Phil Mercier was included in the September/October 2011 BizVoice® article, "Free Agents," about older employees seeking to re-enter the workforce (part of our Workforce Wise series). After reading the article, Jeff Maki, owner of Models Plus in Kingsford Heights (LaPorte County), reached out to Mercier and ultimately hired him.

"Without that article, Phil and I would have never connected," Maki says. "Phil and I share some common vision on business. He has tremendous background. We are leveraging his expertise and experience to grow our business."

Mercier is about to complete his first month at Models Plus, which provides models, prototypes, custom displays, packaging and engineering for dental and orthopaedic implant manufacturers, as well as patient education tools for health care providers.

"My skills and experience have been put to good use helping (Maki) expand his business in the orthopaedic industry," Mercier explains. "(Maki) started in the dental business over 20 years ago and began applying his capabilities to companies in Warsaw over the past three years. I will be helping him with the company’s rapid expansion into orthopaedics."

What a BizVoice success story! If you’d like to join our over 12,000 readers, just visit the web site.

The San Diego Union-Tribune has new ownership. And the new owners appear to have arrived with some steel-toed boots, looking to kick some rear ends. In a memo to staff, the company announced it’s changing its working hours from 37.5 to 40 each week at no additional pay, and then the real kicker — mandating required business attire for those who work with the public.

Now, the hours worked issue would likely grate on my nerves if you’re not giving people more money. You’ve basically just told them they’re getting a decrease in pay, and if you do that across the board you’d better have a remarkably good reason.

But, as someone whose main critique of my fellow 20-40 somethings is that they dress like rubbish (also, they’re largely undependable and unaccountable — and say "like" way too often), I’m rather on board with the new dress code. Every time I watch a movie set in the 1920s – 1950s, I get downright jealous of the fellas in those pictures. Because if I were to dress that classily at just about any bar I frequent today, people would think I was coming from a funeral or I forgot when Halloween was (or I got lost on the "Road to Perdition"). Thanks to Ragan’s PR Daily, here’s some text from the Union-Tribune’s memo:

Appropriate Appearance – While we are upgrading the appearance of the workplace for everyone, we would like employees who work with the public to dress in sharp business attire. Again, individual supervisors will detail what is expected. Employees who do not work directly with the public, should keep in mind that we always have visitors, government officials/dignitaries in and out of our building, and the desire is to have a professional workplace appearance. ‘Casual Friday’ will continue, but should be only slightly less business oriented than Monday through Thursday.

So what do you think? Is this a case of ownership oppressing its workforce, or a commendable attempt to turn around a business in a struggling industry?

Here are a couple key developments from the NLRB within the last week. If you’re a business owner, prepare to be annoyed:

Mandatory Posting Requirement
The National Labor Relations Board decided Friday to delay the required posting date of its new NLRB posting yet again — this time until April 30, 2012 (it was previously January 31, 2012). The NLRB’s web site reports:

• The National Labor Relations Board has agreed to postpone the effective date of its employee rights notice-posting rule at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC hearing a legal challenge regarding the rule. The Board’s ruling states that it has determined that postponing the effective date of the rule would facilitate the resolution of the legal challenges that have been filed with respect to the rule. The new implementation date is April 30, 2012.

Rules Regarding Union Elections
Baker & Daniels reports: 

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) has formally adopted a final rule that will expedite the pre-election process and limit the post-election process in union representation cases. The rule will be published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2011, and is due to take effect on April 20, 2012.

As we previously informed you, the Board enacted this rule, which will significantly impede an employer’s right to communicate with its employees and petition the government for redress, while faced with the prospect of losing its quorum at the end of 2011. The rule focuses primarily on union representation cases in which parties cannot agree on issues such as whether the employees the union seeks to represent are an appropriate voting group. It significantly changes existing procedures in these types of cases by limiting the issues to be determined in the pre-election process and precluding pre-election review of regional office decisions in most cases. This rule will likely mean that elections are held in a much shorter timeframe.

It is expected that a variety of pro-business advocacy groups will pursue litigation in an attempt to overturn the new rules.

Unions will most likely be emboldened by the Board’s action, and it may spark an increase in union organizing. To remain union free, it is increasingly important for employers to focus on positive-employee relations and supervisory training.

If you’re one of those wellness-oriented people who annoys your coworkers with your mountain of weekly activity (thus making them feel terrible about themselves), then you’ll love this post on the New York Times blog. Seriously though, this is great info and HR and wellness professionals should take note:

Is physical frailty inevitable as we grow older? That question preoccupies scientists and the middle-aged, particularly when they become the same people. Until recently, the evidence was disheartening. A large number of studies in the past few years showed that after age 40, people typically lose 8 percent or more of their muscle mass each decade, a process that accelerates significantly after age 70. Less muscle mass generally means less strength, mobility and among the elderly, independence. It also has been linked with premature mortality.

But a growing body of newer science suggests that such decline may not be inexorable. Exercise, the thinking goes, and you might be able to rewrite the future for your muscles.

Consider the results of a stirring study published last month in the journal The Physician and Sportsmedicine. For it, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh recruited 40 competitive runners, cyclists and swimmers. They ranged in age from 40 to 81, with five men and five women representing each of four age groups: 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70-plus. All were enviably fit, training four or five times a week and competing frequently. Several had won their age groups in recent races.

They completed questionnaires detailing their health and weekly physical activities. Then the researchers measured their muscle mass, leg strength and body composition, determining how much of their body and, more specifically, their muscle tissue was composed of fat. Other studies have found that as people age, they not only lose muscle, but the tissue that remains can become infiltrated with fat, degrading its quality and reducing its strength.

There was little evidence of deterioration in the older athletes’ musculature, however. The athletes in their 70s and 80s had almost as much thigh muscle mass as the athletes in their 40s, with minor if any fat infiltration. The athletes also remained strong. There was, as scientists noted, a drop-off in leg muscle strength around age 60 in both men and women. They weren’t as strong as the 50-year-olds, but the differential was not huge, and little additional decline followed. The 70- and 80-year-old athletes were about as strong as those in their 60s.

A quick Google search Monday evening of the four words of the day — "Supreme Court" and "health care" — revealed more than 1,800 news articles. I glanced at a handful to gain some perspective on what follows the not-too-surprising announcement that the Court will listen to arguments (likely next March) and issue a ruling (likely in June) on the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion (among other things) of the federal health care reform law.

Here are a few different facts and notes:

• It’s been more than 600 days since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. It’s only 215 days until the expected end of the Supreme Court’s spring term.
• Stuart Taylor, Jr. of the Brookings Institution writes that the Court’s allocation of five hours of time for arguments is "extraordinary" and the "most time in many decades for related challenges to a single new law."
• Taylor also notes that none of the justices recused themselves from hearing the case. There had been suggestions that Justice Elena Kagan (Obama’s former solicitor general) or Justice Clarence Thomas (whose wife has been politically active in opposing the law) might take that step.
• Andrew Cohen, chief legal analyst for CBS News, offers 1-9 odds that Justice Anthony Kennedy "will be in the majority no matter which way the Court rules … and that both supporters and detractors of the Act likely can’t win without his vote."

Congressional Quarterly, in the business of interpreting what goes on in Washington each day, offered this analysis of the political implications and the possibility that a ruling may not be a decision after all:

A ruling, four months before Election Day, that the mandate is constitutional would provide a significant and perfectly timed boost to Obama and congressional Democrats — because it would enshrine for the ages their top shared domestic policy achievement. A ruling that strikes it down would grant the GOP nominee-in-waiting, and congressional Republican candidates, their No. 1 campaign season wish — because it would validate all of their vituperative derisions of “Obamacare” as an unconstitutional overreach.

The main reason the justices would take one side or the other is that the regional federal appeals courts have been split on the core question of whether the mandate is within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. (Two have upheld the law, a third has found it unconstitutional and a fourth has ruled it’s too soon to say.) And a main function of the Supreme Court is to make consistent judicial policy when the lower courts disagree. But it’s also true (Bush v. Gore aside) that (Chief Justice John) Roberts and the other conservatives who are the majority on the court have said over and over again that the judicial branch should generally look for ways to stay out of white-hot political disputes — and also should defer, if at all possible, to the will of the elected branches of government when it comes to policy disputes.

And so the easiest way to find five votes between now and June might be for one of those conservatives (the chief justice, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and that big maybe, Kennedy) to shop the view among his colleagues that it’s too soon to decide the constitutional question yet — because the mandate hasn’t actually taken effect and so no one has been “harmed” by having to pay a penalty for not obeying.

What does it all mean? The analysis will be sure to continue over the next 200-plus days until a decision has been made. Then a new round will begin on the implications of that decision. I’ll guess it’s a 5-4 ruling in favor of … how do I know? No one has ever confused me with a Supreme Court justice.

All right, we know there is a great disconnect with high unemployment while thousands of skilled jobs go unfilled due to a lack of qualified applicants. But just how bad is it?

A new report from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute answers that with a "pretty bad." Here’s a short analysis from the State Science & Technology Institute and a link to the 16-page report.

American manufacturing companies cannot fill as many as 600,000 skilled positions — even as unemployment numbers hover at historic levels — according to Boiling Point? The Skills Gap in U.S. Manufacturing, a new report from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute. This annual skills report provides a stark snapshot of the manufacturing sector’s inability to find qualified workers. Approximately 67% of survey respondents attribute the unfilled positions to a shortage of available, qualified workers. Unfilled jobs are mainly in the skilled production category positions (e.g., machinists, operators, craft workers, distributors and technicians).

The report also indicates that this shortage has an impact on the overall competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector. Approximately 64% of respondents report that workforce shortages or skills deficiencies in production roles are having a significant impact on their ability to expand operations or improve productivity.

To resolve these issues long-term, the U.S. must focus on the next generation by developing a skilled workforce that goes beyond the required skills (i.e., a solid math and science base). Respondents indicated that high schools should focus on strengthening students’ critical thinking and problem solving skills.

Anytime we talk about this topic, I have to mention Ready Indiana, the Indiana Chamber’s workforce initiative, and its role in helping connect companies and employees with needed training resources.

Ragan offers 10 things you should not do if you want to keep employees happy. I would add stealing their wallets and facial punching to this list. For elaboration of each point, read the entire post:

1. Playing favorites
2. Taking sides in employee disputes
3. Not giving employees clear performance expectations
4. Not giving employees a forum for voicing suggestions
5. Hiding the bigger picture from employees
6. Knee-jerk reactions to disputes
7. Lack of communication with employees
8. Ignoring the law
9. Not trusting your employees
10. Never rewarding or thanking employees for their hard work