Human Resources and Staffing
David Cherrington, Brigham Young University
Erin Searles, Marriott Vacation Club
Dennis Johnson, Smith Johnson Group
Spencer Shaffer, Myelin Resources
Elena Monahan, Marriott Vacation Club
Linda Brandon, CVS Caremark
Sharon Roux, The Summit Group
Leslie Hackett, Express Employment Professionals
Steve Bryson, Certifinder
Tom Pilkington, Certifinder
Melissa Wood, OrangeSoda
Joe Tibolla, TekSystems
Clark Merkley, Employer Solutions Group
Colin Thompson, Innovative Staffing
Clark Cotterell, Management Recruiters of Salt Lake City
Nina Brollier, Workers Compensation Fund
Monica Whalen, The Employers Council
Cecilia Romero, Holland & Hart
Von Madsen, ARUP
Jill Carter, Carter Consulting
Utah’s human resources and staffing professionals are proving their worth as companies face employment woes during today’s rough economy. Our human resources and staffing experts discussed compliance issues, immigration changes and hiring practices. The group also discussed the importance of human resources as a profession and its place in Utah’s business landscape.
From a human resources and staffing perspective, what's your take on the economy? Is the situation improving?
WHALEN: I think that, unfortunately, the economy is clearly not going up, and at best we're going to remain status quo for several more months, if not have a second dip.
JOHNSON: From my perspective it's going up. We’ve been busier the last three months than the previous year and a half.
HACKETT: I'm in general staffing for temporary and permanent placement. Our company nationally has had three all-time highs in the history of our years in business. What that tells me is that companies are starting to bring people back temporarily, but they don't want to put the funds out for permanent positions. And I've seen far more project work and far more short-term project work than I've seen in my six years in Utah.
MERKLEY: I'm more in the permanent hire business. We've seen a slight uptick in February, and there's still been an uptick since then, but the trend is declining. So there was may be a little bit of optimism at the beginning of the year that companies were going to start hiring again. We've had a broad reach across a lot of different industries, so it's hard to say which ones are doing well. Obviously the construction and home building industries are way down, but we're starting to see some pickup in professional services. I know a lot of our clients are hiring people on a temporary basis and then putting some on permanent jobs. But, overall, it's a pretty slow improvement.
SHAFFER: At Myelin Resources we offer a supplemental and flexible workforce, and so we're seeing those upticks as well, but it seems to be localized to certain drivers in the economy.
MERKLEY: What I've seen in HR is an increasing level of complexity and burden, both in compliance and in just the vagueness of a lot of the things, especially health care reform. A lot of companies and HR professionals are wondering whether or not they're going to have a significant burden under health care reform. Companies, even large companies that have low-paid workforces, are asking themselves, "Am I going to be able to afford to stay in business if I have to pay or play in health care reform?" So there's a lot of complexity, and I think all of these issues might slow down the interests of the employers in doing permanent hires.
SHAFFER: Beyond the challenging market, the stipulations that are placed on companies today, like new regulations, take away the competitiveness of enterprise. If you can't be competitive, you've got to find other solutions. I think the temporary model is what allows companies to have that competitiveness in a changing environment.
CHERRINGTON: I have to admit that something inside me is very concerned about the difficulty that employers have facing all the restrictions and regulations. I remember when I first taught human resource management years ago, I believed that I could teach my students everything that they would need to know so they would be able to comply with the current laws. I don't think that's possible now.
Discuss health care as it relates to human resources and staffing issues.
MERKLEY: The concern that I hear from many are what they are seeing in the general framework of health care reform, and that is the lack of flexibility. You're limited to the kinds of choices you're going to have. Even though the main parts of the health care reform law don't go into place until 2014, companies have to make decisions about their plans now. And by and large, with the regulations that came out recently, it's going to be almost impossible for a small employer to keep the health care plan that they have.
Another consideration is the nondiscrimination provision that says you can't discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees, but there are a lot of companies that have a management carve-out plan, and they don't offer insurance coverage to most of the employees because of the cost. Well, now they can no longer continue that, so they're having to decide, "Do I try and hang on to grandfather status with a management carve-out plan or my plan for managers? Or am I going to let those people go uninsured in the market?" There's a lot of really important decisions being made right now, even though the bulk of it doesn't come into play for a few years.
WHALEN: From what I'm hearing from employers, the main thing that they're concerned about with health care reform is cost—the bottom-line impact to them in providing benefits to their employees. I take the opinion that health care reform did absolutely positively impact access to health care and coverage issues, but undoubtedly this will have an increased cost effect. How much is still undefined at this point. Many of the brokers are still saying, "We don't know what the costs are going to be. The carriers are still trying to figure that out." The impact of that is employers are reluctant to give raise increases or salary increases. They're waiting to see what the overall total impact of the health care reform is in terms of increased costs and whether they will have to ask employees to share in those costs more than they already are.
MONAHAN: Marriott, which has many employees, is reevaluating plans and we're actually decreasing some benefits. We're also increasing the share that employees pay, but that's the trend everywhere. One of the real positive things that we've done, and maybe some of your companies are doing this as well, is we're really promoting wellness in a big way. The true corporate focus for Marriott this year is all about managing your health and your lifestyle. We're encouraging associates to get a one-on-one relationship with a health coach, which our insurance providers provide to them for free. It's a little too soon to tell how successful that is going to be, but it's certainly a focus, and we are certainly pushing it and hoping to get some long-term benefits out of it in health care reduction costs.
BRANDON: I also work for a large company and health care costs did go up slightly. Obviously we probably have an advantage, being a larger size. But one thing that we did this year is offer the employees more choices, so not just choosing from plan A, B or C, but you can actually choose your deductions from your paycheck. You can choose your co-insurance. The end result and what they pay is truly their choice.
We’re also really encouraging employee involvement, and we're also focusing on wellness. We’ve introduced a health advocate that actually helps our employees wade through all the different health care terminology as they're faced with bills or different procedures.
COTTERELL: We have a small shop, and we just had open enrollment. Two years ago we made some changes, anticipating what was going to be coming. Our premiums went up just a little bit, but below the average. What I found interesting is our carrier has shifted what they're offering to what you pay for. I think it's either going to get more and more expensive for us just to keep up with the minimum or the carrier will start to make some pretty dramatic adjustments as well.
HACKETT: America is so innovative about everything, so why are we not looking at the way we pay for health care? When we start talking about health care reform, the insurance industry is still there. It seems to have gotten so complicated. Maybe what we really need to reform is the way we pay for health care, not the way we deliver it. It seems every health care reform idea that comes across Washington is really about how we're going to fund insurance companies to pay for health care on our behalf. It would seem to me that piece really needs closer inspection.
Have any of you participated in the Utah Health Exchange? What have been your experiences with the Exchange?
ROUX: We just went through renewal and we thought about looking at the Utah Health Exchange. Our broker told us that it doesn’t make sense, not only for cost reasons, but because they don't really have the infrastructure together, yet. The broker’s advice was to wait another year until the dust settles, which we did. But we did a plan redesign this year and introduced HSAs for the first time in our company. So we did a little more cost shifting than we had done before as well, and have it down to about the minimum now that we can do as an employer and still provide the benefits to our employees. So it's meant cost shifting to our people and it's meant higher premiums, which we've had year after year like everybody else. I’ve had to tell people, "I don't know what it's going to look like next year, but I wouldn't necessarily plan on it getting better, so be prepared."
MERKLEY: We had one client that went to use the Utah Health Exchange and they found out that the prices they got out of it were higher than the open market, so they pulled out. I’ve heard that same experience from many, many others. It doesn’t seem to be working—though the concept is there.
THOMPSON: Many of the brokers are bypassing the exchange and going direct with a lot of the carriers, because of the same reason—costs—and getting a better deal.
MERKLEY: There's also a perception that the Exchange doesn’t include a lot of options. So the companies that were looking for something that is tailored to their workforce weren’t finding what they hoped to see.
CHERRINGTON: I'm favorable on the idea of the Exchange; that is, the idea of being able to have an exchange where you can tell your employees, “Our company is no longer in the business of providing health care.” There are some tremendously positive benefits in that idea, because employers can get out of the business of providing health care and focus on producing the goods and services of whatever it is they do.
MERKLEY: The Exchange is not a substitute for the free market. I think it's more of an academic and political attempt to replicate what's going on in the free market. I think most thought hundreds of companies were going to flood into the Exchange, and they ended up getting barely what they were looking for. But when individuals can go in and use employer money to buy, the insurance companies are worried because the people who were really anxious to buy were the people who have health conditions and higher loss ratios. So by definition, when they set up the Exchange in an artificial environment like that, they're going to price it higher because they don't know what kind of risk is coming in. For example, can you go buy fire insurance if your house is smoldering? Well, no. Nobody's going to sell you that policy. But if your body is smoldering with health conditions, under the new health care reform, you can go get coverage.
Socially we like it because we don't want people to be exposed to all that financial risk, but from a business standpoint, it doesn't work. You can't make any money at it. I think it's driving us to a single-payer system. Then will the exchanges work as a substitute for the market when people can go in and have some money or some tokens or some credits and go in and buy something? Well, yes, but they'll have to say, "Those are my limited choices," as opposed to a free market, I can go and get a discount card, I can get a mini-med plan, I can go get a high-deductible plan, etc. A lot of those choices are going to be off the table.
SHAFFER: The Exchange is just not competitive with the other options that are there. From a small employer perspective—and I am one of them—it's not a good option. When you're trying to watch the bottom line or get a business off the ground, there are other better financial options and opportunities that I can provide to my employees than the Exchange. I think it has great potential, I just think it's not competitive financially to small businesses.
JOHNSON: We currently pay—and this is not because we're good guys or stupid—100 percent of the medical/dental premiums for our employees. We want to keep this benefit, but we're just waiting to see what happens.
What’s your opinion regarding health savings accounts? Are HSAs working in your company?
SHAFFER: I think HSAs help the employees eliminate the risk so that they can add to that pot. For example, if they can get $3000 into a health savings account by saving then if there's something catastrophic that happens, it gives them the option to get a higher deductible plan that might work for their family. It’s a way of personalizing health care for an employee.
CARTER: I agree. I think that employees actually feel more in control. There's some degree of accountability and ownership with it, and I think they feel more secure with that type of a plan in place.
MONAHAN: When HSAs were really quite new several years ago, we had difficulty educating employees and helping them really understand the potential benefit. It was such a departure from, "My company takes care of me from an insurance perspective, and I don't ever have to worry about these big bills that might come up." We put an incredible amount of time and effort into educating our employees so they would understand their benefits, but had limited success.
Personally, I think HSAs are a great deal for really healthy people. But I think it's a little more difficult to sell it to someone who appears healthy but may be taking several expensive medications every day to maintain their health.
THOMPSON: A few years back when the HSA plans first came out, there wasn't enough cost savings on a premium, so people, without being educated, didn't really understand those plans and the savings weren’t enough. I’m now seeing HSAs becoming more and more popular each year, especially with companies that have less health risks within their organizations.
Overall, I think they're becoming extremely popular with the groups that have less health risks because there require less premiums each month and employees have control of the health care dollar that they're spending. I have clients that would rather self-fund a doctor visit or two and save the monthly premium and keep building their accounts to be used in the future; whereas, some of the more unhealthy groups are going to the lower deductible so that they can feel more comfortable with that security.
MADSEN: I agree that the plans work for healthy people, but if you have a chronic disease there's no chance to build up any reserve, and so the plan doesn't work for you. If you start while you're healthy and then become ill, then the plan will work just fine. But if you're already in the transition zone, if you already have a chronic illness, you have no chance and you're sunk.
MONAHAN: I think the biggest plus is personal responsibility. We're so used to, as a society, having insurance that takes care of everything. I think having personal responsibility with an HSA does turn you into a consumer. And if you're a good consumer, you're going to save, and if you're not, you're going to eat up that money really fast.
ROMERO: I was just talking to somebody that has an HSA. They had to have a costly procedure, so they went out and shopped around for the best deal. I think HSAs work well for the educated individual who can go out and ask those questions. But, I think there's a fair amount of people who don't know that it's OK to ask those questions. They have some hesitancy to do it, and they just don't know how to do it.
How have your companies been impacted by E-Verify and other immigration-related issues?
MONAHAN: We’ve been using E-Verify for four years, and we audit ourselves twice a year and check our backup materials to make sure they're in good shape. I would feel pretty comfortable being audited. Now, having said that, I've had enough audits in my years of being an HR professional to understand that any auditor's job is to find a mistake and it’s easy to make a mistake.
In regards to E-verify, there are occasions where the results come back with a problem—it’s usually a Social Security number or a mix-matched letter. You call the associate in and say, very non-judgmentally, "You know, when I processed your I-9, we got an error message back. Please go to the Social Security office immediately and get it fixed." We typically don't see that individual again, ever, which means they probably had false documentation. Overall, I feel comfortable with E-Verify—we have not had issues. It's been smooth.
THOMPSON: My experience with E-Verify so far is probably a little bit different because this is a service that we offer to many of our clients. What I've seen recently are there are a few that have come back where somebody hasn't changed their name after getting married, so it's not matching up, and they have to fix it. But I have seen, in the last week, five employees that had no-match letters come back. The employees said they wanted to contest it, but then they just called and resigned and didn't come back to work. So I think E-Verify is working, in the sense that it's picking up those people that have a legitimate no-match, and it's also picking up people that haven’t changed their names, etc.
WHALEN: My company does I-9 audits for our members. Invariably, when ICE agents show up, they say, "We'll be back in three days. Have all of your I-9s ready to have us inspect them." And that's when our members call us and say, "We just did an internal audit, so we are sure that they're fine. But will you take a look?” I guarantee that I can go in and look at your I-9s and, in except a very rare circumstance, find a mistake. And ICE agents are looking for mistakes and any mistake is enough. ICE wants perfect I-9s, and if you don't have perfect I-9s, they will fine you. The more common experience with most companies is that they really believe that their I-9s are in good shape and that there aren't any problems. But because of the nature of the I-9 form and the requirements, there are really little details that anybody innocently could make a recordkeeping error on. So it is a very important thing for a company to do an internal self-audit or hire somebody to come in and audit their forms for them.
The thing with E-Verify is that it requires a very detail-oriented person, the kind of person who completes your I-9 forms, somebody who is going to check every box, dot every I. And then there's a whole series of absolute procedural requirements and steps that must be followed, depending on whether you get a confirmation or a tentative non-confirmation and whether it's a Social Security non-confirmation or a DHS non-confirmation. And there are letters to print out and signatures to gather, and certain numbers of days in which you must follow up. So, it invariably adds an administrative burden on companies. And for small companies with employees who maybe don't have a dedicated HR person, someone now has to be the person who's doing the payroll. Companies now have this additional job that requires some very minuscule focus on detail.
The kicker with E-Verify is if you don't follow the rules, now there's additional penalties and you can get fined heavily. I would agree that undoubtedly it will dissuade and weed out undocumented workers, but it's also important to remember that it's not the magic solution. If people have really good fake documents, they're going to pass through, and you still have the problem, potentially, of undocumented workers in your workforce. And this new process that you've implemented hasn't helped you one little bit when the ICE agents show up and round up a number of your workers and take them away overnight so that you can no longer produce your product, service your clients, keep your doors open for business. That's the difficulty for employers—even if we play by the rules and fill out our I-9s perfectly, use the E-Verify system and so on, it's not a guarantee that you are in full compliance with the immigration laws.
JOHNSON: I did my own audit here a bit ago and found forms incomplete. It was kind of scary. It’s a steep fine—around $8,000 per occurrence. In a small company, that's a huge amount.
SPENCER: There’s a fine balance between allowing industry to continue within a country that really was based upon the immigrant workforce in the beginning to having the safety to our communities, by allowing and documenting those people to be here. There’s definitely an impact on industry that was mentioned earlier to industries, especially farming communities and manufacturing industries, and I believe there needs to be some way to document and allow immigrants to be here. It’s that fine balance of fostering industry and profitability for businesses or allowing them not to be competitive and be productive.
WHALEN: Immigration is an issue that really impacts HR. I would say that it is a huge issue for Utah businesses, including companies that don't have foreign-born workers or immigrant workers. Even though those companies may think, "This is not a big deal for me," they are really not seeing the big picture. Immigration and how we proceed going forward will impact business in Utah on every level.
First of all, there are many industries—like manufacturing, construction, hospitality and farming—that depend upon some immigrant workforce, so our immigration policies and how we decide to move forward as a state will impact our hiring. There will be fewer workers available for us to choose from, which on the one hand, some proponents say, "Well, that's great, because now more jobs are available for American workers," but on the other hand, the reality of that situation is these are jobs that most American workers do not want and that they have bypassed. The immigrant community has filled those very necessary entry-level jobs in our marketplaces. I, personally, am very concerned, depending how aggressive we get with our local immigration laws. What we do will seriously impact businesses' ability to stay competitive because they simply can't hire workers at that price to do those jobs.
The other way that immigration legislations and E-Verify will impact businesses in Utah there is now a new administrative task. How much of a burden it is probably depends on how many new hires a company does. If a company only hires one or two people a year, it's probably not a huge burden, but it certainly is a new administrative task that carries with it its own set of penalties and fines if the company doesn’t do it perfectly.
The third way in which it will impact all of Utah is in taxes. Many of the things that are being talked about include better border security and law enforcement. And what I’ve heard over and over again is, "We don't have the facilities or the budgets or the manpower to do these aggressive immigration policing sorts of things that some proponents are suggesting." So how do we get the money? We tax the public. I heard one legislator say something like, "I am really interested to find out how much of a priority for the Utah taxpayer this is. How much more in taxes are you really willing to pay to make sure that when a policeman pulls you over because you have a broken taillight and they ask to see your papers and you don't have them? And we need to now build new jails so that we can hold them until things get straightened out."
I think it's very easy to talk ideologically about what should happen and what people should do in regards to going through the steps of being legal and what we're going to do to make sure they do that, but there's a big dichotomy between talking about that ideologically and the realistic, practical nature of solutions that can really be accomplished.
Another aspect that needs to be considered is that our state's immigration philosophy is going to impact businesses in terms of greater vulnerability for discrimination claims. Not only in our attempts to make sure that we're hiring documented workers, because in doing so it’s possible that HR people, business owners and managers might unwittingly going too far by asking for more documents, asking too many questions, not allowing people the requisite numbers of days after you get a tentative non-confirmation from E-Verify.
I'm concerned that in employers' efforts to comply, they may overstep these bounds, because at the same time we have E-Verify, we also have the other arm of the immigration policy on a national level, the Department of Justice. And they are the folks who govern discrimination against people because of their national origin. So it’s like two sides of the same sword. You have to make sure that you don't hire undocumented workers, but if you go too far and become too vigilant, then you can be guilty of discrimination. But with discrimination, not only does it impact businesses as we're walking this very fine line. Case in point: "The List" that was disseminated, only to find out that most, if not all, of those people on "The List" were either here legally or had a right to be accessing the benefits from the Department of Workforce Services. They weren't doing anything illegal. Yet we had state workers in a fiduciary responsibility, with some responsibility to hold those things in confidence, leak this out. We have people taking more of a hardened and biased us-versus-them attitude toward minorities in our business community, which includes their co-workers, potential new hires and others. I believe it is beginning to foster a real dangerous climate of intolerance.
SHAFFER: And from an economic development standpoint, we're trying to attract companies to come here, to bring jobs and bring their companies to Utah. And the more that this becomes the forefront, and if there are challenges with it, they'll go to a more tolerant state to take their business.
CARTER: As an employer, I'm very concerned about the negative and limiting perspective that is circulating the community. And I agree that there will be employers who will choose to locate elsewhere who are here. And I think from an HR perspective, it will be really difficult to attract and retain employees from outside the state of Utah, to get them to come to Utah to work because of the reputation of what's going on here in Utah. And the other scary part I think about the "The List," is the kind of press that came out as a result of "The List," where you saw two really separate opinions. One was that these two state government employees never should have been terminated and were entirely justified to go in and, for lack of a better word, "meddle" with people's private information, which is a very scary thing to send a message to HR or any other employer working in a service industry, government industry, non-profit industry.
How have hiring practices changed during the recession?
PILKINGTON: It’s important to note that I-9 and E-Verify are done post-hire. In today’s economy, it’s important that hiring managers look into individuals before they are brough on board. What we do is background checks before the individual is hired. The cost of a hire is very expensive—it costs to get them in, on board and trained. If the individual ends up self-resigning or doesn’t pass E-Verify, you've wasted a lot of time and effort. So checking into the individual before will really help employers.
CHERRINGTON: Do you have data on the average number of hits you get in misrepresented information on a résumé?
PILKINGTON: It depends on the industry. The numbers can be as high as 18 percent in some industries. The falsification of information is not just personal identifiers—we find mistakes in employment history and education, etc.
BRYSON: We found that for criminal background histories, there's about 9 percent of our population with a criminal history. Now, does that mean they're not hirable? No. But a lot of individuals won't self-disclose that information.
COTTERELL: We’ve had probably four or five situations where, post-hire, references checks and background checks have come back negative. With the economy the way it is, we do a lot of banking background checks. We're seeing more and more six-figure banking executives and other executives with bankruptcies and with other issues in their backgrounds, and then the company is rescinding the offer. One thing that we as a firm are trying to figure out is what do you disclose to employees on the front end regarding your policy for credit and criminal checks? Another example my company had recently was extending an offer to an individual who ended up having a misdemeanor nine years ago. It was a really simple matter, but it turned into such an issue for the HR people within the company. Unfortunately the individual withdrew himself from the position because he said, "I don't want to go in with this hanging over my head, that I'm the guy with the misdemeanor.”
BRYSON: We're not attorneys and we're not employment law specialists. We conduct background checks and deliver the data back to you. We tell our employers to have a very strict policy and procedure regarding who you're going to be running background checks on or who you're going to be running credit checks on. For example, if the job requires fiscal fiduciary responsibilities, then sure, do a credit check on candidate. But if the job doesn’t have that requirement, it may not be applicable. I suggest employers have a written policy regarding each job title determining whether that job needs to have checked.
WHALEN: We also clearly advise that it's a best practice in your hiring procedure to let applicants know upfront if there are certain barriers or things that could disqualify them or at least cause a second look, whether it's drug screening or a background check, etc. Background checks are an expensive and a time-consuming process, so you want to make sure that you're letting people know upfront that, "What comes back on the background check may impact your eligibility to be hired." And you can do that very easily in the one-page disclosure that the applicant needs to sign to authorize a third party to conduct the background check. You can say, "We do a credit check or we do a criminal check." Now, under the law you have to be careful, because background checks can't be an automatic bar to employment, but you can certainly explain that, "Depending on the recent nature and the type of offense and the job duties, it may deem you ineligible."
The other thing that I would say is many times it becomes an issue for HR, not so much because what the candidate’s background check reports, but the honesty factor. Did the candidate disclose their past correctly on the application? Sometimes that's the issue more than the nature of the offense. If we ask the question and the person either gives misleading information or lies, that tells you a lot about that applicant.
COTTERELL: I agree—honesty if vital. But you've also got to be careful with discrimination.
ROMERO: We did a labor update on that very issue a couple years ago and we were surprised at the number of employers that didn't have a black-and-white policy or practice. Our consensus would be, and was at that time, that you need to have a
black-and-white practice so that you don't have people that come back and say, "Well, you offered me the job. I didn't know this was something that would be held against me."
There are certain obligations that you do have to tell them if you're going to do a background check. We absolutely advocate for a black-and-white practice and to make sure that you are being consistent all the time, regardless of whether or not you just love this person, you want to get them in the door—it doesn't matter. Apply your hiring practices and procedures consistently all the time.
What other human resources or staffing issues have you experienced in today’s economy?
MERKLEY: An issue that I think all business leaders should be thinking about is reengaging your employees. The market is starting to open up a little bit and businesses that have been neglecting their employees are morel likely to lose their employees. Everybody’s been under difficulty, whether it's a pay freeze or benefit reduction or layoffs, people are doing more with less. But now the opportunities are starting to open up, so I think now is the time, as HR professionals and as business leaders, that we need to reengage our employees, especially those top performers. I'm spending a lot of my time and energy doing just that, and also advising clients to do that, because the people that got your company through the tough times the last two years, they're not going to take it forever. When another opportunity comes up, those employees may leave. Don't assume that people are frozen in place, in other words, and they're not going to find other employment.
Whalen: There are some very good, talented people out on the market. And when you identify them through your hiring process, be prepared to move quickly, because there are other opportunities out there. The people who are the real stars, the very top talent, will be snatched up by somebody else in this tight market. So be prepared to move quickly when you identify somebody who's been laid off or their company went out of business. They won't be out on that market for very long.
We are seeing that there is a willingness on the part of these people, even the top talent, to take a lower salary than perhaps the job that they left. And if your pay structures are a little bit out of whack and you have outliers, this is a great opportunity to attract some really top talent, but bring them in within your ranges or bring some more internal equity into your pay structures instead feeling the pressure to hire somebody thousands of dollars more than what your compensation structure would really justify.
COTTERELL: You've got to be careful with offering a salary too low, though, because six months from now they can see another opportunity that's back at their pay scale, and they may jump.