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.

Sick Relative and Sick Leave Benefits

Q: I recently had to take some sick days off to care for my brother who is suffering from HIV. I really don't want to have to explain to HR why I am taking these days off. They keep asking my reason for taking the days off. I have said that a family member is very sick. They have asked which family member and to "please describe the nature of the illness." Is this legal? Do I have to disclose? Very few people know about his illness and there is still a stigma associated with HIV whether we want to admit to it or not. 

A: You are an incredibly supportive sibling. In order to take approved “sick time” (whether paid or unpaid) off from work, you need to provide your employer with enough information for your employer to determine that you are using the leave for the purposes intended. You are wise, however, to protect sensitive medical information.

Jeff Dretler, an employment attorney from Fisher & Phillips, explains: "Under the new Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law, effective July 1, 2015, most employees can use accrued sick time to care for an 'immediate family member' suffering from a 'medical condition that requires home care, professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventative medical care.' Under the law though, an immediate family member does not include a sibling which is why your employer needs more information about the familial relationship. Similarly, under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which applies to employers with 50 or more employees, an employee seeking time off to care for a seriously ill family member (which like Massachusetts law does not include siblings) must describe the type of care which the employee plans to provide for the family member."

An employer may ask about the “nature of the illness” to better understand what benefits you may apply. Dretler further explains, "Relevant facts may include whether the patient is hospitalized, the type of care the patient will require, the expected duration of care, but need not necessarily include the diagnosis. In most circumstances, it will not be necessary for you to disclose to your employer the actual diagnosis of the person for whom you are caring (e.g., HIV). An employer who demands from the employee more information than is necessary, to determine the employee’s right to the leave, could very well be in violation of state or federal laws, including those which protect employee privacy."

I would recommend asking specifically what your employer is seeking. Is there a form that they could provide? Many physicians have navigated similar issues and have experience with sharing what is truly required. If you are further pressed for information, you may want to contact an attorney.

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.

Referring A Son Can Get Messy

Q: I recently referred my son to a position within my company. The position is working for one of my three supervisors. I am a director at a large medical device company and we have had a horrible time recruiting for this one role. My son would be ideal! I was told by HR that he could not work within my area of responsibility even though he is not reporting to me. Is this a common policy? I have never heard of such a policy. We are facing recruitment challenges so I thought this would be the answer to our prayers.

A: Many companies have policies which provide guidelines for employees, including an "employment of relatives" policy. Many of the policies prohibit immediate relatives from working too closely together. Some policies will discourage immediate relatives from working within the same department. While other policies will prohibit an employee from being related to a senior manager or a board member. Sometimes there are exceptions to these rules, like summer interns or seasonal employees. The intent of the policy is to minimize favoritism or even the perception of favoritism.

In your situation, you could be placing your supervisor in an awkward situation. What if your supervisor has to discipline your son? Or what if your supervisor thinks your son is outstanding and she wants to promote him? Will others assume it is because of the familial relationship? Or what is your son shares information with you that he shouldn't? It becomes a messy challenge.

There are reasons why companies implement such policies. Most companies want their organizations to be run in the best interest of the company. Companies are hoping that employees will make decisions based on what is best for the company and sometimes familial relationship can interfere with that impartiality.

Although your recruitment is a challenge for your company, I would honor your company's policy and refrain from referring family members.

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. 

Time Off for Heart Condition Might Qualify Employee for FMLA

Q: I recently had a serious heart problem. I was hospitalized, released and then re-admitted. I think I am now ready to resume full-time work. I work as a Director at a large biotech firm. I am worried about job security as I work for a man who is a Type A and does not like when anyone is out sick. How can I protect myself?

A: I am sorry that you had a serious health issue. It sounds like it was frightening. I can share a few recommendations.

First, make sure that you are physically ready to return to a full-time schedule. Discuss the demands of your job with your physician. You will want to make sure that you are ready to return so you don't have another relapse. Your employer will likely request a note from your physician ensuring that you are physically able to fulfill the demands of your job. Your physician may request a gradual re-entry back to work. I have noticed many physicians request one week of a part-time schedule before resuming a full-time schedule.

If you work at a large firm, you may be protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). FMLA is a federal law which provides job-protected leave for certain conditions to eligible employees. One of the conditions is an employee's own serious health condition. Your heart problem, and related hospitalization, likely qualify as a serious health condition. To be eligible for a FMLA leave, your employer must employee 50 or more workers. Additionally, you must have worked for at least 12 months for your employer and you must have worked at least 1250 hours in the 12 months prior to your heart condition. You also must have worked at a location where your employer has 50 employees within 75 miles of that work site. For more information about FMLA, review http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28.pdf to better understand your rights and your employer's obligations.

Your manager's attitude is disappointing. There are challenges in all of our lives which necessitate time off from work. One way to mitigate his concerns is to develop a written update upon your return. This will reduce your manager's concerns about anything "slipping through the cracks." Best wishes for your continued recovery!

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.