Comments on: From the Editor: Why We’re Writing About SHRM

By: Olivia Brown

Olivia Brown — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:51:27 +0000

I appreciate Workforce’s articles on SHRM and appreciate the candid comments by members. SHRM has never been anything more than a lobbying group for big business who see all HR as Risk Management. Who else would lobby against federal legislation mandating medical coverage providing breast cancer survivors with reconstruction surgery? Who else but big business would oppose the mental health parity act? That a lobbying group would pose as a nonprofit to avoid taxes on assets like these is shameful.
How about when your membership is expiring? They send you renewal invoices about 5 months before your year is up and continue to dun you through the mail and email.
I went to one SHRM convention and it was a laughable rip-off. The registration was quite high and the speakers were mediocre at best, and I suspect free to SHRM as business development they way they hawked their wares through the presentations. The highlight was the free squeeze toys.

By: Mike Losey

Mike Losey — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:22:32 +0000

First of all please allow me to apologize for posting a response that rivals the length of the original article.
But please consider:
Workforce is a competitor to SHRM. What else would you expect — praise or highlighting that SHRM has been recognized as one of the best run not-for-profit associations in the United States?
I was one of the first people who were called to be interviewed for the Workforce SHRM article.
It started with an assumption that SHRM was shafting its members since it had so much money. The question was why didn’t SHRM do something for its members, such as \\

By: cynbrandt PHR

cynbrandt PHR — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:03:33 +0000

Mentioned as an issue in the article is the fact that SHRM essentially
takes all comers as members. This practice has been the subject of much
debate among regulars on SHRM’s “HR Talk” community bulletin board.

I don’t mind the presence of “newbies” and those whose primary function
is not HR. SHRM’s hope is that the access to SHRM’s wealth of
information and to the guidance of seasoned HR pros will help develop
such members’ expertise in and appreciation for HR. We more senior
folks will serve our profession better if we answer inexperienced
members’ questions patiently and graciously (even if it IS about the
zillionth time the particular question has been asked) than if we rudely
direct them to look it up themselves, or - worse - tell them to get out
of the clubhouse.

I do agree with those that suggest that non-HR practitioners should be
in a separate membership category. These individuals may have an
“interest in HR” but if HR isn’t their gig, then I question whether it’s
appropriate for them to vote on SHRM’s leadership and other matters put
before the association’s membership.

In terms of providing professional development opportunities, SHRM is in
a position similar to that of a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse. It’s
difficult to keep everyone engaged when you have those who need to learn
basic skills and those who are seeking advanced knowledge. I think that
this area is something SHRM should seek to improve. Several
suggestions: instead of one annual conference (which has grown so large
that there are few venues capable of accommodating the crowd) have
regional conferences that can focus on a particular career level and/or
a particular subspecialty; try to include in HR Magazine articles
targeted to different skill/knowledge levels; and add to the website an
area specifically for those inexperienced in HR.

I’ve been more than satisfied with the value I’ve gotten from my $160 -
which, by the way, is relatively inexpensive (World at Work is more than
$200 for an annual membership). I don’t even particularly mind that I
must pay for the membership out of my own pocket. Yes, there are some
things SHRM could do better, but for the most part it serves the
membership well.\

By: Bo Carrington

Bo Carrington — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:01:30 +0000

SHRM has a purpose and serves a mission, just not the one that they put in writing. Where SHRM goes wrong is when they indicate that they represent a profession. The reality is they represent a large group of people that may or may not be HR professionals, but that do work in or with some HR functions.\

By: JoAnn Turbin

JoAnn Turbin — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:52:16 +0000

My biggest problem with SHRM is that it so often focuses on middle and larger companies that have whole HR departments. It forgets about the thousands of small companies that have a 1 person hr department who has to know everything from payroll to employment laws. I have been a member for 4 years and it comes in handy when I need to look something up but many of their classes and their magazine deal with things that the little guy doesn\’t need or want to know. I use the magazine for material to help me fall asleep most of the time.