Here in the United States, we’ve now witnessed the greatest loss of jobs since the Depression. In the past two years, organizations found themselves seeking means of reducing expenses while they watched revenues dwindle. For many (I could probably say most) reducing jobs was one of the primary routes taken in this quest. Some took this route early and quickly while others took every other possible route before making the choice to eliminate jobs. Some companies handled this with skill, diplomacy, and a humanistic touch. Others did not. Tales of email notices and security escorts have run rampant. Organizations eventually reached what they term as efficient staffing levels given the current state of the market. Hmm, it’s the latter part of that statement that will pose the most trouble in the coming year or two as employees embark upon what I can only tritely refer to as The Great Job Hop of 2010.

The Great Job Hop is in the embryonic stage at this point but the signs are clear. The “high performers” that many organizations have worked diligently to retain over the last couple of years are starting to “look around”. For organizations, the traditional break-up line of “it’s not you, it’s me” would be a lie. It is you. However, for some, there is very little you could have done to prevent the pending break-up. You were not the only company to make layoffs and eliminate jobs. The company to which your “high performer” is moving may have made even more cuts than you did. The difference is — he or she did not experience it first-hand with XYZ Company. 

Organizations have done a great job in the past few decades of building cultures that encourage closer associations at work. One of the questions in the ubiquitous Gallup Q12 is “Do you have a best friend at work?” Our associations at work don’t fall along neat little lines where my best friend just happens to be my fellow “high performer” in the next cubicle or nor do all occupants of the “most crucial positions” go to lunch together daily. No, with all these close associations forming at work, many of your high performers watched their BF at work lose his or her job. They then rode the emotional rollercoaster with their BF as he or she looked for work in a very tough market. The high performer’s feelings towards the company that he and his best friend at work loved a year or so ago have changed. There’s probably a high degree of survivor’s guilt mixed in with some resentment.  Now, I’m not a psychologist so that’s about as far as I go into the psyche but I am a sociologist so I can tell you what the resulting behavior will be with a high probability of being correct.  An exit is the course that most will take when faced with this quandary. There will be a great urge to remove oneself from the environment that has brought about these feelings. Fortunately, for them, high performers and individuals occupying crucial positions generally have options when the employment picture begins to change for the better, as is predicted for the coming year. 

Companies who have looked ahead and have seen the writing on the wall are beginning to take steps to “re-engage” with their present staff to help mitigate the potential damage. Organizations who took the humanistic route have an advantage. These companies’ actions will not have caused as much guilt or resentment and may even be viewed positively if separated employees were provided with adequate severance benefits and communications remained open throughout the changes. The re-engagement should be approached much the same way as initial recruitment campaigns were approached. What are the positive attributes that attracted employees to your organization? Do you have a unique value proposition (UVP) for your employees? In business, every organization has a unique value it offers to its customers. It’s the reason customers will want to choose do business with you rather than your competitor down the street. You will need to make certain employees know what UVP you have to offer them and that the attributes which brought them to you are still very much a part of the organization. Do you conduct “internal” marketing? If not, you would be wise to quickly develop your messages and a campaign for getting the message into the ears, minds, and, hopefully, hearts of your most valuable asset, your people. 

If you sincerely want to keep your high performers and crucial staffers in place during the Great Job Hop, the most important part of your messaging will be that it rings true.

How often have you heard a manager utter to his/her staff “it’s the company’s policy to dot, dot, dot, fill in the blank”?  This get-me-off-the-hook-for-now statement is quite often followed up with, “and if you have any further questions about this, you should take it up with Human Resources.”  Now that the manager has absolved him/herself of all responsibility in Scene 1, Take 1, you, as HR, have an inquiring employee sitting across from you. He/she is waiting for an explanation as to why YOU decided to treat this concern in whatever manner the policy has described.  After taking a very deep breath and tightening your lips upon realizing that yet another manager has slipped out the back door and left you standing to face another sticky matter, you begin to explain.

There are a few turns this scene could take based on the explanation you  choose to provide. We’ll start with the one you dream of giving, then move to the one that I know as a bright and savvy HR professional you will give.  You could start with, “this policy was written because, unlike you, of course, there are employees who arrive to work barely able to take care of themselves, therefore, clearly unable to think themselves out of a paper bag.  When you then combine that with individuals who have somehow acquired the title of manager because it sounds really good when introducing themselves in groups, you get me sitting here day after day writing “HR” policies so that those “managers” can continue to avoid all semblances of really managing.”  Ahhh, was that as good for you as it was for me? CUT!

Okay, back to reality!  That was definitely not the response you want to give. Although, it just might be closer reality than would make any of us comfortable. Policies developed by HR are intended to help companies manage all operations more effectively.  Company policies generally come into existence in response to or in anticipation of potential work disruptions or proactively in order to effectively facilitate change or growth. From you in Scene 1, Take 3, the inquiring employee would gain a good understanding as to why this particular policy was developed and how it either minimizes disruption or how it permits the company to perform at a higher level.  Ideally, this explanation should very easily roll off the tongue of the inquiring employee’s manager. 

Okay, now, let’s be fair-er to the manager. Managers must be equipped to handle employee inquiries. Not all are and the fault is not always completely on their shoulders. The title of manager carries significant legal weight for a company and should have a fairly significant impact on the company’s financial performance. It’s not something to be handed out along with company t-shirts. When this coveted moniker is bestowed upon someone, that someone should immediately be brought into a full understanding of the new responsibilities and expectations that are inseparably bonded to the title.  If we fail to do this effectively, as HR professionals, we get to take part in Scene 1, Take 2 in our offices more often than we want and more often than should be necessary!  We can set up our managers to succeed by helping each of them to take ownership of all the accoutrements of management especially the company’s policies.  If we do this well, we can minimize the number of times we are cast to play the role of Keeper of the Policies.


Vivian L. Mora, MSS, SPHR is Managing Partner for Mora&Associates, an HR search and consulting firm based in the Greater Metropolitan area of Houston, TX (now the 3rd largest city in the US).   She looks forward to your comments and questions regarding “What Works at Work”.

Can a human resources professional afford to turn a blind eye? Whoever came up with this phrase could not possibly have worked in our profession. At any rate, this commonly means to ignore something as if you did not see it. In most instances this is in reference to something that is perceived to be or is wrong. I believe this is the exact behavior that has the U.S. stumbling economically. Given this belief, of course, we would have to say that no one can truly afford to turn a blind eye. But we know in reality it happens. As an HR professional, if you have heard the following phrases:  “You didn’t see that”, “You can overlook this for once”, “We’re willing to take the risk” or “What’s the worse that can happen?” then you’ve been asked at some point to turn a blind eye.  So the question is “How often can you do this and still maintain credibility as an ethical HR professional and guardian of integrity?”

To make a difference, HR must always be seen as the credible activist that Dave Ulrich (et al) describes in his recent publication, HR Competencies.  This competency makes the difference between an HR professional who is going through the transactional motions and one who is strategically effective. Ulrich states that this means “operating in a principled way and taking action that is consistent with company values, which reflect how the company wants to be seen and experienced by customers, investors, employees, and other stakeholders.”  How often have you seen a company’s value statement endorse “turning a blind eye”? Never, right? So the answer to the earlier question is also “NEVER.” If you must, hang your hat here as you communicate the importance of approaching work with integrity.  How a thing is done should be just as important as getting the thing done.

Our reputations and ability to influence the organization as HR professionals depends greatly on how we are perceived and whether we are trusted. A single instance of ignoring a lapse in values or principles can topple your credibility and render you irrelevant.  Work diligently to maintain your integrity and that of your organization to reinforce your relevance to its success.  Do the right thing, never turn a blind eye.

If you haven’t checked in on AMC’s television show, Mad Men, where have you been? America has a new television love affair. It has even enthralled Oprah, the reigning Queen of Television! I openly admit that I, too, have been captivated. The show is set in the 60’s in a time-appropriate but politically-inappropriate Madison Avenue advertising agency, hence, Mad Men.

I’ve always been interested in the workplaces of the 60’s. Mad Men contains all of the usual sexism, racism, debauchery, and disregard for human sensibilities that you would imagine could exist at that time and in that place. Given this, why is America so caught up in this, dare I say it, madness? It is a well-written show with New York gloss but it is also something else. It’s an escape. It does not reflect our present reality and allows our minds to take a break. We laugh at issues and occurences that if faced with in today’s reality would appall us, anger us or at least make us a bit uncomfortable.

Being an HR professional, this show along with another of my favorites, The Office, provides comic relief to my work. I sit and for the length of the show I escape and laugh with the rest of America. However, since my vocation was derived from much of who I am, the show also puts my mind to work. I find that even as I laugh, I am looking for the one who will step forward and “do the right thing”. I am evaluating the situation and working out how this would be and should be handled in the workplace.  The assessments I find myself making center around  not just what would be appropriate today but also at that time and place.  This is the kicker, the responses are not always the same. 

As HR professionals, we are not merely called upon to apply unilateral and rigid rules to every situation. Although, I will admit there are some, even within our profession, who do think so. Each situation calls for an assessment of the factors that are present and at play within it at the time and in the given place. The factors may be internal and organizational in combination with or separate from possible external, legal and regulatory factors. We must also toss in societal factors. All of these impact workplace situations and occurences, to not take them all into consideration is to not craft the best possible response for the given situation.

The next time you’re watching AMC’s Mad Men, I hope you enjoy the show as much as I do, but I also want you to try this exercise.  Imagine yourself as the smartly-dressed (they all are)  HR professional who has the task of working alongside the Mad Men of Sterling Cooper! How would you handle the various situations that crop up? Who would ever think that watching television could help you to make better human resource decisions?

I’ve uttered those words many times in giving advice to others when they are either seeking a creative solution, stumped, frustrated, overwhelmed, upset, burned out, angry, or just plain bored.  There are so many times when this action is not only the right thing to do but the only thing to do.  There wasn’t anyone around to utter those words to me last month when my plate overflowed with the things of LIFE.  I missed my self-imposed schedule for blogging and every day that I failed to complete it, I piled it back on the plate for tomorrow along with ten other things.  It became the leftover Thanksgiving turkey that instead of eating it, you just move it around the plate to make it look like you ate some of it.  The very next day, there it was again!  Finally, two-thirds of the way into August, I realized that I needed to step away for a moment and stop serving up this leftover.

There are so many instances in life where merely stepping away for a moment allows us to go forward. What does it really do for you? It allows your mind to let go of the stress of dealing  with the issue for a moment. You relax and actually feel the tension that you felt over the issue seep away.  You move on to other things with undivided attention and those things come more easily to you because you’re able to focus without the distraction of that unfinished work at the back of your mind.  Before you know it, you mind is clear and you begin to get new insights and perspectives on the very issue that previously had you tied in knots.  The bigger picture comes into focus rather than the minutiae associated with being so task-oriented.  This is the very reason we take vacations!  It clears the mind and allows us to re-energize.  The “step-away” could be thought of as kind of an instant vacation that we can take whenever it is needed.  We all could use more vacation time, right? 

The most important outcome of stepping away for a moment is that you return revitalized and more productive than before.  Your refreshed mind finds that creative solution, is now more open, calm, and ready for whatever is next!  My mini-vacation from blogging spanned the entire month of August but I’m back and ready for whatever is next!!

I heard a horrifying string of words at a conference recently. The topic fell under the heading strategic management and the presenter was addressing about 70 HR professionals and executives. He started out with the objective of the session which was to provide tools to better equip HR to contribute to strategic planning. He then warned the group that he would be addressing NUMBERS and that he understood the reason many of us chose HR as a career was so that we would not have to deal with those. I was stunned and cannot for the world remember much else that he said for the next several minutes.

Forgive me, but apparently, I have been approaching this whole practice of HR wrong for the last 15 years! I had no idea that I could avoid NUMBERS. I’ve actually been seeking them out, turning over rocks to find them, and even squeezing them out of colleagues, vendors, and staff when necessary. You see, I began with the belief that numbers were inherent in this field of work. My HR career started as a labor relations analyst. My job was to take all that verbiage that is congealed in collective bargaining agreements and not only monetize it but also convert the socioeconomic factors of the bargaining units into defined needs and wants to which values can be assigned. The world of HR was viewed very clearly in terms of numbers. This same thing that happens when viewing any workforce, an employee handbook, a set of benefit plans, talent management systems, employee relations programs, risk management initiatives, etc. I hope I don’t have mention compensation and other total reward elements where numbers are fairly obvious. If you are diligent, there are numbers everywhere you look in HR. I don’t see dead people, but I do see numbers.

No one should deceive themselves that numbers are not an inherent part of human resource management.  The business of HR is not the place to run if you want to hide from numbers. If it’s is not your thing, you are automatically limiting your career ascension. Being a “people person” will not earn you a coveted seat at the table. The table is all about the numbers. You will need to be able to translate wellness initiatives into premium cost-savings. You will need to be able to equate x% compensation increase into retention rates and show how this stacks up against your industry. Your risk management approach, which is the easiest for CFO’s to pick on, had better include the costs associated with defending against not only a valid claim but even a frivolous one compared to maintaining your annual compliance training schedule. Now, I also have to say that in addition to being able to spew numbers with the best of them, you will still need to demonstrate that you are connected with the people of your organization and the purely human motivations that accompany them to work each and every day.

I think I have established that although it appears soft on the upper half, HR needs to have a very firm underbelly resting on some solid numbers if there is any hope of gaining and then holding your seat at the table. If the regulatory alphabet soup we are served up each day  in HR didn’t frighten you, adding numbers to the mix should be no problem.


If you are interested in learning more about how to approach your practice of HR from this view, drop me a line! http://morahr.com/contactus.aspx

If you can’t tell by the title, I am a little bit ticked! I’ve just gotten off the phone with a close friend who managed to get me all stirred up about the intersection of these three topics: diversity, lip service, and incompetent hiring. She works for a company that I won’t name (Texas, oilfield services, etc.) but the company was cited publicly for its lack of diversity so they panicked. The organization went on a hiring crusade and for the next several months, everyone hired was a person of color with little thought as to whether the individual was the most suitable candidate for the position! That’s where incompetent hiring enters the picture! The eventual outcomes should reflect more harshly on the hiring parties than the ones hired but it’s not often that companies look back that far to determine where things may have gone wrong. 

Diversity is extremely beneficial to an organization if approached thoughtfully. There should be little reason to recite that an organization which has leveraged diversity in terms of talent, perspectives, and problem-solving approach, not just headcount, will be more successful over the long-term. I just wanted to say it as a reminder. Yet here lies the rub, many companies have not approached diversity in the most thoughtful manner. For the company mentioned above, it was treated as a numbers game which has yet to yield positive results for the company nor for the individuals who struggle to succeed in positions for which they are simply not suited. Maybe that was the malevolent intent. However, I have a hard time conceiving of an organization which would chose to place profit in jeopardy in an attempt to abase any group of people.  So that leaves me with the belief that the organization simply did not put enough thought into this important aspect of its business. Let’s imagine that the likely scenario was that the CEO informed his/her top HR executive to “do something” about the lack of diversity. S/he then informed the recruiting team to “do something” about it. The recruiting team then set about furiously recruiting diverse candidates under fire and rather haphazardly rather than working diligently to identify the candidates most suited to the roles being filled. At this point, the one thing I’m certain of is that no one sat down to develop a plan for addressing the lack of diversity from a strategic point of view. Given that, there could not have been the slightest thought towards finding ways to truly leverage its value.

Companies have appeared to support diversity initiatives publicly while actually disregarding it in ways that matter.  That’s merely giving lip service to the issue. They thought they had to say or do something or risk appearing backward. After all, everybody else appeared to be on the diversity bandwagon. These organizations rolled out “trophy” programs with buttons and posters that had very little substance to them and minimal staying-power. Current employees saw through the programs and tolerated them as a company public relations requirement. Programs like this look good on the careers page of the website but not in the numbers of the annual report.

The annual report holds most of the numbers that seem to matter to organizations. Companies merely need to look around to know that the numbers in the annual report can be positively impacted through a more diverse workforce. Catalyst, the workplace research group, recently studied 353 Fortune 500 companies and found that those with the most women in senior management had a higher return on equities — by more than a third.  Also, a Glass Ceiling Commission report found a direct relationship between stock market performance and the diversity, in gender and race, of the workforce. When treated as a valued asset, diversity and the different perspectives that are inherent with it, allow organizations to more easily solve problems, make better decisions, and therefore get better results.

Organizations do not have to settle for surface-level diversity initiatives versus real results. Organizations that engage with all staff from the start and measure the right stuff (solutions and unique ideas, not just headcount) can leverage the diversity within their employee populations for better business outcomes. It just takes more effort than moving your lips and walking people through the door to get those outcomes.

Interested in really making a difference and not just sitting pretty? Visit Mora&Associates at http://morahr.com/diversityvalue.aspx.

HR in orange coveralls is truly a snafu in the original sense of the word! For this post, we will use this term euphemistically. Snafu is a military acronym that stands for “situation normal all fouled up”. By now, you may know that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, wants to trot you along with the rest of management off to jail if you have not been meticulous in meeting immigration regulations in your hiring practices.

Now, if just hearing this causes tightness in your chest and shallow breathing, you may have work to do.

In the past years, we’ve turned on the news and witnessed workers being ushered on to buses and vans following a raid at this workplace or another. Napolitano states that to truly get at the heart of this issue, we must strike at the demand side – employment – meaning employers. In the new administration’s view hauling workers out without making those responsible for hiring them accountable makes little to no sense. Can we argue with her logic? One can try; however, the workers did not just walk in and start working. They were screened (used loosely) and hired by someone. In most cases, more than one someone is involved in the hiring. HR, however, becomes “the usual suspect” when it comes to verifying authorization to work.

The Form I-9, produced by the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), serves to help employers verify who is and who may not be legally authorized to work in the United States. Employers must complete a Form I-9 for every new employee hired after November 6, 1986.

On April 3, 2009, a new Form I-9 was issued along with several new or modified requirements for all employers. Following this change, I discovered a couple of my clients almost frozen in place regarding what to do in light of the new requirements and the news coming out of the DHS. The paralysis came out of fear of earning a criminal record due to: (1) the possibility of not being able to distinguish a valid employment document from a fraudulent one; (2) having to go back to review all of the documents on file for current employees; and (3) the most egregious of all, pressure from “management” to hire “regardless”.

In addressing the first concern, the DHS does provide for a “good faith” defense. If you have examined a document and it appears to be valid, you must accept it to avoid possible discrimination. To assert a good faith defense, you must be able to show that you did not knowingly hire an unauthorized alien. As for current employees, you are only required to re-verify employment authorization when an employee’s authorization expires. If you think there may be a concern with previous I-9’s completed, I would advise you to review all current I-9’s, not just a segment of them. The final concern is most concerning. However, “management” must understand that the potential roundup for criminal charges would not exclude them. Napolitano has made it clear that the objective of DHS’s enforcement unit is to build cases against the employer and prosecute to the full extent necessary to squelch illegal hiring.

This may be the first and only time you hear me say this, but I am hopeful that it is not going to be an isolated incident. The USCIS has produced a very useful document, Handbook for Employers M-274, which provides instructions for completing Form I-9. The instructions are clearly written, provide excellent guidance, and include great document examples. Do not go out and buy any of the publications being sold on this topic. You can download the 54-page handbook from the USCIS site, www.uscis.gov. I would have included the link but the last time I clicked on it from the USCIS site, it brought up a completely different document (no comment on that facet of the operation, but hope is eternal). If you want a sure way to get hold of the handbook, I have a link on my web site to a saved copy of the handbook (http://www.moraHR.com/hrnewsview.aspx). Once you get there, just click on the document title. Read it and use it to stay compliant with the regulations. You’ll be breathing easier and avoiding this particular snafu!

The recession has brought the unemployment rate to 9.5%. That number equates to 14.7 million unemployed individuals across our nation according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. How companies chose to handle those job losses will greatly impact the reputations of those organizations as we come out of this recession. It is anybody’s guess as to when we will emerge from the current recession but, emerge we will.  How each organization conducted itself during this recessionary downturn will matter greatly to both those who lost jobs and those who remained in jobs within those organizations.

The two factors that will weigh most heavily in employees minds are communication and consideration. How were pending job losses communicated? Who communicated it? What sort of personal and/or financial consideration was extended? Jack Welch, author and former head of GE, spoke at the Society for Human Resource Management’s (SHRM) 2009 Annual Conference this week. During his speech, he recounted the story of how a friend of his was notified of his job loss by an outplacement firm hired by his company. The organization’s leadership did not even face their own employees. Can we guess how this company is now viewed by each employee who met with the outplacement firm as well as his/her peers who remained but knew how this was handled? 

Who comes up with these plans? My fervent hope is that it did not originate in HR. Regardless of that, travel with me a bit, back to a favorite childhood television commercial. Can you image the meeting and conversation to decide on this plan of action? It probably went a little like this: “Are you gonna do it?”  ‘No, I’m not gonna do it. You do it.” “I’m not gonna do it. Hey, let’s get Mikey!” Some may not recall the commercial, but, you get the picture. I’m guessing that each player in the decision to let Mikey (the outplacement firm) do it stopped maturing at the same age as the actors in that Life cereal commercial exchange. I’m certain the decision makers thought it was very considerate to hire an outplacement firm so why not allow them to communicate the news. There, they said, both communication and consideration is covered in one swoop.  This company scores in the basement on both communication and consideration.

Employers, face your employees. Look them in the eyes and let them know things are not going well for the company. Communicate along the way. Involve the people closest to the work in helping to increase efficiency or save dollars. Plan your steps as you review your business results. Conduct scenario analyses for potential outcomes. When you’ve exhausted all other means of achieving efficiencies and/or cost savings, tell your employees straightforwardly that staff cuts are needed to pull through. They will respect you for the honesty. They will also know that it is a reality and just may be there for you when you need them again.

And, yes, despite running the earlier organization into the ground, hiring an outplacement firm is a welcome consideration when provided in the appropriate sequence.

In the past couple of months I’ve attended at least 4 seminars or meetings in the Human Resources community where the proposed Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 (officially, H.R. 1409) has stirred up a minor or major panic in HR professionals. Part of the reason for the panic is that in each case the presenter was a labor or employment law attorney. It’s part of their job to cause you to panic and then call them up because you need their assistance to put your mind at ease.  There are billable hours involved, of course. I have very close friends who are attorneys so before you all start treating me like Benedict Arnold, I said only a part of the panic was induced by dollar signs. I will go further to say that it was the smaller part (but still effective). 

If you are not familiar with H.R. 1409, a brief overview is available at http://morahr.com/hrnewsview.aspx. However, here are the major aspects in a nutshell. Introduced in the US House of Representatives on March 10, 2009, H.R. 1409 is known as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009.  This act if passed in it’s current version will impact employers in three very important ways. It would (1) amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an easier system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations through a signature/checkcard system rather than private ballot elections; (2) provide for mandatory and stiffer injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes; and (3) require companies and newly certified unions to enter into binding arbitration if they cannot reach agreement on an initial contract after 90 days of negotiations and 30 days of mediation.

The majority of the panic I saw on the HR faces of the audience and that I heard voiced is attributed to three points that I pieced together from each presentation. The HR leaders within these organizations know that a union may be attractive to their workforces because:

  1. the workforce is currently compensated and provided benefits at a much lower level than their organized competitors;
  2. management does not have and have not made appropriate efforts to forge a positive working relationship with the workforce; and
  3. the HR professional seems to feel powerless to effect change to either of the two points above.

The unsettled HR professional now sees organizing, if made as easy as the attorneys have stated it will be, as an inevitability. Is it really so?  I don’t think so.

As an HR professional I began my HR career in labor relations and loved it! I am the product of a union steward, my mother, and a business owner, my father (just to be clear, not in the same business). Conflicting views? Definitely! Being a child brought up in between the two worlds, it seems natural that I chose a path that also exists in between the two worlds. Some would say that my path was not truly in between bacause I worked for the company. To them, I would say, if anyone in business has not yet figured out that the company’s success rest solidly within its workforce, get it now. If you are in the profession of human resources, your very effectiveness depends on whether you understand how important it is to unify these two groups in a positive and productive working relationship and whether you are able to communicate the mutual benefit in a manner that everyone gets it. 

I’m not a labor attorney, legislator, nor am I a prognosticator. However, given that one of the more liberal Democrats, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D. Ca.) has already indicated she will not support the EFCA as is, I don’t  believe it will pass in its current form. I do believe it will pass in a milder but still potentially worrisome form. I have a hard time seeing our legislators eradicate private balloting. That would be so un-democratic! We can all see a compromise in the future for this legislation.

For the sake of making a clear enough case to your managment teams, let’s assume that H.R. 1409 does pass in its current form. All the unions around the US are now openly celebrating in the streets. Does your organization have little to worry about or a lot to worry about? You know the answer already.  Share it with your leadership teams and start making the changes needed to stay union-free.