Earlier this year, Amazon threatened to fire two employees who spoke out against the companyâs stance on climate change. In addition, the company also issued a new employee communications policy.
The protest started last April when a group calling itself Amazon Employees for Climate Justice published a letter signed by more than 8,700 employees. It called on Amazon to adopt a company-wide plan to address climate change. As the protests intensified, Amazon ultimately reacted with the new policy and the job threats.
What legal issues do these employee protests, and Amazonâs reaction, raise?
Kate Bischoff and I had the pleasure of guesting on the XpertHR Podcast to share our thoughts. You can listen below, or in your podcast app of choice.
Spotify recently announced that it is acquiring The Ringer, one of the most prolific and popular podcasting networks.
Spotify also indicated that it intends to hire all of The Ringer’s 90 employees, most of whom work on theringer.com, which covers sports and culture and which Spotify indicates it will keep up and running.
Last summer, 66 of those 90 employees signed union-authorization cards stating their support for the Writers Guild of America East to represent them as their collective bargaining representative. Shortly thereafter, The Ringer management voluntarily recognized the Guild as the union representative for its employees.
What does this mean for Spotify? Is it acquiring a labor union as part of its purchase of The Ringer? Like most legal questions, the answer depends on a number of factors.
The primary question relates to the structure of the deal itself. Is it a stock purchase or an asset purchase?
If itâs a stock purchase â the buyer is acquiring all of the stock of the seller â this issue is much easier to solve. In a stock purchase, the buyer stands in the place of the seller and becomes responsible for all of the sellerâs obligations, including its union-related obligations and any existing collective bargaining agreements. In other words, if Spotify purchased all of the stock of The Ringer, then Spotify is almost certainly acquiring its union and related obligations.
The fact that Spotify said that it intends to hire all of The Ringerâs employees, however, makes me think this deal is an asset purchase and not a stock purchase. And in an asset purchase, these issues are much more complex.
In an asset deal, the buyer assumes some, but not necessarily all, of the sellerâs union-related obligations, but only if the buyer is a âsuccessor employer.â A buyer is deemed to be a successor employer when it continues the predecessorâs business and hires a majority of its employees from the predecessorâs union employees.
A successor-buyer must recognize and bargain with the union, but it does not necessarily adopt the predecessorâs collective bargaining agreement. Instead, the buyer is usually free to set its own initial terms and conditions of employment before bargaining in good faith to a new collective bargaining agreement (as long as the buyer does not mislead employees into believing they will be re-hired without changes to their terms and conditions of employment, which will lock the buyer into the old agreement).
What I hope you take away from todayâs post is the complexity of these issues. If you are involved in the sale or purchase of a business that has unionized employees, you absolutely need to involve labor counsel in the deal so that the parties understand what union-related rights are being bought and sold.
Whether we are Republican, Democrat, or independent, surely we must all agree that every human life is a sacred gift from God. As we support Americaâs moms and dads, I was recently proud to sign the law providing new parents in the federal workforce paid family leave, serving as a model for the rest of the country.
Now I call on Congress to pass the bipartisan Advancing Support for Working Families Act, extending family leave to mothers and fathers all across our nation.
Itâs a bipartisan bill that would provide new parents the ability to borrow against the future tax benefit from their $5,000 federal Child Tax Credit, in the form of a $500 allowance for 10 years.
There is little doubt that the United States needs to do something (anything) to provide new parents with some form of paid family leave. I have serious concerns, however, over a proposal that requires parents to borrow against a future tax credit to take that benefit. I have further concerns over a proposal that does not protect parents who avail themselves of that benefit from retaliation.
Itâs good that we are having a national conversation about paid parental and family leave. It will be better when we start talking about proposed laws that will provide real and actual benefits and employment protections to parents.
And it will be best when Congress and the White House get off their collective asses and pass meaningful legislation.
An employer requires âdirect observationâ of its employees providing a urine sample pursuant to its reasonable suspicion and random workplace drug-testing policy.
The employer sends an individual of the same sex to accompany the tested employee into a restroom designated for the sample collection to visually observe the employee producing the sample. The employerâs substance abuse policy and the consent and release form provide for the testing, neither discloses or provides for the direct observation of the sample production.
These are the facts of Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, in which the Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether a private-sector, at-will employee who agrees to drug testing as a condition of continued employment has a reasonable expectation of privacy during mandatory drug screening.
The court of appeals determined that the direct observation method of urine-sample collection is an unlawful invasion of the employeesâ common law right to privacy. âWe find appellants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to exposure of their genitals.â The issue wasnât whether the collection itself violated the employeesâ privacy. It doesnât. As the appellate court explained, â[A]n employee consenting to a drug test waives the right to complain that his urine is collected and tested.â However, in this case, the employees âhad an expectation of privacy with regard to their bodies and ⌠the compelled exposure of their genitals and compelled urination before a stranger intruded upon that privacy.â
The Ohio Supreme Court, which held oral argument in this case last week, will now decide this fascinating issue.
If you watch the oral argument, you will not witness a whole lot of outrage toward the employer from my stateâs notoriously business-friendly Supreme Court. While this case will likely be a win for the employer, it does not mean that your business should across-the-board adopt âdirect observationâ as the process for your drug testing. To me, itâs a horribly offensive practice that should only be used if necessary, and only after disclosure to, and consent by, the observed employee.
What advice would I provide if a client comes to me and asks about a âdirect observationâ policy?
Iâd ask, âWhy?â What are you trying to achieve? Are there less obtrusive means available to prevent employees from cheating a drug test (e.g., searches before they enter the restroom, pat-downs, etc.)? Does it make more sense to limit direct observation to situations in which you have a reasonable suspicion of cheating?
Make sure all employees have notice of the direct observation and when you might use it. Unlike the employer in this case, put it in your drug-testing policy, and have employees sign off on it as an express condition of employment. With notice and consent, they cannot complain about an invasion of privacy, as theyâve voluntarily sacrificed that right.
Just because Ohioâs Supreme Court will likely grant a thumbs-up to Steriliteâs policy in this case, it does not mean that the policy makes for good HR or that itâs one that you should adopt in your workplace. Instead, consider what goals you hope to advance with your drug-testing policy and tailor it accordingly.
A judge in the United Kingdom has ruled that âethical veganismâ is a protected class akin to religion and is protected from workplace discrimination. The Washington Post shares the details:
An employment tribunal made that landmark determination in a case involving a man who claimed he was fired from his job at an animal rights organization for revealing to colleagues that their pension funds were invested in companies that experiment on animals. The tribunal has yet to rule on the merits of the case, but it did on Friday take the step of deciding that the manâs ethical veganism constitutes a âphilosophical and religious beliefâ protected by anti-discrimination law.
Thatâs the United Kingdom. What about the United States? Well, it depends.
There are two leading cases on this issue.
In Chenzira v. Cincinnati Childrenâs Hosp. Med. Ctr. (S.D. Ohio 2012), the federal court denied the hospitalâs motion to dismiss the employeeâs religious discrimination claim. The core issue the court decided is whether veganism is a sincerely held religious belief, or merely a moral or secular philosophy or lifestyle (as the hospital argued). In support of her argument, Chenziraâa customer service representative who refused a flu vaccine because it contained animal by-productsâcited an essay, The Biblical Basis of Veganism. She also cited bible verse to her employer when she made her request for a religious accommodation. In denying the motion to dismiss, the court stated:
The Court finds that in the context of a motion to dismiss, it merely needs to determine whether Plaintiff has alleged a plausible claim. The Court finds it plausible that Plaintiff could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views.
Contrarily, in Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), the state appellate court dismissed the religious discrimination claims of a vegan IT worker who refused a mumps vaccine for similar reasons as Chenzira. He claimed the vaccine âwould violate his system of beliefs and would be considered immoral by him,â which resulted in the withdrawal of his employment offer. The court concluded that veganism is not a protected religion:
We do not question plaintiffâs allegation that his beliefs are sincerely held; it is presumed as a matter of law that they are.⌠There is no allegation or judicially noticeable evidence plaintiffs belief system addresses fundamental or ultimate questions. There is no claim that veganism speaks to: the meaning of human existence; the purpose of life; theories of humankindâs nature or its place in the universe; matters of human life and death; or the exercise of faith. There is no apparent spiritual or otherworldly component to plaintiffs beliefs. Rather, plaintiff alleges a moral and ethical creed limited to the single subject of highly valuing animal life and ordering oneâs life based on that perspective. While veganism compels plaintiff to live in accord with strict dictates of behavior, it reflects a moral and secular, rather than religious, philosophy.
In other words, while his beliefs are sincerely held, they are moral beliefs, and therefore secular and not religious.
To answer my question on how U.S. courts would view this issue, it depends on the jurisdiction in which your business is located, and perhaps whether the employeeâs beliefs are grounded in spiritualism or personal morals.
These cases also raise a more fundamental question â how far should businesses go to accommodate employeesâ requests for special treatment. To me, sometimes, the path of least resistance makes the most sense.
For a hospital, there may not be a path of least resistance when comes to public health issues such as vaccinations. Other businesses, however, have to balance the burden of granting the accommodation versus the risk of a lawsuit (and the costs that go with it). In many cases, the accommodation should win out, because it is easier and less costly than denying the request and eating a lawsuit, even if itâs a defensible lawsuit.
For example, if you face this same vaccination issue at your widget company, is there a harm in letting employees opt out on religious ground, even if itâs a borderline (at best) religion, like veganism. You can defend your decision to deny the request based on the bona fides of the claimed religion. But, where does that get you? Are you on right side of the law? Possibly. Have you irreparably damaged your relationship with your employee, while at the same time demonstrating to your entire workforce that you practice policies of exclusion instead of inclusion? Likely.
In other words, there are more factors to consider other than answering the question, âWhat does the law say about this?â How you incorporate those other factors into your accommodation decision-making is often more important than simply answering the underlying legal question.
According to CNN, Chipotle has agreed to pay a $1.3 million fine for more than 13,000 child labor violations at over 50 of its Massachusetts restaurants.
The stateâs attorney generalâs office accused the company of forcing teenagers to work without proper work permits, late into the night, and for too many hours per day and week. Itâs the largest child labor penalty in Massachusetts history.
Writing at Inc.com, Suzanne Lucas (aka the Evil HR Lady) makes the excellent point that these failings fall squarely on the shoulders of management.
Employees, even adult employees, arenât expected to know and comply with all labor laws. ⌠Itâs not up to a 17-year-old to clock out no later than 9:59 pm. Itâs the managerâs responsibility to make sure it happens. This can be difficult for managersâand can require some complicated scheduling or hiring more adults than teenagers. Some teens want to work more hours and are happy to keep their mouths shut. It doesnât change the law around it. Managers need training on the law and how it differs between adults and minor employees.
So what are the rule of the road for child workers? Each stateâs laws differs. Hereâs what Ohio law says on the issue. Ages 14 and 15
When school is in session: i) they cannot work between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.; ii) they cannot work for more than 3 hours on any school day; and iii) they cannot work more than 18 hours during any school week
When school is out of session: i) they cannot work between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.; ii) they cannot work more than 8 hours per day; and iii) they cannot work more than 40 hours per week. Ages 16 and 17
When school is in session: i) 11 p.m. before a school day to 7 a.m. on a school day (6 a.m. if not employed after 8 p.m. the previous night); and there are no limits on hours worked per day or week.
When school is not in session, there are no limits on starting or ending times, or hours worked per day or week.
Unlike adult workers, all minors are required to have a 30-minute uninterrupted break when working for more than five consecutive hours.
Prohibited Occupations
All minors are prohibited from working in the following occupations:
Slaughtering, meat-packing, processing rendering
Operation of power-driven slicers; bakery machines; paper product machines; metal forming; punching or shearing machines; circular and band saws; guillotine shears; woodworking machines
Manufacture of brick, tile, and kindred products
Manufacture and storage of chemicals or explosives, or exposure to radioactive and ionizing radiation substances
Coal mining and mining other than coal
Logging and sawmilling
Motor vehicle, railroads, maritime, and longshoreman occupations
Excavation operations, wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking
Power-driven and hoisting apparatus equipment
Roofing operations
Additional Prohibited Occupations for 14- and 15-Year-Olds
Manufacturing and warehouse occupations (except office and clerical work)
Public messenger services occupations
Work in freezers; meat coolers and all preparations of meats for sale (except wrapping, sealing labeling, weighing, pricing, and stocking)
Transportation; storage, communications, public utilities; construction and repair
Work in boilers or engine rooms; maintenance or repair of machinery
Outside window washing from window sills, scaffolding, ladders or their substitutes
Cooking, baking, operating, setting up, adjusting, cleaning, oiling, or repairing power-driven food slicers, grinders, food choppers cutters, baker type mixers
Loading or unloading goods to and from trucks, railroad cars or conveyors
Work with cars and trucks involving pits, racks, or lifting apparatus
Inflation of tires mounted on rimes equipped with a removable retaining ring
For-profit door-to-door employment (unless the employer is registered with the Ohio Dept. of Commerce Division of Labor & Worker Safety)
As one can imagine, the Department of Labor and state attorney general offices take child labor violations very seriously. Just ask Chipotle. And ignorance is no excuse.
Moving up the chain of command is discouraging in a lot of companies. The further you go, the more white and male it gets.Â
This disappointing trend of diversity recently was in the news. The Wall Street Journal also reported that âwomen held more U.S. jobs than men in December for the first time in nearly a decade, a development that likely reflects the future of the American workforce.” Despite this development, weâre still seeing a population of leaders that is mostly male.Â
The Washington Post recently published an article about the frustration many black coaches have over the National Football Leagueâs hiring process. While nearly 70 percent of NFL players are black, potentially only three head coaches will be after a series of vacancies are filled this year.Â
Said one black position coach about Kansas City Chiefs assistant coach Eric Bieniemy, according to the article: âWatching E.B. get passed over has a big ripple effect because now you have guys who are questioning if there is even a chance to elevate in the NFL. You want the best coaching candidates, regardless of race. And if youâre biased against black coaches, youâre overlooking a lot of talent.â
Other black coaches expressed concerns that they were only interviewed for the position to check a box or that no matter what advocacy or interview rules got adopted, that wouldnât change the conscious or unconscious biases of the interviewers and decision makers.Â
I have a few responses to stories like these (none of which are âsurpriseâ). The first is, given how many companies preach their commitment to diversity and how many companies love to showcase their diversity and inclusion initiatives, how arenât the results there? Why is the group of people with the most power and the highest salaries still mostly homogenous in so many fields? How long will it take for unconscious bias training to have an impact in hiring decisions, especially for jobs higher up the career ladder?Â
My research department colleague Grey Litaker and I worked on a story about this topic last year. Litaker dug up research on diversity in the pool of MBA graduates versus diversity in leadership positions. The percentage of educated, diverse MBA graduates was not close to matching up the the (very low) percentage of diverse people in leadership positions.Â
One quote from Molly Brennan, founding partner and executive vice president of executive search firm Koya Leadership Partners, really stuck out to me when creating this story, and I think it applies to non-corporate organizations like the National Basketball Association as well. âThis idea that thereâs not a lot of qualified candidates [from] underrepresented groups out there is a false one. Thereâs a whole host of diverse, qualified people who are ready, willing and able to take on leadership roles.â
Weâre in a new decade now, and Iâd encourage company leaders to think critically about their D&I strategy and if itâs enough. Forget the marketing speak and the press release-friendly quotes about how much you value diversity. How is that actually translating into which employees get the opportunity to get a promotion, and which employees are held back by the attitudes and assumptions of decision makers? Rather than focusing on brand-speak that sounds good to consumers, focus on making substantial changes that could actually even the playing field.
Writing about workplace health and health care for the past several years has meant reading my fair share of buzzy health trends.
Thatâs why Iâve enjoyed reading about the worst wellness trends of the 2010s and discussing it with my friends and family. Vice even did a March Madness-style bracket, which I found to be fun.
Not surprisingly, the anti-vax movement took Gold, with the keto diet taking Silver.
I was especially happy that corporate wellness made it to Round 3! It lost to another unfortunate workplace trend, #NoDaysOff. You know, that crazy idea that people who work 90 hours a week and never take a break are superior to other employees, so they brag about it online? Woof.
Still, Iâm glad workplace wellness made it as far as it did, because academic studies have shown that theyâre not effective at cutting health costs or changing habits. They mostly shift health care costs to employees, hence the âcost-savings.â Here was Viceâs reasoning:
Corporate wellness is the latest iteration of workplace wellness, which has been around since the late 1800s and has always existed to increase worker productivity. The current iteration of corporate wellness is mainly focused on mindfulness, but can also include, uh, taking DNA samples from employees or harassing a double-mastectomy patient into getting a mammogram. Surprisingly, these programs donât actually contribute to workplace wellness. Go figure!
This wonderful bracket made me think about the worst trends Iâve seen in employer health in the past several years.
Some of these relate to other parties that intersect with employers, and none of this is to throw shade at employers. A lot of good things have gone on this decade, as well! Reminiscing brings up cringe-worthy memories for everyone. For example, 10 years ago I used to crochet my own ill-fitted beanies and wear them out in public because I thought they made me look artsy. Itâs not fun to revisit that one.
Here are my list of worst health trends, in no particular order.
1. The âculture of healthâ trend: Recently U-Haul got mixed reactions online for revealing that âit will no longer hire people who use nicotine in any form in the 21 states where such hiring policies are legal.â Iâve seen positive feedback from health advocates online, but ultimately, this is a scary, slippery slope. Are we headed in the direction of a personâs employability being increasingly more linked to their habits or their health?
Think about how the Affordable Care Act protects people with pre-existing conditions when it comes to accessing health insurance. Individuals with a health condition should have just as much of a chance at getting a job as healthy individuals. Health status shouldnât be akin to a line on your resume.
2. Health care consumerism: One of my favorite articles in the past several years was a New York Times op-ed arguing that we have to stop referring to people paying for health services as âshoppers.â
I know, I know⌠This movement of encouraging individuals and employees to be smart health care consumers isnât going away soon, probably. But I agree with the argument. Encouraging employees to be educated about health care is a good thing, but marketing health care as merely a consumer good rather than a vital service people need to survive seems misleading to me.
We should stick with âpatientsâ instead of âhealth care consumersâ or âshopper.â And, like this op-ed suggested, we can simplify our language and just say that patients âpickâ or âchooseâ a health plan rather than âshop forâ it.
3. Pseudoscience/misinformation: A big piece of wellness this month is âThe Goop Lab with Gwyneth Paltrowâ arriving on Netflix. Historically, Paltrow has received criticism from health advocates and medical professionals for spreading misleading or false health information through Goop, her wellness company. Yet Goop is still a big money-making player in the wellness industry.
Meanwhile, people also get misinformation about diets and workouts from social media wellness influencers, who may not be peddling effective or safe advice.
The bottom line is, take medical advice from professionals, not celebrities or influencers. And this doesnât just apply to individual people. Health risk assessments, which some employers rely on, sometimes contain misinformation, according to Slate.
4. Overhyped health studies: Health journalism is infamous for the âbig scary study.â A news outlet gets its hands on some research and twists a finding into something that will get attention. Thatâs how you get headlines about how some number of glasses of red wine a day reduces your chances of getting cancer.
According to the âHow bad science can lead to bad science journalism â and bad policyâ from the Washington Post, this also impacts employersâ decisions. This article gives the example of accountable care organizations, which employers may choose to offer employees. The best available evidence shows ACOs donât work, the article cited. Still, journalists have sung their praises based on studies with deep design flaws.
Iâve written about this in more detail before, but both individuals and benefits decision makers should approach health journalism skeptically. Donât be afraid to ask questions about how the research was conducted and what might be the limitations of the study.
Finally, my honorable mention goes to consumer-directed genetic tests â specifically the fact that individual or employer consumers may get marketing talking points rather than well-rounded information when companies try to sell these products to them.
Money, power and status do not protect people against mental illness.
Executives are affected by mental illness as often and as severely as other segments of the workforce, said Dr. Samuel Ball, director of psychology and executive programs at Silver Hill Hospital. He specializes in treating executives suffering from mental illness.
Alcoholism is one of the most common afflictions, Ball said, followed by personality disorders and mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. Executives struggling with depression may have difficulties with productivity and have to force themselves to perform their job due to lower energy levels and interpersonal skills, while some people afflicted with alcoholism can drink heavily while often being functional at work.
A group of high achievers may be initially reluctant to admit the problems theyâre experiencing, Ball said. They feel a âdifferent kind of shame about the problems they’re struggling with because theyâre on a pedestal. So many people rely on them, [and] so many people look up to them at work and in their family.â
They need to feel secure, he added, describing a patient who felt comfortable speaking up because the CEO gave him a clear message that they wanted him back after treatment.
Home Life Versus Work Life
An executiveâs spouse and family play a critical role in convincing them to get help.
âIn a number of cases, the problem is not as widely known at work as it is at home. And the spouse has gotten to the end of their rope with [their] concerns,â Ball said.
At work, the executive will âput on the best face or a mask of maintaining their competencyâ because theyâre motivated to maintain their career status. But when they get home, itâs different. Their spouse will usually be the one to convince them to get treatment.
If someone has these health issues, it can negatively impact their spouse and children, especially children in their teenage years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, growing up in a family with mental health or substance abuse problems is considered an adverse childhood experience â a potentially traumatic event that occurs in childhood and increases peopleâs risk for health problems as adults.
This group of patients generally have the means to afford outpatient treatment, which is a good first step, Ball said. The patients he sees, though, are often the ones too ill for outpatient treatment. Instead of living at home and regularly seeing a psychiatrist, they need inpatient care. Ball will get a phone call from the spouse, who has done the research to find the ideal place for inpatient care â usually somewhere in a different city thatâs nearby enough that family can visit.
How Peers and Employees Can Respond
When an executiveâs mental health is severe, employees and peers may notice. But knowing what to do or how to express sympathy or concern is different. For those employees who report to this higher-ranking person, it can be difficult to know what to do, if anything.
An exception might be if an executive has a trusted assistant who has been with them for a long time, Ball said. This type of direct report may have some ability to do something about the situation, especially if they play a âwork spouseâ role in this personâs life. But a majority of direct reports are not in this situation.
Typically, these high-ranking people wonât go to HR or contact an employee assistance program, Ball said.
âThese executives report to the most senior people in the organization. And when they do finally admit to having a problem, if they do admit it, itâs not clear to them where to go in the organization to get support,â he said.
Usually it’s the one or two people above them â usually the CEO or COO â telling them to go on leave to get treatment that finally makes them get help, Ball said.
âTheyâll say something like, âYouâre incredibly valuable to us and we want you back, but youâre not well enough to work now. Take a month, two months, but we want you to get into a treatment program,ââ he said.
Still, HR has power here. Lower-level employees may bring their concerns to HR, and an HR representative can speak directly with the CEO or COO, who typically are not surprised by the information, Ball said. From there, the CEO or COO can lead the intervention with the sick executive, and the HR person can stay in the meeting as an observer, especially if thereâs been any sort of wrongdoing or complaints about the executiveâs behavior.
Itâs especially helpful if their boss can show sympathy in this discussion, Ball said.
âWhen this has gone well, their boss is either someone who has struggled with depression or alcohol, or itâs in their family. And theyâll have that discussion with their affected employee and say something like, âI know what this is like, and youâve got to take care of this,ââ he said.
Fighting Stigma
A prime reason executives fear coming forward with mental health issues is the fear that their progress at the company will effectively stall and that people will wonder when their next relapse will be.
âEven if they donât lose their job, the reputational fallout of people knowing they’ve gone off to rehab is significant,â he said.
Some workplace experts encourage leaders to be open about their mental health struggles in order to decrease stigma for employees. However, since even these leaders experience stigma, talking openly about mental health at work is a hard but courageous thing to do, according to Ball.
Still, he said that it does have a positive effect on the workplace when leaders are honest and open about their struggles. He mentioned a patient who, upon preparing to leave soon, plans to go back to work and share broadly with the workforce that heâs been on leave treating his depression. This executive said he wanted people to take better care of themselves and recognize the signs that he did not.
âI think itâs courageous when people do that,â Ball said. âItâs helpful to employees when they send that message.â
Most hourly employees have dealt with shift scheduling problems at one time or another.
Iâve witnessed it first-hand with my kids. After a 10-hour Saturday night shift at a restaurant slinging beer and burgers until 2 a.m., I would hear one of them quietly creep into the house. OK, they were actually pretty noisy coming in and banging around in the kitchen. As I dozed back off I just prayed that they wouldnât fall asleep after popping a frozen pizza in the oven.
The good thing was they got home safe and sound. And the kitchen was not charred to an ember when I woke up the next morning. After that kind of a late-night shift I expected them to sleep in late.
Nope. No sleep for the weary in the restaurant biz.
Somebody had to pull themselves out of bed and work brunch at 10 a.m., and guess who was on call? Yep, my sleep-deprived, bleary-eyed child. Not just once. Or twice. This insidious sleep deprivation technique was a regular occurrence.
I mean, who is doing this on-shift scheduling? What sadistic clown is shift scheduling an employee who closed at 2 a.m. the night before to be back on the clock to pour mimosas and serve bacon and two eggs over easy at 10 a.m. that same morning? Oh, right. A restaurant owner. Or the manager, who likely is on the same scheduled shift because, well, restaurant managers are just a different breed.
I know, restaurants and hospitality exist in the fast lane â fast cash, fast life for many employees. Seriously, how many industries lavish itself with weekly industry nights?
The cruel and unusual shift scheduling was a regular occurrence back in the day when I punched a time clock as a bellman at a resort hotel in San Diego. Work the late shift until the final check-in at midnight then back in at 6 a.m. for the early checkouts.
Iâve even heard the mad scramble to find replacement workers when Iâm getting a roll of quarters at the service counter of my grocery store. The manager, who is a really kind, caring woman, is frantically on the phone to staff her Saturday evening shift because so-and-so just called off sick and two others are already on vacation. (Why am I getting quarters on a Saturday evening? Donât ask.)
Unfortunately, it seems that pretty much every hourly employee short of a union pipefitter is subject to such short-sighted shift scheduling. Want to burn out your hourly employees and watch them leave for greener pastures? Give them a dayâs notice, schedule them that evening and then tell them they need to be back in bright-eyed and bushy-tailed early the next morning.
Come on, people! This is not complicated! Your employees have lives. You have a life. Well, unless youâre a restaurant manager. Make the shift scheduling process as painless and humane as possible. For starters:
No on-call shift scheduling. Ever. Telling employees to call in before a shift to see if they are needed and then sending them home if the shift turns out to be slow is incredibly hard-hearted. Donât be hard-hearted.
Provide your employees with work schedules well before they are supposed to show up. Like two weeks before. Minimum 10 days. That gives them time to switch shifts should an emergency or a really good party pop up.
And you know what? Go digital. Paper-based timekeeping? Really? I know, itâs hard to break a routine thatâs been in place since, oh, the Bicentennial. But seriously, check your timekeeping software options.
One thing that I constantly harp on is engagement and communication. Engage your employees through sensible, predictable shift scheduling. Your workers are happier because theyâll have a predictable life. As predictable as life can be, I guess.
And itâs not a stretch to say that a happier workforce means a more engaged workforce, which cuts down on burnout and puts the clamps on the bane of all hourly employers â turnover.
It may not prevent your kid from torching the kitchen with that forgotten frozen pizza in the oven, but they wonât be nearly as bleary-eyed the next morning, either.
This disappointing trend of diversity recently was in the news. 
