Category Archives: legislative

Shoring Up Pension Plans

About two-thirds of companies that sponsor defined-benefit plans plan to take steps this year to protect their bottom lines from expected rises in premiums from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

That’s according to a new survey from Aon Hewitt, which queried 183 DB plan sponsors about their current and future plans. Twenty-two percent said they’re “very likely” to offer terminated vested participants a lump-sum window this year, while 19 percent plan to increase cash contributions to their plans to reduce PBGC premiums in the year ahead and 21 percent will consider purchasing annuities for some of their plan participants.

“A growing number of plan sponsors anticipate increasing pension plan costs due to recent changes to the Society of Actuaries longevity models and rising PBGC premiums,” said Aon Hewitt’s Ari Jacobs, its global retirement solutions leader.

President Obama has once again proposed giving the PBGC the power to raise premiums on single and multiemployer DB plans, a strategy that would raise a projected $19 billion over the next decade (Congress rejected the President’s previous proposal). This move is staunchly opposed by many in the business community, however — including the ERISA Industry Committee –  who say it would “create a direct conflict of interest.”

“This proposal continues to resurface each year, and policymakers appropriately have rejected it as an inappropriate and impractical expansion of government authority that would hurt plan participants and plan sponsors,” ERIC CEO Annette Guarisco Fildes said in a statement.

Although the PBGC is now on sturdier financial footing than in previous years — thanks in part to an improving economy — the agency still faces considerable deficits in its single-plan and multiemployer insurance plans. The annual report estimates that the multiemployer plan has a 90-percent chance of running out of money by 2025.

Late last year Congress passed the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act, which makes it easier for sponsors of plans that are at serious financial risk to reduce payments to retirees, with the intent of reducing the risk that the PBGC will need to take over the plan.

Twitter It!

2014’s Top 10 Posts

Here at The Leader Board, it was another interesting year covering the HR arena, with issues ranging from the controversy surrounding the HR certification, to lawsuits based on a worker’s commute, to HR leaders’ efforts to ensure their organizations’ compliance with the Affordable Care Act and various other legal requirements, just to name a few.

Below are links to the top 10 most-read posts of 2014, according to Google Analytics.

When viewed together, the posts create an accurate mosaic of the issues HR leaders are faced this year and are likely to continue dealing with into the new year.

Enjoy!

  1. SHRM Rolls Out New Certification (May 13)
  2. HR Plaintiffs Build Their Case Against Lowe’s (Jan. 24)
  3. Google Tackles Incentives and Rewards (April 29)
  4. More Restrictions on Criminal-Background Checks (Feb. 10)
  5. Employers Missing ADA Coverage in FMLA Cases (June 30)
  6. Friedman Shakes It Up at SHRM (June 23)
  7. ‘The 27 Challenges Managers Face’ (July 28)
  8. Who’s Leading the Way? (Nov. 13)
  9. Woman Sues Ex-Employer Over Commute (July 2)
  10. Giving HR the Boot (April 9)
Twitter It!

NLRB: Targeting McDonald’s as ‘Joint Employer’

I suspect most of you have been following, to some extent, the fast-food worker protests of the past couple of years. As recently as Dec. 4, fast-food workers from around the country demonstrated in front of their restaurants, continuing their fight for a $15-an-hour wage. 486860229

Well, the latest update in the story came on Friday, when the National Labor Relations Board issued complaints against McDonald’s franchisees and their franchisor, McDonald’s USA, as joint employers, alleging that they violated the rights of employees participating in the protests by making threats and retaliating against them.

Kendall Fells, organizing director of the Fight for 15, a group formed to advance the cause of a $15 living wage, told the Chicago Tribune (registration required) that “McDonald’s exerts such extensive control over its franchised business operations that, for all intents and purposes, McDonald’s is the boss. It’s obvious that the company should share responsibility with franchisees for the treatment of its workers.”

The NLRB’s General Counsel, Richard Griffin, issued 78 charges against McDonald’s and its franchisees. In response to the NLRB announcement, McDonald’s issued the following statement

“McDonald’s is disappointed with the Board’s decision to overreach and move forward with these charges, and will contest the joint employer allegation as well as the unfair labor practice charges in the proper forums. These allegations are driven in large part by a two-year, union-financed campaign that has targeted the McDonald’s brand and impacted McDonald’s restaurants. McDonald’s has taken the appropriate measures, working properly with its independent franchisees, to defend itself against that attack on its business. McDonald’s serves its 2,500 independent franchisees’ interests by protecting and promoting the McDonald’s brand and by providing access to resources related to food quality, customer service and restaurant management, among other things. These optional resources help entrepreneurs operate successful businesses. This relationship does not establish a joint-employer relationship under the law—and decades of case law support that principle.”

On Friday afternoon, I asked Marshall Babson — counsel in the New York and Washington offices of Seyfarth Shaw, who served as a member of the NLRB from 1985 to 1989 — for his take on the board’s move. “I can’t imagine what evidence the general counsel at NLRB has to justify the issuance of the complaints, but for more than 50 years, the general view has been that you can’t be a joint employer unless you’re an employer,” he said.

“My understanding is that if you’re McDonald’s and most [other] franchisors, you don’t become engaged in the hiring and firing of these employees,” he went on. “You don’t set their wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment on a day-to-day basis. You don’t say that [someone] should be terminated for this or that. … So [the NLRB complaints] represent an extraordinary departure from the past.”

In the 40 years he’s been doing employment law, Babson said he doesn’t recall a single instance when an otherwise legitimate relationship has been challenged in this manner. Babson said his advice to employers continues to be the same: If you’re a franchisor, keep focusing on brand integrity: What kind of uniforms people should wear and the way products should be prepared; and don’t act in the capacity of an employer.

“If it takes the Supreme Court or Congress to once again remind the board that the common-law definition of employer applies here, then [so be it],” he said. “But, in the meantime, it’s unfortunate that this has the potential to disrupt long-term traditional business relationships.”

Twitter It!

DOJ’s Move to Protect Transgender Individuals

Even if you’re not a state or local public employer, you still might want to make note of the following news out of the Justice Department yesterday.

185232263In a memo to the DOJ’s component heads and United States Attorneys, Attorney General Eric Holder said the DOJ is now taking the position that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, including transgender status, thereby clarifying the Civil Rights Division’s ability to file Title VII claims against state and local public employers on behalf of transgender individuals. Put another way, it will no longer assert that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex excludes discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender discrimination.

According to Holder …

“This important shift will ensure that the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are extended to those who suffer discrimination based on gender identity, including transgender status. This will help to foster fair and consistent treatment for all claimants.  And it reaffirms the Justice Department’s commitment to protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”

As most of you already know, the move follows a final rule released by the Department of Labor earlier this month that implements President Obama’s July 21 Executive Order 13672 prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment practices on the bases of gender identity and sexual orientation.

As might be expected, Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told the Associated Press she welcomed the news. But she also noted that, rather than breaking new ground, “it mainly affirms a position the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been taking since 2012.”

Earlier today, I asked Thomas B. Lewis, shareholder in the Princeton, N.J., office of law firm Stevens and Lee, to share his thoughts on the move.

Lewis suggested private employers should pay attention to this, because the “natural progression” will be for these protections to be applied to the private sector.

“These protections already [exist now in some states, such as New Jersey] and I think it’s only natural that other states will follow suit with expanding discrimination protections involving transgender individuals,” he said.

“So if you’re a private-sector employer,” he added, “you have to look at this with an eye toward following the directives of the federal government and stopping any form of discrimination based on somebody’s gender identity and orientation, because it’s not healthy for the workplace environment.”

Twitter It!

Unemployment Discrimination Rears Head Again

76806723 -- unemployedHaven’t seen one of these for awhile.

With the economy slowly, but surely making its way back (at least for now), cases involving unemployment discrimination have taken a back seat to recruiting and talent management, as stories go.

But as this New York Post piece from earlier this month suggests, the issue appears alive and well in a Manhattan-based staffing agency. In her recent lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court State of New York, County of New York, Valerie White claims she was turned down for an HR-coordinator position with Solomon Page Group in late July of this year because she’d been out of work for more than a year.

Here is the actual lawsuit filed, alleging that the company’s director of accounting operations, who joined White and Solomon’s recruiting director for the interview, told White, ” ‘I don’t think you can do this because you have been out of work for a year.’ ”

White claims in the lawsuit she was “extremely humiliated, degraded, victimized, embarrassed and emotionally distressed” by what happened — sentiments echoed in other stories about this issue that we’ve written and come across.

I wrote a news analysis earlier this year about the push from the White House against long-term-unemployment discrimination, including President Obama’s vow during his Jan. 2014 State of the Union address to give more long-term-unemployed Americans a “fair shot” at a job.

At the time of that story, New York was one of 10 states mulling a state law banning such discrimination. New York City, meanwhile, had already enacted, in June of 2013, one of the nation’s most aggressive bans, creating “the first law in the United States that defines a job applicant’s unemployed status as a protected class along with age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation and alienage/citizenship status,” according to this report from the Society for Human Resource Management.

The SHRM piece says the NYC law is broader in scope than other laws (and bills being considered in some states) by providing plaintiffs with the right to pursue private civil claims and by treating unemployed applicants in the same way members of other protected classes are treated under nondiscrimination laws.

I was hoping to get something from Solomon about all this — about its view of the case and about doing business in New York with this law on the books — but Paul Coller, vice president of human resources at Solomon and the company’s chief human resource officer, could only say he and his colleagues “are confident the facts will show that these allegations lack any merit and, due to pending litigation, we have no further comment at this time.”

I guess it remains to be seen just how aggressive this anti-unemployment-discrimination push will be in the months and years to come. I guess it will be economy-driven. For now, my story and this subsequent column from our legal columnist, Paul Salvatore, spell out some things HR should be thinking about and doing around the push .

Salvatore’s reminder:

“HR leaders should consider the best practices released by the White House [during that State of the Union] and signed on to by many large employers. They include:

* Making sure advertising does not discourage or discriminate against the unemployed,

* Reviewing screens or procedures used in recruiting and hiring processes so individuals are not disadvantaged based solely on their unemployment status,

* Reviewing current recruiting practices to ensure a broad net is cast and to encourage all qualified candidates to consider applying, and

* Sharing best practices.”

Granted, the rate of unemployment is lower now than earlier this year, and much lower now than in the five previous years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But it’s also well above the years just preceding the Great Recession and there’s really no telling how many people out there have been out of work for so long they’ve essentially given up hope.

Best to remain vigilant, not to mention compassionate and fair, whichever way the legislative and administrative winds are blowing.

Twitter It!

EEOC Adds Pregnancy Cases to Controversy

Just an update for those who are following the recent pregnancy-discrimination guidelines issued by the Equal Employment 490128943 -- pregnanct employeeOpportunity Commission — despite the controversy some think the agency created amidst the pending U.S. Supreme Court consideration of Young v. United Parcel Inc.:  The EEOC isn’t waiting on the high court before filing or settling pregnancy-discrimination lawsuits either.

According to the EEOC’s website, press releases were issued on nine lawsuits filed and two settlements since the agency issued its updated Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues on July 14.

Here, for your information — should you choose to venture into this much reading — are all the cases the EEOC has filed and listed on its website against employers accused of pregnancy discrimination since the guidance was issued, from most recent to oldest:

All the suits in question accuse the businesses of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

“I am surprised that this issue continues to be a recurring theme in the workplace in this day and age,” says Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, which filed the Pharmacy Solutions lawsuit. “We hope that by continuing to increase public awareness through our law-enforcement efforts, we will see more of an awakening by some companies about the right of a woman to hold on to her job and to earn a living when she is expecting and during her maternity leave.”

But critics of the EEOC’s assertiveness and timing in issuing its guidance — which was the focus of this HREOnline news analysis I wrote back in July — say adding cases to the pregnancy-discrimination docket only clutters an already-cluttered legal landscape.

“With its new pregnancy enforcement guidance still in its first trimester, the EEOC has set about vigorously pursuing companies that do not comply,” thereby filling the courts with more to work on as the Supreme Court hearing has yet to be scheduled,  says Philip Voluck, managing partner in the Blue Bell, Pa., office of Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck.

“Since the EEOC first gave birth [pun intended, no doubt] to the guidance in July, it has inserted itself as plaintiff in at least nine federal-court lawsuits against employers [allegedly] discriminating against pregnant employees,” he says. “Each decision is accompanied by rather strong remarks from the [agency], which state quite clearly its intent to induce an ‘awakening’ by employers and erase ‘archaic prejudices’ still held by companies toward pregnant women.”

The issue up for consideration in Young v. UPS is whether an employer — in this case, UPS —  is required under the PDA to offer light-duty work to pregnant employees with restrictions, even if light-duty work is available for certain categories of nonpregnant employees.

“This is precisely the issue the Supreme Court has yet to take up,” Voluck told me back in July, “and that decision won’t come out until next year some time. “I honestly have no idea why this was issued at this time,” he said then. “A power move? I have no idea.

“It’s like the Perfect Storm, these two entities colliding,” he said, referring to the 2000 movie, “though my crystal ball tells me there’s no doubt the Supreme Court will expand the rights of pregnant women.”

Twitter It!

Microsoft CEO Touts Equal Pay after Apology

Satya_NadellaIt seems Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella (at right) is still in apologetic mode after making some ill-advised comments at a recent conference that, in essence, discouraged female employees from asking for raises.

Apologizing immediately afterward, Nadella now says in this Oct. 20 Time magazine online article, that men and women at Microsoft are paid equally. Clearly, the need for more positive spin is still there.

Here, in case you missed it, is Josh Eidelson’s Oct. 13 post on Bloomberg Businessweek‘s Politics & Policy site about whether Microsoft’s female employees have grounds for a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, based on what Nadella said onstage at the recent Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing Conference in San Francisco.

The post also mentions that Nadella apologized and retracted what he said just hours later in a companywide email, calling his gaffe “completely wrong.” For the record and according to Eidelson, here was his egregious response to a question someone at the conference posed about what he would tell women who are hesitant to ask for a raise:

“It’s not really about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along. And that, I think, might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don’t ask for a raise have. Because that’s good karma. It’ll come back, because somebody’s going to know that’s the kind of person that I want to trust. That’s the kind of person that I want to really give more responsibility to.”

Wilma Liebman, who chaired the NLRB during President Obama’s first term and now lectures at Cornell University, says in the post, “You could make a very clear argument that [such a comment] means, ‘Don’t ask for a raise, and if you ask for a raise, you’re not going to be trusted.’ And ‘you’re not going to be trusted’ translates to ‘you could be in some jeopardy.’ ”

The issue raised in the Businessweek piece, of course — since it considers NLRB review and possible enforcement of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act — is whether Nadella’s message explicitly chills a protected concerted activity; i.e., a group of Microsoft women banding together in search of higher pay.

Lawyers are mixed on that one. “If a group of women said these comments chilled them from seeking together to get better pay in the workplace, they could file an unfair labor practice claim with the NLRB,” Paul Secunda, director of the Labor and Employment Law Program at Marquette University Law School, is quoted as saying in that story.

On the other hand, the story says, Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor and former Department of Justice official, doubts Nadella’s comments would merit NLRB review, considering he didn’t specifically address that kind of group activism. “Asking for a raise for oneself only would count as concerted activity if there was an argument that the employee was asserting a grievance that was or could be expected to be shared by others,” Bagenstos is quoted as saying.

Hope B. Eastman, principal at Bethesda, Md.-based Paley Rothman and co-chair of its employment law group, who I spoke with about this, concurs. “The fact that Nadella has apologized and retracted his statement, and the fact that his comment was in the context of an individual woman asking for a raise,” she says, “makes it unlikely that the NLRB would take this on … .”

That said, she adds, “there have been studies suggesting that women do not negotiate salaries as well as men; this is an issue that needs attention.” So the silver lining, I guess, is that this issue was given new light through Nadella’s comments.

The Businessweek piece also brings up another story we followed in 2011 on this blog, when the NLRB issued a complaint against Boeing, claiming executives’ public comments about striking employees in the state of Washington suggested they were to blame for the company’s intended move to a new South Carolina site at the time. (Here’s one other mention of that story on this blog.)

As Eidelson points out, that Boeing story establishes “precedent for investigating public comments from an executive as alleged discrimination.”

And — aside from staying on that apparently long, arduous road toward equal pay — what’s the message for HR in all this? I guess check with your C-suiters on absolutely everything they intend to say publicly before they take the podium or stage …

If that’s even possible.

Twitter It!

Yes, a ‘Cantankerous Jerk’ Can Be Fired

177030950 -- angry bossCan a person be lawfully terminated just for being a hard-core grump? Yes, says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Matthew Weaving v. City of Hillsboro.

Weaving, an officer with the Hillsboro (Ore.) Police Department, was cited several times over a period of years for conflicts with fellow employees. A formal report — issued after a departmental investigation of an officer’s grievance about him — concluded he was “tyrannical, unapproachable, belittling, demeaning, threatening, intimidating, arrogant and vindictive.” (That’s quite a list.)

Based on the investigation, which also found Weaving had created a hostile work environment and did not possess the emotional intelligence to work in a team environment, he was fired Dec. 11, 2009, after three years with the force.

He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and this condition caused his work conflicts and limited his ability to work or interact with others (a requirement of his job).

He contended his ADHD was a disability, which a district court upheld, but the appeals court reversed. (For everything you ever wanted to know about Weaving’s contention and how both courts viewed the ADHD/ADA issue, see both links above.)

Considering Weaving’s argument that ADHD falls under the ADA, I thought I’d share several earlier blog posts from some of us at HRE that delve into other expansions of, or attempts to expand, the definition of disability under the law.

This one, by David Shadovitz, delves into an appeals court ruling establishing that temporary impairments are now allowed under the law so long as they’re severe enough.

This post, by Mark McGraw, also gets into the temporary-condition allowance, in a different lawsuit, and mentions the American Medical Association’s new definition of obesity as a disease, adding exponentially to the ranks of the disabled.

And this from me a few years back highlights an informal letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission warning that requiring a high-school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because the requirement could effectively screen out anyone unable to graduate because of a learning disability.

Meanwhile, in this latest case, employers have good reason to breathe a sigh of relief, says Myra Creighton, a partner with Atlanta-based Fisher & Phillips. The case, she told me, “upholds the principle that employers can enforce their employee-conduct standards governing personal interaction without worrying that the employee will blame his or her bad behavior on his or her disability.”

The ruling doesn’t, however, rule out ADHD as a disability if the plaintiff can prove the condition limits his or her ability to work.

As the Practical Law piece in the first link above puts it, the Ninth Circuit majority held “that the employee’s condition … did not rise to the level of disability [and argued] that a different holding … would open employers to potential liability each time they take an adverse-employment action concerning a hostile employee.”

The dissenting minority, however, it says, notes that “employers are [still] left in the complicated position of having to determine whether an individual, who has been properly diagnosed with ADHD, should be deemed disabled or just a jerk.”

 

 

Twitter It!

Getting Out the Vote

Business groups are looking to make a difference in November’s midterm elections.

As a recent piece on the The Hill website reports, “Heavyweight groups such as the National Retail Federation, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Associated General Contractors of America and BIPAC are among those seeking to increase engagement in the political process this year.”

According to The Hill, more than 90 companies and industry groups are taking part in the Employee Voter Registration Week (which ends today), including the American Forest & Paper Association, Anadarko Petroleum, Caterpillar, eBay and a slew of state-level organizations.  Their hope is to break the gridlock and get employees registered and involved.

About 54 percent of American voters went to the polls two years ago, compared to around 38 percent in the 2010 midterms.

David French, the senior vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation who discussed the initiative at a press conference the other day (see video), notes that …

“Any of these races could be decided by a few hundred votes, so a strong turnout from the business community could make the difference between a candidate who understands our concerns and a candidate who’s tuned to other voters’ interests.”

As The Hill piece explains, “trade groups and corporations will not be instructing their members and employees how to vote or who to vote for … but will be providing information about deadlines, how to register and where to vote.”

I asked Littler Shareholder Michael Lotito (who is based in San Francisco, but always keeps a watchful eye on what policymakers are up to in Washington) to share his thoughts on the significance of this effort.

Lotito sees it as a counter weight to what the American Federation of Labor does in getting out the vote through registration drives and email solicitations.

“Businesses have been largely quiet in this regard,” he says. “But often, the employees would benefit from hearing from their employer as to how the positions of candidates and state and local propositions may impact the company and, either directly or indirectly, the employees who depend on the company.  Many companies are not engaged in this process, not even encouraging their people to register and vote, let alone modify work schedules on election day to make sure people can vote.”

Lotito also suggests that HR might want to be more than just a bystander in this regard. “Let HR be the leader for the identification of issues, how those items will impact the company, which candidates (regardless of party) advances those interests, and then advising how a person can register to vote, obtain absentee ballots and go to the polls on election day.”

At the end of the day, it’s probably going to be tough to know how much of an impact any of this will have, but with voter turnout for the midterms being as pitiful as it is, it would seem to me that any effort to get citizens more engaged (if I can borrow a word from the HR lexicon) in our electoral system should be viewed as a good thing.

In case you’re wondering, the midterms are November 4—so, if you haven’t yet, mark it down.

Twitter It!

Bullying Touches All Races and Roles

467291571 -- bullying2A fairly comprehensive — and concerning — report on bullying was released by CareerBuilder on Thursday, showing office bullying knows no partiality when it comes to who the victims are.

The survey of 3,372 U.S. full-time, private-sector employees, conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Chicago-based CareerBuilder, shows 28 percent of respondents have felt bullied at work and 19 percent of them left their jobs because of it.

More importantly, while the prevalence of bullying is higher among certain minorities and workers with lower incomes, the study finds workers in management roles, those with post-secondary education and other workforce segments are not immune.

“One of the most surprising takeaways from the study was that bullying impacts workers of all backgrounds regardless of race, education, income and level of authority within an organization,” says Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder.

“Many of the workers who have experienced this don’t confront the bully or elect not to report the incidents,” she says, “which can prolong a negative work experience that leads some to leave their jobs.”

Here’s how the percentages of respondents who say they are currently being bullied break down in the study:

Job Level

  • Management (manager, director, team leader, vice president and above) – 27 percent
  • Professional and technical – 21 percent
  • Entry-level/administrative and clerical– 26 percent

Highest Level of Education Attained

  • High-school graduate – 28 percent
  • Associate’s degree – 21 percent
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher – 23 percent

Compensation Level

  • Earning less than $50,000 – 28 percent
  • Earning $50,000 or more – 19 percent

And here’s what I found to be a pretty interesting breakdown as well, the varying ways bullying victims felt bullied on the job:

  • Falsely accused of mistakes he/she didn’t make – 43 percent,
  • Comments were ignored, dismissed or not acknowledged – 41 percent,
  • A different set of standards or policies was used for the worker – 37 percent,
  • Gossip was spread about the worker – 34 percent,
  • Constantly criticized by the boss or co-workers – 32 percent,
  • Belittling comments were made about the person’s work during meetings – 29 percent,
  • Yelled at by the boss in front of co-workers – 27 percent,
  • Purposely excluded from projects or meetings – 20 percent,
  • Credit for his/her work was stolen – 20 percent, and
  • Picked on for personal attributes (race, gender, appearance, etc.) – 20 percent.

And you might find this surprising. I did. Comparing the public and private sectors, workers in government were nearly twice as likely to report being bullied (47 percent) than those in the corporate world (28 percent).

Meanwhile, as David Shadovitz reported back in July, the nation’s road to anti-bullying legislation at the state level — starting with Tennessee — appears to be a slow one, despite the fact that 28 states have introduced such legislation this year.

In fact, as Mark McGraw posted on this blog a little later that month, one of those states — New Hampshire — went in the opposite direction, when its governor — Maggie Hassan — vetoed the bill pending there because its definition of abusive conduct was too broad.

The silver lining there, McGraw says, is that both the governor and the bill’s sponsor acknowledge workplace bullying is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

My guess is the people in that camp far outweigh those questioning the problem’s seriousness. CareerBuilder’s certainly in the former. So what’s it gonna take to get more laws on the books?

 

Twitter It!