispute that the plaintiff was qualified or that she was a
member of a protected class. Rather, it maintained that there was no
adverse action, and the plaintiff was not replaced by someone outside
her protected class.

While the plaintiff contended that the regional manager told her she was
being demoted, no one at Aldi ever told the plaintiff she would never
receive shift manager hours again, and the plaintiff kept her manager
shirt and keys. The court remarked that the "weighing of the evidence
and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions"
and so concluded that the plaintiff had sufficiently established that she
suffered an adverse employment action.

Although the plaintiff claimed that she was replaced in her shift manager
position, schedules showed that the new shift manager did not work any
shifts until the plaintiff had been transferred to a different store. Aldi also
provided undisputed testimony that the decision to promote the new
store manager was made before the decision to retrain or demote the
plaintiff was made, and before the plaintiff's late clock-outs began.

The plaintiff admitted that she did not know the clock-out times of other
shift managers or whether they experienced similar issues with clocking
out later than 8:30 p.m. For these reasons, the court asserted that the
plaintiff had failed to show she was replaced by someone outside her
protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated
person outside her protected class.

Moreover, Aldi had presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

her alleged demotion, and the plaintiff had not produced evidence
showing that the reason was unbelievable. The plaintiff's supervisor told
her she was expected to clock out by 8:30 p.m., yet from July 11 to July
26, on eight shifts, the plaintiff did not clock out by 8:30 p.m.

Walker v. Aldi Food Market Inc., M.D. Ga., No. 5:17-CV-3 (Dec. 27,
2018).
Professional Pointer: Documentation can assist an employer in
establishing the legitimate business reasons for an employment
decision.

Roger S. Achille is an attorney and a professor at Johnson & Wales

University in Providence, R.I.