Author: Rick Bell

Posted on

Eliminating the ‘Offense’ Isn’t the Goal of an Inclusive Workplace

There’s good news and bad news about our current preoccupation with eliminating offensive language and behaviors from the workplace.

The good news is that the feelings and experiences of a wider swath of humanity matter more now. Women, people of color, LGBTQ individuals, immigrants and folks with disabilities are no longer expected to simply conform and comply, which is good for morale, productivity and the creation of a more humane society. The bad news is that the focus on avoiding “offense” is ineffective, even harmful, because it’s looking in the wrong direction.

“Offense” is about feelings; a person feels offended when they experience another person’s behavior as insulting or disrespectful. There are two problems with over-focusing on avoiding offense.

The first is that anyone can be offended by anything. In a diverse workforce, the possibility that someone will be offended by any particular behavior or decision is higher than ever before. This possibility can (and does) paralyze leaders out of fear, preventing them from making bold decisions — or any decisions. A hyperfocus on avoiding offense can exacerbate a fear-based culture, create a walking-on-eggshells environment or fuel leadership inaction.

The second reason is that keeping everyone happy all the time is not the purpose of an effective leader or a mission-driven organization. An effective leader’s purpose is to make decisions, aligned with clear goals and values, to ensure the organization’s mission is realized. Such a process may be collaborative and generally respectful, but it’s not about pleasing all the people all of the time. It’s about knowing whose feelings and opinions matter most. Creating a more inclusive workplace isn’t about including everything and everyone because that’s neither possible nor effective.

However, the more important issue hidden underneath the preoccupation with “offense” is that creating a more inclusive workplace isn’t always about feelings and opinions! Creating a more inclusive workplace is about getting out of each other’s way. It’s about creating an environment where brilliance and excellence flourish, because more people can bring more of their full selves into that environment. What gets in the way is less what is “offensive” and more what is oppressive.

Oppression exists when a person’s group membership endangers, in a meaningful way, that person’s life or livelihood. Oppression is not about feelings, nor is it always about intent. Where there are habits, beliefs, assumptions and processes that systematically and unfairly disadvantage members of one group compared to another, there is oppression.

Where some groups are thwarted — due to no fault or deficit of their own — in their ability to live physically unharmed, experience good health, earn a fair and dignified living, be safely and adequately housed, and meet basic needs for food, education and belonging, there is oppression. In the workplace, where some groups are unfairly thwarted — due to no fault or deficit of their own — in their ability to be hired, earn fairly, be mentored and developed, be promoted, receive opportunities and choice assignments, contribute their talents and ideas, influence decisions and work free of significant danger, there is oppression.

Oppression is a strong word. It’s a tricky concept because it’s mostly avoided as a topic of meaningful conversation in the U.S., and because it exists independent of feelings. Members of an oppressed group may “feel” oppressed — or not. They may feel offended by a particular behavior — or not.

That doesn’t mean oppression isn’t affecting their lives. Meanwhile, members of a non-oppressed group may also feel offended by a particular behavior. They may even feel like they are oppressed. That doesn’t mean they’re actually oppressed; it usually means the status quo shifted. For example, some white people feel oppressed because we hold less of a majority than we once did in both numbers and cultural dominance. Some men feel oppressed because they are now being held accountable for behaviors that were never OK but now bring meaningful consequences. While being white or male may feel more uncomfortable than before and bring more risk and vulnerability than it once did, as a group whites and males do not experience meaningful or unavoidable endangerment of their lives and livelihoods due to their race or gender, especially compared to people of color and women. That which feels offensive doesn’t always indicate oppression.

When thinking and talking about oppression, it’s important to bear in mind the concept of intersectionality — the way every person has multiple identities that intersect. Therefore, no one person is either oppressed or non-oppressed because we’re complex beings. Most of us are both. White men that are working class or who experience poverty are oppressed in their social class identity (but not in race or gender). Women who are white or grew up wealthy are not oppressed in their race or class identity (but are in gender).

It’s uncomfortable to think and talk about oppression, especially in the workplace. Perhaps a different term is a better fit for your culture, but addressing oppression is key to D&I effectiveness. Rather than focusing on “is this going to offend someone?” focus on “What are the habits, beliefs, assumptions and processes at work in our organization that systematically and unfairly disadvantage members of one identity group compared to another?”

Don’t guess but instead gather data. Start with your hiring and promotion rates, retention and turnover metrics, employee engagement results, productivity and error rates, levels of innovation and creativity, and customer satisfaction ratings. Dig deeper by looking at your HR policies and procedures, onboarding process, organizational strategic plan, market share, marketing and publicity materials, revenue and costs, complaints and lawsuits. Find out what’s getting in the way of your people bringing their full brilliance and excellence to work, and what’s impeding your ability to attract and engage top talent as well as ideal customers.

Creating a world that works better for more of us is about avoiding and disrupting behaviors and systems that are oppressive (hurting people’s lives and livelihoods), not just “offensive” (hurting people’s feelings). It’s not that feelings don’t matter; every person’s shame, anger, fear and pain deserve empathy and understanding. It’s just not the role of the workplace to meet all employees’ emotional needs, and feelings don’t necessarily reveal oppression.

That which is viewed as “offensive” should be heard and explored, but don’t get caught up in avoiding “offense” at the expense of dismantling oppression. That is a far more serious problem that the workplace is better equipped to address.

Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting and a trainer, coach, speaker, author and diversity & inclusion expert. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Artificial Intelligence, Automation and the Future of Talent Acquisition

From artificial intelligence and automation to machine learning and semantic search, we’ve been inundated with the industry’s hottest buzzwords, but what do these terms really mean for us in the talent acquisition space and for the future of our profession?

These terms are far from passing fads. Nearly 3 in 4 employers expect that some roles within talent acquisition and human capital management will become completely automated within the next 10 years, according to a 2017 survey by my company, CareerBuilder.

Our research also shows that artificial intelligence and automation will have a major impact on HR and employment over the next few years, as more than 1 in 10 HR managers are already seeing evidence of AI becoming a regular part of HR, while more than half say it will be within the next five years.

This has been stoking unwarranted fear in our industry and beyond. While most HR managers say the thought of AI in HR does not make them nervous, there are still a third of them (35 percent) who say it does. In fact, a smaller group (7 percent) would go so far as to think a robot could do their job.

AI Enhances Our Jobs — But It Won’t Eliminate Them

This is not like a scary sci-fi movie where the robots take over. In fact, you’re likely automating parts of your recruitment and human capital management processes right now, so there’s no reason to fear tech-led automation and AI-powered technologies. AI technology is not intended to eradicate your skillset and take over your job — at least not in the way you think.

The purpose of AI and tech-led automation is to enable you to become smarter, faster and more efficient as you search for and hire the right candidates for your organization. But it can only do so much.

It cannot replace the relationship-building piece nor the intuitive instinct that are integral to finding the right candidates and building strong talent pools. So regardless of the constantly evolving technological landscape amidst which we find ourselves, the most crucial parts of your job — the things technology cannot do, the “human” in human resources — will never become obsolete. However, it will allow you to automate rote or labor-intensive tasks so it frees up your time to focus on the things that really matter.

How AI Is Being Used Today

Artificial intelligence is far from just a buzzword in HR circles — everything from chatbots to intelligent assistants to predictive analytics are either actively being used in the talent acquisition space today or will be for the foreseeable future.

More than one third (36 percent) of HR managers say that one of the biggest time wasters in their day is seeing candidate search results that don’t match the context of what they are looking for. Semantic search capabilities can interpret a recruiter’s simple keyword searches and apply our custom ontology and taxonomy structure to better understand the intent of a user. That means the product not only understands what you say, but what you mean. The result is more accurate search results as well as better handling of acronyms, synonyms and related concepts.

Behind the scenes, machine learning technology can also predict the likelihood of a candidate to respond to a particular offer, and this type of information is used to fine-tune automated email outreach, search result rankings and job recommendation algorithms.

These are just a few of the ways AI and machine learning technologies are helping to power our industry into a modern era — and if what we’ve seen so far is any indication, the future is ripe with possibilities.

Humair Ghauri is the chief product officer for CareerBuilder. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

The Legality of Precertification Communications With Potential Class-action Members

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Your nightmare as an employer has just become your reality.

A disgruntled former employee has launched a wage and hour class action lawsuit against you.

You’d like to get out ahead of the game by having your lawyers start marshaling your evidence. For example, they’d like to interview employees and gather affidavits in opposition to the eventual motion for class certification.

But can they?

Our rules of legal ethics prohibit us from communicating with represented parties. But they also make clear that putative class members (that is, precertification individuals who could be included in the future class) are not yet represented. They only become represented if the class is certified, or if the collective action is certified and they opt in.

For this reason, it’s been nearly three decades since the Supreme Court ruled that defense counsel is permitted to contact putative class members before a class is certified. Indeed, courts only limit these precertification communications to class members if:

  • The communications to class members misrepresent the status or the effect of the pending action.
  • They have an obvious potential for confusion and/or adversely affecting the administration of justice.
Following these rules, courts have permitted communications that:
  • Sought affidavits from employees to oppose class certification (here).
  • Advised employees to contact the company’s attorney with questions about the pending case (here).
  • Attempted to resolve the specific damage claims of each potential class member (here).

Courts only prohibit or otherwise limit defense counsel’s precertification communication with putative class members if there is a specific showing that the communications attempted to coerce putative members into excluding themselves from the class, undermined cooperation with or confidence in plaintiffs’ counsel, or suggested retaliation for participating in or assisting the class.

Thus, if you are sued in a class-action lawsuit, consider implementing reasoned precertification communications with your employees as part of your defense strategy.

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.

Posted on

The Unique Challenges of Workplace Accommodation for Psychiatric Disabilities

The number of psychiatric disability discrimination claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 has been increasing significantly in recent years, now comprising nearly 30 percent of all ADA charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

If a particular workplace and labor force has not already been impacted by this unmistakable national trend, it may well be in the near future. For both psychiatric and physical disabilities, an employee must satisfy two criteria in order to be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

First, the employee must have a “disability,” defined as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” a “record of such impairment,” or be “regarded as having such impairment.”

Second, the employee must be a “qualified individual,” meaning that he or she is capable of performing the essential functions of his or her job with or without an accommodation. If the employee satisfies both of the above criteria, the employer must provide the employee with a reasonable accommodation, provided that the accommodation does not impose an undue burden on the employer.

The application of these requirements in ADA psychiatric disability cases presents very distinct challenges. For example, if an employee works in the customer service industry where appropriately interacting with the public is an essential function of the job, an employee with a psychiatric disability that causes inappropriate behavior such as shouting or making offensive comments to customers may or may not be qualified within the meaning of the ADA. This ultimately depends on whether he or she is capable of complying with the conduct standards of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

To assess whether a reasonable accommodation that will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job is possible, it is absolutely critical that the employer and human resources team communicate effectively with the employee. There needs to be a consistent, honest and ongoing dialogue to explore and identify, if possible, a set of accommodations that works well for everyone.

The often complex and multifaceted issues involved with psychiatric disabilities can only be effectively addressed on an individualized basis. Constructive and ongoing feedback from the employee is absolutely essential for this to happen, and further enhances the value of a workplace offering a professional atmosphere that values trust and openness.

It is also crucial to keep in mind that an employee who violates the conduct standards at his or her place of employment is not immune from discipline just because the violation is a direct result of the psychiatric disability.

For example, in one particular case [Higgins v. Maryland Department of Agriculture, No. L-11-0081, 2012 WL 665985, at *2, 6 (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2012)], the court held that a director with bipolar disorder who was responsible for interacting with health professionals, government officials and members of the public on a daily basis was properly terminated because his abusive and abrasive behavior was inconsistent with company policy and incompatible with an essential function of the job.

In contrast, in situations where an employee’s conduct is not incompatible with the job’s standards, courts may determine that the employer had a legal duty to provide a reasonable accommodation.

Examples of what could be appropriate accommodations for employees with psychiatric disabilities, depending on the particular circumstances, include permitting the use of accrued paid leave or additional unpaid leave for treatment or recovery; modifying the employee’s work schedule; installing room dividers or partitions; relocating the employee to a quieter workspace or permitting the use of headphones; adjusting supervisory methods; providing or otherwise allowing a job coach to accompany the employee or reassigning an employee to an equivalent position.

If the ADA psychiatric disability filings are an accurate indicator, we are in the midst of a growing recognition that accommodating psychiatric disabilities in the workplace is an increasing employment concern. Employers, of course, must understand their legal obligations with respect to the ADA (as well as state and local anti-disability discrimination laws they may be subject to).

Employers are encouraged to explore how to accommodate their employees with psychiatric disabilities through engaging in an open dialogue with them to understand their workplace challenges and the unique ways in which they manage those challenges each and every day.

A. Jonathan Trafimow is a partner at Moritt Hock & Hamroff and chair of the firm’s Employment Law practice. Caitlyn M. Ryan is an associate at the firm. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

The Greatest Book Ever Written About Labor Relations Is…

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Last week I came across an article titled, “Business Wisdom From 10 Classic Children’s Books.”

Its premise is that books with the simplest language often contain the most complex ideas, and that children’s books offer us a whole lot of real-world business wisdom.

I was surprised, then, when I discovered that this list omitted the No. 1 book ever written about labor relations — Click Clack Moo, Cows That Type.

I first wrote about Click Clack Moo all the way back on May 24, 2007. And since I realize that many of you have not been with me from the blog’s beginnings, I thought this was as good a time as any to step into the Wayback Machine to revisit this classic.

“Farmer Brown has a problem. His cows like to type.”

So starts Click Clack Moo, Cows That Type

In Click Clack Moo, Farmer Brown’s cows and hens decide that they need electric blankets to keep warm at night in the barn. They deliver their demand to Farmer Brown on notes typed by the cows on an old typewriter. When Farmer Brown refuses their demand, they go on strike, withholding milk and eggs.

Ultimately, Duck brokers a deal. Farmer Brown agrees to accept the cows’ typewriter in exchange for electric blankets. The labor dispute ends, and the cows and hens went back to producing milk and eggs.

The deal backfires on Farmer Brown, though, as Duck absconds with the typewriter and leverages it for a diving board for the pond.

Click Clack Moo teaches us some valuable lessons:

    1. Fair Treatment: The best means to avoid collective action by your employees is to treat your employees fairly. The barn was cold, and the cows and hens perceived that they were being forced to work in intolerable conditions. When Farmer Brown refused even to consider any concessions, they went on strike. If you want your employees to work hard, not unionize and not file lawsuits, treat them fairly. Maintain reasonable, even-handed work rules and policies. Apply them equally. Don’t discriminate. There is no guarantee that you’ll stay out of court, but if you end up there, you’ll have a much easier time convincing a judge or jury of the rightness of your decision if they perceive you as having been fair, reasonable, and even-handed.
    2. Litigation is an Answer, But Not Always the Best Answer: Even in employment cases, where there are so many emotions in play on both sides of the table, it is only the most frivolous of cases that cannot not be resolved at some dollar figure. It is the job of the employer, working with its attorney, to strike the right balance between the cost of litigation and the cost of settlement. Convictions often get in the way, and often times litigation and trial is the only means to an end. But, you should always keep an open mind towards a resolution.
    3. Don’t Go It Alone: When resolving any case, make sure all your loose ends are tied up in a tidy agreement. Farmer Brown missed this last point. A well drafted agreement that included Duck would have avoided the added expense of the diving board. If Farmer Brown had retained competent counsel, he could have potentially avoided the problem with Duck (who probably went to law school).
Posted on

Crime in Chicago: Yes, We Know It Exists. Use Common Sense During SHRM

Chicago police officer SHRM
A Chicago police officer rides his bike along the Lakefront Trail. Photo by Andrew Kennedy Lewis

SHRM attendees unfamiliar with Chicago may feel cautious about coming to the Windy City because of the constant crime reports on the news. News flash: There’s crime in Chicago. It’s a big city.

While it’s always good to be cautious, by and large the area around McCormick Place and the South Loop are generally safe to be in every day. In case you’re still concerned, we’ve listed some safety tips provided by the Chicago Police Department and CPD Sgt. Rocco Alioto, much of which is common sense but nonetheless worth repeating:

  • Always be aware of your surroundings and travel in well-lit, populated streets.
  • Travel with other people.
  • Know where you’re going, what route you’re taking and let your group know this information.
  • Communicate your estimated arrival time to others in your group or to people expecting you.
  • Don’t walk with your phone of other valuables in your hand.
  • Try not to leave personal items like bags and backpacks unattended.
  • Hide valuables or secure them in a hotel room safe (“For example, do not leave a purse or other item visible in a car,” said Alioto).
  • Use the ATMs inside the bank instead of on the street.
  • If something is lost or stolen, immediately call the police.

As a warning, there are a number of homeless individuals on the streets and sometimes on the “L” trains and buses. Alioto recommends, “When approached by a panhandler and you do not have or want to give anything, let them know you are not interested and continue on your way,” he said. “I simply say, ‘No thank you’ and most of the time the response has been ‘Have a good day’ or ‘Bless you.’ ”

The officer had nothing to say about crime or anything specific to look out for near the McCormick Place. “[I] hope that the visitors enjoy all that the city has to offer in the summer,” said Alioto.

If anything seems unsafe or suspicious, avoid the situation and immediately call 911.

Go here to read more of our 2018 SHRM coverage. 

Aysha Ashley Househ is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Starbucks Shuts Down to Give Workers Anti-Bias Training

Customers had to leave Starbucks early May 29 for the coffeemaker’s anti-bias training. Photo by Andrew Kennedy Lewis

Dozens of Starbucks customers were caught off guard by the mandatory half-day unconscious bias training for employees May 29 that shut down some 8,000 company-owned locations nationwide.

Some tried to open the closed doors at a Starbucks on Michigan Avenue in Chicago; others said they forgot the training was the day following Memorial Day as they read the “See you tomorrow” signs posted at the store.

One Starbucks customer in Chicago who asked not to be named had forgotten the closure was May 29 but knew about the mandatory training. She said the training is good for employees, although she was unsure if all companies should provide a similar training.

“It depends [if the training is] constructive and productive. [The exercises] during the training should focus on the systems of oppression,” she added.

Another customer visiting Chicago from New York, who also asked not to be named, said the training sounded like a “public relations stunt.” She added that she respects Starbucks more than before for doing this. “At least they are doing something,” she added.

The mandatory unconscious bias training comes after two African American males were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks for trespassing in mid-April.

According to Starbucks Executive Chairman Howard Schultz in an open letter to customers posted the day of training, the manager at the Philadelphia store had called police a few minutes after the two men arrived and sat waiting for a friend. The two men had not purchased anything, which according to company policy, meant that they were not customers.

Since then Starbucks has changed their policy to allow people to use their restrooms and spend time in stores.

“This incident has prompted us to reflect more deeply on all forms of bias, the role of our stores in communities and our responsibility to ensure that nothing like this happens again at Starbucks,” said Schultz.

A Starbucks location in Chicago closed early for anti-bias training for employees. Photo by Andrew Kennedy Lewis

The training will be provided to 175,000 employees, according to Schultz. They will be “sharing life experiences, hearing from others, listening to experts, reflecting on the realities of bias in our society and talking about how all of us create public spaces where everyone feels like they belong-because they do.”

Elena Richards, U.S. Minority Initiatives and Talent Management Leader for the Office of Diversity at global consultancy PwC, who could not speak specifically to Starbucks’ training, said unconscious bias training should be mandatory as it educates companies and gives organizations a step in the right direction.

“[People] typically rely on their gut, [but unconscious bias education will help] make better future decisions [and show them] the blind spots used in everyday behavior,” Richards said.

The Starbucks employee training included an award-winning documentary titled, “You’re Welcome” by Stanley Nelson.

Starbucks has received help from multiple experts in the field and have stated that there is more training scheduled in the future.

Victor Espinoza, a recent former employee of Starbucks, who worked for the company for five years in two different locations, said in an e-mail interview he thought the training is good for employees.

“This is definitely something every employee should go through,” he said. “I believe that that this training should be given to everyone the moment they get hired to any company, but especially in customer service. They shouldn’t have to close because this training should’ve been given to everyone the moment they got hired with the company, but just to get everyone on the same page at this point it is necessary to close,” Espinoza added.

“I do respect Starbucks more because they admitted their mistake and are working to fix this issue in the company,” he said.

PwC’s Richards noted that unconscious bias education is about “building a muscle and more awareness.”

This story first appeared in Chief Learning Officer, a sister publication of Workforce. Rocio Villasenor is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Author Addresses Dying for a Paycheck — Literally

Jeffrey Pfeffer, author of ‘Dying for a Paycheck.’

Jeffrey Pfeffer takes a direct approach when talking about the harmful health effects a negative workplace can have on employees. The professor of organizational behavior at the graduate school of business at Stanford University points out that these effects can happen to someone in any industry.

In his new book, “Dying for a Paycheck,” Pfeffer provides evidence and examples to support his claim that negative workplace environments are hurting — and in some cases killing — employees. Workforce intern Aysha Ashley Househ spoke to Pfeffer about why he thinks wellness programs don’t work and how the government should regulate management practices.

Workforce: What do you think sets your book apart from the other information out there on this topic?

Jeffrey Pfeffer: I think there’s several unique contributions. Number one, we did this aggregate estimate of the workplace exposures and their total effect on health in the U.S. and compared the U.S. to other countries and tried to show how much of the inequality and health outcomes comes from people getting sorted into jobs with these different characteristics.

And secondly, we look at the health insurance or health programs that they [employers] offer and whether those programs prevent people from accessing medical care. And I think there are the two dimensions of whether or not companies offer health insurance at all and the costs. And of course, the percentage of companies offering employer-sponsored health has gone down while the costs born by employees has gone up.

But even for the companies that are offering employer sponsored health insurance there’s often a financial burden for employees, and so you can see data that suggests a significant fraction of the U.S. workforce is unable to get their prescriptions filled or access medical care. A fair percentage of those people are in fact insured. And in fact, a reasonable number of people who file for bankruptcy because of medical expenses also have health insurance.

Number one, if you are concerned about health care costs, which everybody seems to be, you ought to focus on the work environment because that’s a source of a lot of the stressors, which create chronic disease. Number two, we ought to take human sustainability as importantly as we’ve come to take environmental sustainablity. This idea that we can use people and spit them out I think is just not a very humane, not a very good way to do things. And third, I wanted to highlight in this book that this is a problem that extends well beyond a single industry or a single occupation, that this is really an extensive problem that cuts across industries and occupations.

WF: What do you think is the ideal wellness program?

Pfeffer: I think wellness programs fundamentally don’t work; that’s what the evidence shows. And that is because they are an attempt to remediate the effects of a bunch of bad working conditions including things that we didn’t even study in the statistical estimate. Things such as gender and race discrimination and workplace bullying.

So, you have workplaces in which people are working long hours, people don’t have job control, people are facing economic insecurity because of layoffs and scheduling issues. And then what employers have tried to do is put on what I would call a Band-Aid. We’re going to offer you yoga or a little exercise. And what we have learned from the quality movement is that prevention is much better than remediation. So instead of trying to put in health and wellness programs to try and remediate the effects of toxic work environments, you ought to prevent the toxicity in the first place and then you wouldn’t need to try and remediate it.

And the other reason why health and wellness programs don’t work is because they are focused on individual behavior. So, I want you to stop smoking, I want you to stop drinking, I want you to exercise, I want you to eat better. But the evidence suggests that alcohol abuse, drug abuse, eating disorders are affected by one’s environment.

I remember the quote [in the book] from the woman I called Kim who worked at Amazon. She said, ‘I would basically do anything, take any drug, to try and numb the psychological pain I was feeling from my workplace.’ So, the idea that I’m going to give you some kind of diet and exercise program independent of removing the workplace environmental stresses that have caused you to engage in these unhealthy behaviors, it can’t possibly work. You need to change the environment, and then the health and wellness programs will work.

WF: What’s your advice for people in a stressful job, but can’t leave?

Pfeffer: Leave. [Laughs] The first thing I would tell people is you need to get social support and spend time with friends, and spend time with your family, and spend time in other environments. I mean the macro suggestion is if you’re in a toxic environment at work, spend time to the extent possible in nontoxic environments outside of work, which will give you relief from that. But in order to do that, you need to be able to have time to actually do that.

My facetious suggestion of leaving is not completely facetious. Once you have ruined your physical and psychological health by being in these harmful, toxic environments, it is very hard to reverse that damage. If I said to you, you’re in a place where they’re poisoning you, and you can’t leave the place… there’s no answer.

WF: What do you think it will take for businesses to realize they need to put their people first?

Pfeffer: You know what it’s going to take? You’re not going to like this answer. I think your readers will really not. It’s going to take a big lawsuit. Somebody is going to get sued. But somebody will bring a case and basically say you have a workplace that is causing people demonstrable, physical harm and we’re going to sue you on that.

WF: How can organizations put their people first?

Pfeffer: Employers need to recognize that they have a stewardship responsibility for the well-being of their employees and they ought to monitor things like prescription drug use, and they ought to monitor things like people’s physical and mental well-being. Employers doing surveys — it’s really pretty easy to put on an item that says what is your current health status on a five-point scale. And you can see this again, my parallel with the physical environment I think is a pretty reasonable one. They could do reporting on their human well-being as well because human sustainability is just as important as environmental sustainability.

WF: You mention how government should play a role. What should it do?

Pfeffer: Years ago, the government said if you put toxins into the air and the water and the soil it’s not just that you harm people, but you have externalized cost. Preventing the discharge is much cheaper than cleaning it up once it’s out there. And therefore, the government said we’re going to regulate and place regulations on this and we’re not going to permit you to externalize your cost on the larger society. And I think the parallel is direct. If I work you to the point where you are now physically, or psychologically, or some combination of the two unable to work, you’re now a cost that has been externalized onto the larger society.

And I have data in the book from studies not done by me, on how companies that don’t provide health insurance or don’t provide adequate health insurance, or adequate wages — you then rely on some form of public assistance. Again, the larger society pays. I think the government has a role to make sure that companies are not able to externalize their cost of employment on the broader society.

WF: Are there warning signs employees can look out for before they accept a job?

Pfeffer: So it’s kind of a funny one. When you interview, the people who are going to be your co-workers. Ask them what drugs they take. There’s a woman from Salesforce, and I quote her in the book and [she says], “I joined Salesforce and one week later I went on anti-depressants.” And she and I were talking more recently, and she said, “most of my friends at Salesforce are on anti-depressants. I should’ve asked, ‘Are you on anti-depressants?’ for my job interview.” [Laughs]

And it’s kind of facetious, but it’s kind of not. In some kind of subtle way, ask people, are you taking sleeping pills, are you on ADHD medicines, are you on anti-depressants? And you know if the percentage is pretty high maybe that tells you something.

WF: What is one thing you want people to take away from the book?

Pfeffer: The Bob Chapman quote: Your employer’s more important for your health than your family doctor. Employers really are the cause of the health care crisis. Most health care spend is on chronic disease; Chronic disease mostly comes from stress and stress comes from the workplace. So, if we want to fix the health care crisis and the health care cost crisis in this country, the place to begin is with the work environment.

Aysha Ashley Househ is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. 

Posted on

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

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Today, I take you to lovely Riverside County, California, home of Palm Springs, Joshua Tree National Park, the Coachella Music Festival … and the ninth nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018.

Until his termination on May 7, 2018, Andrew Yeghnazar had, since 2010, worked as the president of Blacoh Fluid Control, Inc.

What did Blacoh Fluid Control (allegedly) do to earn its nomination?

It retaliated … a lot.

Yeghnazar’s complaint reads like a law school exam in an employment law class. If you’ve ever been to law school, you know that it’s not a good analogy to be part of.

Yeghnazar alleges that he complained about Blacoh’s CEO, Diana Vise.

‣ About her alcoholism.
‣ And drug abuse.
‣ And memory loss.
‣ And failing to show up to work.
‣ And embezzlement.
‣ And tax fraud.
‣ And calling an African American employee the “token black guy.”
‣ And refusing to hire a candidate because he was “too fat.”
‣ And prohibiting the hiring of anyone “more beautiful” than her.

The result?

An administrative leave for Yeghnazar, followed a few days later by his termination.

Any one of these (alleged) retaliatory acts in the court document might be enough to a spot on my list.

But all of them might make you the worst employer of 2018.

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.
Posted on

Can (or Should) OSHA Regulate the NFL?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Sports blog Deadspin asks: What If The NFL Were Regulated By OSHA?

Well, Deadspin, I’m glad you asked. I answered this very question over three years ago.

Here’s what I said (rhetorically asking if concussion are the NFL’s black lung):

The NFL has implemented league-wide rules in an attempt to minimize head injuries. And, those rules seem to be working. During the 2014 season, the rate of concussion fell 25 percent as compared to the 2013 season, and are down 36 percent since 2012.

Yet, NFL players still suffer 0.43 concussions per game. And, while the rate of concussions has fallen, the rate of injuries overall continues to rise, up 17 percent from 2013 to 2014, with 265 players placed on injured reserve during the 2014 regular season. This means that during the NFL’s regular season, more than one player per game suffered a season-ending injury.

Think about those numbers. If you ran a manufacturing plant, would you be content with a “Days Without Injury” calendar that was forever set on “zero?” And, more to the point, wouldn’t you expect OSHA eventually to take interest in your extraordinarily unsafe workplace?

All the way back in 2008, OSHA opined that it has the jurisdiction to regulate professional sports if the athletes are employees. There is no doubt that NFL players, protected by a labor union and parties to a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL, are employees, subject to OSHA’s regulatory jurisdiction.
OHSA lacks a standard on pro sports, but it does have its general duty clause. It provides, “Each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” OSHA used this general duty clause to cite Sea World of Florida following a trainer’s death from a killer-whale attack. If the general duty clause can reach the entertainment industry, why can’t it also reach professional sports?

While OSHA likely can reach pro sports, the bigger question is will it? On its own accord, history shows that the answer is no. But, what if the NFLPA believes that the NFL isn’t doing all it could to reduce the risk of head injuries and files a complaint with OSHA? What then?

Or, what if, god forbid, a player dies on the field during a game? Surely, OSHA would then investigate. For years, the government and the coal industry ignored the risk of black lung disease, even as more and more miners fell ill.

The NFL has the power to regulate head injuries. It better be sure it is doing everything it can, or it is taking a huge risk that OSHA will step in and regulate in the league’s place.

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.