Author: Rick Bell

Posted on

It’s Evident That Paid Family Leave Has Bipartisan Agreement

Andie Burjek, Working Well blog

Between 2015 and 2017 there was a boom in the number of employers announcing paid family leave policies.

Workforce writers have covered many angles regarding paid leave. Speaking from my own personal experience, I’ve enjoyed writing about the gender divide of leave policies. Naturally, birth mothers will get a little more time to recover physically from a birth. But any other discrepancies, such as leaving out fathers and adoptive parents from baby-bonding leave or assuming that the father isn’t the primary caregiver, is just ridiculous. Workforce employment law contributor Jon Hyman has covered that in his Practical Employer blog, as well.

[Related article: “Dads Are Parents, too — Baby Bonding and Sex Discrimination”]

The gender differences in paid family leave policies are significant. However, there’s another significant gap in coverage: low-wage workers vs. high-wage workers.

The nonprofit organization Paid Leave for the United States, which cleverly goes by PL+US, recently released a report titled, “The Have and the Have Nots of Paid Family Leave,” which goes into the class difference of paid family leave. It cites that 94 percent of low-income working parents have no access to paid family leave, according to the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Many paid family leave policies “are only accessible for people who work in white-collar corporate jobs, leaving out hourly employees who compromise the vast majority of a company’s workforce,” stated the report.

The other major takeaway of these findings was that many of the policies of many of the country’s largest employers are unequal. They may only apply to salaried employees rather than hourly employees, or they might only apply to birth mothers rather than fathers or adoptive parents. There are some exceptions. It singled out some employers that have managed to offer paid family leave to both salaried and hourly employees,

including Ikea, Levi’s, Nordstrom, Bank of America, Chase, Apple and Hilton Hotels.

Now, of course, from a financial perspective, it makes sense for a business to be wary of offering leave to everyone, hence any inequalities in policies. But it does leave a lot to be lacking for a majority of a company’s workforce.

That’s why I enjoyed learning about the AEI-Brookings report “Paid Family and Medical Leave” through a conversation with one of its main contributors, Isabel Sawhill. She and many others formed a diversified group of conservatives and liberals to discuss paid family leave.

 

They came up with a suggestion for a compromised paid family leave policy, which no one was 100 percent happy with, said Sawhill. But the fact that these different people were able to agree on something was promising. Also promising? That everyone agreed we really need a paid family leave solution in this country.

I’ll go more into the meat of this conversation in a later story. The major takeaways from Sawhill was that a diverse group of people want this, any federal legislation regarding paid family leave probably won’t happen any time soon, and it has potential to happen, though, given the bipartisan support. What’s noteworthy is, like research has shown, this push for paid family leave has mostly applied to high-skill jobs. Will the same momentum trickle down to companies that employ more mid-level and low-wage workers?

From the perspective of the larger economy, more attainable and widespread paid family leave could also benefit the country as a whole. Since 2000, labor force participation rates have been declining, said Sawhill, and one possible agent for economic growth could be to better allow parents to handle work vs. family tensions.

I’m currently working on a larger feature about the U.S. paid family leave landscape for the November/December issue of Workforce, and as I do so it’s valuable to keep these discrepancies, inequalities and realities in mind.

The more I research the topic, the more it becomes obvious that most employers would like to offer paid parental leave, only certain challenges hold them back. I’ll address this in the print article. Meanwhile, my colleague Lauren Dixon, who primarily writes for Workforce’s sister publication Talent Economy, has created a 10-step guide to creating a paid parental leave policy. This could be helpful for any HR professionals looking for practical advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR8jBmJP-2E&t=5s

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

Engagement, Apathy and Benefits Plans

We all walk around with unbelievably powerful computers in our pockets. An incredible 77 percent of Americans across income levels have a smartphone, and that number will continue to grow. The data our phones collect helps to personalize the world around us in so many ways, from the information we see in personalized ads, to the news we consume, to the brands we interact with. This highly personalized and targeted consumer experience is so ingrained in our daily lives that most of the time we don’t even realize it.

That same level of tailoring and data-driven personalization is quickly making its way into the employee benefits and HR space. We see incredibly smart tools and resources that provide personalized views of benefits, work and life. For instance, there are wellness apps that push out notifications about upcoming health screenings, fitness challenges and other wellness events for employees. Financial apps automate bill paying and saving money. And benefits enrollment platforms customize enrollment options to make choices easier for employees.

As we look ahead, advanced analytics will play a big role in benefits and HR. That means companies will be using techniques and tools such as data mining, statistics, predictive modeling and machine learning to analyze current data and make predictions about future events. And, we’ll start to see personalized health and financial experiences that mirror those used in the consumer marketing world and (hopefully) motivate meaningful behavior change.

All this technology is impressive, and its potential is tremendous. We know engagement in health, financial and work-life programs is a real challenge for employers. Most large employers invest millions in benefits to help employees and their families make good health care decisions, get the best care, change their habits for the better, save for their futures and enjoy today. And, most of these programs go unused, despite their value to the employee.

Health care tech company Accolade partnered with Harris in a poll last year and found that 43 percent of Americans say they have not used employer-sponsored programs such as wellness apps, condition management programs, provider cost transparency tools and second opinion services program within the past year. Only 13 percent have used them once, and 18 percent have used them two to three times. This engagement gap — and the business cost associated with it — is precisely the reason so many technology companies have developed smart technology to get employees the right resources at the right time.

Using data to make employee benefits and HR programs relevant and sticky is a great idea, of course, and it meets a real need. But it isn’t without challenging privacy and comfort-level issues.

Whether employees welcome these new efforts or are suspicious of them comes down to trust, culture and communication. There’s no question that employers want to improve outcomes and reduce costs. And, they also have their employees’ best interests at heart. Better health and financial outcomes create a positive impact for the business and for individual employees. Those two goals are not inconsistent with one another.

But this positive, employee-focused framing isn’t often the way large organizations approach these efforts — and the media generally doesn’t help make this case with its focus on exceptions, instead of best practices.

As technology gets more sophisticated, employers can’t do enough to educate employees about their privacy and protections. Employees need to understand the considerable effort their companies take to offer programs and resources that help them improve their health and their lives — why you make that effort, how the programs work, and how employees are protected. We must remind employees that there are stringent laws in place to safeguard individual employee data from employers. Benefits and HR leaders get aggregate data about employee health, but no one gets access to individual heath data.

Engagement with health programs will continue to lag — even with the best policies in place — until employers put resources, creativity and consistency into marketing their programs. The onus is on the employer to position programs so they are relevant, valuable and actionable for employees and their families, just like the consumer products we all know and love. Until we do that, suspicions will remain and valuable programs will go unused.

Posted on

The More Things Change … the NLRB and Weingarten Rights for Non-union Employees

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
Today, a joke.
“How is the National Labor Relations Board like the weather?”
“I don’t know, Jon, how?”
“If you don’t like either, just wait and they’ll change.”
[groan]
Not my best material, I know. But, it does illustrate an important point, driven home by an Advice Memo [pdf] just released by the NLRB Office of General Counsel on the issue of Weingarten rights for non-union employees.
In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement may request the presence of a union representative during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. In the 42 years hence, the board has vacillated on the issue of whether Weingarten rights also extend to non-union employees.
For example, in 2000, in Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio [pdf], the Clinton-era board found that employees in non-union settings have Weingarten rights to a coworker representative during investigatory interviews. More recently, however, the Bush-era board, in IBM Corp., concluded the exact opposite, that, in light of certain policy considerations, the board would no longer find that employees in non-union workplaces have the right to a coworker representative.

Which brings us to September 2017, and the NLRB Office of General Counsel’s aforementioned advice memo.

We conclude that the … Board … extend Weingarten rights to unrepresented employees and find that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by forcing one employee to submit to an investigatory interview without the assistance of a coworker and by forcing another employee to submit to an investigatory interview in the presence of an anti-Union employee witness unilaterally designated by the Employer.

Practically speaking, this call for action will mean little to nothing. Richard Griffin, the Obama-appointed NLRB General Counsel, only serves until his term expires on Nov. 4, 2017. Thereafter, President Trump will appoint a new NLRB General Counsel, presumably one who will have a more management-friendly view of federal labor laws (including the non-expansion of Weingarten rights to non-union employees).

Nevertheless, this advice memo is a solid reminder of how our federal administrative agencies can, and often do, sway in the political breezes.

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 Next Nominee for Worst Employer of 2017 Is … the Pumping Preventer

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a six-figure verdict in favor of a Stephanie Hicks, a former narcotics task force investigator for the Tuscaloosa, Alabama, police department. She sued, and won, after her former employer refused to permit her to pump her breast milk after returning from maternity leave.

Refused might be an over-exaggeration. But not by much. The police department allowed her to pump, but only in the not-so-private confines of the locker room, where any co-worker passing by could see. Aside from invading her privacy, it also violates federal law, which requires employers to provide women with a place to pump “other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public.”

Federal law also requires employers provide lactating employees unpaid breaks to pump, which it appears this employer also denied to Hicks. Among the more egregious statements made to her:

When she would head downstairs to pump, she would often get a call on her radio from her coworkers telling her to “wrap those boobs up” and get back to work.

Ultimately, she quit her job and successfully claimed that the police department subjected her to a hostile work environment and constructively discharged her.

Look, I’m not a woman, I don’t know what it’s like to lactate, and both of my kids were bottle fed. But, I know enough to know that if you tell a lactating employee to “wrap those boobs up” so that she can get back to work, you might be the worst employer of 2017.

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

A Refresher on Pre-employment Medical Exams

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
Do you require medical exams of applicants before they start working for you? If so, do you know the rules that the ADA requires you follow?
Last month, the EEOC settled a lawsuit it brought against a Florida staffing firm for alleged unlawful pre-employment medical exams under the ADA, which serves as a good reminder for employers of these rules.
According to the lawsuit, the firm asked applicants to complete a paper application package with a detailed medical questionnaire — including sensitive health information and included numerous disability-related questions — before the company offered the applicant a position or placement.
This settlement is good reminder that the ADA has strict rules regulating when an employer can, and cannot, ask individuals for medical information prior to the start of employment.

The ADA applies a traffic-light approach to employer-mandated medical exams.

  • Red Light (prior to an offer of employment): the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even those that a job related.
  • Yellow Light (after employment begins): an employer only may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations that are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
  • Green Light (after an applicant is given a conditional job offer, but before s/he starts work): an employer may make any disability-related inquiries and conduct medical examinations, regardless of whether they are related to the job, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same job category.
Pay attention to state laws, as well. For example, Ohio prohibits an employer from shifting the cost of any pre-employment medical exam to an employee: “No employer shall require any prospective employee or applicant for employment to pay the cost of a medical examination required by the employer as a condition of employment.”
According to EEOC Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg, “Congress recognized that prohibiting pre-offer medical inquiries was necessary to prevent applicants from being subjected to harmful and unfounded stereotypes on the basis of an actual or perceived disability.”Further, “As staffing agencies now play a large role in our nation’s workforce, eliminating any discrimination in their screening practices is increasingly important to ensuring that workers with disabilities have equal access to work opportunities.”
Sage advice.
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

Defining the Line Between Lawful (but Awful) Bullying and Unlawful Harassment

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Consider the following allegations of sexual harassment levied by Pamela Daniels, a secretary in the Pike County (Ohio) Prosecutor’s Office, against her boss, County Prosecutor Charles Robert Junk.

And then let’s answer the age-old question — lawful (but awful) bullying or unlawful harassment?

(1) he permitted male diversion officers (excluding Jason Savage) to work hours other than 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.;

(2) he did not strictly require male diversion officers (excluding Jason Savage) to punch a time clock;

(3) he accessed female employees’ computers to check on their personal internet search histories and, on one occasion, he accessed and left female employees’ search histories on their computer screens;

(4) he prohibited plaintiff Barron from cashing in her vacation time, but permitted male employees to do so;

(5) he laughed and chatted with male employees, but “smirked” at female employees;

(6) on one occasion, he commented to plaintiff Daniels that she looked like she had lost her best friend;

(7) he loudly popped packing materials in the area where the female employees worked;

(8) he told members of the public on one or two occasions that “these girls have work they need to be doing. I’m just making sure they’re doing what they’re supposed to do.”;

(9) he stated in front of female employees, “Everybody working. Nobody’s whining. That’s the way we like it.”;

(10) he asked, in front of the female employees, whether “everyone” had punched the time clock;

(11) he spoke to others about plaintiffs as if plaintiffs were not present; and

(12) he asked plaintiff Daniels on one occasion why she was wearing jeans and said “if you say so” and stomped off when plaintiff Daniels reminded him that he had given her additional time to comply with the dress code.

Lawful (but awful) bullying, or unlawful sexual harassment?
According to the 6th Circuit, the answer is lawful (but awful) bullying.

There is little doubt that the working relationship between Junk and Daniels deteriorated significantly after October 2013. However, the listed instances of alleged harassment, even in the aggregate, would not be considered by a rational person to be sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment. One of the instances of alleged harassment. … Numerous others involved implementation of office policies that reflected the realities of the responsibilities of office personnel. Others were relatively innocent, singular occurrences, comments that were not objectively hostile or abusive, or “mere offensive utterance[s].” … Without question, Junk’s actions in that regard showed both immaturity and bad judgment. The totality of the circumstances, however, do not support the conclusion that the working environment was objectively hostile or abusive.

I could construct a plausible argument that a jury, not a judge, should decide whether Junk sexually harassed Daniels, and a different panel of judges could see this issue differently and side with Daniels.

Do you know, however, the best course of action to remove any uncertainty over the issue of whether boorish office behavior crosses the line from lawful bullying to unlawful harassment?

Don’t employ assholes. Period.

It’s just that simple.
And, lest you worry that Junk and his employer got off scot-free, Daniels prevailed on her retaliation claim, as not only did Junk subject her to this litany of misconduct, but he also fired her after she complained about it.
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

Dads Are Parents, too — Baby Bonding and Sex Discrimination

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Should new dads receive the same amount of time off from work to bond with their newly born child as do women? That is the question at the center of a lawsuit the EEOC recently filed against cosmetics giant Estée Lauder.

According to the EEOC, Estée Lauder’s parental leave program provides eligible new mothers six weeks of paid parental leave for child bonding (plus six additional paid weeks for childbirth recovery). Under the same policy, however, Estée Lauder only offers new fathers whose partners have given birth two weeks of paid leave for child bonding.

EEOC Washington Field Office Acting Director Mindy Weinstein says about this lawsuit, “It is wonderful when employers provide paid parental leave and flexible work arrangements, but federal law requires equal pay, including benefits, for equal work, and that applies to men as well as women.” Adds EEOC Philadelphia District Office Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence, “Addressing sex-based pay discrimination, including in benefits such as paid leave, is a priority issue for the Commission.”

What does this mean for your policies? If you provide unequal post-childbirth baby-bonding benefits to male employees as compared to female employees, you might be putting yourself in the EEOC’s spotlight.

Indeed, men and women are physiologically different (women give birth; men do not), and this key difference justifies some policy differences. It should be lawful to differentiate gender-based post-childbirth leave based on the medical need to recover from the trauma of childbirth. Bonding, however, is totally different. I see no reason, other than an archaic view of the role of men versus the role of women in raising children, why mom is entitled to six paid weeks but dad only two.

To conclude, I was going to offer some practical suggestions to how to handle paternity-leave issues. But, Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady, beat me to it:

  • Men and women can both be the primary parent. While you can certainly say only one parent can fill that role if both parents work for your company, you should otherwise take the employee’s word for it.
  • Legally, you have to allow up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for any parent to take care of new baby, a new foster child, or newly adopted older child. Don’t ever assume that the dad will not be the one to take this leave that is guaranteed under FMLA. Again, if both parents work for you, you can limit this to 12 weeks total.
  • Don’t limit leave to married couples, or heterosexual couples. Babies need care, period.
  • Take a page out of Facebook’s manual, and don’t require employees to use parental leave in one lump. [I’m not sold on this point, as it make leaves much more difficult to administer, could lead to abuses, and certainly leads to scheduling difficulties.]
  • Double check with your attorney before implementing the policy. Employment law is complex and varies from state to state. It’s always cheaper to pay an attorney before than it is to pay an attorney to defend you. [AMEN!]
Posted on

Is the Labor Department’s White-Collar Salary Test DOA?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Late last week, a federal judge in Texas struck down the Department of Labor’s attempt to raise the salary test for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions from $455 per week to $913 per week.

The court held that because the statute defines the administrative, executive, and professional exemptions based on their duties, any salary test that renders the duties irrelevant to the analysis is invalid. Thus, because the Obama-era $913 salary test could overshadow the exemption’s duties in the execution of the exemptions, the new salary level is invalid.

I found footnotes 5 and 6 to be very interesting, but I’m not sure the position they advance are intellectually consistent with the bulk of the opinion.

Compare:

This opinion is not making any assessments regarding the general lawfulness of the salary-level test or the Department’s authority to implement such a test. Instead, the Court is evaluating only the salary-level test as amended by the Department’s Final Rule. … During questioning at the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court suggested it would be permissible if the Department adjusted the 2004 salary level for inflation. [fns. 5 and 6]

-vs-

The Final Rule more than doubles the previous minimum salary level. By raising the salary level in this manner, the Department effectively eliminates a consideration of whether an employee performs “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” duties. … Nothing in Section 213(a)(1) allows the Department to make salary rather than an employee’s duties determinative of whether a “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” employee should be exempt from overtime pay. [opinion]

The only way to read the opinion is that any salary test exceeds the DOL’s authority to implement the EAP exemptions (footnotes 5 and 6 notwithstanding). Alternatively, if the only salary test that will pass muster is one that is so low that anyone who meets the duties test also must, de facto, meet the minimum salary threshold (the status quo of $455, adjusted for inflation to $592), why have a salary test at all?

Thus, in my opinion, the DOL’s salary test is DOA. Now, let’s wait for the appeal and see what the court of appeals has to say on this issue.
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

Hurricane Harvey Shows the Need for Employer Communication and Empathy

Although he’d rather not be reminded of the blizzard that dumped 21 inches of snow on Chicago over two days in 2011, Adam Ochstein also shivers when he recalls the record-breaking chill when the city was hit by the polar vortex during the winter of 2014.

The CEO of StratEx, a Chicago-based HR service company, admits his business was ill-prepared for the natural disasters. Local business partners could empathize with inevitable disruptions, but since StratEx’s clients span the country, he remembers most did not care about the weather’s effect on business; they just wanted their services.

Ochstein, who has been the CEO for 16 years, is aware of the challenges faced by businesses now in southeast Texas and Louisiana given the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey. Spotty power and sporadic communication tools only add to the uncertainty in contacting employees regarding vital information.

During stressful times, companies need to be aware of ways to best communicate with their employees if technology is disrupted by natural disasters. They also need to have safety measures in place and make their workers feel comfortable while keeping the organization working.

Ochstein said boosting morale and showing empathy for employees is crucial in times of tragedy. StratEx paid for Ubers or taxis and catered lunch to make sure employees felt comfortable still coming to work as the blizzard set in. Once the snowstorm paralyzed Chicago, StratEx leaders realized the best way to continue was allowing employees to work remotely.

“[We used] any means necessary to communicate family first, business second,” Ochstein said.

Pam Goncalves, chief of staff for GuideSpark, an employee-communications software company, said communicating with employees through corporate social media channels and platforms and even simple phone trees keeps employees in the loop following a natural disaster like Harvey.

“Most HR teams, including GuideSpark’s, will then start dialing cell phones, land lines and emergency contacts until they have reached every last employee,” Goncalves said.

She noted that employees often need to relay critical corporate information to customers and business partners, so having crisis communication solutions in place is the next step that companies should have in place.

Those in leadership positions have a responsibility to their staff to communicate effectively in times of turmoil, and Goncalves said receiving a message from the CEO or the head of HR can alleviate worry and show support and empathy.

For example, if an employer has to temporarily close, encouraging employees to volunteer at local shelters can make them feel less helpless, she said.

“One theme in the overall communication is to remember extended family and friends,” Goncalves added. “Even though a company may not have been directly impacted by the disaster, that doesn’t mean its employees don’t have family or friends affected by the crisis.”

For Mishell Parreno Taylor, an employment attorney in the San Diego office of Littler Mendelson, the tragic times in Harvey hit home; she grew up in Houston and attended college there, and her family and friends still live in the area.

Parreno Taylor, along with her colleagues, published an insight piece on Littler’s website Aug. 29 about the legal responsibilities employers have after a hurricane. She told Workforce that everyone has to come together during times of crisis. Constant communication is essential, but if social media channels and phones are down, employers need to have emergency contact information and identify critical groups and services locally so there is a backup communication plan.

If workplaces are destroyed or deemed unsafe, companies may offer employees remote work options. Goncalves remembers employees having to work remotely in 1989 after the Loma Prieta earthquake devastated the San Francisco Bay Area at a time when communications tools were primitive compared to today’s standards. Parreno Taylor said employers and employees must be clear about wage and hours when working remotely, while remembering that everyone is doing the best they can.

“If you have people out there putting in time and working remotely there is an obligation to compensate them for that time,” she said. “It’s important, though, from wage-hour claims that an employer communicates time and attendance policies that shows compensable time and is accurately reporting time.”

Parreno Taylor stressed the importance of supporting each in the weeks and months following Harvey’s destruction. She translated her insight column into Spanish for the diverse population in southeast Texas. She shared that company leaders need to listen to employees and “make sure to balance the needs and morale of your workforce with continuing the workforce.”

Continuing the workforce is easier now for Ochstein, who said StratEx has over 100 employees around the country and would be better equipped collaboratively and with safety if another natural disaster were to occur.

“We have a drill in place for how we handle some type of business discontinuance or natural disaster; we have all the communication and collaboration tools,” he said.

Ariel Parrella-Aureli is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Creating Happiness: Creative Workers Claim to be Happiest at Work

Kevin Synoga knows what it is like to work a creative job in a not-so-creative field, but is happy to be in the hard-working environment of his colleagues. Synoga, a graphic designer at a transportation engineering firm, sees happiness at work not solely in creative fields, although surveys show happiness and creativity are often paired together.

A recent survey by staffing firm Robert Half’s found more than 12,000 U.S. and Canadian workers in creative positions reported the highest levels of on-the-job satisfaction and interest in their work, compared to employees in the accounting and finance, administrative, legal and tech fields.

“Creatives like their jobs more because that’s the direction they are taking with their career,” Synoga said. “Other people in finance jobs and similar fields may have fallen into the jobs instead of having a really guided point to what they wanted to do.”

Chicago tech startup Curiosity.com offers creative articles on a variety of topics through multiple platforms and is committed to teaching readers something new every day. Patrick Cerone, brand partnership manager at Curiosity, works with the company’s editorial team to create compelling content so he knows the potential of creatives achieving happiness at work if they feel a connection and appreciation for their work.

“When you’re creating something, you’re putting a lot of your thoughts, ideas and inspiration into the project, so it’s more than just a job,” Cerone said, who also has a background in marketing. “The right job can be a real source of happiness and fulfillment, so the potential is there.”

Company culture is a big part of happiness, too. In a separate survey, The Creative Group, a smaller marketing division of Robert Half, asked 400 U.S. marketing and creative employees to describe their office culture in one word. Creative workers said their culture is friendly, family and diverse.

At Curiosity, Cerone described his work culture as caring, intellectually curious and committed, adding that everyone is supportive of each other.

“Those who have good relationships with their coworkers are 2.5 times more likely to be happy at work,” said Diane Domeyer, executive director of The Creative Group. Having space for flexible hours, communal working areas and casual dress codes allows for more creativity, compared to the more buttoned-up environment of accounting and finance firms, she added.

But Synoga, who has worked in other corporate environments, argued that’s not always the case for more rigorous, less creative industries, like engineering. Engineers passionate about their work aren’t considered unhappy or dissatisfied with their job, even if the culture is less social and more focused on awards and daily accomplishments.

“Those people are actually more driven to their jobs than creatives could be,” Synoga said, adding that engineers, which could be considered creatives, can be more driven if they have passion.

To merge the divide between strict cultures and creative spaces, Domeyer suggests firms encourage design thinking, a systematic approach to solving complex problems and developing products and services that satisfy customers’ needs, and gives employees access to tools for further professional development.

“Make it easy for employees to collaborate and brainstorm solutions to business challenges by offering communal spaces to meet up and share ideas,” she said.

Domeyer added that instilling work pride by working toward awards and other forms of accomplishments, as Synoga alluded to, is a shared goal to make all employees happy at work and create communal satisfaction.

“Remind staff why your organization is a great place to work,” she said. “Don’t assume they know it.”

Ariel Parrella-Aureli is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.