Rick Bell – Page 52

August 2, 2018June 29, 2023

The 14th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the HR Pimp

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the agency charged with responding to natural disasters, appears to have a disaster of its own to respond to.

It appears that its former HR chief offered creative “bonuses” to his male employees — he’s accused of hiring women to be possible sexual partners to men working for the agency.

I’ll pause to let that one sink in.

Slate.com fills in the salacious details:

A former head of human resources for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is under investigation after being accused of hiring women as possible sexual partners for male employees….

That accusation was one of many leveled against Corey Coleman, who led the HR department from 2011 until June, that depicted him as creating a toxic workplace for the 20,000-person agency, pushing out qualified employees, allowing sexual harassment to occur unchecked, and filling the agency with unqualified employees, many of whom are still there.

Coleman himself has been accused of sexually harassing female employees, and two employees have said they had inappropriate sexual relationships with him….

These findings came from a seven-month internal investigation that wrapped up Friday….

Coleman, who resigned in June before being interviewed by investigators, has also been accused of hiring friends, college fraternity brothers, and women he met on dating sites and at bars, starting in 2015…. He also allegedly promoted them within the agency without going through the formal hiring and review processes, and, most shockingly, transferred some women to offices and departments to be closer to friends who wanted sexual relationships with them.

For his part, FEMA Administrator Brock Long, in a formal statement, called the allegations “deeply disturbing,” stated that “harassment of any kind will not be tolerated at FEMA,” and outlined his five-point plan to address allegations of employee misconduct within the agency. Words are nice, but these problems, which seem to be deep and organizational, will take a long time to fully correct.

Indeed, if your head of HR is hiring women to serve as sexual partners for his male employees, not only is your HR, your culture, and your organization broken, you also might be the worst employer of 2018.

Previous nominees:
The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Holy Harasser

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Arresting School Board

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Camera Creep

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

July 30, 2018September 5, 2023

Large Firm or Boutique Shop, Company Culture Is Vital to Success

Among the variables that can differentiate a company’s culture is its size. Whether the organization is large or a boutique firm, it’s possible to have a great company culture in either; it just requires focusing on open communication and what makes both sizes unique.

Large companies are often thought of as inflexible and siloed. Creative, marketing and advertising agencies are certainly stereotyped in this fashion as well. While it is often true that a larger staff size is accompanied by more clearly defined roles and responsibilities, such structure doesn’t necessarily negatively affect the company culture.

One thing that a larger agency offers is more resources to provide employees with support. This includes everything from more human resources, better or more mature benefits and compensation packages, and additional professional development and education opportunities. These are a few things that the scale of a large company can offer that many smaller companies simply can’t. More opportunities like these create happy employees because these benefits increase their happiness and well-being.

At large agencies, employees can work with different groups of people to come up with new ideas. If done well, each day is different because employees are interacting with new people in different departments. Employees can thrive in this environment and take advantage of the opportunity to learn from a variety of sources.

Larger organizations also often have more clearly defined measures of success and what they value. This is a critical part of a successful company culture that agencies of all sizes can implement. While large agencies are challenged in upholding some of their values as a result of the scale at which they operate, maintaining values and achieving success is certainly not impossible as evidenced by many Fortune 50 companies that are able to accomplish this.

Going Boutique

Often thought of as less organized and more stressful due to having less hands-on staff to get the work done, boutique agencies have the benefit of being more nimble, allowing quicker and easier interactions between skill sets, and having more on-the-job learning opportunities.

While working at a boutique agency can be stressful at times, they can have strong company culture because everyone works together very closely, which improves relationships and productivity both internally and with clients. There are also more hands-on opportunities to make decisions, see work through to completion and feel ownership over the end product. Employees often value not simply being a “cog in the machine,” but instead being one of the few major players in the success of a project.

Because there are fewer hurdles to organizational change and generally fewer processes and procedures, boutique agencies often have more openness to new ideas and innovative thinking. They’re able to try new ideas quickly, which allows them to determine whether they are a good fit without major disruptions to a national or international workforce.

Because of the size, each person has a specialized role and is able to become an expert in their role. This allows for streamlined communication because there is one “go-to” person.

Generally, smaller agencies are flatter in their structure, giving more opportunity for junior employees to get hands-on experience that simply wouldn’t happen in a larger agency. They also get more one-on-one time with agency executives, which provides the opportunity for quicker learning. The benefits to the company culture are that employees feel empowered to share ideas, and feel more satisfaction in the end product because they often have a larger part in the work and its success.

Begin creating the culture today no matter what size organization you are a part of by encouraging open communication and dialogue. The result will be reflected in employee satisfaction and improved relationships within the company and also with clients.

Part of having a great culture is making sure that everyone on the team understands what is valued, what is expected and what is available to each individual. When leadership prioritizes these things, and the team consists of people who truly value the unique benefits of the organization, a great company culture exists.

Greg Kihlstrom is founder and CEO of Carousel30, a digital marketing agency in the Washington, D.C., area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

July 30, 2018June 29, 2023

Here’s What You Need to Know About Shredding Documents When Faced With Litigation: Don’t Do It

If you are accused of destroying evidence, and the federal judge ruling on the motion starts his opinion by quoting a John Hiatt song called “Shredding the Document,” you are in for a very, very bad litigation day.

This is exactly what happened to GMRI, Inc., the defendant in an age discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC in Miami. GMRI owns Seasons 52 restaurants, and if that name sounds familiar, it’s because it was my 8th nominee for the “Worst Employer of 2018.”

The EEOC alleged that Seasons 52 shredded documents relating to its hiring practices in all of its restaurants except for the specific restaurant originally targeted in the lawsuit. The employer claimed that it did not know that the EEOC had expanded its investigation to cover all of its operations, and only preserved evidence relating to the one restaurant that it believed was at issue.

The court held that Seasons 52 had notice, or should have had notice, that the EEOC’s investigation covered 11 of its Florida restaurants, but rejected the EEOC’s argument that its investigation (and therefore the employer’s duty to preserve) was national in scope.

As a remedy, the court ordered that the EEOC was permitted to present evidence to the jury of the purportedly destroyed or missing documents, and argue that Seasons 52 acted in bad faith in destroying them.

At its core, the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence attaches when a party reasonably foresees that the information may be relevant to future litigation. Once that duty arises and attaches, a party must not destroy any evidence that may be relevant to a potential claim or defense. This duty applies to all evidence, paper or electronic.

How do you mitigate against potential sanctions for spoliation (i.e., destruction) of evidence? Here are a few thoughts:

1. Know when your duty to preserve attaches. Hint: it’s as soon as you are on notice of a potential claim.

2. Issue an effective litigation hold. See here.

3. Make sure all sources of potential evidence are preserved. Our ever-expanding technologies makes this difficult. You can make it a bit easier by prohibiting your employees from using personal devices at work.

4. Understand that your duty to preserve is ongoing throughout the case. Preserve today also means preserve tomorrow, and onward until a case is officially and finally closed.
And, for God’s sake, keep people away from the shredder. These tools have their time and place, but litigation isn’t one of them.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

July 30, 2018June 29, 2023

Emailing Employees on FMLA Leave

Sonja Nowlin was a sales representative for Novo Nordisk Inc.

Nowlin took intermittent FMLA leave to care for her ailing father. While on leave, Nowlin received two emails from Novo requesting that she return damaged drug samples. Novo did not require Nowlin to respond while on leave.

Upon her return to work, Nowlin mailed the drug samples to Novo. Five months later, Novo fired Nowlin for failing to properly document her sales calls on days she was supposed to be working. Nowlin sued Novo under the FMLA, alleging Novo interfered with her right to FMLA leave and retaliated against her. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Nowlin’s FMLA claim.

The court recognized that while multiple attempts by an employer to contact an employee on FMLA could constitute unlawful interference, two isolated emails did not rise to this level. The court also rejected Nowlin’s retaliation claim because she was fired for a well-documented, legitimate reason. Nowlin v. Novo Nordisk Inc., No. 17-5507, 2018 WL 1805141 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018).

IMPACT: Employers should be wary of contacting employees on FMLA leave and demanding the completion of work tasks. Small, isolated communications that do not demand responses may not be illegal, but employers should do their best to refrain from making any work request.

July 27, 2018July 19, 2018

Supervisor Says Sorry for Boorish Behavior

Jacqueline Lee overheard her supervisor, Don Egge, discussing his desire for her to begin wearing her “spring outfits,” describing her and another employee as “here come the jugs” and discussing another employee who was “banging someone.”

Lee reported Egge to HR. HR’s investigation confirmed Egge made these comments. Egge apologized to Lee, acknowledged his words were not appropriate and promised it would not happen again. He further promised not to retaliate against Lee. Because there were no other available positions, HR asked Lee to return to work as Egge’s subordinate.

Dissatisfied with HR’s response, Lee resigned from her position. That same day, Egge was suspended for two weeks without pay.

Lee sued the company for fostering a hostile work environment. The court found the company not liable on two grounds.

First, under the law of the Seventh Circuit, a single incident does not create a sexually hostile work environment unless it is tied to physical violence or the direct solicitation of sex. Egge’s conduct, while boorish, was not directed to Lee (she overheard the conversation) and was not severe enough to create a hostile work environment.

Second, the company took appropriate remedial action. It conducted a prompt and thorough investigation, elicited an apology from Egge and his commitment not to retaliate or engage in further harassment, and suspended Egge for two weeks without pay. Lee v. Dairyland Power Cooperative, No. 17-cv-50-wmc, 2018 WL 1401274 (W.D. Wis. March 20, 2018).

IMPACT: Not all offensive conduct creates a hostile work environment. And while complaints of harassment are on the rise, employers can protect themselves from liability by enforcing well-crafted sexual harassment policies.

July 19, 2018June 29, 2023

Employees With Intermittent Explosive Disorder — Your Workplace IED

Most every workplace has had THAT employee. The hothead. Someone who loses their cool at the drop of a hat. Yells, screams and is prone to fits of rage.

It should go without saying that no one should be required to be subjected to this degree of misconduct. For this reason, you may (should?) decide to separate Hothead’s employment.

What happens, however, if Hothead delivers a doctor’s note advising you that he or she is being treated for “intermittent explosive disorder?”

Believe it or not, intermittent explosive disorder (IED), is a legit mental disorder, covered by the DSM-V (the psychiatric bible of mental disorders).

According to the Mayo Clinic, IED “involves repeated, sudden episodes of impulsive, aggressive, violent behavior or angry verbal outbursts in which you react grossly out of proportion to the situation.” Outbursts can include temper tantrums, tirades, heated arguments, shouting, slapping, shoving or pushing, physical fights, property damage, or threatening or assaulting people. Not surprisingly, complications include job loss and other problems at work.

Which brings us back to Hothead and his doctor’s note. What do you do?

Thankfully, the ADA is not overly sympathetic to employees with IED, or other mental disorders, that cause misconduct.

The EEOC’s guidance on Applying Performance And Conduct Standards To Employees With Disabilities makes it clear that an employer may discipline an employee for violating a conduct rule even if the employee’s disability causes the violation, as long as the conduct rule is job-related and consistent with business necessity and other employees are held to the same standard.

Certain conduct rules will always meet this standard, such as prohibitions against:

violence and threats of violence.
destruction of property.
insubordination toward supervisors and managers.
disrespect towards clients and customers.
inappropriate behavior between coworkers (yelling, cursing, shoving, or making obscene gestures, for example).
sending inappropriate or offensive emails or other electronic communications.
Courts (such as the 1st and 6th Circuits) have upheld the right of employers to hold accountable employees with mental disorders for their violations of workplace conduct standards.

There you have it. You don’t have to put up with an a-hole employee, even if that a-hole claims a disability caused their a-holeness.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

July 19, 2018June 29, 2023

It’s Always the Right Time to Revisit Your Handbooks

When is the last time you reviewed, or, even better, re-wrote your employee handbook?

Last year? Five years ago? Ten years ago? What’s an employee handbook?

Now is as good a time as any to dust off yours, and give it a good review and polishing.

The National Labor Relations Board recently published guidance on the standards it will follow in determining whether a facially neutral employment policy violates the rights of employees to engage in concerted activity protected by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

The board, over scathing dissents by its more reasonable members and scorching critiques from business groups, had applied its longstanding Lutheran Heritage rule to find that a variety of employment policies violate employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity under section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Lutheran Heritage asked if an employee would “reasonably construe” a work rule to infringe on their right engage in protected concerted activity. The benign policies it found unlawful ranged from confidentiality, to insubordination, to the use of company logos, to photography bans, and to conflict-of-interest rules. Over the past few years, the board’s Lutheran Heritage test has led to some pretty crazed results.

Lutheran Heritage, however, now resides in the NLRB’s dust bin. In its place is Boeing Co., which scrapped the board’s “reasonably construe” test.

Category 1: Rules Generally Lawful to Maintain

These rules are presumed lawful because, when reasonably interpreted, they do not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, or because the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by the business justifications associated with the rule. Such rules include:

Civility rules
No-photography rules and no-recording rules
Rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations
Disruptive behavior rules
Rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents
Rules against defamation or misrepresentation
Rules against using employer logos or intellectual property
Rules requiring authorization to speak for the company
Rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment

Category 2: Rules of Individualized Scrutiny

These rules are not obviously lawful or unlawful, and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the rule would interfere with rights guaranteed by the NLRA, and if so, whether any adverse impact on those rights is outweighed by legitimate justifications. Such rules include:

Broad conflict-of-interest rules that do not specifically target fraud and self-enrichment and do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union.
Confidentiality rules broadly encompassing “employer business” or “employee information” (as opposed to confidentiality rules regarding customer or proprietary information, or confidentiality rules more specifically directed at employee wages, terms of employment, or working conditions.
Rules regarding disparagement or criticism of the employer (as opposed to civility rules regarding disparagement of employees).
Rules regulating use of the employer’s name (as opposed to rules regulating use of the employer’s logo/trademarks.
Rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties (as opposed to rules restricting speaking to the media on the employer’s behalf.
Rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer (as opposed to rules banning insubordinate or disruptive conduct at work, or rules specifically banning participation in outside organizations).

Rules against making false or inaccurate statements (as opposed to rules against making defamatory statements).

Category 3: Rules Unlawful to Maintain

Rules in this category are generally unlawful because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on the rights guaranteed by the NLRA outweighs any justifications associated with the rule. Such rules include:

Confidentiality rules specifically regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions (such as, “Employees are prohibited from discussing or disclosing wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, or any other remuneration.”).
Rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning the employer.

These rules are welcome news for employers, as they provide much needed sanity on the legality of facially neutral employment policies, many of which employers scrapped under the NLRB’s questionable Obama-era rulings.

July 15, 2018June 29, 2023

Old Age Argument

In 2017, Roger Federer set an all-time record when he won his eighth Wimbledon tennis title at the age of 36. About the same time, Bob Williamson, a lifelong friend of mine, won his 10th salesman of the year award for a large medical systems company at the age of 59.

Neither win was probable, but Federer and my friend were lauded by their competitors and supporters. Their age was once perceived as a hindrance and insurmountable obstacle to reaching the pinnacle in their respective professions. Both my friend and Federer agree that age played a role but didn’t let it define them and subsequently alter their success.

One of my younger friends in his late 20s recently became the chief technology officer of a venture-backed start-up. The position was competitive and he beat out several older and much more experienced individuals to get it. This wasn’t a surprise to me, as I always knew of his superior abilities. His opinion, however, of why he got the job stunned me.

“This was actually easy,” he recalled of the hiring process. “All my competitors were too old.”

While I initially dismissed his reason as utter nonsense, he insisted it was true, that “older workers often don’t work as hard or as long as we do. They prioritize off-work obligations that detract their attention from their primary job. Also, they usually have obsolete skill sets and work styles that make them fall behind.”

I was perplexed and intrigued at how such a damaging and distorted view had come to dominate the tech industry — a view where anyone over the age of 40 was seen as frail, obsolete and left to shuffle through the wilderness with their Apple II computers duct-taped to their walkers.

So in the eyes of younger workers, and more and more commonly among the board members across the tech industry, the definition of being “too old” rests with having interests and obligations outside of work and being perceived as possessing outdated skills.

Working ‘Hard’

It’s no secret that the industry has a fetish for younger workers because of their levels of energy and willingness to pull all-nighters in order to meet deadlines. The willingness to work hard isn’t a bad thing.

But let’s be clear: There is a significant difference between working a lot and working hard and smart. Having a team that works all hours to meet deadlines is admirable but can often be a result of bad time management and result in burnout. From the outside, it looks like you have a group of hard workers but the reality is that it isn’t a sustainable way to work.

Also read: Boomer Bust: Ageism in the Workplace

Companies have known for some time that demanding too much of employees will lead to burnout. But make policies too lenient and productivity will suffer.

The result is a slew of policies, from extreme ones such as a California company that introduced a five-hour workday for all employees to the way my company Ximble and our closest partner, BambooHR, provides open-ended paid time off and a maximum eight-hour work day for all employees.

These policies are not simply altruistic. They indeed provide a well thought-out ROI as they contribute to the employee’s satisfaction, productivity and retention.

This trend perfectly fits the needs and priorities of older workers seeking a more accommodating working environment that allows not just a better work-life balance but a better work-life integration.

This is especially true in the tech industry, which can be highly flexible and more suitable for working habits of older workers who value spending time with their families and focusing on other life interests without allowing their work to suffer. Smart CEOs should look to create a culture and an environment fostering flexible work schedules leading to a perfect balance of performance and enjoyment.

Obsolete Skill Sets

Is using a personal AOL email address or a desktop Outlook app for email correspondence a sign of an outdated tech skill? Or is it the fact that some of us do not buy into a notion that Slack is a panacea to human productivity?

There is no doubt that technology changes rapidly and that innovation leads to availability of new tools designed to improve efficiency, accuracy and quality of products and services we sell. At the same time, very few technology innovations managed to replace time-tested rules of business engagement.

People still buy from people, and teamwork tops individual effort. Just because an older worker may not be as skilled or as fast as a coder using a new front-end language or who’s used to new Java tools, they still can offer ongoing value to their organizations through their set of professional and personal experiences, including their successes and failures.

As Cicero put it in ageless perspective: “Historia magistra vitae est” — history is the teacher of the life.

Corporations learn from historical perspectives how to avoid errors and decrease the time necessary to create successful new outcomes. Only employees who have lived through those times may be able to impact both.

By 2020, it’s expected that in the United States there will be a shortage of 1.5 million qualified workers with as many as 6 million unqualified workers available. So why does the tech industry seem so adamant in shooting itself in the foot by holding such narrow views of a cohort that holds so much untapped potential?

Also read: As Our Workforce Ages, Age Discrimination Will Only Worsen

Tie that to the fact that the future workforce will be much older. Roy Bahat, head of Bloomberg Beta and co-chair of Shift: The Commission on Work, Workers and Technology, told the attendees at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference, “As much as we like to talk about millennials, the future of work is much older.” By 2024, his Shift commission report notes, “nearly one-quarter of the workforce is projected to be 55 or older.”

People are healthier than ever and living decades after the traditional retirement age. Living longer develops a changing set of needs resulting in traditional retirement becoming obsolete.

Shifting aspirations for retirement, people’s desire for purpose and want for ongoing application of their talents is and will continue to disrupt previous retirement norms. With a deficit of talent, surely it would make sense to open our eyes and make use of the vast pool of talent that’s being neglected.

While meeting with my salesman friend Bob to congratulate him on his achievements, I brought this up with him.

His outlook was, “When individuals pass 50, they generally shift their gaze into being productive in areas that have meaning to them and start to think about how they will be remembered. They start looking at fulfillment as a primary objective over pay.” He added, “While it’s true I was hired and trained in a new role, it’s also true that very few companies are presenting those opportunities to our age group.”

With a “generative urge,” it appears that an increasing amount of individuals are willing to contribute to the nonprofit sector. The Milken Institute noted that 16,000 experienced, savvy, corporate professionals have each brought a powerful inventory of talent, knowledge and human skills to a new environment as encore fellows.

The reason, we concluded, was twofold. The first is as a status symbol, displaying themselves as a high-performing and valued member of society to help keep their worth to prospective employees up while also being involved in something they feel worthwhile about. These altruistic efforts will be looked on with envy, even more than net worth.

The second is a way for them to place themselves in an unfamiliar environment where they can build and expand upon their own skill sets, in particular, leadership skills — a form of anticipatory careering to develop the skills they need for career progression.

The aging megatrend will test the leadership of all CEOs in the tech industry. Where success is concerned CEOs will need to push for a strong shift in hiring practices and perceptions within their workforces.

Employees across the board will need to realize and come to terms with how valuable older workers are to the sector, not just in their experience and ability but in the nonquantifiable benefits they bring, too. Such as emotional stability, complex problem solving skills, nuanced thinking, high emotional intelligence and institutional know-how, not the typical skills a youthful cohort tends to carry.

Rebecca Knight writes in her article, “Managing People From 5 Generations” in the Harvard Business Review that “studies have shown that co-workers learn more from each other than they do from formal training, making it important for organizations to establish a culture of coaching across age groups.”

So much for the “won’t fit into our company culture” argument.

We can expect to see over-50s having more control over when and how they will work. A growing number of older Americans will begin working in the gig economy. Working freelance, with short-term contracts or with pick-up jobs, the older worker will represent a vast majority of the growth of alternate work and contracting projects due to the flexibility.

For a company to retain and make use of these valuable skills, they will need to find ways to attract and retain employees by bringing renewed interest and meaning to their roles.

Providing a lack of opportunities or training for new skills only acts as a disincentive.

This brings us back to what was mentioned previously. Older workers are looking for fulfillment. Accommodating a flexible work pattern or schedule allows time for skills development and a better balance of work-life assisting in the retention of employees and skills.

Transitional arrangements for those who want to enter retirement will enable the opportunity to transfer skills to younger workers, offsetting the deficit of talent as baby boomers enter retirement.

The benefits of retention will flow in all directions. Younger workers will be able to obtain institutional knowledge and wisdom through job shadowing and mentorship, leading to long-term stability and protection of the businesses interests.

Incorporating a longevity strategy will develop a competitive edge in the tech industry, where many are willing to discard valuable talent based on age.

Develop and implement best employment policies and practices to cater to the needs of the increased longevity of the workforce.

These benefits should meet the needs of the employee but also capitalize on the experience and talents of the older workers while adding value to the workforce through intergenerational collaboration.

Provide training and awareness to colleagues across the board, educating them in the changing demographics of the workforce and shifting preconceived conceptions of the older workers to stamp out ageism and maximize collaboration.

While the current situation may seem unfavorable for many older workers, smart employees will continue to develop their skills while wise CEOs will be hiring older workers for their untapped potential.

Over a short period of time the industry’s focus will shift to this cohort and the most successful companies will identify how to create a workplace that understands how to manage a diverse age group appropriately and beneficially toward their long-term strategies.

A company that can accommodate diversity and recognize their employees’ needs will always produce results far ahead of their competition. It will be interesting to see how perceptions shift as diversely aged workers pave a way for innovation through collaborative views and approaches to challenges.

July 6, 2018June 29, 2023

Everything Old Is New Again for Gen Z

I never made a commencement speech. Class salutatorian or valedictorian? More like class clown.

My kids would probably tell you that the wisest piece of advice I offered them at our post-graduation party was, “Order the chicken; the burgers are really greasy.”

But that won’t stop me from providing you, the graduating Class of 2018, a bit of advice. I know, you’ve already heard the insights and anecdotes of irrelevant politicians, has-been actors and ol’ State U’s biggest donor. Serial, what can the Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am possibly impart on any graduating class?

So I didn’t create anthems like “Let’s Get It Started” or “My Humps.” Will.i.am may be a wizard of the soundboard but let me be your workplace sounding board.

Hear me out, ay? Gen Z is predicted to occupy over 20 percent of the workforce by 2020. I can help launch your career and simultaneously boost the spirits of the fine folks operating Chez Mom y Dad by prodding you out of your cozy suburban bedroom and into the cold reality of a two-room studio with a rotating flow of roommates and god-knows-how-many random visitors crashing on your couch, floor and bathtub.

No probs, you’re Generation Z! Boomers existed when there were just three channels on TV. Generation X thought Billy Idol was cool. And millennials? They’re just … old. Fail!

You got this. Except … well, those millennials. They’re gonna be your bosses.

Gen X will be your bosses, too. And yes, even some of those ancient boomers will be your bosses. In other words, you are on the low rung.

Cheer up. We’ve all been there. Do you think for a second that boomers were running Eastman Kodak or Ma Bell (Go ahead, Google it; I’ll wait) in the late 1960s as they en masse entered the workforce?

Also read Ed Frauenheim’s rebuttal: Advice for Gen Z: Demand a Better Workplace Than We Did

No, they were protesting the Monsantos and Dow Chemicals of the corporate world, not to mention smoking weed and tripping out on Hendrix playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at Woodstock.

When the 1980s rolled around and that sullen, self-absorbed (some say independent and self-sufficient) cohort we call Gen X was joining the workforce, they could only look up as Bill Gates and Steve Wozniak built their tech empires.

And then there is the millennials. Be happy you are not among them. Generation Y has been poked, prodded and overanalyzed in the workplace to the point of near-paranoia.

Over the past decade I have watched this jaw-dropping fixation. Hundreds, if not thousands of books offer overhyped drivel like, “what’s wrong with millennials in the workplace” to “tips to help you manage millennials” to simply “understanding millennials in the workplace.”

Swap out millennials with any generation, fam. Bosses and co-workers of past generations had the same concerns as they do today: How do I deal with them?

This generational obsession is a load of crap. I never got it and still don’t, even on the cusp of you all joining us in our workplace sandbox.

Gen Zers will be adulting just like we fossils did: with difficult and awesome bosses; overbearing and enjoyable co-workers; layoffs, downsizings and offboardings; pay raises, bonuses and pay cuts.

Today’s headlines trumpet that there are more jobs than people who are out of work. Hooray for jobs!

That is, until the next recession hits, like it did in 2008 (totes ask millennials about that one), and in 2001, and 1991, and 1980, and … well, you will tolerate several during your working life.

Then as senile boomers and sullen Gen Xers phase out, you and those doddering old millennials will roll your eyes at new generations of workers. And they will have the same workplace experiences as all of us from that bottom rung.

Some experts contend that you can be choosy about your job in this economy. Don’t accept your first offer, one so-called culture expert wrote, since you may be stepping into a dangerous company culture.

What an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement. You can’t even know if there will be a second offer. And if you have to move out of state for a job — say, the new weekend news anchor at WOMP in Tublone, Texas — experience eats culture for lunch every day of the week and at 5 and 11 on weekends.

I don’t know if “Let’s Get It Started” played during USC’s commencement ceremony, but if so, will.i.am may have imparted some perspective on those grads after all. Gen Z, as you begin your careers, just like the rest of us when we stood in your Adidas Superstars, you defs have no where to go now but up.

July 5, 2018June 29, 2023

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Supervisor Supremacist

Last week, I asked why anyone is still using the N-word.

Which brings us to today’s nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018, which apparently did not receive the “Thou shalt never use the N-word, ever!” memo.

The EEOC recently sued a Phoenix moving company, alleging that it created a racially hostile work environment for one of its employees, Clinton Lee.

Specifically:

- Lee’s supervisor, Gary Carpenter, made numerous racially charged remarks, including “white power,” “if you’re not white, you’re not right,” and the N-word.

- Carpenter often began morning staff meetings by uttering “white power” and saluting the staff with a Nazi salute.

- When Lee had to pick up his paycheck from Carpenter, Carpenter would routinely tell Lee, “get out of here, we’re having a Klan meeting.”

- Carpenter placed a horse jockey statute on his desk, affixed a whip in the jockey’s hand, tied the whip around the horse’s neck in the style of a noose, and labeled the statute, “Clint.”
- In or about May 2014, a troll doll was spray-painted black and hung from a hook in full view of staff and management. A Post-it note was affixed to the doll. The note read “Clint King.” During a staff meeting, Carpenter pointed to the doll and told Lee that the doll was Lee. When Lee reported the troll doll to the company’s owner, she directed Lee to remove it himself.

A worthy nominee, indeed. Thank you, Eric Meyer, for the nomination.

Do you have a nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018? Tag me in a post of your own, or leave it in the comments below. If it’s worthy, I might just use it.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Holy Harasser

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Arresting School Board

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Camera Creep

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the (in)Humane Society Harasser

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Political Pension Preventer

The 6th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Sadistic Sergeant

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Pregnancy Provoker

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Age Discriminator

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Retaliator

The 10th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Whitewasher