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.

 

Millennials on the Move?

For years, employers have been led to believe that millennial workers are habitual job-hoppers with one eye always on the door.

That perception—if it was ever accurate in the first place—might be increasingly off the mark.

Consider the 2017 Millennial Survey conducted by Deloitte. In a poll of roughly 8,000 millennial-age workers from 30 countries, 38 percent of respondents said they would leave their jobs within two years if given the opportunity. That number stood at 44 percent when Deloitte carried out the same survey last year. Additionally, 31 percent anticipate staying in their present roles beyond five years, compared to the 27 percent who said as much in 2016.

Some of the circumstances driving Generation Y to seek more stability in the workplace, it turns out, have little to do with work. For example, the survey sees the effects of terror attacks in Europe, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and—no surprise—a brutally contentious political climate in the United States leading millennials to cling more closely to the security of their current jobs.

Such matters are the main source of anxiety among millennials in mature markets such as France, Germany and the U.S. Meanwhile, a majority of Gen Y workers (58 percent) in emerging markets like Argentina, Brazil and India see crime and corruption as an even bigger threat, with 50 percent saying the same about hunger/healthcare/inequality.

“Millennials, especially those in mature European economies, have serious concerns about the directions in which their countries are going,” according to an executive summary of the findings. “They are particularly concerned about uncertainty arising from conflict, as well as other issues that include crime, corruption and unemployment.”

Indeed, the specter of unemployment lingers from past surveys, according to Deloitte, as this year’s poll finds 25 percent of millennials fearing the prospect of being out of work.

“Having lived through the ‘economic meltdown’ that began in 2008, and with high levels of youth unemployment continuing to be a feature of many economies, it is natural that millennials will continue to be concerned about the job market,” according to Deloitte.

Taken together, these factors are conspiring to create a real sense of fear among millennials, many of whom fret for their futures. In mature markets, for instance, just 36 percent of millennials predict they will be financially better off than their parents. Only 31 percent feel they’ll ultimately be happier.

“This pessimism is a reflection of how millennials’ personal concerns have shifted,” says Punit Renjen, Deloitte’s global CEO, in a statement. “Four years ago, climate change and resource scarcity were among millennials’ top concerns. This year, crime, corruption, war and political tensions are weighing on the minds of young professionals, which impacts both their personal and professional outlooks.”

Still, while many millennial workers question their ability to affect significant societal change on their own, these same employees feel they can make a difference with their employer’s help. The good news is that the corporate world is helping them do just that, with more than half of the millennials polled saying they are able to contribute to charities and worthwhile causes in their workplaces.

Of course, the organization also wins when employees get involved in such efforts.

“The survey’s findings suggest those given such opportunities show a greater level of loyalty to their employers, which is consistent with the connection we saw last year between loyalty and a company’s sense of purpose,” according to Jim Moffatt, Deloitte global consulting CEO.

“But, we are also seeing that purpose has benefits beyond retention. Those who have a chance to contribute are less pessimistic about their countries’ general social [and] political situations, and have a more positive opinion of business behavior.”

 

‘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.

Labor Market Continues to Tighten

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest official employment report shows that businesses added 227,000 workers last month and the unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.8 percent, while the January national employment report from ADP’s Research Institute shows that private-sector employers adding 246, 000 jobs in January. The BLS report beat estimates by economists surveyed prior to its release by Reuters, who’d predicted the report would show a gain of 175,000 jobs.

The BLS and ADP employment reports are based on different methodologies, as CNBC’s Mark Fahey has noted: ADP counts all employees who are listed as active on an employer’s payroll, while the BLS surveys companies to tally employees who are actually paid. The reports differ by 40,000 about half the time, he wrote.

“The U.S. labor market is hitting on all cylinders and we saw small and mid-sized businesses perform exceptionally well,” said ADP Vice President Ahu Yildirmarz, the co-head of the payroll-processing giant’s Research Institute.

That’s not to say everything’s rosy on the employment front: Yesterday, outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas released its monthly jobs-cut report, which shows U.S. companies made nearly 46,000 job cuts in January — up 37 percent from December, when layoffs totaled 33,627.  However, while last month’s tally was the highest since last April (64,141), it’s a year-over-year improvement from January 2016, when employers announced 75,114 job cuts. This January’s job reductions were concentrated  in retail, which accounted for 49 percent of the job cuts, while retail and energy accounted for the much of the cuts in January 2016. Macy’s led the pack last month, announcing plans to close 68 of its stores and reduce its workforce by 10,000 workers.

“Overall, it was a solid holiday shopping season, but several retailers, including Macy’s, were unable to capitalize on stronger consumer confidence and spending,” said John A. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

ADP’s report, based on payroll data compiled from its 411,000 U.S. clients, shows that mid-sized businesses with between 50 and 499 employees added the most jobs in January (102,000). Large companies with 500 or more employees added 83,000 jobs, while small businesses (those with between 1 and 49 employees) added 62,000 positions.

“2017 got off to a strong start in the job market,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, which helps ADP produce the report. “Job growth is solid across most industries and company sizes. Even the energy sector is adding to payrolls again.”

The BLS report finds that January’s robust employment numbers did not lead to increases in workers’ pay, with a year over year increase of 2.5 percent, compared to 2.9 percent in December.  A smaller-scale study,  Glassdoor’s Local Pay Reports — which monitor salaries for approximately 60 job titles across multiple industries — finds that the annual median base pay in the United States grew by 3.2 percent year over year in January to $51,360.

The positive sentiment on jobs is reflected in Gallup’s latest Job Creation Index, which measures U.S. workers’ perceptions of their workplace’s job climate. The JCP’s January score of +34 is the highest in its nine-year history, Gallup reports. That score compares to JCIs of -5 in January and April of 2009, when the country was in the depths of the Great Recession. Gallup bases the JCI on a daily, randomized sample of employed U.S. adults’ perceptions of their workplace’s hiring-and-firing activity.

No Movement on Maternity Leave

Despite a host of factors that would suggest otherwise, the number of U.S. women taking maternity leave has changed very little in the last two-plus decades.

So says a new study from Ohio State University, which finds that, on average, roughly 273,000 women in the United States took maternity leave each month between the years 1994 and 2015, “with no trend upward or downward,” according to an OSU statement. Fewer than half of those women were paid during their leave, the same statement notes.

Pointing to variables like an economy that has grown 66 percent in that time, and the number of states implementing paid family leave legislation over that 22-year span, study author Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at OSU’s Center for Human Resource Research, “expected to see an increasing number of women taking maternity leave. It was surprising and troubling that I didn’t.”

Zagorsky did, however, find the number of fathers taking paternity leave tripling between 1994 and 2015, “although the numbers are much smaller than those of women taking time off.”

More specifically, the number of men taking paternity leave rose from 5,800 men per month in ’94 to 22,000 per month in ’15.

In addition, Zagorsky’s study—based on data culled from the Current Population Survey, a monthly poll conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau—found that most women taking maternity leave were not paid. Less than half (48 percent) were compensated for leave in 2015. And, paid maternity leave is increasing, but only at a rate of less than one percentage point per year, according to Zagorsky.

“At that rate, it will take about another decade before even half of U.S. women going on leave will get paid time off,” he says. “This is a very low figure for the nation with the world’s largest annual gross domestic product.”

By comparison, more than 70 percent of men taking paternity leave in 2015 were compensated for their time off, says Zagorsky, who reasons that “one possible reason for this gender gap is that few men are willing to take unpaid leave to care for a newborn.”

Given that the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product went from $9.9 trillion a year in 1994 to $16.4 trillion in 2015, “it would have been reasonable to expect that some of the benefits of this large economic expansion would have gone to working women with newborn children, but that’s not what I found,” says Zagorsky.

He was equally startled by the effect, or lack thereof, that new paid family leave laws in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island have had on maternity leave numbers, noting that those three states comprised 16 percent of the U.S. female labor force in 2015.

“If the laws were effective, some impact should be seen in national data,” says Zagorsky. “These results suggest we have a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the world as far as providing for new mothers and their children.”

 

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.”

Commander-in-Chief or CEO?

From Truman to Trump, a handful of U.S. presidents have made their way to the Oval Office via the business sector.

If a recent Korn Ferry Institute survey offers any clues, it might be a while before we see another commander-in-chief who’s taken that route.

In a poll of 1,432 corporate executives, an overwhelming majority of respondents showed no signs of aspiring to the highest political office in the land. Given the choice, 85 percent of executives said they would rather be CEO of their own organization than lead the country, according to Korn Ferry.

While recognizing the similar requirements for both roles—the ability to drive growth, manage crises, think strategically and manage finances, for example—most business leaders allow that the president has even more hats to wear.

Indeed, 81 percent of the executives polled said they think the U.S. president has a more complex job than they do.

“In a way, you could consider the U.S. president [to be] the national CEO,” says Rick Lash, senior partner at Korn Ferry Hay Group, in a press release summarizing the findings. “While serving as a corporate CEO is generally considered a very challenging role, executives acknowledge the U.S. president faces hurdles that are much higher than those faced by a leader in corporate America.”

In addition to complexity, you can put compensation on the list of reasons why your CEO isn’t likely interested in leading the free world.

Seventy-one percent of executives, for example, reported feeling that the U.S. president—at $400,000 annually, as determined by Congress—is underpaid. Nearly half (48 percent) said the president should receive at least $10.4 million per year; the current average compensation for a CEO at an S&P 500 company. And exactly 0 percent cited salary/compensation as the top reason someone would want the job of U.S. president. But money, or a lack thereof, isn’t the only thing deterring executives from someday pursuing a presidential run.

The position of U.S. president “comes with extra scrutiny as well,” according to Korn Ferry.

Donald Trump, for example, “has been president for less than a week and he’s been questioned about his every action, from the serious (the words he used during his inaugural speech and his choice of cabinet members) to the silly (whether the dance with his wife, Melania, at an inaugural ball was ‘awkward’),” notes the aforementioned release.

“A corporate CEO may be questioned on his or her firm’s stock price and business strategy, but usually isn’t scrutinized for dancing ability.”