New hires at SuccessFactors, a software firm based in San Mateo, CA, are required to sign off on a list of 15 corporate principles.

Number 15: “I will not be an a–hole.”

CEO Lars Dalgaard implemented that policy after years of corporate experience taught him that jerks (as we’ll call them) “stifle performance,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle.

As for the harsh language, he said the rule would be easier to ignore without it.

What also makes the rule tough to ignore is that Dalgaard isn’t afraid to enforce it. One time, he took a group of job candidates out to lunch at a local restaurant. Those who weren’t friendly to the waitstaff weren’t brought back to continue the interview process.

Ever worked at a company that needed a policy on jerks? Do you think a rule like Dalgaard’s is good for a company or just an impractical gimmick? Let us know your opinion in the comments section.

If employees at your workplace used 85% of their sick days every year, you’d probably look into a change in the policy.

That’s exactly what a recent report by the Inspector General found about IRS employees. Workers at the tax agency took an average of 11 out of their available 13 sick days in 2006. The study also showed frequent use of sick days on Tuesdays following a Monday holiday.

Here’s where the federal government may have blundered: The study suggests the high percentage of used sick days is partially caused by a change in the federal employees’ retirement benefits plan about 20 years ago. Workers covered under the new system aren’t allowed to fold their unused sick leave into their pension benefits when they retire. Employees grandfathered into the old system can take compensation for unused sick leave upon retirement.

So, if losing an incentive to not use sick days is the problem, how about providing such an incentive?

That’s what Rep. James Moran (D-VA) has proposed. Moran has introduced a bill that would provide federal employees under the new retirement plan with a lump-sum payment for any unused sick leave at retirement.

The incentive would be payment for 15% of all unused sick hours above 500. Payments would be capped at a maximum of $10,000.

It may not be a bad idea. At a previous job, HRB had an incentive for not using sick days: If an employee went four months without using a sick day, he/she would earn an extra vacation day.

HRB’s point of view: Why sneak around using sick time for an extra day off when you could earn bonus vacation days?

Of course, the potential problem with these plans is workers not taking sick days when they really need them and infecting those healthy individuals at work with their cold or flu bug.

Has your company done something that limits abuse of sick time yet doesn’t encourage employees from taking a sick day when they really need it? Let us know about it.

First, a recap of our earlier story. Target security guard Dean Babcock saw a 16-year-old girl trying to steal a bottle of tequila. Only certain guards were authorized to stop suspected shoplifters, but Babcock, a retired police officer, wasn’t one of them.

In fact, none of those guards were on duty. So Babcock worked around the problem and contacted the girl’s father instead of police. Four days later he was fired from the Lake Geneva, WI store.

In an e-mail, Babcock tells HR Blunders this was the first time he had been told he violated any Target policy and that he’d never been disciplined for doing anything else wrong at the store.

The former Target guard says the girl’s father was pleased with the way he handled the situation and went to bat for him with the store.

Babcock says in Target’s policy book, it states that the proper action was to call the parent.

He also emphasizes that at the time of the incident, only one person in the store was authorized to stop such shoplifters. That employee was in a different store receiving training.

And a note from the editor: Once upon a time, I had a part-time holiday season job as an “associate” at a regional department store. I worked in the men’s clothing department.

We knew who the undercover “loss prevention” employees were. One day, I saw one of them bolt out an exit in pursuit of someone who had allegedly stolen an expensive article of clothing.

This was in 1988. Have things really changed so much since then?