Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Site Staff

Posted on April 17, 2012August 7, 2018

Fighting Workplace Spam—Our Own

They pop in your inbox. You get more of them a day than you can absorb and remember.

They don’t communicate much of value or interest but they are there and affect your effectiveness. Like it or not, you have to read and respond to them or consciously ignore them. You’ve probably stored thousands of them, wasting server space and money.

They steal time, focus, and attention. Each day they bleed off a few minutes of your productivity. Over time, you take the disruptions and annoyance they spawn for granted, assuming it’s just part of your world of work.

If this sounds familiar, you’ve been spammed. We all have. And I’m not talking about the commercial messages you get every day. Those are easy enough to manage. You delete them or unsubscribe. Do the latter and your box clears until another mass marketer gets hold of your email address.

No, what I’m talking about is what I call “co-spam”: unwanted and unnecessary emails and social media alerts sent by colleagues, co-workers or our company. That problem is much harder to deal with than commercial spam, as the motives are often benign and, to the sender, harmlessly habitual if not important (at least in their eyes).

There’s a cottage industry of experts arising on how to manage social media at work. Most are referring to postings sent and received on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and other websites. If someone has addressed the issue of co-spam as the genesis of social media practices and problems, I have yet to see it. But it’s more of a time zapper and cost generator than the annoying commercial variety.

Here are several key forms of co-spam that need to be curbed on the job.

• Jokes, cartoons and political commentaries: Let’s assume we agree that any transmissions of a racial, sexual, or similar potential inflammatory nature are off-limits. What’s the point of sending out harmless jokes, even if no one wants to or has time to read them? Don’t we all have friends who seem compelled to forward every supposedly clever comment someone else has sent them, virtually the instant they have read it?

• Covering your position:
People often send responses or initial transmissions with the idea of documenting their position on an important matter. They’ll copy everyone who has even the most minor relationship to a particular issue.

• Open deadlines: The purpose of many emails, texts, etc., is often unclear. That leads to a flurry of additional messages trying to clarify the first one! Don’t send an email unless you can clearly spell out what the recipient is supposed to do (e.g., use the information for some purpose, get back to you with their input).

• Respond to sender verifying we got what was sent: Many of us, including me, feel compelled to acknowledge every communication, even when there’s no reason to do so. You might need to confirm receipt of email or texts from contacts outside your company (if they or you want to be certain a message got through). But otherwise, eliminate all confirmation messages in your company unless the sender specifically asks for one.

• The last word: arguments often start with back-and-forth communication, which grows into a barrage of escalating counter-responses. Senders write what they would never say and recipients misconstrue the intent of innocent comments. Ensuing bad feelings and wasted time could have been avoided had someone thought to walk down the hall or pick up the phone.

Part of creating a civil workplace is respecting everyone’s time and, increasingly, attention. Limiting our co-spamming habits should be included in the definition of what civility means in our increasingly connected world of work.

Posted on April 12, 2012August 7, 2018

Standing Up for Your Employees

Last night, the Philadelphia Flyers rallied from three goals down to take Game 1 of their first-round series from their cross-state rivals, the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Right now, you’re all thinking to yourselves, what can professional hockey playoffs possibly have to do with employment law or employee relations?

Four months ago, during the regular season Dallas Stars’ center Steve Ott delivered a hit to Flyers’ star Claude Giroux, who had just returned to the lineup from a concussion. At the end of the period, Flyers’ coach Peter Laviolette chased down Ott in the Stars’ tunnel and confronted him about what he perceived as a cheap shot.

According to Philly.com, Giroux appreciated his coach’s action: “It’s good to see we have each other’s back.”

Two weeks ago, Laviolette again stood up for his players, following a fight-filled conclusion to a game against the Penguins. The fights were precipitated by what Laviolette called a “gutless” move by the Pens to put its enforcers on the ice at end of a 6-3 blowout.

As all 10 players on the ice fought, Laviolette stood on the boards yelling at Pens’ assistant coach Tony Granato. After the game, Laviolette defended his tirade (via CSNPhilly.com): “Those guys hadn’t played in 12 minutes; it was a gutless move by their coach.” Again, Giroux stood up for his coach (via CSNPhilly.com): “He’s got our back. … He’s an intense coach who loves his players.”

Which brings me back to last night. The Flyers fell into a quick 0-3 hole. They needed to rally. And, they did.

Don’t think for a minute that whatever motivation Laviolette used to jump-start his team had added impact because his players know that he stands up for them. He has their backs, and they responded with four unanswered goals and a 1-0 series lead.

Your organization is not a hockey team, but there is a lesson to learn from Peter Laviolette. If you have your employees’ backs, they will reciprocate. You never know when you’ll need your employees to rally for you (overtime, sales quotas, deadlines, etc.).

Make it easier for them to go the extra mile by standing up for them when they need it. Reward good performance. Recognize star performers. Take complaints seriously. Have an open-door for your employees. Your employees will pay you back in spades.

To visit the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, click here or email jth@kjk.com or call (216) 736-7226.

Posted on April 9, 2012August 7, 2018

Getting Started with Oracle Fusion Human Capital Management

Designed from the ground-up using the latest technology advances and incorporating the best practices gathered from Oracle’s thousands of customers, Fusion Applications are 100 percent open standards-based business applications that set a new standard for the way we innovate, work and adopt technology. Delivered as a complete suite of modular applications, Fusion Applications work with your existing portfolio to evolve your business to a new level of performance. In this AppCast, part of a special series on Fusion Applications, you hear about the unique advantages of Fusion Human Capital Management, learn about the scope of the first release and discover how Fusion HCM modules can be used to complement and enhance your existing HCM solutions.

Posted on April 4, 2012August 7, 2018

How Does Southwest Airlines Screen Candidates for Culture?

Dear Hope to Take Flight:

We look for individuals who seek to make a career at Southwest Airlines. We encourage individuals to explore opportunities that allow them to grow and to seek challenging positions within the company once they get here.

We hire for attitude and train for skill, and even in positions that require specific skills (such as pilots), attitude continues to be a top priority. Successful candidates should embrace teamwork, demonstrate altruism, possess a self- deprecating demeanor, take their work — but not themselves — seriously, and do what is necessary to help the company reach its goals.

There can be several layers in the interview process, including telephone and in person interviews for competitive candidates. All candidates are asked a series of questions that enable recruiters and hiring managers to drill down to a person’s motivations, attitude toward others, their work ethic and their ability to be a part of a team.

We spend a disproportionate amount of time and resources finding the right individual for a job, but that upfront expenditure has helped us lower turnover and boost our chances of promoting from within, and has increased productivity.

SOURCE: Linda Rutherford, vice president of communication and strategic outreach, Southwest Airlines Co., Dallas

LEARN MORE: Hiring plans of U.S. employers are at the highest level since 2008. Also, a downloadable white paper, “Best Practices in Recruiting and Candidate Sourcing,” contains expertise on finding top-notch candidates.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Posted on April 2, 2012August 7, 2018

Conquering Fear and Workplace Retaliation

From the subject line, you might expect I’d be writing about how fear drives employees to remain silent even as they see hazards and potential catastrophes grow like weeds around them.

Yes, the fear of retribution is alive in many organizations and the harm it causes is already well recognized. That’s why we have an expanding maze of laws and regulations intended to protect complainants and penalize individuals and organizations who would stifle or ignore their concerns.

But for a change, let’s take a step back and focus on the fear that triggers retaliation—the fear the causes leaders at all levels, from direct supervisory personnel to senior managers, to take action against an employee who raises a concern. Only by getting rid of that kind of fear can you create a workplace where serious issues can be brought forward and dealt with.

Picture this: You’re swamped with details and deadlines, dealing with pressures you couldn’t have imagined a few years ago—a tougher economy, less staff support, more competition. You’re besieged with emails, voice mails and texts. You hardly have time to respond to everything being thrown at you, much less step back, plan, and think.

Then an employee comes into your office or sends you an email about “something serious.” You’d rather be working on everything else already in your tightly planned schedule, but you’re brought up short by what you read or hear:

  • Our processes are flawed …
  • There’s a problem that could lead to a huge mess …
  • Someone needs to look into a practice that could be unsafe of illegal …
  • I think it’s a mistake that we are/aren’t …

The thought that grows in your mind is that you, the leader, are doing something wrong, or that the team, led by you, is making a mistake. Or there’s something taking place, under your watch, that could be a big problem and you are going to be blamed. Then the employee asks, “How are you going to handle this now that you know about it?”

You think quickly of all the reasons why the complaint can’t be true, why it shouldn’t be believed, and why the issue is a personal assault or intrusion. You are swept up in those reactions before you can rationally think about whether the employee is making a constructive attempt to address what could be a more serious problem.

What’s happening? In many cases, your adrenaline surge is setting off your instinctual, “fight or flight” defenses. You grimace; your posture stiffens; your tone of voice changes.

Combat will seem the easiest and proper choice. After all, leaders act and lead; they don’t retreat, especially when personal survival may be at stake. The outcome can be and often is inappropriate and potentially illegal.

This human reaction is a main reason why assuming that retaliation can be avoided simply by teaching leaders about legalities is both unrealistic and inadequate. As I’ve previously written, there are too many statutes and regulations to learn and remember.

And knowledge alone cannot conquer the fear that causes us to respond at an instinctive, defensive level, nor can it guarantee we will act in a way that demonstrates we welcomerather than fear complaints. As long as we have leaders responding reflexively, we sow the seeds for actions and responses that may later appear retaliatory.

Here are key fears that we all must recognize if we want to avoid even the appearance of “retaliating” against employees, whether or not that is the intent:

  • This employee is a troublemaker; if I appear to take what he says seriously, I’ll just embolden him and others and then there’ll be no end to this.
  • I’ll look weak if I act like maybe I made a mistake or I act open to the possibility that I might have; best to stonewall it.
  • Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not supposed to make mistakes. I’m supposed to be perfect and I’d better act as if I am.
  • What if I am wrong? I could get in trouble or lose my job and I can’t afford either.
  • What if there is a big problem? This could be bad for the organization and I’ll get myself and all of us in trouble.

If we avoid dealing with these and similar fears, then all the legal knowledge, policies, hot lines and training in the world will, sooner or later, prove inadequate.

Managers will act on their fears in ways perceived as retaliatory and that will create the natural “fear of retaliation” among your employees. You can’t fix the latter without addressing the former.

Posted on March 19, 2012August 8, 2018

Selling Women’s Shoes—a Guide to Culture Change at Work

A common complaint mentioned on engagement surveys is that managers don’t welcome, listen, and respond to concerns, which means problems fester and good ideas to go unheard. I wrote about this recently in the context of trust as a foundational issue that needs to be built into our workplaces.

I realized that I once worked in an environment that provided a simple model, applicable today for setting expectations and managing behavior.

As a senior in high school, I got my first job at Baker’s Shoe Store in Pittsburgh selling women’s shoes on weekends. The first day on the floor I got instructions from my boss, Mr. Silverman. “When a customer comes in,” he said, “find out what she wants, go get the shoe in her size (or close), find two other similar pairs and a third and final selection that is completely different.”

I asked, “Why should we do that? Why not just get the shoes the customer wants?” Mr. Silverman, said, “You might be selling dress shoes, but maybe it will rain that same day. The customer needs boots, show those to her too. This helps the customer, our business, and it’ll help you, too. And by the way, you have to bring out some purses and shoe polish too. That’s how we do it.”

Like every other new salesperson, I wanted to make a quick, easy sale and move on. I thought to myself, “I’ll find the shoe the customer wants, sell the pair quickly, then move on to the next customer.” Being 17 and knowing everything there was to know, I was sure I was right.

The savvy managers at Baker’s, however, knew that a lot of us “extras”—and even regular sales staff—would think like me. If we were allowed to follow our instincts, customer turnover would increase, but the results would be limited sales and lost opportunities for extra revenue.

How did Baker’s get us know-it-alls to sell their way? They hired secret shoppers to visit their stores. These people dressed and acted like real customers, but they were checking to see if we brought the other three pairs of shoes, purses, and polish even when they told us exactly what they wanted.

Anyone who got a couple of bad reports for failing to show the other selections was out of work, pronto. The rest of us learned we’d better follow the instructions exactly if we wanted to keep our jobs. We learned and we did.

You can’t bring secret shoppers into your workplace to test how well managers and supervisors are following the rules—at least not unless you want to completely destroy workplace relationships.

But what you can do is to ask employees very specific behavioral questions on engagement surveys that can be traced to their manager’s performance. If you want managers to listen and act responsively, ask their teams questions like:

• Does your manager take or make time to listen to your concerns –whatever they are?

• Does your manager express frustration or lack of interest through body language, tone of voice and eye contact?

• Does he/she repeat your statements to make sure he or she has understood what you’re trying to say?

• Does he/she indicate that he/she appreciates hearing from you?

• Does he/she follow up and tell you what has happened as a result of the issues you raised?

In that first job so many years ago, I kept bringing out four pairs of shoes, purses and polish because it was clear that management cared about enforcing that standard and was paying attention. Any manager can use that lesson today.

Set specific standards and use your employees as not-so-secret shoppers to give you a picture of what is really happening out on your sales floor. Do so, and just like Baker’s, you can reach even the most resistant members of your team—like me at 17 years old.

Stephen Paskoff is a former EEOC trial attorney and the president and CEO of Atlanta-based ELI, Inc., which provides ethics and compliance training that helps many of the world’s leading organizations build and maintain inclusive, legal, productive and ethical workplaces. Paskoff can be contacted at info@eliinc.com.

Posted on February 27, 2012September 2, 2019

Teach Trust First

A few weeks ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its annual charge filing and resolution statistics.

The report tracks case trends from 1997 through 2011. Last year, charges rose to the highest level seen in this time period. Yet the percentage of reasonable cause findings of discrimination stayed relatively flat, at 3.8 percent. The other 96.2 percent of the cases were settled with benefits, withdrawn or dismissed. What’s causing people to lodge an increasing number of cases even as the administrative findings of liability remain relatively constant?

A number of explanations leap to mind. Economic stresses could be causing more people to file claims to protect or regain their jobs.

Maybe more people are imagining discrimination where it doesn’t exist or are just making up “facts” to settle a grudge with a supervisor or employer. I’m sure all of these play a role; any seasoned human resource professional or labor lawyer can remember investigating and defending claims fitting each of these scenarios.

But, as I’ve written elsewhere, I believe there’s a new dynamic at play that may be a central part of the problem. Leaders increasingly lack the skills needed to recognize and address employee discontent, which allows decisions and actions to appear unfair or potentially illegal even when they may not be. Also, many leaders fail to understand that conduct and actions need not be explicitly illegal to appear discriminatory.

I don’t see much hope for a reversal of this trend if a recent post in the Harvard Business Review is correct. The post summarized a study suggesting that people whose time is focused on computer-based work may be “diminishing their empathy and social skills.” Gonzaga University’s John K. Mullen’s findings suggest:

“With 55% of person-to-person communication being nonverbal [tone of voice, inflection], over-reliance on computer-based interactions may hamper an individual’s ability to judge intent and influence others.”

Prof. Mullen’s key point is that the loss of such basic human skills may be depriving many people of the ability to communicate effectively and build trust—qualities he notes are essential in sales, diplomacy and, let me add, leadership.

When I’ve spoken to clients lately, the lack of workplace trust between managers and their teams is a common theme. Building such bonds is a process; it’s not accomplished through rote application of a memorized checklist.

It involves ongoing two-way communication, behavioral consistency and follow-through. It’s tested in challenging situations and it requires skills, not just book or computer knowledge. You can’t develop these skills when you have less rather than more human contact.

We add to this problem when we focus workplace training more on distributing information than building skills. Knowing how to apply knowledge in the context of day-to-day challenges and interactions is what best minimizes risk and the potential drain on productivity that results from the filing of claims, meritless or not.

Learning how to recognize and address problems takes practice and reinforcement involving human interaction and feedback. Getting the person-to-person dimension right is the ultimate box that needs to be checked on a leader’s priorities. Doing that will make those EEOC numbers, and all of the costs associated with them, markedly decrease.

Stephen Paskoff is a former EEOC trial attorney and the president and CEO of Atlanta-based ELI, Inc., which provides ethics and compliance training that helps many of the world’s leading organizations build and maintain inclusive, legal, productive and ethical workplaces. Paskoff can be contacted at info@eliinc.com.

Posted on February 22, 2012August 8, 2018

Curbing Wasteful Compliance Training

I’m writing this blog as I sit in a cavernous auditorium with 14 other Georgia attorneys.

The lawyer in front of me is doing a crossword puzzle; the lawyer to his left is scanning her Kindle Fire. Several are sending emails; one’s reading a crime novel, another, a newspaper. One is soundly asleep.

The remaining three or four people are watching a panel of distinguished attorneys discuss regulatory issues via a live video feed. The presentation reminds me more of a college lecture than a professional seminar.

Most of us in this room are scrambling to complete our compulsory legal education hours for 2011. By the end of the day, we will have accrued six hours of course credit, half the number we need to maintain our deeply valued bar licenses.

Each of us paid $200 to attend this session, which is being delivered at 19 other sites. Assuming roughly the same turnout at each location, we will have collectively paid $60,000 and invested about 2,400 hours or so of time today, a solid work year for a productive attorney.

Just in Georgia, thousands of lawyers go through this drill every year. We’re like millions of employees who plant their bodies in front of a droning instructor, an online click-through course, or a remote broadcast needed to complete required programs and qualify for bonuses or perhaps even just remain employed.

This experience reinforces my belief that a lot of required training wastes money, time and attention. How much? I’m not sure.

But according to the American Society for Training & Development’s 2011 State of the Industry report, employers spent $171.5 billion on all employee learning and development in 2010. About 10 percent went for compliance and mandatory learning.

If even a small percentage of that training is ineffectively delivered, American businesses are wasting a massive amount of resources and missing vital opportunities to mitigate risk. Maybe part of the fault is with learners like me who find it difficult to pay attention to droning professionals. But those who require others to complete such training should bear responsibility of providing an opportunity that is meaningful and engaging.

I’ve spent the last hour wondering what would make this a better experience, cost less and help lawyers (or others going through similar training) actually apply the key principles more effectively on the job. Today’s lessons confirmed what I’ve thought for a while:

• Learning must apply to real responsibilities and risks rather than obscure, abstract contingencies.

• If learners need to absorb raw information, make it available in written form (online or hard copy). Have them document receipt. Follow up with periodic reminders and provide ways for them to ask questions and get answers. This will keep concepts alive better than a single yearly event.

• Figure out a few key themes for any lesson. Repeat them during the event and later so participants remember what’s most important.

• Skill and follow-up are needed to avoid and fix real compliance problems, not just legal or regulatory knowledge. Build learning sessions so participants observe and practice key behaviors rather than passively receive information.

• Keep learning alive after an initial event by providing participants with:

—Periodic reminders about key risks or main issues addressed in the training. It’s easy to forget danger signals and stay trapped in old ways of doing business. Reinforcement will help people maintain the new skills or processes you want them to be using.

—Handy demonstrations or simulations showing how to apply key skills.

Aren’t most of our key workplace lessons based on a few key principles that we’ve been taught and then had reinforced on the job? That’s how mandatory training should be designed, too.

Stephen Paskoff is a former EEOC trial attorney and the president and CEO of Atlanta-based ELI, Inc., which provides ethics and compliance training that helps many of the world’s leading organizations build and maintain inclusive, legal, productive and ethical workplaces. Paskoff can be contacted at info@eliinc.com.

Posted on February 7, 2012August 8, 2018

Subtle Bias From Grade School to the Workplace

I grew up with Luis in Pittsburgh. We reconnected after he read my recent blog about learning grammar in the sixth grade. We exchanged a few Facebook messages. Then he called me. We had not spoken for several years and have seen each other just once since we graduated from high school, a long time ago.

Luis and I were in the same homeroom and took all the same classes for eight years. We belonged to Cub Scout Den 5, hung out at each others’ homes and did projects together. We had a strong friendship.

He was and is artistic, smart and funny. During our recent conversation, we told each other old stories for an hour. I learned a lot from Luis then and as we talked now.

While I recalled several teachers with warmth and appreciation, he remembered them with resentment and alienation based on events I had either not known about or whose impact I had not understood.

I thought we had the same grade-school experiences, when really we had not. I now see he received the kind of treatment, “subtle” bias, which is likely tied to a proportion of the rising charges of discrimination just reported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Until I entered high school, I was in the religious majority. My relatives came from Eastern Europe; his came from Bolivia. His ethnicity and beliefs were in the “minority.”

I remember that we talked about our separate heritages. To us, it was interesting but seemed about as significant as the fact that we grew up on different streets. Several of our classmates, their families and even our teachers didn’t see it that way. Luis recalls not being invited back to some homes when parents found out he was not of their faith.

They didn’t say that to him, but the pattern repeated itself several times affecting him but not others. Some classmates had bar mitzvahs and invited all of us, but not Luis.

On an eighth-grade field trip to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, one teacher singled him out for punishment when he sat atop a Civil War cannon right next to another classmate, Daniel, who jumped on right before he did. Luis got in trouble and Daniel did not.

The teacher and Daniel, but not Luis, shared the same faith. Luis recalled an insensitive religious comment the teacher had made at roughly the same time. I listened now as a friend and also as a lawyer thinking, disparate treatment—that’s what that was before the legal term had been coined.

There were a few other examples that were nothing as blatant as an outright ethnic slur or joke, at least nothing that Luis told me in our conversation. Walking back and forth to school, we shared confidences, a few of which we dredged up and laughed about when we spoke. But we had never discussed how separate and alone he must have felt.

And I never appreciated that the teachers I thought were terrific may have played religious favorites. My memories and thoughts about them changed quickly following our recent conversation. I see them differently now linking my pleasant experiences with my friend’s hurtful ones. In particular, one eighth-grade teacher is diminished in my thoughts.

In our workplaces, we’ve eliminated a lot of the blatant behaviors, which spawned the civil rights movement that Luis and I witnessed as we grew up. But we’re deluding ourselves if we think we’ve rooted out less obvious but frequent daily actions and exclusions that derive from discriminatory motives.

Some are unconscious; others, not directly expressed. We’re worsening the delusion by denying that they leave scars that last and taint relationships, whether we are plodding through grammar school or at work in adulthood.

We can exclude others for many reasons—sometimes it’s because of race, sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation, just to name a few. The conduct is often subtle and can be missed by others who are not similarly affected.

But the legacy is pain and isolation. In our 2012 workplaces, we’re making a huge mistake if we focus only on outrageous actions without addressing so-called “gray” areas whose impact is brutal and lasting.

While EEOC charges are soaring, findings of discrimination are not. There may be many reasons, but I wonder if many are not the result of the kind of behaviors that Luis experienced which escaped the notice of even a close friend.

Stephen Paskoff is president and CEO of Atlanta-based ELI Inc., a provider of ethics and compliance learning solutions. He can be contacted at info@eliinc.com.

Posted on February 6, 2012August 8, 2018

Bad Apple: Could the Era of Exploitation Outsourcing Be Near Its End?

Recent scathing stories about working conditions in the creation of iPads and iPhones are a telling moment for Apple Inc. and other global corporations. Could this latest episode of outrage over worker mistreatment at an outsourced factory signal that the age of exploitation outsourcing is waning? I think so.

You’ve probably heard about one or both of the stories that have rattled Apple’s massive customer base and the rest of the public. First, This American Life broadcast the first-person account of Mike Daisey, a self-proclaimed Apple enthusiast who traveled to China to see how apple products were made—and was horrified at what he found.

Then the New York Times published a long story about harsh, dangerous working conditions at factories making Apple products. Daisey says he met with workers whose hand joints have “disintegrated” from repetitive work, while the New York Times piece centered on the tale of a young employee killed in an explosion of aluminum dust—not long after an advocacy group warned Apple of aluminum dust problems.

Apple is far from alone in tapping cheaper overseas labor employed by third-party firms. Many U.S. companies have tried to wash their hands of the actual making of things. They may have decent or enlightened labor practices for their direct employees. But by farming out production to suppliers in China and other low-wage countries with few labor protections, they often have outsourced not just work but worker abuse.

This is not a new story. In recent decades, the public has heard withering tales of clothing-makers such as Nike Inc. outsourcing to third-party firms that took advantage of workers in the developing world. Even in consumer electronics, substandard labor treatment in the supply chain has been proclaimed in the media since at least 2006. That’s when a British publication reported harsh working conditions in the making of the iPod at Apple supplier Foxconn—the same company at the heart of the recent allegations.

But for the most part, U.S. consumers have been willing to turn a blind eye to Apple and others. A New York Times survey of Americans late last year found that only 2 percent mentioned Apple’s overseas labor practices as a concern.

In essence, consumers have focused on Apple’s remarkable products rather than how they are produced. That goes for me, too. I have written critically about labor issues at Apple. But I’ve had a series of Mac laptop computers for more than a decade. And as I compose this blog item, I’m listening to our family’s iPod.

Apple has addressed supply-chain problems in recent years to some degree. But our collective apathy about working conditions behind iPods, iPhones and the like has allowed the company to prioritize speed and profit over decent treatment of people.

“You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories, or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards,” a current Apple executive told the Times. “And right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China.”

But that’s changing. In recent years, there has been a shift in attitudes among consumers toward a desire to do business with companies that show “kindness” in their operations. People also are increasingly identifying as “global citizens,” meaning they have more empathy for people on the other side of the world. What’s more, tools such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube give people more opportunities to express themselves. This means companies increasingly face penalties for mistreating people—whether those workers are direct employees or not.

The New York Times story on iPad working conditions, for example, generated 1,770 reader comments. Many, if not most, blasted Apple or the overall system of cheap labor. And an online petition prompted by the This American Life piece that calls for Apple to protect Chinese workers has garnered roughly 166,000 signatures—and counting.

“We care about every worker in our worldwide supply chain,” Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly wrote in a memo to employees in the wake of the stories. But the public isn’t buying it. It sees some rotten labor practices at the core of Apple. And, increasingly, people, including Apple’s own employees, will demand better of the company.

The bottom line for Apple and other companies is that a shameful supply chain is less and less viable. Happily, the age of farming out worker exploitation is coming to a close.

Ed Frauenheim is senior editor at Workforce Management. To comment, write to efrauenheim@workforce.com.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 … Page 416 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress