Leaving a new job after 6 months - yes or no?

Q: I started a new job about six months ago at a large company outside of Boston. I am happy that someone took a chance on me because before that I had taken 15 years off to raise kids as a full-time mom. However, I am feeling that my job has turned into a bit of a grind. I am not nearly enthusiastic about the work as I expected to be. However, I am working with fun colleagues. It is also close to my home and they have given me flexible hours. My question to you is should I make a jump to a more fulfilling role or is it too early? 

A: Congrats on re-entering the workforce successfully. Some companies realize the value and talent of women who have taken some time off to raise kids, but then want to return to work once their children become a bit more self-sufficient.

It sounds like there are a lot of positives about your current job - they probably provided some training early on when you first started working there six months ago, they have offered you flexible work hours (which is sometimes as valuable as how they compensate you) and the commute seems reasonable (a perk especially during the winter months). However, the work doesn't seem as challenging or as interesting as you expected. Six months is not a long time to stay in one job.

However, I do have a possible solution. You had mentioned it is a large company. Larger companies often post internal opportunities to encourage employees to move within the organization. Is there an internal job posting system that you could check periodically? The job posting system may require that you remain in your current role for 6, 9 or even 12 months. It may be a good option because your commute would continue to be reasonable and your benefits would remain intact. However, you should check whether any new role offers a flexible work schedule. That benefit may not continue with your next role. The company would probably view the transfer favorably because they have retained you in some capacity.

Check out internal opportunities first. If internal opportunities are not available, you can start exploring opportunities elsewhere but try to continue with your current employer for one year.

Pattie Hunt Sinacole is a human resources expert and works for First Beacon Group in Hopkinton, an HR consulting firm. She contributes weekly to Boston.com Jobs and the Boston Sunday Globe Money & Careers section. 

Sex, Religion and Politics

Q: It is the season again. Every four years. We are subjected to our CEO's political opinions. He talks about issues related to politics and then slowly begins to make voting recommendations. He calls many of the candidates idiots, fools or worse. We are all tired of it, even if we agree with him! He is not changing anyone's mind either. How do we handle this? It is annoying and bordering unprofessional. 

A: Your concern may not be as rare as you might think. We hear this complaint every few years in this column!

There are some guidelines for what should not be discussed within the workplace. The following areas are typically discouraged: sex, religion and politics. Most people know that their private life should not be discussed so few are so bold as to discuss sex in the workplace. Religion can also create controversy and offend others. A discussion about politics can be divisive and uncomfortable too.

However, your CEO should be modeling appropriate behavior, not behaving in a way which makes others feel uncomfortable. Once in the past we had someone print this column and leave it on the offender's desk with certain areas highlighted. Perhaps that would work. Or you could also get the conversation back on track by adding a comment like: "Hey Tom, are we talking politics or sales results today?" Some also may feel comfortable by infusing humor into the situation, but that can be a risk too because some people can be offended by humor. Depending upon your relationship with your CEO, you could also talk to him privately and explain that, although some of his points may be valid, it is awkward to discuss his political beliefs in the workplace.

I am sure you are looking forward to the election, when hopefully this topic will die down. However, it sounds like they may crop up again during the next election cycle.

Good luck in addressing it. My hope is that a combination of these tactics may reduce the level of political discussion.

Pattie Hunt Sinacole is a human resources expert and works for First Beacon Group in Hopkinton, an HR consulting firm. She contributes weekly to Boston.com Jobs and the Boston Sunday Globe Money & Careers section.

Concerns Over A Teacher's Behavior

Q: I am a parent in a public school system in the Boston area. In our local newspaper, I have read about a teacher at our middle school who has been arrested for a DUI and then domestic abuse. I am concerned that this teacher may be unstable. What is the protocol for a school system? Can this teacher be fired for this? I realize arrests are not convictions but there seem to be a pattern.

A: I understand your concern. Teachers are entrusted with our children and we have the right to know that teachers are responsible professionals. As a parent, you are right to be worried about any behavior by a teacher than may indicate a serious problem. You should bring your concerns to the school principal and ask to know that the school is taking steps to ensure that the children are in a safe environment. This is particularly important if your child, or others students, are alone with the teacher during extracurricular activities or if the teacher drives students to school-sponsored events.

Unfortunately, the law may limit the school administration’s options in dealing with this teacher, even if the school district wants to assist him or satisfy itself that there is no cause for concern. Employers, including cities and towns, are subject to Massachusetts and federal law concerning discrimination. While a teacher who was arrested for a DUI or even domestic abuse may have alcohol or substance abuse issues, the law places limits upon what an employer can do to address such situations. Attorney Valerie Samuels, an employment and labor law attorney practicing at the Boston firm of Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP shares that the federal law known as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prevents employers from discriminating against employees with a “disability.” Samuels explains, "The definition of disability is very broad, and under certain circumstances, may include employees with substance abuse issues." According to Samuels, while the school may prohibit the use of alcohol or illegal substances at work, it cannot easily take action against an employee who has taken steps to remedy his addiction or is not currently abusing illegal drugs. Current users of illegal drugs are not protected under the ADA, but it is extremely difficult for employers to discern who is actively using drugs. In addition, current and former alcohol abusers are protected under the ADA. Massachusetts law places similar constraints on employers.

Another factor is whether the teacher is covered by a bargaining agreement. Most collective bargaining agreements require an employer to demonstrate “just cause” before action can be taken against the employee. “Just cause” is difficult to prove particularly where, as here, the teacher has not done anything unlawful in connection with his job. The school will likely monitor the situation to make sure no misbehavior occurs at work.

Finally, an arrest is not a conviction. Given that the alleged behavior did not take place at school, and because the teacher has not yet been convicted of any crime, the school district must tread carefully.

Pattie Hunt Sinacole is a human resources expert and works for First Beacon Group in Hopkinton, an HR consulting firm. She contributes weekly to Boston.com Jobs and the Boston Sunday Globe Money & Careers section. 

Posting Jobs Internally

Q: I worked at a large company and recently left. I am now working for a small company. We have little HR support here so occasionally I will call my former HR Director with a question or two. She seems willing to respond as long as I don't take up too much time. One recent response has me dumbfounded though. I asked her about posting jobs internally because we used to post open jobs all the time at my last company. She said she highly recommends posting all jobs internally first because it is against the law not to post them for all employees first. We are a small consulting firm and we have posted some jobs but not all jobs. Are we breaking the law?

A: Your employer is probably not breaking the law. Generally, posting all jobs is not required by law. Federal contractors are required to post open positions. Additionally, employers with collective bargaining agreements may also have specific posting procedures designed to encourage internal applicants to apply before considering external applicants.

However, most employers are able to determine their own recruiting and posting policies, as long as they are non-discriminatory. Some companies may post positions at certain levels, while another company may post all positions. It is a practice worth considering for most positions. Posting jobs internally encourages upward mobility for existing employees while also sending a message that the company is hiring. Sometimes a posting system may also encourage external referrals from employees after a certain period of time, usually 7-10 days.

Maybe your former employer was a government contractor or had a union in place. Perhaps that is why your former HR Director shared that response.


Pattie Hunt Sinacole is a human resources expert and works for First Beacon Group in Hopkinton, an HR consulting firm. She contributes weekly to Boston.com Jobs and the Boston Sunday Globe Money & Careers section.