Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 32
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
HR and EEO: "Why Can't We Be Friends?"
Total Comments: 32
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7116 | +0.0013 | +3.51% |
| F | $12.1775 | +0.0497 | +2.07% |
| C | $9.4002 | -0.9235 | -43.24% |
| S | $10.4051 | -1.2566 | -47.42% |
| I | $12.2414 | -0.9997 | -50.56% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $11.1768 | -0.8749 | -38.72% |
| L 2030 | $11.4481 | -0.7783 | -34.24% |
| L 2020 | $11.8446 | -0.6618 | -28.86% |
| L 2010 | $13.2444 | -0.3625 | -14.33% |
| L Income | $12.4113 | -0.2200 | -7.86% |
December 2, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Bottom Line...
DOI, but formerly The Commission
Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:38 PM
Post Reply
Bottom line is that EEO and HR have two different Titles (VII and V respectively) under which to operate, but goals are mutual--to resolve problems/achieve goals. So much of "the relationship" between these functions is established by the leadership of the EEO Manager/HR Officer involved. He/she must set a positive tone and recognize the different objectives and limitations of each Title.
Offices/employees/managers become more dysfunctional the further complaints/grievances/problems are pursued through whatever system; problems must be resolved early in positive partnership with HR/EEO/management.
HR as a Facilitator of EEO
DHS
Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:09 AM
Post Reply
The reality is if HR was as effective as the the policies and procedures there would be little need for EEO. Unfortunaetly HR is not as effective of efficent as they could be in changng workplace culture. therefore, they should facilitate the EEO investigations and support EEO unfortunaetly they are employed by the agency and feel the need to protect and serve their managers.
Re: HR as a Facilitator of EEO
DVA
Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:38 PM
You hit the typical nail on the head. The vast majority of managers and employees are not able to think beyond blame in this sort of situation and HR is the convenient scapegoat.
In actuality, your logic implies that all managers can be let go as useless since HR actually runs the operations. Likewise, many employees could probably go to.
Advice that is often given to both managers and employees to this type logic is, THINK. Seldom followed though, since HR has to bail them out.
HR NEEDS TO BE RE-EDUCATION
DON
Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Post Reply
When I first came to work for the government (over 20 years ago) the HR stated that they were in the business of developing civilian careers for the future (the HR Office here still makes this statement to people).
I have not seen one HR person give advise on how to develop a career or what recommended training to take in order to achieve career goals.
In fact the HR specialists could not interpet the transcripts + we had to send some personnel to the OPM to get re-evaluated for positions.
Two new people + one intern checked in to our org. All of the civilians around them are helping to educate them + provide information on available training + sponsors to help them achieve there career goals.
I think that over the years the HR office has lost sight of what they need to do in order to help the civilian personnel.
Some people say it is because they are contracting out the HRO Positions but this was happening long before that started (it will get worst because of it)
Cats and Dogs - HR and EEO
SSA (former
Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:23 PM
Post Reply
Good article–this issue should be discussed. I also come from a HR and OGC background rather than EEO–so take this for what it’s worth. I see the problem as a flawed practice on the EEO side. What it comes down to is HR sees its mission as helping managers and supervisors further the mission of the agency (“efficiency of the service”) and the EEO side at best plays weak attention to the mission of the agency. Virtually no agency is overstaffed so there is always a lot of work to accomplish. Time and again both the EEOC and EEO agency people have ignored or downplayed the mission of the agency and redefined job responsibilities of positions in order to force the agency to accommodate one person’s eccentricities–not EEO characteristics. This causes much frustration on the part of HR people and managers and is part of the reason for any backlash at the EEO program. EEO people constantly assert, “well, why can’t you do ...” What they are always asking is for the manager to treat one person better because of his/her EEO profile and leave the other employees doing the work that individual should be responsible for. No wonder there is tension.
EEO and HR
DOD
Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:28 PM
Post Reply
You hit a relevant point, EEO and HR are fundamentally different. Regardless of the laws and briefings, HR is management's tool and most HR I know express that openly to employees. Most EEO complaints are filed against management actions, most of which are supported or actually crafted by HR. Grievances is a management tool, not a tool for fair resolution. I tried to resolve complaints and 90% of my opposition was from HR and legal who had advised the manager to do the action now under complaint. They wanted their role undisclosed and the manager paid the penalty for listening to them.
EEO has a legal watchdog mission and labor counselors and HR HATE that! So they embark on a campaign to disparage EEO and make the program look bad in the eyes of managers. I had MANY cases in which HR and legal instructed the managers NOT to cooperate and resolve leading to MAJOR findings and trauma. Many of these disputes are not personal but reflect the need for the objective party!
Question
Interior
Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:16 AM
Post Reply
Everything I read here is enlightening, but I have one question. What recourse does one have when there is no union, and HR openly says that they are part of management?
AAP & special emphasis program mission
Army
Mon May 12, 2008 2:39 AM
Post Reply
The above article "Why Can't We be Friends" caught my attention.
I think the topic and informaiton therein hit the "nail on the head" and I am glad that it is being addressed.
I would like to point out two areas that may be blured.
One, the AAP is now the Management Directive 715 or MD 715. The is the old Affirmative Employment Plan (AEP), but in much more detail.
Second, the Special Emphasis Program (SEP) is separate and distinct from the Ethnic Observance Program. The SEP is about retcruiting, hiring, awards, etc. while the Ethnic Observance Program is to provide awareness of MLK;Black History;Women's History; Asian Pacific; Women's Equality; Hispanic Heritage; National Disability Employment and American Indian/Alaskan Native. Your penultimate paragraph suggesting HR attend special emphasis programs is a bit misleading. SEP and ethinic observances are two very different programs. Again, I think your article is very informative and effective as a training tool for HR & EEO.