Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: human resources

Posted on April 3, 2019June 29, 2023

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Fertile Firing

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

MoMA PS1, a Queens, New York, art museum, has agreed to settle a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by Nikki Columbus, hired by the museum to direct its performance program.

She alleged that the museum rescinded her job offer after it learned she had recently given birth.

According to The New York Times, Columbus, five months pregnant when she applied for the job, chose not to disclose her pregnancy until after she was hired.

“I just went forward thinking that this is not their business, it’s not relevant to the job and to my abilities,” she told the Times. She added that Peter Eleey, the museum’s chief curator, told her during her interview that her predecessor had been “much less present” after she had a baby.

After being offered the job, Columbus asked Eleey for a soft transition-in period because she was recovering from just having a baby.

Eleey’s response, she alleged, “Why didn’t you tell me this two months ago?” A few days later, the museum rescinded its job offer, telling her that her conversations with Eleey “indicated that [she] would not be able to perform the job as it was structured.”

According to a museum spokesperson, “MoMA PS1 at all times has been compliant with the law and remains committed to supporting women and caregivers. We are satisfied with the agreement and are happy to put this matter behind us.”

Nevertheless, if you fire a new mom because she just had a baby, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

Posted on April 2, 2019June 29, 2023

Labor Department Proposes Updates to ‘Regular Rate’ and ‘Joint Employer’

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Over the past week, the Department of Labor’s announced proposals for significant (and much needed) regulatory updates to the definitions of “regular rate” and “joint employer.”

The DOL proposed an update to the definition of “regular rate” under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The proposal would permit employers to exclude the following from an employee’s regular rate of pay:

  • The cost of providing wellness programs, onsite specialist treatment, gym access and fitness classes, and employee discounts on retail goods and services.
  • Payments for unused paid leave, including paid sick leave.
  • Reimbursed expenses, even if not incurred “solely” for the employer’s benefit.
  • Reimbursed travel expenses that do not exceed the maximum travel reimbursement permitted under the Federal Travel Regulation System regulations and that satisfy other regulatory requirements.
  • Discretionary bonuses.
  • Benefit plans, including accident, unemployment, and legal services.
  • Tuition programs, such as reimbursement programs or repayment of educational debt.

This change, if finalized, would be significant, as it would exclude these items of compensations from non-exempt employees’ overtime pay. According to the DOL, this change is needed to encourage employers to offer more financial perks to their employees, as, under the current rules, employers don’t offer these perks out of a fear that it will lead to increased overtime pay. You can read the full proposed rule change here.

Second, the DOL proposed a new four-factor test to determine whether two entities are joint employers over the same employees. Under this proposed new test, to qualify as a joint employer, the entity would have to “actually exercise the power” to:

  • Hire or fire employees.
  • Supervise and control employees’ work schedules or conditions of employment.
  • Determine employees’ rate and method of payment.
  • Maintain employees’ employment records.

This change, if finalized, would also be significant, as it would limit a potential joint employer’s exposure for wage and hour liabilities of the primary employer. You can read the full proposed rule here.

Both of these rules are open for public comment for 60 days. Stay tuned, as if these become final, they represent key changes to employers’ wage and hour responsibilities.

Posted on March 29, 2019June 29, 2023

Q&A With John Bunch: Holacracy Helps Zappos Swing From Job Ladder to Job Jungle Gym

John Bunch, Zappos
John Bunch, Zappos

John Bunch began his career with online retailer Zappos in 2009 as a software developer. Since then, he has become the lead organizational designer and technical adviser to Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh. Bunch was the key leader in the company’s shift from a traditional business hierarchy to a self-organizational structure called holacracy. Workforce Editorial Associate Bethany Tomasian spoke with Bunch about Zappos’ journey away from the more traditional business structure and how holacracy has changed the workplace environment.

Workforce: In your own words, can you describe the concept of holacracy?

John Bunch: There are several different elements that holacracy brings to an organization. Traditional organizations’ hierarchy are positions from entry level to CEO and an employee resides in one place along that ladder. One of the ways that holacracy is different is that it’s a hierarchy of work, not people. That means that within holacracy there are different circles of work and an employee can reside in different circles. A circle is just another name for a team, and an employee holds a certain role in that circle. A single employee could hold different roles throughout several circles in the organization. In that sense, holacracy breaks down the one-person, one-team ideology.

Along with that element, there is distributed authority. In a traditional hierarchy you get the authority from a person higher than you in the organization, your boss. In holacracy there is a governance process which determines what roles have the authority to take which actions. The goal should be to unleash people’s creative power, let them be autonomous and only implement restrictions when there is a good reason. There are processes for distributing authority and for limiting that authority within a circle or throughout the company.

In holacracy there is also the concept of evolution. Within holacracy, you are constantly evaluating if those roles and circles in the company need to change. Anybody in the organization can propose a change to what work is being done. I think in traditional organizations, restructuring work is a big deal that could take months to unpack and it might happen infrequently. In holacracy those restructures of work can happen on a weekly basis.

Workforce: What have been the greatest challenges to overcome in a self-managing workplace that is very adaptive?

Bunch: In self-managing workplaces there is more autonomy and there also tends to be more opportunity. One of the things that we talk about is how traditional workplaces run on a job ladder where your progression at a company eventually leads you to your boss’ position. In our workplace, there are so many roles throughout the organization, and if an employee is interested they can pitch themselves for any role. Our mental model is that we are moving away from the job ladder and to the job jungle gym.

However, with more autonomy, opportunity and self-lead progression comes its challenges. Some people thrive in the holacratic environment while other people need more defined direction in terms of their day-to-day work and overall career. It can be a challenge for those people to learn and grow in the new environment. We’ve done things to help those people adapt such as offering a mentorship through the process of professional development and life-training.

Workforce: What have been the greatest successes since introducing holacracy?

Bunch: The biggest successes are the ideas that get off the ground that probably wouldn’t have happened if not for holacracy. In this new environment, your job doesn’t have to be contained to a specific team as you can move across these different circles which enables people to offer ideas that can benefit the whole company. Whereas at a traditional company, your job might be in finance and finance is all you do.

One example of this was when we launched our initiative Zappos Adaptive. This initiative focused on customers that might have adaptive or special needs in terms of their clothes and shoes. Zappos Adaptive was done through employees whose traditional job did not include this focus. These employees had a passion and a vision for helping people in that community.

Workforce: What lessons have you learned along the way with perfecting this method of organization?

Bunch: Whenever you have a change within your organization, you have to be patient with every team and individual’s journey through that change. Especially with a change as fundamental as holacracy. It could take months or even years to become efficient. Zappos, as an organization, had to be very patient in order to make this change. That is a person-to-person connection and we had to monitor where each employee was during their journey. We preach to not only be patient with yourself but also with others. That went a long way.

We also had to be open to trying new things with no guarantee that they would work. If those didn’t work, then we would have to learn and adapt. A good example of that process was when we were transitioning to holacracy. We were thinking about resource allocation and how that would work in the new environment. We realized that this was causing some big challenges in our business metrics. Our fundamental customer service metrics were being degraded based upon the way that we were operating at the time. That was a big deal to us because it went against out ideology, which is, “To live and deliver WOW.”

We tried something as an organization that ultimately wasn’t working and so we had to shift, learn and adapt. We created systems that righted the shift in our resource allocation and our metrics normalized, perhaps better than they were before. You have to be willing to learn from those mistakes and adapt.

Workforce: How has the self-management of holacracy impacted employee work-ethic and sense of personal value in the company?

Bunch: I think that the ability for different people to get involved with ideas across the company has allowed more self-direction. People can be passion-forward and get involved in things that they are passionate about. That can really help employees see the personal value that they create. This isn’t a part of holacracy specifically, but some of the other systems that are scaffolded on top of holacracy speak to this.

For example, we are working on internal market-based dynamics, which essentially means that each circle in the organization would be run like a micro-business. In this system, each micro-enterprise would be funded by the customers. These can be internal customers or external customers. Instead of a top-down funding model, we are shifting our funding as being derived from the customer of whatever work you do. In a traditional company, employees might not see the value that they are creating. This change is relevant to the employee’s personal value because employees won’t think of themselves as a cost to an organization. By creating these internal customers through these micro-business interactions, employees can really see the value that they add to the company.

Workforce: How can innovation in leadership and organization such as holacracy shape the future of how companies operate?

Bunch: As we grew at Zappos, there was this sense we got from our leaders that the things which worked very quickly as a startup were not happening as fast anymore. If you’ve ever been frustrated by how long it takes you to get something done then you might resonate with this. As we started examining that challenge, we were really inspired by this research that had been done about cities. The research found that every time a city doubled in size, productivity per resident grew by 15 percent. As cities grow, they become more productive on a per-resident basic. However, the exact opposite happens when organizations grow larger. As the size of an organization doubles, productivity per employee goes down. I think we sense this as employees at large organizations when we become frustrated by how long things can take.

What if we could structure our companies in ways that cities are structured? Could we see the same exponential relationship between growth and productivity? That is the vision of where we want to go at Zappos. We want to show that with holacracy we can make more productive and happier employees.

Workforce: What advice would you offer other companies and even startups that are thinking about evolving the workplace hierarchy dynamic?

Bunch: It is easier to start when you are small. At Zappos, we started on this journey when had around 1,500 employees. Some of the challenges that we went through were due to our size. Those were challenges that we might not have had if we started these changes when we were a five-person company. If we started when we were small, some of these changes would have grown in scale with the organization.

I would also tell companies to think small. Think about small ways that you can make your workplace more dynamic and give those a try. If you see positive change, then keep going.

It is easy to go with the status quo and the traditional methods of organization. However, there is a growing amount of evidence of the fundamental flaws with that line of thinking. If you want to have an organization that is inspiring and resilient then it is important to think about these changes.

Posted on March 14, 2019June 29, 2023

Be Wary of What’s Rocking in the Cradle Act

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Earlier this week, Republican Sens. Joni Ernst and Mike Lee introduced the Child Rearing and Development Leave Empowerment Act (the CRADLE Act). It is a first step toward providing some measure of paid parental leave to American workers.

Yet, it has some serious flaws.

The Cradle Act would provide up to three months of consecutive paid parental leave benefits to new moms and dads following the birth or legal adoption of a child. It not only applies to biological parents and those that legally adopt children, but also those who intend to maintain the same abode as the child for more than six months of the year following the birth or adoption. Further, its coverage is much broader than the FMLA, applying to any employee that meets certain minimum Social Security contribution requirements.

How are the benefits paid? The Cradle Act would allow workers access some of their Social Security retirement income during the parental leave. For each month that workers access these benefits on the front end, they delay their Social Security eligibility by twice as many months on the back end. In other words, an employee who takes their full entitlement of three months of Cradle Act benefits would delay their later eligibility for Social Security benefits by six months.

In discussing this bill, Sen. Lee said the following:

Working families are the heart and soul of our nation. If young people can’t afford to marry and start a family, then the American dream literally has no future. Unfortunately, the cost of family formation and child-rearing today is higher than ever. …

But in today’s economy of working moms and dual-earner couples, we also need updated social insurance programs that support workers at different times of their lives, rather than just starting at retirement. The Cradle Act is a step in that direction.

He’s 100 percent correct. Yet, the Cradle Act has some serious flaws:

    1. It will stress our already overstressed Social Security system.
    2. It will require employees to delay retirement and work longer.
    3. It offers no job protections for those who take leave. The Cradle Act’s coverage is significantly broader than the FMLA, yet provides no restoration or re-employment guarantees for employees not otherwise protected by the FMLA. Thus, an employee could take Cradle Act leave, yet lose their job.
    4. It provides no protection against retaliation for employees exercising their rights under the Act.
There is no doubt that we need a paid parental leave solution. We are the only industrialized country that does not guarantee paid parental leave to our employees. We should be embarrassed. And while most agree that we need to provide paid parental leave, the rub seems to be how to pay for it. The Cradle Act is not the correct solution. Yet, anything the moves this discussion forward is a debate worth having.
Posted on March 14, 2019June 29, 2023

Focus on Employee Work Passion, Not Employee Engagement

employee work passion

Every day the spirits of millions of people die at the front door of their workplace.employee work passion

There is an epidemic of workers who are uninterested and disengaged from the work they do, and the cost to the U.S. economy has been pegged at more than $300 billion annually. According to a recent survey from Deloitte, only 20 percent of people say they are truly passionate about their work. Gallup surveys show that nearly 70 percent of the workforce is not engaged, with an estimated 23 million “actively disengaged.” These employees have quit and stayed — they show up for work but do the bare minimum to get by, don’t put in any extra effort to care for customers and are a drain on organizational resources and productivity.

On the trust front, the findings are just as stark. Studies show that 50 percent of employees who distrust their senior leaders are considering leaving the organization, with 62 percent reporting that low trust causes unreasonable levels of stress. According to workplace consultancy Tolero Solutions, 45 percent of employees say lack of trust in leadership is the biggest issue impacting work performance.

Building and sustaining high levels of engagement is a critical competency for today’s leaders. In our technology-fueled, digitally connected world where new products, competitors and business models seem to emerge overnight, one of the few competitive advantages an organization possesses is its people. The level of skill, talent, creativity, innovation and passion in the workforce of an organization can mean the difference between mediocre and exceptional results.

Focusing solely on engagement is not enough to get us there. We must shift the focus from engagement to the creation of a high-trust culture where employees are passionate about their work.

From Employee Engagement to Employee Work Passion

Employee engagement is a broad and complex problem that organizations spend $720 million a year trying to solve, according to a Bersin & Associates report. Yet when it comes to engagement there isn’t even a commonly accepted definition of the term. Descriptions vary widely, with elements that include commitment, goal alignment, enjoyment and performance, to name a few.

We make a few critical distinctions between the concepts of engagement and employee work passion.

First, employee work passion is supported by a theory and model that explain how work passion is formed. We believe employee work passion is better understood by considering the influence of research on social cognition, appraisal theory, job commitment and organizational commitment. Therefore, it is a different and more expansive concept than engagement.

Second, the combination of relationship, organizational, and job factors influence an individual’s level of work passion. Whereas engagement is often linked to job satisfaction, employee work passion considers the cognitive and affective appraisals people make when assessing their environment and the meaning they ascribe to their thoughts and feelings.

Employee Work PassionThird, the literature on engagement usually describes three states of engagement: engaged, disengaged, and actively disengaged. This three-part description lacks a positive upper range of active engagement — distinguished by the concept of employee work passion, this passionate commitment comes from repeated involvement in self-defining activities. Employee work passion goes beyond simple engagement in various work activities to the incorporation of self-defining activities that become a central feature in an employee’s identity.

Creating Employee Work Passion

To understand how employee work passion occurs, one must consider the process an individual goes through when deciding to employ a specific behavior. As stated earlier, much of the research on engagement does not take the full scope of this process into account. Through deeper exploration of the literature, we began to incorporate significant ideas found in cognitive psychology.

Employee choices are driven by the understanding of how the experience or event being appraised impacts well-being. Since people are meaning-oriented and meaning-creating, they are constantly reacting (cognitively and affectively) to their environment to form judgments (appraisals) about how their well-being is affected by environmental events.

Cognition and affect go hand in hand, happening almost simultaneously, over and over, as individuals make sense of a situation. The conclusions they reach about what is happening, what it means to them, how it will affect them, how they feel about that, what they intend to do, and — finally — what they actually do, are all filtered through the lens of who they are.

The model suggests that the appraisal process begins with an assessment of the organizational, job and relationship factors. During the appraisal process, an employee makes sense of how they feel about the extent to which the 12 factors are present in the work environment.

There are multiple steps in the appraisal process. First, individuals make cognitive (thinking) and affective (feeling) judgments of their environment: What do I think about what’s happening around me and how does it make me feel.

Next, an employee’s passion moderates, or shapes, those appraisals into intended behaviors. Passion can be categorized in two ways: obsessive and harmonious.

Obsessive passion can be described as activity individuals engage in because they “have to,” “must do,” or “needs to,” often to their own detriment (such as addiction, compulsiveness, etc.).

Harmonious passion are those activities that could be described as “gets to,” “wants to,” or “can’t wait to” perform. Harmonious passion is exhibited when people lose themselves in the flow of an activity. The final step of the appraisal process occurs when individuals form conscious intentions to behave in certain ways, as measured through the five intentions. These intentions ultimately lead to either positive or negative job and organizational behaviors.

Trust’s Role in Employee Work Passion

High levels of trust between leaders and employees foster engagement and vitality in an organization’s culture. The 2017 “Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement” report from the Society for Human Resource Management showed the top two contributors to employee satisfaction were respectful treatment of all employees at all levels (65 percent) and trust between employees and senior management (61 percent).

Studies have shown that committed and engaged employees who trust their leaders perform 20 percent better and are 87 percent less likely to leave the organization, and that high-trust organizations experience 50 percent less turnover than low-trust organizations. Despite the amount of evidence pointing to the personal and organizational benefits of having a high-trust culture, however, many organizations lack an intentional approach to building trust.

Trust doesn’t come easy and it doesn’t happen by accident. One challenge in building trust is that it is based on perceptions — one person’s idea of what trust looks like in a relationship can be different from another’s. So, it is critically important for leaders and organizations to establish a shared definition for and understanding of trust.Employee Work Passion

A leader’s trustworthiness is composed of four elements that we’ve captured in the ABCD Trust Model. Leaders are trustworthy when they are:

Able: Able leaders have the expertise, training, and qualifications to perform well in their roles. They also have a track record of success as they demonstrate the ability to consistently achieve goals. Able leaders are skilled at facilitating work getting done in the organization. They develop credible project plans, systems and processes that help team members accomplish their goals.

Believable: A believable leader acts with integrity by dealing with people in an honest fashion; e.g., keeping promises, not lying or stretching the truth, not gossiping, etc. Believable leaders have a clear set of values. They communicate these values to their direct reports and use them consistently as a model for their behavior: They walk the talk. Finally, treating people fairly and equitably is a key characteristic of a believable leader. They are attuned to the dynamics of distributive and procedural fairness (see sidebar) and uphold those principles in the workplace.

Connected: Connected leaders show care and concern for people, which builds trust and helps create an engaging work environment. Leaders can create a sense of connection by openly sharing information about themselves, the organization and by trusting employees to use that information responsibly. Taking an interest in people as individuals, not nameless workers, shows that these leaders value and respect their team members. Recognition is a vital component of being a connected leader and praising and rewarding employees’ contributions builds trust and goodwill.

Dependable: Being dependable and maintaining reliability is the fourth element of trustworthiness. One of the quickest ways leaders erode trust is by not following through on commitments. Conversely, leaders who do what they say they are going to do earn a reputation of being consistent and trustworthy. Maintaining reliability requires leaders to be organized so that they can follow through on commitments, be on time for appointments and meetings, and get back to people in a timely fashion. Dependable leaders also hold themselves and others accountable for following through on commitments and taking responsibility for their work.

The trust one places in a leader comes in two forms: cognitive trust and affective trust. In relation to the ABCD Trust Model, cognitive trust is based on the confidence one has that a leader is able and dependable. This is trust from the head, where rational thought and experience rule. Affective trust, or trust from the heart, is formed by emotional closeness, empathy or friendship. It aligns with “Believable” and “Connected” in the ABCD Trust Model. Our research has shown a large degree of correlation between trust (cognitive and affective combined) and all five work intentions.

Next Step for Leaders

When looking to create a culture where trust flourishes and employees are passionately committed to their work, leaders should examine how the ABCDs of trust are modeled in everyday behaviors, and the extent to which the 12 factors of employee work passion are present. Leaders should ask themselves the following questions:

Does our culture allow individuals to find meaning in their work, their roles and our organization’s purpose?

Are policies, procedures, benefits and compensation transparent and equitably applied to all?

Does our organization provide growth opportunities? Do our feedback mechanisms allow individuals to improve?

Do individuals understand what is expected of them and have a reasonable amount of autonomy when engaging in projects and tasks? Does our organization provide opportunities for individuals to collaborate with others?

Are job roles balanced and reasonable, with enough variety to challenge people perform at optimal levels?

Does our organization have an intentional approach to building trust? And do leaders exhibit the ABCDs of trust in their relationships?

While it may seem daunting to address and incorporate the ABCDs of trust and the 12 factors of employee work passion into the workplace, organizations that do so will be rewarded by trustworthy and passionate employees dedicated to creating devoted customers, achieving sustainable growth and increasing profits for the organization.

Posted on March 13, 2019June 29, 2023

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I can’t do any better of job than the EEOC did in describing the parade of horribles that one supervisor wrought at Sys-Con, a Montgomery, Alabama, general contractor:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, from December 2015 to May 2017, a supervisor at Sys-Con’s worksite at the Hyundai manufacturing plant in Montgomery, demanded sexual favors from two non-English speaking Hispanic female employees and watched pornographic videos in front of them. The EEOC further charged that the supervisor sexually assaulted one of the employees and sub­sequently taunted her, asking whether she “liked it.”

Thereafter, the EEOC said, the super­visor threatened to fire both his victims and their husbands, who were also Sys-Con employees, if they reported his harassment. When one of the employees refused his sexual advances, the supervisor terminated her.

For all of this, the EEOC settled the claims against Sys-Con for (what I consider to be) a paltry $70,000.

Folks, if you employ a supervisor who not only sexually assaults one of your employees but then taunts her about it after the fact, you might be the worst employer of 2019.

Big thanks to my friend Eric Meyer who brought today’s nominee to my attention at his Employer Handbook Blog.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

Posted on March 11, 2019June 29, 2023

‘Crazy Ex-Girlfriend’ Offers an Honest Look at Borderline Personality Disorder

Andie Burjek, Working Well blog

My favorite television show is airing its final episode in a few weeks.

“Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” follows the life of Rebecca Bunch, a wealthy New York lawyer who has a mental breakdown and, when she runs into her high school boyfriend on the street, decides to follow him to West Covina, California. The show does a lot of things well including dismissing the sexist “crazy ex-girlfriend” stereotype and showing the nuances of how people deal with mental health problems like depression and alcoholism — all while being a musical!

Some of the best songs include a parody of the “La La Land” tune “Another Day of Sun” called “Anti-Depressants Are So Not a Big Deal,” a romantic Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers-inspired number called “Settle for Me,” and “This Session Is Going to Be Different,” in which a therapist sings about her frustrating patient in a song that sounds very much like Liza Minnelli’s “Maybe This Time” from the movie “Cabaret.”

One of the best parts of this show is how is deals with Rebecca’s eventual diagnosis, borderline personality disorder. I never knew much about BPD, and “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” has taught me a lot about it. I learned about the many misconceptions about people with personality disorders. Also, I got to see how a person with BPD manages their symptoms and goes through the ups and downs of recovery and treatment.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, it’s estimated that 1.6 percent of adults in the U.S. has BPD, but that number could be as high as 5.9 percent. Experts believe it’s underdiagnosed in men.

As employers increasingly address mental health in the workplace, it’s worth learning about BPD and how it could potentially impact an employee.

BPD is “a mental health disorder that impacts the way you think and feel about yourself and others, causing problems functioning in everyday life. It includes a pattern of unstable intense relationships, distorted self-image, extreme emotions and impulsiveness,” according to the Mayo Clinic.

Online resource Verywell Mind goes through some of the symptoms of BPD at work. One major one is unstable interpersonal relationships. A person with BPD tends to see the world in a very absolute, black-and-white way. A job or a coworker is either completely good or completely bad, with not much room for nuance. They may enter a new job loving and idealizing everything and everyone. The idealization phase eventually disappears, leaving basically the opposite scenario, with the employee seeing nothing positive about anyone, “instead experiencing them as hostile backstabbers.”

BPD also causes people to have intense reactions to rejection or perceived rejection, potentially leaving a person prone to abandonment issues.

The Women’s Centre for Health Matters suggests ways in which managers or coworkers can help an employee struggling with BPD. Stable environments are important for people with BPD, so providing the employee as much consistency is their job as possible is helpful. This excerpt explains more strategies:

It can be a challenge interacting with individuals with BPD so it is essential to set limits clearly and stress proper workplace conduct, remind about completing assigned tasks and take consideration of coworker’s feelings. An explanation of the appropriate time and place for different interactions such as meetings, problems and complaints may be necessary. Also be prepared for protests and the possibility that the employee will be mad with you for unknown reasons. Demonstrate validation of emotions and stay civil. You don’t necessarily want to validate an employee’s perspective, instead validate the feelings attached to this perspective – “I hear you” or “I understand the way you feel.” Do not cross boundaries and try to document everything.

The Women’s Centre also lists 20 potential accommodations for employees with BPD, including:

  • Encourage attending counseling or psychotherapeutic appointments and allow flexible work scheduling to fit the appointments.
  • Provide confidential weekly/monthly meetings with the employee to discuss workplace issues and performance.
  • Allow telephone calls or phone breaks during work hours to therapists and others for needed support.
  • Offer appropriate praise and reinforcement for positive work interactions.
  • Consider a program that allows employees to work from home on some days.

I want to stress that I’m not a medical expert, but I did get this information through trustworthy research. Also, there are realistically resources out there for safety-concerned employers who don’t want disruptive employees to cross any lines — for example, this 2010 guide from the Australian Human Rights Commission.

What I can say from my own point of view, based on years of reporting on health and benefits issues, is that you may very well come across an employee with a physical or mental health issue. Just because it takes some accommodations to ensure they can get along in your workplace, that doesn’t mean you should dismiss them as viable candidates.

As one article stated, “While BPD symptoms can make things more complicated, many people with BPD go on to have very successful careers.”

Posted on March 11, 2019June 29, 2023

What a Lawful ‘Civility’ Policy looks like under the NLRB’s Boeing Test

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Consider and compare the following workplace civility policies:

Commitment to My Co-Workers

  • I will accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining healthy interpersonal relationships with you and every member of this team.
  • I will talk to you promptly if I am having a problem with you. The only time I will discuss it with another person is when I need advice or help in deciding how to communicate with you appropriately.
  • I will not complain about another team member and ask you not to as well. If I hear you doing so, I will ask you to talk to that person.
  • I will be committed to finding solutions to problems rather than complaining about them or blaming someone for them, and ask you to do the same.
-vs-
Blogging 
Blogging outside of the hospital must not include … disparaging comments about the hospital.
The NLRB Office of General Counsel concluded that the former was lawful under the NLRB’s Boeing standard:

We conclude that the Commitment to My Co-workers document is a lawful civility policy. … [T]here is a distinction between regulations on what employees can say about their coworkers as compared to what they can say about their employer. … [W]hile protected concerted activity may involve criticism of fellow employees or supervisors, the requirement that such criticism remain civil does not unduly burden the core right to criticize. Instead, it burdens the peripheral Section 7 right of criticizing other employees in a demeaning or inappropriate manner.

Balanced against the minimal impact on Section 7 rights of these types of civility rules, employers have significant interests in maintaining such rules. These interests include the employer’s legal responsibility to maintain a workplace free of unlawful harassment, its substantial interest in preventing violence, and its interest in avoiding unnecessary conflict or a toxic work environment that could interfere with productivity … and other legitimate business goals.

While the latter was unlawful:

A rule prohibiting disparagement of the employer has a significant impact on NLRA rights Concerted criticism of an employer’s employment and compensation practices is central to rights guaranteed by the NLRA. A general rule against disparaging the company, absent limiting context or language, would cause employees to refrain from publicly criticizing employment problems, including on social media. Such criticism is often the seed that becomes protected concerted activity for improving working conditions, the core of Section 7.

The entire memo is worth reading for a lesson on how the NLRB analyzes work rules under Boeing. And, if you haven’t had an employment lawyer review your handbook or other work rules in the past few years, this is as good of a reminder as any that there is no time like the present.

Posted on March 7, 2019June 29, 2023

Salary Discussion Bans Are a Big Legal No-No

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

AriesAviator posted the following question in the LegalAdvice subreddit:

Boss just threatened to fire me and another co-worker because we were discussing a raise we both got- what should I do?

We both got pulled into a group chat over the app our work uses, and the first message reads as follows;

Hey I don’t want to here about your raises with the other crew members we talked about this before, other places have strict rules either termination or reversal of the raise this is not okay, Don’t turn something we tried to do nice for you too into a pain for us.

Which, uh, what the fuck?

I’m pretty fucking sure everything in there is MASSIVELY illegal.

AriesAviator wins the labor law Kewpie doll.

Policies prohibiting pay-discussions among employees, or retaliating against employees who discuss how much they make, are per se illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what the NLRB said on this very issue in Boeing Co.:

Rules that the Board … designates as unlawful to maintain because they … prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example … would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another.

So, AriesAviator, to answer your (albeit crassly asked) question, your employer’s response is 100 percent illegal, and, if you want to make a big deal out of it, jaunt over to your local NLRB office and file an unfair labor practice charge. It’s a pretty open and shut case.

Employers, if you have such policies in your handbooks, or have made such statements to your employees in the past, stop. It’s as easy of an unfair labor practice into which you can stumble.

Posted on March 5, 2019June 29, 2023

The 7th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The 7th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is an employer that (allegedly) permitted a nearly year-long campaign to malign and harass an employee living with ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome.

Melinda Crooke worked as a line worker for Herbruck Poultry Ranch, an egg farm in western Michigan. As noted above, she has ADHD, which causes her to be overtly talkative and sometimes confused, and Tourette’s syndrome, which manifests in head twitches, facial tics, uncontrolled arm movements, and occasional swearing. According to the lawsuit the EEOC filed on her behalf, all of her co-workers knew of her disabilities.

Crooke claimed that as soon as her supervisor learned of her disabilities, her harassment at the hands of said supervisor and some co-workers began. They called her “Mindy Tourette’s,” “Gabby,” “Motormouth,”and “Wandering Wanda.” They mocked her Tourette’s syndrome by biting their tongues and making exaggerated hand movements. And, after she complained to HR, the mockery only worsened. For example, her supervisor sped up the production line to make it harder for her to keep up, and followed her into the bathroom during breaks to berate her for wasting time. When she complained again to HR, she claims she was told there was nothing anyone could do.

As a result, she quit her job and went to the EEOC, which has now filed suit on her behalf. According to EEOC Trial Attorney Dale Price, “An employer cannot condone a work environment where an employee with an impairment is ridiculed because of it. It must step in to stop such behavior.”

Otherwise, you not only might get sued, but you just might end up as one of the nominees for the Worst Employer of 2019.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

 

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 … Page 38 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