I think too much of HR represents all the ridiculous “political correctness” that goes on these days. For some reason, everyone feels so compelled to ignore the thoughts and feeling of the majority in order to appease the minority. One person throws a hissy fit and instead of asking that one person to leave or be understanding, EVERYONE ELSE is expected to accommodate that one person.

It’s all BS to me.

Their comments do NOT border on harassment (if you new the laws) you had better be careful about penalizing an employee for harassment if it really is not the case. Going overboard is just as bad as under-reacting.

I am not sure whether the reputation HR Dude refers to is good or bad. My point is that leaders need to THINK about situations and their implications and not simply follow a rule book. We have gone from an ethical society where issues and implications were considered before making a decision to a legalistic, rule driven society. It was that mentality used in Nuremburg and Mai Lai… I was just following orders. Polititicians are the first to say “I’ve done nothing illegal…”

It is good to laugh at obvious blunders, but comedy has its roots in the common pains of our society. As leaders, we have a moral duty and a responsibility to THINK before we make decisions. Most HR professionals I know, do just that, so I would guess the rep is good.

First, here is a business establishment with an employee. Perhaps, this business was a “nude” establishment and the local laws were not clear as to what is and is not acceptable. This happens all the time when our lawmakers (politicians all) don’t want to set clear standards for fear that someone is offended. As a result, the authorities enter the establishment to monitor its activities and then, rather than address the real issue (having an adult oriented business at a certain location) they arrest the employees on other charges (nudity) with the expectation that if they disuade workers the company will fail and the issue will go away.

Not all laws are clear or fair. Not all authorities are benevolent or honest.

This is happening with any industry that has any controversy. It is currently happening with smoking bans, churches who give sermons that may have a political bent, bars, race tracks and casinos, etc.

Unfortunately, when it is an area of controversy, businesses duck their heads in the sand. The real question is to what extent do companies protect their employees from authorities who abuse their power.

If a government authority comes to your facility to inspect or audit your business, but while there they find things they may personally disagree with, do you accommodate them and direct your employees to comply with their views, even when there may be no legal or business reason to do so?

When a collections company is trying to locate your employee to harass them or garnish their wages, do you cooperate fully knowing that this will reduce your employee’s productivity or do you make sure that the collections company has to follow the letter of the law by having a signed release of information or other authority to release the information.

When the government asks you to supply more and more data on your workers as they data mine, do you simply comply? When they ask for smoking status, medical information, political affiliation, income level, number of dependents, church, nationality, sex, membership in groups, recent purchases, etc. ?

A company may feel that they are “safe” and immune from what affects these “controversial enterprises.” It was not all that long ago when alcohol was illegal, but marijuana was. A time when smoking cigarettes was allowed everywhere. i’m not saying that any of these things are right or wrong. What I am saying is that when society changes its mind about something and decides that it is “unacceptable,” it is often the employees who get targeted to influence the larger organization.

To what extent should employers protect their employees from governmental abuse?