While today, December 6, 2018, does bring a significant change to drug laws here in Michigan, this does not make it ok to have, use, or otherwise be under the influence while working. While legal in Michigan for those over 21, marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance under Federal Law and as a recipient of Federal funding, we are subject to the Federal laws dictating a Drug Free Workplace.

The newly enacted state law says, in part,

Isn’t it OUR time, Mr. Hand?!?

“This act does not require an employer to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this act in any workplace or on the employer’s property. This act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. This act does not prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person’s violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of marihuana.”

The District has several Board policies that deal directly with this issue. One clear example is Policy 3122.01:

“The Board of Education believes that quality education is not possible in an environment affected by drugs. It will seek, therefore, to establish and maintain an educational setting which is not tainted by the use or evidence of use of any controlled substance.

Employees are prohibited from reporting to work under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

The Board shall not permit the manufacture, possession, use, distribution, or dispensing of any controlled substance, alcohol, and any drug paraphernalia, by any member of the District’s professional staff at any time while on District property or while involved in any District-related activity or event. Any staff member who violates this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with District guidelines and the terms of collective bargaining agreements.”

So the bottom line, nothing has changed when it comes to the workplace and marijuana.

Among all of the discussion, one element appeared to dominate the discussion more than any other. In both 2015 and 2016 SHRM is providing an incentive to both local chapters and state councils to promote the new SHRM-CP and SHRM-SCP certifications. For each SHRM member who gains the new certification, a local chapter will get $20 and a state council will receive $10. If Texas has 10,000 of their 19,000 SHRM members gain the new certification, their state council will get an extra $100,000 from SHRM. That is a serious incentive!

Here is my question – if this certification is truly better, why is this incentive needed? After taking the certification tutorial (and yes, gaining my SHRM-SCP credential) I question this move.

The tutorial walked through the SHRM Body and Competence and Knowledge (or BOCK) and then provided some scenarios and questions based on the scenarios. After completing this, I can say I am impressed with the scenarios I saw as well as the questions being asked. None of the questions (among the limited number on the tutorial) relied on just knowledge gained from a text book or memorization. This is a good thing! If the exam follows this same format and includes elements we saw on the tutorial, this represents a great step forward from the exams I took previously to gain my PHR and later, my SPHR.

Given this advancement in the testing and SHRM’s self-proclaimed leadership position in the HR community, this extra enticement seems a bit unnecessary. There remains a defensiveness on the part of some SHRM staff and board members about the certification. I would suggest letting it stand on its own merits to see if it truly is top quality and allow positive word of mouth drive its growth. Pursuing numbers through financial incentives and placing requirements in chapter and council SHAPE documents doesn’t convey confidence in the product and will certainly lead some to wonder if SHRM can only launch their certification by using the carrots and sticks available to them. While the words of SHRM’s senior leadership convey confidence in the new certification, their actions suggest some doubt persists.

As a continued proud holder of my SPHR certification and now my SHRM-SCP, I still maintain my position that certification alone does nothing to tell me how someone works, thinks, or achieves results. Those are things that must demonstrated over time and they cannot always be easily categorized or captured on an exam.

There are corporate partnerships aligned with educational institutions that create value and link the knowledge that can be taught in schools with the skills needed by employers.  Creating relevance is key to many students (one of the R’s touted by our superintendent) and having someone to show these real world applications to students can make a difference in both the classroom and the workplace.

Whether we like it or, boosting education attainment is a workforce issue and it is essential the companies step up to declare what they need, how they can help get it, and partner with as many entities as needed to get what they need out of the educational system.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network is investigating employers’ use of personality tests to screen job applicants as part of applications for employment and the broader hiring process. These tests may unfairly screen out qualified Autistic applicants and those with other hidden disabilities through the use of subjective questions unrelated to job performance.
 
If you live in the United States and have recently been turned down for a job that used personality tests as part of the application process, please contact (name removed by author) at (e-mail removed by author) and (name removed by author) at (e-mail removed by author).  Please include the name of the employer, the approximate date on which you applied for the job, and any additional information you feel may be relevant.

Now I believe that there are times that the use of personality tests as part of the hiring process are good and provide useful and relevant information to the hiring organization.  I also see the potential drawbacks for those with intellectual or developmental disabilities when it comes to their applicability.  The alert above went out to many people associated with the field and I anticipate that the e-mail boxes of the two people above are being filled as people grasp for any reason that they did not get a job. 

Back in my younger days, I applied for a position with an employer who used a series of personality tests.  Everything was going well until I took the third one.  Suddenly, I was persona non-grata and all contact stopped. 

Like Steve Martin, maybe I was misunderstood?!?!

Never even received the thanks but no thanks letter.  I just assumed that the test showed that I was a jerk and they were afraid I may “do something” if they told me so.  That process and the way it was handled by the company turned me off to the use of personality tests for hiring.  Until…

I later had the chance to use an assessment that measured aptitude and some elements of personality.  I was pleased with the results and they helped us in the hiring of select positions within the company.  There was still great care used and the test was never the sole deciding factor (even though hiring managers would try!) and as these positions filled and became stable we stopped using the test and focused on the behavioral characteristics.  Thankfully, those positions became among the most stable we had.

So, the alert above from the Autistic Self Advocacy Network should serve as a caution to those using testing as part of your hiring process.  Be sure you can justify the questions and their relevancy to the jobs for which you are hiring.  The new amendments to the ADA are broad enough that just about everyone could find a way to qualify for the act’s protections.