Second: Ohio law requires that employers provide all employees a reasonable amount of time off to vote on Election Day. Deny employees that right, or punish them for exercising it, at your risk. Better yet, embrace the Time to Vote movement and implement policies (like paid time off) to encourage your employees to vote on Election Day.
Finally: After the election is over, think about how we heal at work. Some thoughts (care of The Wall Street Journal): providing meeting space for employees to talk after the election, offering supervisors and managers sample language for opening up a constructive dialogue with employees, and playing soothing music to distract employees from political headlines.
Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused – life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?
On Sunday, The Washington Post published Christine Blasey Ford’s decades old allegations of sexual abuse she claims to have suffered at the hand of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court nominee. You can read the full letter here.
Let’s be clear. All we have right now are allegations of misconduct, buried for decades. But now, those allegations are public. They are serious. And they must be taken seriously.
And they also have the potential to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life.
If he did what Ms. Ford accuses him of doing, I have zero sympathy for how this impacts his Supreme Court nomination. We are not only giving someone a job for life, we are giving someone a job for life who will rule on issues that go to the core of women’s rights: abortion, equal pay, and discrimination, to name a few.
How he treats, or has treated, women is germane to this process. As is whether he sexually assaulted someone while in high school.
A week ago, I would have told you that Judge Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed. I do not agree with many of his positions on issues, but that should not disqualify anyone from Supreme Court service. If it did, no one would ever get confirmed. Donald Trump won the White House, and to his victory goes the spoils of judicial nominations. The remedy is not the imposition of an ideological litmus test to court appointees, but to vote.
Now, however, I am not sure. If these allegations are true, he should not serve, period. If they are unfounded, then he should serve, period.
The issue of whether Kavanaugh did it, or didn’t do it, is critical. More importantly, as President Trump suggested when discussing the issue of allegations of harassment, Judge Kavanaugh deserves due process. Luckily for him, there exists a body, already convened, equipped to provide it â the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anything other than a full and fair hearing of these allegations will cause Judge Kavanaugh to be judged in the court of public opinion. Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid “for someone falsely accused?”
Anyone accused of harassment deserves to have the allegations vetted. As an employee, your employer should fully and fairly investigate, and, if it determines the allegations to be false, it should fire the accuser, period.
To do anything other than to pause this confirmation to determine just how much fire lurks behind Ms. Ford’s smoke, to provide Judge Kavanaugh the due process to which he is entitled, is reckless and dangerous. The American people, the rights of whom Judge Kavanaugh will vote for decades and impact for decades more, deserve this much.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hymanâs blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
A few people have emailed me since the election wanting me to write something scathing and heated about the outcome, but I didnât for two reasons. One, the less I talk about that situation the better I feel. I have to live it, as do many Americans, and thatâs more than enough. Two, politics has its connections, but not necessarily a place in this workplace diversity-themed blog.
That changed when I ran across an NPR article detailing the drama diversity trainers are facing post-election. The piece, from writer Kat Chow, described it as a heightened sense of us vs. them, and spoke from multiple diversity consultantsâ perspectives.
For instance, consider Dorcas Lind. As the election results rolled in and it became clear that Donald Trump would be the next president, Lind, founder and president of Diversity Health Communications, wondered if she should think about another career.
Lind was shocked when she saw how many people supported Trump â âthe stretch of red in her district, a New Jersey suburb, which she said had once been celebrated for its diversity.â She experienced feelings of hopelessness and futility as she contemplated the amount of work that needed to be done and her marked lack of interest in doing it.
Like many, Lind associated a vote for Trump with a vote for intolerance, the antithesis of strategic diversity and inclusion practice. But Chow wrote that many consultants are expecting an increase â however slight â in calls for business in the near future. Why? âThe corporate world is a microcosm of the larger world. People who voted for Trump work at the same companies as those who voted for Hillary Clinton or other candidates. And with a contentious post-election environment, employees will inevitably clash over matters of race.â
Basically, HR and business leaders will be super busy, and many have little to no experience dealing with the kind of problems that will crop up thanks to the political polarization in the country right now. Lind said leaders will need to create an entirely new language to deal with the election aftermath. It sounds exhausting.
Chow also interviewed Luby Ismail, head of Connecting Cultures, a diversity consulting business in the Washington, D.C., area. Ismail, an Egyptian-American Muslim, helps companies like Sodexo, Nike and Walt Disney Co. better understand American Muslims and Arab-Americans. She said the quandary in the workplace â should we talk about politics and religion or not â is tricky because right now, since people actually need to talk about these things. Theyâre actively processing whatâs happened and what are the potential implications for them and for their families.
There is no if. That us vs. them feeling, Trump vs. Clinton, or whatever camp you may fall into, will filter into the workplace. To ignore it, feeling that avoidance of this particular issue is possible because professional courtesy will mitigate or suppress issues, simply wonât work. To coin the popular vernacular, people are feeling some type of way about the current state of political affairs. And thatâs putting it mildly.
Now more than ever diversity executives have to ensure that everyoneâs concerns are addressed â including white men, said Doug Harris, head of the Kaleidoscope Group, a Chicago-based diversity company. âI think right now thereâs a temperament within society of exclusion on both sides of the table,â Harris said. âAnd those who may have been seen to have been historically included are feeling just as excluded as everyone else.â
On the one hand, that shared sentiment might be used as a connector, common ground â however wretched and ill conceived â but it doesnât make things any easier for diversity trainers and consultants who have to deal with this angst on top of historically rooted bias, ignorance, racism and all the other dimensions of diversity that we shake our heads over.
Lind said one canât think of all challenges as equal because the rhetoric at play is, âOne side has lost, one side has won, and everybody needs to get together and move forward for all Americans in the country.â Diversity executives and consultants are left to walk a very narrow and rocky line to keep everyone engaged in productive dialogue and to promote positive action and behavioral change.
Even using the word diversity before the word consultant is a problem for some. Leah P. Hollis, president of Patricia Berkly LLC in Philadelphia, specializes in workplace bullying. She said as soon as she uses the word diversity âshe loses the room.â
Itâs tough. Rather, it was tough before, and itâs even tougher now. Diversity executives have to not only pursue their individual missions to advance equality and tolerance and strategic diversity management for their respective workforces and businesses, they have to navigate a sticky layer of political sensitivity as well. I donât envy them the task.
It reminds me of an old Guns Nâ Roses tune, âWelcome to the Jungle.â
Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Leaders must help establish a balance between politics and the workplace.
With the election just a couple of weeks away, one thing seems certain regardless of the outcome: Itâs tough being American right now. Anxieties and tensions are high, and most of us feel threatened by the political rhetoric and whatâs at stake, not to mention regular news about police shootings and other violence.
As we grapple with redefining ourselves as a nation, forward-thinking leaders in organizations are wondering: Do I say something about this? Do I do something? If so, what should I do?
The stakes are high and impact tangible. Like it or not, employees and leaders bring their fears and frustrations to the workplace, affecting communication, team dynamics, accountability, productivity and employee engagement. On top of that, organizations are struggling with new laws and policies about bathroom access, same-sex marriage and workplace safety. Add constantly evolving technology and the mandate to serve an increasingly diverse population, itâs a wonder we donât see more nervous breakdowns and violence at work.
In deciding how to lead in the age of Donald Trump and #BlackLivesMatter, consider the following:
Inclusion means everyone is included. This includes Trump supporters, #BLM supporters, Clinton supporters, Bernie Sanders supporters, former cops and young activists alike. Diversity and inclusiveness isnât about including only the type of diversity you like.
Inclusion does not mean all behaviors are included. People donât have to agree on politics or even values to do effective behaviors that are experienced as cordial, respectful, professional and productive by others. Our nation â and others â were founded on this principle, and still strive to put it into practice.
The story youâre telling about conflict and change determines how you lead. Does our societal turmoil signal the destruction of our nationâs fabric? Labor pains of our emerging demographics and shifting values? An opportunity? The story you choose to tell about what this means and whatâs possible will guide your decision making, problem solving, employee engagement and financial decisions.
Taking a stand on important issues of the day isnât necessarily a âpartisanâ act, but a moral one driven by mission and values. A growing number of organizations (Huffington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, AT&T, Ben & Jerryâs) have made clear, public statements about race, Donald Trump or #BlackLivesMatter. Doing so may be exactly what your target market and employees â especially millenials â need to hear. Doing so may be an act of integrity in clear alignment with your vision, mission and organizational values. And while endorsing a political candidate might be strategically unwise or violate a core business agreement (as for many nonprofits), many issues that are labeled as âpartisanâ really arenât. The #BlackLivesMatter platform is clear and could be supported by any political candidate or party, and one might make a statement about Trumpâs behavior without endorsing Clinton.
This is about the legacy you create and the legacy you leave. As a leader and as an organization, how do you want to be remembered? What kind of future are you preparing to thrive in? What future are you creating? We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. but he was widely unpopular and considered a dangerous radical in his day. What side of history do you want to be on?
If you decide to take a stand:
Articulate the clear business case for your stand in terms of impact on your employees and customers, fulfillment of your mission and values, and the legacy youâre creating.
Provide clear, reasonable expectations for workplace behavior, and hold everyone equitably This includes top leadership. Banning conversations, personal opinions or expressions of support for candidates or movements may suppress energy that could be put to better use. However, behaviors that can be fairly and clearly identified as bullying, sexual harassment, disrespect, workplace violence, creating a hostile work environment or interfering with business operations should not be tolerated. Weigh the pros and cons of your policies and expectations in alignment with your values and business goals, focusing on impact over the intent of a behavior.
Go to the facts whenever there is confusion or disagreement. Research shows which direction our countryâs demographics, values and beliefs have long been headed. Just look at Millenials. There are abundant data on what Trump has said and done, and the impact heâs having on kids and our mental health. Thereâs clear information about whether #BlackLivesMatter is a hate group, and what their goals are. While humans tend not to change our opinions based on facts (regardless of political affiliation), insisting on them may eventually cause a shift, or at least provide clear support for your position.
Listen to fully understand. One of the reasons movements like the tea party and #BlackLivesMatter and candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are so popular is because they appeal to a growing number of Americans who rightfully feel ignored, shut out, abused and talked down to by traditional institutions and leaders. When an employee or team has a concern â whether itâs related to the social issues of the day or not â give sufficient time to listen deeply from a place of curiosity, with the goal of fully understanding the personâs feelings and motivations as well as thoughts.
Get curious. Curiosity and anxiety live in the same area of the brain. Getting curious is one of the best ways to reduce your anxiety and increase your creativity. Getting curious about anotherâs story can reduce their anxiety, build a positive relationship and co-create workable solutions.
As the late author and philosopher Eric Hoffer said, âin times of change, the learners will inherit the earth, while the knowers will find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world ⌠that no longer exists.â Itâs up to leaders to decide which world we, and our organizations, will inhabit, and learn whatâs necessary.
Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting LLC. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
While the Access Hollywood tape has been making news for the last week or so, mainly for what Donald Trump said, there is something else that has stood out: Billy Bushâs âroleâ in the whole affair. Bushâs attorney reportedly said, âIf Billy had been passive or responded, âShut the fâ upâ to Trump, Billy would have been out of a job the next day.â This certainly does raise some questions about behavior in the workplace. Is laughing considered a form of agreement with something a supervisor, co-worker or client says? Of course Bush went a step further, he didnât just laugh along, he also made some comments I think we can all agree are inappropriate (especially at his place of work).
I want to come at this from a different angle than The Huffington Post, which attacked Bush for playing the roll of Trumpâs wingman. What do you do, as an employer, when you learn of harassment about which no one has complained?
The short answer is you better do something, and you cannot do nothing. An employee alleging sexual harassment by a coworker must still establish that the employer is liable because it knew or should have known of the harassment, yet failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action. When does an employer âknow or should knowâ of harassment? Either when: (1) an employee complains or otherwise makes the employer aware; (2) a supervisor or manager witnesses the inappropriate conduct and either reports it or remains silent; or (3) when a workplace is so permeated with harassment that is unreasonable for an employer to claim ignorance.
What steps must an employer take when it learns of harassment, whether or not an employee has complained? These five steps (which Iâve outlined before) are critical:
Be prompt. Upon receipt of a complaint of harassment, a business must act as quickly as reasonably possible under the circumstances to investigate, and if necessary, correct the conduct and stop from happening again.
Be thorough. Investigations must be as comprehensive as possible given the severity of the allegations. Not every complaint of offensive workplace conduct will require a grand inquisition. The more egregious allegations, however, the more comprehensive of an investigation is called for.
Consider preliminary remedial steps. While an investigation is pending, it is best to segregate the accused(s) and the complainant(s) to guard against further harassment or worse, retaliation. Unpaid suspensions can always retroactively be paid, for example, and companies are in much worse positions if they are too lax instead of too cautious.
Communicate. The complaining employee(s) and the accused employee(s) should be made aware of the investigation processâwho will be interviewed, what documents will be reviewed, how long it will take, the importance of confidentiality and discretion, and how the results will be communicated.
Follow through. There is nothing illegal about trying remedial measures less severe than termination in all but the most egregious cases. A valued employee may be no less valued after asking a co-worker about her underwear, for example. If the conduct continues, however, the discipline must get progressively more harsh. If you tell an employee that termination is the next step, you must be prepared to follow-through.
What you cannot do, however, is bury your corporate head in the sand. Under no circumstances can you, as an employer, ignore harassment that you know about or should know about. It is not a defense for you to bury your organizational head in the sand and hope that it will all be gone when you emerge into the sunlight. If opt for the âostrich,â all you will see after shaking the sand off your face is an expensive (and possibly indefensible) harassment lawsuit.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hymanâs blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
My 8-year-old son hates Donald Trump. I know hate is a strong word. I rarely use it (except when describing the most evil of all condiments, mustard. I hate mustard).
But, Donovan hates Donald Trump. All you have to do is mention his name, and he will tell you how much he hates The Donald, and how he has no room in his life for anyone who thinks any differently.
Over the months of listening to our son tell us of his hatred for Trump we never thought to ask why. Until we did.
His answer? If Trump wins he will ban people from other countries from coming to America, and then Zarah will never be able to visit us again.
Zarah is our German daughter. We hosted her as a foreign exchange student three years ago, and she lived with us for 10 months. We visited with her and family in Germany last summer, and last month she returned with her sister for a three-week visit. We love Zarah as our own daughter, and Donovan certainly loves her as his big sister.
And he cannot stomach the thought of Trump winning, implementing his immigrant ban, and not seeing Zarah again. Hence, his hatred of Donald Trump.
Employers, words matter. They may not get you sued in many situations, and, when sued, it takes a lot for an employee to win, but make no mistake, they matter. What you say, or condone others saying, at work about race, sex, religion, immigrants and national origin, disability, age, politics, they all matter, because they all set the tone.
Yet, rarely do those words create liability. In the words of one court, âThe pluralism of our society is mirrored in the workplace, creating endless occasions for offense. Civilized people refrain from words and conduct that offend the people around them, but not all workers are civilized all the time. Title VII is not a code of civility.â
No, our workplace laws are not civility codes, but that does not provide us an excuse to behave uncivilized.
So, yes, Donovan hates Donald Trump, and, in his mind, he has good reason to do so. Your employees might suffer similar offense from the words they hear others utter in your workplace.
Just because those words might not be actionable does not mean you should not take action. First, your inaction might lead to liability. But, more importantly, your inaction and inattention signals that you condone, or worse yet, agree with the message.
That is not the type of employer you should want to be, and it not the type of employer for which your employees will want to work.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hymanâs blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
