Category Archives: HR profession

A Bad Day for Puzder and Unions

Andrew Puzder (photo by Gage Skidmore)

He’s outta there — Andrew Puzder is, at any rate, having withdrawn his name from consideration as President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Labor. Trump introduced today Alexander Acosta, dean of Florida International University College of Law and a former member of the National Labor Relations Board, as his new DOL nominee. Puzder’s nomination had been plagued by controversy from the start. Current and former employees of CKE Restaurants, where Puzder serves as CEO, accused him of vastly underpaying workers and denying them benefits at the company’s Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. fast-food chains and musing aloud that he wished he could replace them with robots. Matters were not helped by an investigation by Capital & Main that uncovered a widespread pattern of abuse, harassment and discrimination of and against CKE employees at the chain-store and corporate level. Six cases were filed against the company by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “far more than any other large burger chain on a per-revenue basis, with the exception of Sonic Drive-In,” the website reported.

Puzder enjoyed strong support from many in the business community, as our story in December reported. However, Democrats were strongly against him. “Puzder’s disdain for the American worker, the very people he would be responsible for protecting, is second to none,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., told CNN.

What really appeared to sink Puzder’s nomination, however, was the revelation that he’d employed an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper and the allegations of brutal domestic abuse against his ex-wife (although she’s since denied that the abuse took place) that culminated in the release on Politico of an Oprah Winfrey episode that featured the ex-wife, Lisa Fierstein, in disguise describing details of the abuse she’d said she’d suffered. A number of Republican Senators informed the White House that they would no longer support Puzder, who announced his withdrawal yesterday afternoon.

Labor advocates cheered Puzder’s withdrawal, but they’re probably not happy about the closely-watched vote that took place yesterday at Boeing’s South Carolina plant, in which workers voted overwhelmingly against joining the International Association of Machinists union.  More than 2,000 of the 3,000 workers eligible to vote voted no, while only 700 voted in favor, CNN reports. Had the workers voted in favor of the union, it would have marked a big change in South Carolina, a right-to-work state with the lowest union membership rate of any state in the country, at 1.6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The union had previously called for a vote at the plant in 2015 but canceled it amid doubts about worker support. Now it will have to wait for a year before calling for another election, per National Labor Relations Board rules.

Boeing had argued strongly against unionization, with management saying the union would call for costly strikes and was not needed. However, the IAM had argued during its campaign that workers at the South Carolina plant were paid wages that are 36 percent lower than their counterparts at Boeing’s heavily unionized plants in Washington state.

Boeing management expressed victory. “We will continue to move forward as one team,” Joan Robinson-Berry, vice president in charge of Boeing South Carolina, said in a statement.

In his own statement, IAM lead organizer Mike Evans said: “We’re disappointed the workers at Boeing South Carolina will not yet have the opportunity to see all the benefits that come with union representation.”

Office Romances Hit 10-Year High

In case you haven’t noticed all the heart-shaped sweet treats making the rounds today at work, it’s Valentine’s Day!

And, just in time for the annual event, a new report from CareerBuilder finds romantic relationships among co-workers “may be more common than you think.”

According to CareerBuilder’s annual Valentine’s Day survey, 41 percent of workers have dated a co-worker (up from 37 percent last year and the highest since 2007). Additionally, 30 percent of these office romances have led to marriage, on par with last year’s findings.

(The national survey was conducted online by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder from a representative sample of 3,411 full-time, private sector workers across industries and company sizes.)

Office romances are just not happening between peers, according to the report:

Of those who have had an office romance, more than 1 in 5 (29 percent, up from 23 percent last year) have dated someone in a higher position than them — a more common occurrence for women than men (33 percent versus 25 percent).

Fifteen percent of workers who have had an office romance say they have dated someone who was their boss.

And as if dating a superior weren’t risky enough, 19 percent of office romances involved at least one person who was married at the time.

As you might expect, keeping a workplace relationship out of the workplace is difficult. with nearly two in five workers who have had an office romance (38 percent) saying they had to keep the relationship a secret at work. Male workers were just as likely to keep their office romances secret (40 percent) compared to their female counterparts (37 percent).

By region, of those who have had office romances, 45 percent of workers in the Northeast say they kept their office relationships secret compared to 41 percent in the South, 34 percent in the West, and 31 percent in the Midwest.

On an admittedly rather ambiguous concluding note, the survey notes that, while 7 percent of workers say they currently work with someone they would like to date this year, 5 percent of workers who have had an office romance say they have left a job because of an office relationship gone sour.

 

 

Travel Ban Would Impact Many

Though President Trump’s travel ban has been frozen indefinitely, a decision made Thursday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, it’s still worth noting how many organizations would be affected should Trump proceed successfully in appealing the decision to the United States Supreme Court. He has vowed to do just this, according to the New York Times report linked above. (More recently, on Friday, he said he is now considering rewriting the immigration executive order in question.)

Whatever we end up with,  a survey of 261 companies by the Seattle-based Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) — conducted just a few days after Trump signed the order restricting entry to the U.S. by travelers from seven majority Muslim countries — reveals more than a third (36 percent) of organizations would be impacted by the travel ban. Another 21 percent were still scrambling to make that determination at the time of the poll.

Within a week of the signing of the executive order, nearly 100 companies — including many of the largest global-tech organizations such as Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and Uber — responded by joining in the filing of a brief in support of a lawsuit against the travel ban filed by the state of Washington. It was that lawsuit that was at the heart of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision Thursday.

In its release about the survey, i4cp describes the responses as very mixed:

“While some respondents lauded the executive order for protecting the safety of employees, others drew attention to its potentially negative impact on the recruiting and motivation of a diverse, inclusive global workforce, a clear illustration of the polarization of views and reactions.”

Some respondents reported they are simply unsure of the impact of the travel restrictions because of a “lack of transparency in their global contract workforces, which are managed by vendors,” the release states.

Human resources, however, was the predominant responsible party (at 41 percent) for managing internally anyone affected by the ban, followed by legal, 7 percent; CEO, 6 percent; other senior executive, 5 percent; and security, 1 percent. (Other responses included don’t know, 10 percent, and other, 30 percent.) As i4cp states:

“Often, [HR’s lead] is in conjunction with legal teams responding to the needs of individual employees.”

In a few cases, companies reported having multifunctional “SWAT” teams in place responding to the situation. And nearly a third said they are providing legal assistance to affected employees and their families.

Of course, these were the actions in place when the ban was in place. No doubt things have returned to normal since the freeze and its being upheld in appeals court. But should Trump succeed at the Supreme Court level, these challenges would be back on employers’ plates immediately. Would be wise to stay poised to help these employees — and clearly, there are a lot of them — once again if need be.

Lipnic Outlines EEOC Priorities

I’m sure many of you are wondering what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission might look like under the Trump administration. Well, yesterday, we were given a bit of a glimpse, when newly named Acting Chair of the EEOC Victoria Lipnic offered her first public comments during a discussion and live webinar that took place in the Chicago offices of Seyfarth Shaw. (Lipnic served as counsel for the law firm before arriving at the Commission in 2010 and was named Acting Chair of the agency by President Trump on Jan. 25.)

Seyfarth Shaw Partner Gerald Maatman, author of the recently released 13th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, joined her for the discussion.

As reported in an article appearing on the Corporate Counsel website, Lipnic suggested that the agency will “focus on cases involving age discrimination and equal pay while exploring ways to foster job growth in companies.”

“Lipnic said she believes more will remain the same than will change,” according to the Corporate Counsel piece. “ ‘We are an enforcement agency … and the EEOC is committed to its core values and mission, to enforce civil rights laws in the workplace.’ ”

She also said she wanted to “re-evaluate the costs and benefits of the modified EEO-1 report, a detailed compliance survey that employers must fill out,” the story reported.

Speaking to that point, Randy Coffey, a partner with Fisher Phillips in Kansas City, commented in a piece posted on HREOnline earlier this month that “Lipnic opposed additions to the current EEO-1 reporting requirements relating to collection of employee pay data, due to the burden of compliance for employers and the lack of usefulness of this type of generalized data.”

I suspect we’ll see, in fairly short order, how this ultimately translates into policy changes.

Facebook Boosts Bereavement Leave

In 2015, SurveyMonkey CEO Dave Goldberg died unexpectedly at the age of 47. On Tuesday, his wife — Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg — announced that the social networking giant will now give employees up to 20 days of paid bereavement leave in the event of an immediate family member’s death and up to 10 days for the death of an extended family member.

“People should be able both to work and be there for their families. No one should face this trade-off,” Sandberg wrote in a Facebook post announcing the new policy. “Amid the nightmare of Dave’s death when my kids needed me more than ever, I was grateful every day to work for a company that provides bereavement leave and flexibility. I needed both to start my recovery.”

Sandberg also announced that the company will offer up to six weeks of paid leave to care for a sick relative and three paid days for employees to care for a relative with a short-term illness, such as  a child with the flu.

Facebook’s generous bereavement policy puts it far ahead of most — if not all — U.S. employers. Although 80 percent of U.S. companies have bereavement policies, they offer an average of only four paid days of leave for the death of an immediate family member, according to the Society for Human Resource Management’s 2016 Paid Leave in the Workplace survey. There is no federal law requiring employers to give workers paid time off to grieve for the death of a loved one.

Obviously, most companies don’t have the financial resources of Facebook (which is also locked in an arms race with other well-funded Silicon Valley companies for tech talent) and probably won’t be emulating it anytime soon, if ever. But I hope that Sandberg’s announcement gets HR and other company leaders to seriously think about the support they currently offer to grieving employees and consider giving more. Here at HRE, we have several colleagues who’ve suffered the loss of a close family member within the last year and a half.  No amount of time off can make up for such a loss, but simply giving employees the support and the time necessary for attending to the so-called “business of death” — making funeral arrangements, resolving legal and financial issues, comforting other family members — means a lot.  And that often requires more than three or four days.

 

‘Flexing’ to Close Gender Gap

Seventy percent of working mothers say having a flexible work schedule is extremely important to them, according to a Pew survey. (So do 48 percent of working fathers.)

To that end, a new job board is looking to leverage workplace flexibility to help close the gender gap, according to this new piece in the New York Times Upshot section:

A new job search company, Werk, is trying to address the [gender-gap] problem by negotiating for flexibility with employers before posting jobs, so employees don’t have to.

Facebook, Uber and Samsung are among the companies with job listings on the Werk site, in which all the positions listed “are highly skilled jobs that offer some sort of control over the time and place of work. People can apply to jobs that let them work away from the office all the time or some of the time, and at hours other than 9-to-5, part time or with minimal travel.”

Another option the site offers gives workers the freedom to adjust their schedules, no questions asked, because of unpredictable home and/or family obligations.

The story quotes Gerard Masci, founder and chief executive of Lowercase, a start-up eyeglass maker in Brooklyn, who just hired a vice president for communications on Werk. The company’s new hire works part-time and remotely, except for monthly in-person meetings.

“I don’t care if this week you work less if in a month you work more, and whether they work in the space or not is irrelevant,” Mr. Masci said. “All I care about is the productivity in the end.”

The full story is well worth a read for any HR leaders who are looking for ways to improve flexibility efforts without sacrificing productivity or quality talent.

 

Fix STEM Gap by Making Science Fun

Anything that encourages and inspires the mastery of science in this country raises my interest. I come from a long line of scientists who — aside from being brilliant heroes of mine — always found ways, and time, to give back to schools and students to encourage a love of science.

My late dad, an oceanographer, told me more than once that the key to the math and science problem in America (i.e., not enough college graduates entering the workforce with science, technology, engineering, and math mastery and career plans) is that too few schools are making STEM fun. How can you be inspired by something that     isn’t at least a little bit fun?

Which is why this release about the 11th Annual Arizona Regional Science Bowl held Saturday before last caught my eye and had me reading on, not just about Arizona’s competition, but the national one as well, the one that all regional meets feed. There’s even a National Ocean Sciences Bowl. Not sure my dad knew about that one. He would have loved it.

Organized and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy since its inception back in 1991, the National Science Bowl follows a quiz-show format, with a buzzer system in place for contestants to signal their answers. Students compete in teams starting in their regional middle- and high-school competitions with the goal of getting an all-expense-paid trip to the national bowl if they win. This year’s national event takes place in Washington from April 27 through May 1. (Here’s a video from last year’s national competition in case you’re as curious as I was.)

My sense of it after reading up on both the regional and national events is this bowl idea sounds far more exciting, engaging and competitive than most other organized attempts to instill the love of science in tomorrow’s workforce. It also sounds fun.

I guess you could say it feels like the difference between a health-risk and body-mass assessment and a wellness program that gets participants truly engaged and enthused.

At a time when employers, particularly those in tech-reliant industries, are bemoaning the dearth of STEM-educated job candidates (consider what we’ve written here on HRE Daily and on HREOnline.com, for instance), it makes a whole lot of sense for businesses to support these regional bowls, and our national one.

Not only are you helping your high-tech talent-pipeline, you’d also be doing something very nice for your reputation as a community/U.S./future-workforce supporter.

LGBTQ Protections Spared — For Now

Given the combative tone of the first week of the Trump administration (at least as it related to Mexicans, Muslims and the media) it may have come as a surprise to some to learn President Trump will maintain workplace protections for gays and lesbians instituted during the Obama administration, according to multiple news reports.

“The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump,” the administration said in a statement.

USA Today reported that gay rights groups had expressed concern that Trump would reverse that order, but White House aides said such a step has not been contemplated. Drafts of proposed orders to roll back the Obama order had circulated through Washington in recent days, which caused concern among LGBTQ activists and others.

The Washington Post’s coverage includes a statement from Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in which he says he and other activists remained concerned that the new administration could still undermine other legal protections based on sexual orientation or gender identify:

“Claiming ally status for not overturning the progress of your predecessor is a rather low bar. LGBTQ refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women are scared today, and with good reason. Donald Trump has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House,” Griffin said. “Donald Trump has left the key question unanswered — will he commit to opposing any executive actions that allow government employees, taxpayer-funded organizations or even companies to discriminate?”

The New York Times first reported the decision by the White House to stick with the Obama-era protections.

 

Make Those Vacation Plans Today

Just a heads up that, if you’d like to join forces with the Entertainment Benefits Group and Project: Time Off in encouraging employees to take all their vacation time, today (Tuesday) is the day to get them poring over their calendars.

Both groups have joined together in a Jan. 31 “call to action” for more American workers to get a “jumpstart on planning their vacation,” according to this release from the EBG. In the words of Brett Reizen, president and CEO of EBG:

“[Our] mission is to bring fun and happiness to people’s lives by providing employees nationwide direct access to special offers on top travel and entertainment products across the country. Living in a work-driven culture where vacation and time off is essential, we embraced the chance to … foster work/life balance, boost employee happiness and increase productivity in the workplace.”

(EBG, a U.S. corporate travel and entertainment benefits program, will support the initiative by providing employers and their employees access to exclusive offers on premier travel and entertainment experiences through its corporate programs division — TicketsatWork, Plum Benefits and Working Advantage.)

PTO’s release on the big day tomorrow is full of some stats from a recent survey it conducted that you might find interesting — if not alarming — such as:

“Americans leave 658 million days unused each year. The single-most important step workers can take is to plan their time off in advance. Yet less than half — 49 percent — of households set aside time to plan the use of their vacation time each year.”

Also, according to the PTO research, 51 percent of those who plan their vacation took all of their time off, where just 39 percent of non-planners did, and 69 percent of planners took a week or more of vacation time, where just 46 percent of non-planners did.

We’ve posted our own vacation red flags and statistics for employers here on HRE Daily, including the huge number of “under-vacationed” employees and some of the reasons for it, such as the fact that others in the workplace — managers and co-workers — tend to shame vacation-takers.

If reading up on the merits of enforcing or, at least, encouraging the taking of all allotted vacation time, consider these additional stats from PTO’s research:

  • The time spent planning correlated with greater happiness in nine categories, including:

    • 85 percent of planners report they are happier with their relationships with their significant other, compared to 72 percent of non-planners.
    • 69 percent of planners, compared to 60 percent of non-planners, report being happy with their relationships with their children.
    • 81 percent of planners say they are happy with their financial situation, compared to 71 percent of non-planners.
    • 90 percent of planners are happy with their professional success, compared to 82 percent of non-planners.

Now, whether taking vacations led to this increased happiness and success or happy, successful people are the ones more likely to take all of their vacation time is unclear.

What is clear, to me anyway, is employers have nothing to lose and a lot to gain, including in employee productivity and engagement, by making sure employees are getting out of the office as much as they’re entitled to.

Discriminatory Dress Codes in the U.K.

Over on the other side of the Atlantic, a storm is brewing over the unequal treatment of women in the workplace. The United Kingdom has a law in place — the Equality Act of 2010 –intended to prevent such treatment. However, that apparently hasn’t stopped U.K. employers from ordering their female employees to wear high heels, dye their hair blonde and dress themselves in revealing outfits. That’s according to a recent report by the British Parliament, undertaken in the wake of a petition signed by more than 150,000 people calling for a law that would ban organizations from requiring women to wear heels at work. The parliamentary investigators received complaints from hundreds of U.K. women who said they were subject to sexist dress codes by their employers.

As reported in yesterday’s New York Times, Nicola Thorp started the petition after she was sent home without pay from her job as a temporary receptionist for refusing to comply with an order that she get herself a pair of shoes with heels that were at least two inches high. Turns out that Portico, the receptionist-services firm that formerly employed Thorp, had quite an extensive employee dress code that covered just about every aspect of a woman’s appearance, including hair (“regularly maintained hair colour — if individual colours hair — with no visible roots”), makeup (“makeup worn at all times and regularly reapplied … “) and footwear (“Heel height normally a minimum of 2 inches and maximum of 4 inches, unless otherwise agreed by the company”). The code even suggested the palette of nail polishes that was acceptable. Portico said it changed its policy after Thorp raised the issue, the Times reports.

Thorp told the Times that part of the reason she started her protest was concern for the health effects of wearing high heels throughout the workday: “The company expected me to do a nine-hour shift on my feet escorting clients to meeting rooms. I told them that I just wouldn’t be able to do that in heels.”

Thorp is hardly alone in her concern about the physical effects from being forced to wear high heels all day: “We heard from hundreds of women who told us about the pain and long-term damage caused by the wearing of high heels for long periods in the workplace, as well as from women who had been required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to constantly reapply makeup,” the report said. It cited longstanding medical evidence showing that women who wear high heels for long periods of time can suffer physical damage, including stress fractures.

U.K. lawmakers expressed concern that the Equality Act has not been effective in preventing employers from applying sexist dress codes. The report calls for “urgent action” by the government, including increased financial penalties for employers that break the law. However, Thorp said she wasn’t satisfied, telling The Guardian she was “absolutely chuffed to bits” that the report’s recommendations didn’t go further.

“The petition took off and I was very pleased to see the debate over heels grow to one about clothes, and continue moving on to other aspects of how women are treated in a work environment,” she told the paper. “We now need to see the government take these recommendations on board. The law should not just be changed but enforced.”

Under current U.K. law, instructing women to wear high heels at work “isn’t necessarily sex discrimination, ” Julia Wilson, an employment lawyer at Baker McKenzie, told British newspaper The Independent. “If [members of Parliament] want clear rules and fines for companies in relation to dress code practices, that is likely to require a change in the law.”