Category: Commentary & Opinion

Posted on

Puzder’s Withdrawal as Trump’s Pick for Labor Secretary Wasn’t About Politics

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
Late Feb. 15, news broke that Andy Puzder, Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, had withdrawn his name from consideration, just one day before his oft-postponed confirmation hearing was to take place.
Like Trump’s immigration ban, opposing Puzder’s nomination was not a political issue, but a right/wrong issue. Had I had the chance to ask Andy Puzder a question during his confirmation hearing, I would have asked the following:

Can you reconcile your potential position as the head of the federal department that regulates the relationship between employers and employees, and your statements about the sexually based advertisements your restaurants ran under your tutelage as CEO, such as, “I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it’s very American. I used to hear, brands take on the personality of the CEO. … I think this one, in this case, it kind of did take on my personality.”? How can you assure women that your “personality” will not interfere with their ability to be treated equally in the workplace, and be paid the same wage for the same work as their male counterparts?

According to NBC News, while Democrats staunchly opposed Puzder’s nomination because of his opposition to raising the minimum wage, in addition to his restaurants’ racy ads, it was ultimately Senate Republicans that killed the nomination.

Some conservatives have also taken issue with Puzder’s immigration stance, saying it is at odds with Trump. His family also employed an undocumented worker as a housekeeper, though Puzder said he was unaware she was in the country illegally.

Personal issues also complicated the restaurant executives nomination. Puzder went through a messy divorce and his ex-wife made allegations of domestic abuse that were later recanted.

As I’ve said previously, someone who espouses Puzder’s view of women has no business directing our nation’s labor policy. While I agree with his view on other labor issues, such as minimum wage, overtime, and joint employment, there must be someone else qualified who lacks Puzder’s sexist baggage. Hopefully President Trump will allow us to discover who that person is.

Posted on

The 4th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2017 is … the Callous Non-accommodator

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
This is Michael Trimble.

 

 

Originally from Ukraine, Michael was born without arms as a result of birth defects resulting from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. He rides a modified bike designed specifically for him and his disability. He is extraordinarily inspirational.

He is also now unemployed.

Trimble’s main form of transportation is a specially designed bicycle with handlebars that extend to his right shoulder and the stump of his left arm. Every day, he bicycled the miles from his home in Gresham to Kroger’s main offices in southeast Portland.

Two months into his assignment, Trimble had racked up numerous positive performance reviews and the second-highest performance score in his office. But a manager in Kroger’s loss prevention office called to complain about his habit of bringing his bicycle in through the building’s front door, and asked him to carry it up the back stairs.

Trimble says he explained the obvious: That he can’t carry his bike up a flight of stairs because he doesn’t have arms.

The manager relented, but said Trimble had to walk his bike through an outdoor courtyard. Again, Trimble said he could not do that because he doesn’t have arms.

“Can’t you just push your bike?” a supervisor asked him.

“How can I push my bike?” he responded. “I don’t have any arms.”

On March 24, 2016, Trimble says, he received two glowing performance audits. But the next day Kroger fired him for refusing to push his bike through the courtyard.

Last week, Trimble filed a disability-discrimination lawsuit against Kroger.

Firing an employee who must ride his bike across your courtyard instead of pushing it because he lacks arms not only induces cringes of disgust but also earns you a nomination as the Worst Employer of 2017.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on

Diversity and Inclusion Programs Don’t Cause Divisiveness, They Respond to Divisions

When an organization commits to creating a more diverse workforce and inclusive environment, one common criticism is that doing so causes divisiveness and unnecessary friction. This criticism can be expressed directly or it can manifest as an undercurrent of unstated resistance.

Similar resistance often shows up in response to conversations about race. It often stems from the belief that discussions about race and racism cause problems that didn’t exist before, because racism today is created or perpetuated by those who talk about it.

These criticisms are false. Most people who hold such ideas are well intended, but make the mistaken assumption that if something doesn’t exist for them, it doesn’t exist at all. What’s odd is this error of logic doesn’t apply to most other areas of work life. Humans are remarkable in our ability to communicate new, complex information to other humans, then record that information for future generations. This process has helped us survive hostile habitats and evolve rapidly, since (ideally) we don’t have to waste time relearning knowledge gained by our ancestors.

Our curiosity and openness to new information has been crucial to this evolution. Tens of thousands of years ago, if a homo sapiens told another homo sapiens where they’d discovered a food source and the recipient of the information said, “Nah, I don’t see that, therefore it doesn’t exist,” our species would have died out long ago.

Likewise, if a friend told you about a great new restaurant and you replied, “Nah, I don’t know about that, therefore it must not exist,” you’d look silly and miss out on an excellent meal. You’d also come across as a pretty arrogant son of a gun. The other person would never recommend a restaurant to you again.

Missing out on tasty food is no big deal. But what if the information offered is a big deal? What if the information will help solve a problem, avoid a problem or get ahead of a problem? We then ignore the information at our own peril. Examples abound in organizations, industry, and even our economy, from Deepwater Horizon to the 2008 financial crisis to Donald Trump’s presidential win.

Ignoring information we don’t have, that another person is providing, isn’t only arrogant, it’s stupid. It’s bad business, poor leadership and ineffective decision making. So why do we brush off people of color, women, millennials, LGBTQ, those with disabilities and even hard data when they tell us there’s a need for more diversity or inclusiveness? Or when they say they experience prejudice or unfair barriers that disrupt their effectiveness?

Dismissing these gifts of information outright as unimportant, imagined or false is the definition of bigotry and a symptom of the very problem at hand. It’s also dangerously short-sighted and misguided. This information isn’t the cause of divisiveness, it’s a symptom of existing divisions. It isn’t the noxious gas in the coal mine, it’s the canary.

The business case for diversity is clear, robust and data-driven; years of evidence show diversity plus inclusiveness gets better results and diverse teams out perform individuals, non-diverse teams and even a group of the best. The best and the brightest want to work in environments that support their brilliance and excellence, where they can contribute their gifts for collective benefit.

Their perceptions and experiences are among the gifts they bring. If the problems and solutions they uncover aren’t taken seriously and addressed in a meaningful way, they — especially millennials — vote with their feet.

When someone brings up race or racism, or champions diversity and inclusiveness, the best response expresses the same curiosity, trust and commitment to creative action that helped our ancestors survive. The divisions and problems were there before someone brought them to your attention. Talking about them, exploring their impact and taking action to solve the problem may be uncomfortable, but since when has discomfort been sufficient reason to dismiss business-critical information? No leader is expected to know everything; that’s why they have a team. Surely effective leaders who expect to lead thriving organizations in the 21st century have the strength and resilience to hear surprising, even inconvenient truths.

Those that cannot, or will not hear these truths — dismissing them on their face as divisive — do so at their peril. Not only will their results suffer, so will their bottom line.

Posted on

There’s a Thin Line Between Business and Politics

Those of you who saw the popular 1996 film “A Thin Line Between Love and Hate” starring Martin Lawrence and Lynn Whitfield will recognize the title reference. It was also a song by The Persuaders.

I’m going to dig into the line between business and politics, but the love and hate bit works too because to feel one or the other requires passion, and good business and good politics are often quite passionate. It makes me shake my head when people argue that a publication like Workforce should refrain from political commentary. Essentially, some readers are saying, stay in your lane; politics has nothing to do with business.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I’ve used the “stay in your lane” line before when someone uninformed ran off at the mouth publicly about a topic where I felt they lacked key understanding. Not because the ignorant can’t have an opinion, but because I don’t feel the ignorant have the right to attack others’ right to have an opinion, especially when that opinion is defensible and appropriate.

Take my fellow Workforce blogger Jon Hyman, who caught a lot of heat recently when he blogged about that person’s — I’ll remind you that I will not deliberately speak or write his name, but you know him. He lives in former President Obama’s old house — travel ban, a ban which the courts effectively squashed last week.

The comments were hot. Most I ignored, but this one stuck out: “Just for the record, I do not think that an employment law blog is the appropriate place for this type of political rant.”

Again, I disagree.

business and politicsA legal blog devoted to workforce issues is exactly the right place to discuss the leader of the free world issuing a blanket order to prevent “other” people — most of them working people — from entering this country. Hyman chose to take a moral stance, but morality aside — that felt really weird to type — that person’s travel ban affected companies worldwide, as their employees were stalled in airports, unable to do their jobs, many traumatized with worry as they were detained and separated from loved ones.

You cannot separate business and politics, not entirely. Aside from things like immigration laws that impact H-1B visas and the EEOC, which routinely takes businesses to task for discriminatory practices that violate laws or legal precedents, there’s too much influential hand washing and wheeling and backroom dealing that takes place for the two to be mutually exclusive. Things the general public doesn’t always hear about until stocks are falling, buyouts are in the works or mergers are reported.

Then, consider, a company’s public perception, its brand reputation, its ability to recruit the best talent; all of these things can be egregiously impacted by its leader’s politics. Sports apparel company Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank found that out after top spokespeople like ballerina Misty Copeland and basketball player Stephen Curry showed their concern for his public support of the president on CNBC’s Fast Money Halftime Report on Tuesday. Plank “praised Trump as a “pro-business president.”

Plank is at the helm of a successful, globally recognizable “Athleisure” brands out right now, and he sees the connections between business and politics. Remember me talking about passion? In his CNBC comments he used that word too, along with growth and a desire to build things, and let’s not forget the talent, the people. Plank also found out about the other thing that connects business and politics — the eggs the public will throw at a leader’s head, regardless of what side of the fence he rests, if people disagree with him.

I’m no expert on either business or politics. But there is no doubt in my mind that the two are connected. The line separating them is paper thin. I’d even go so far as to say it’s arbitrary.

I was riding in the elevator earlier this week when I learned that Starbucks offered free legal advice to employees affected by the travel ban. I don’t drink coffee that often, but I’m still planning to go to a shop and buy something to show my support for that brand. Then, ride-sharing company Lyft pledged $1 million to the ACLU. However unspoken, are these not political statements made by prominent businesses? These are also some of the same facts that Hyman detailed in his blog.

Trying to disassociate politics from business is like trying to separate people from discussions of diversity and inclusion. You could do it, but how ridiculous would you look in the process?

When a politician takes a stance that others do not agree with, a stance that actively harms either a business or a group of people who could contribute to business in some way, it is our right — even in the media, especially in the media — to speak up, whether your name is Plank or Hyman or whomever. Whether they are in the White House or in a corner office on a high floor, at the end of the day, business and political leaders are accountable to us — consumers and voters. They need to act accordingly.

Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce magazine. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.

Posted on

Defining What’s Fair in the Workplace

Watch this, and then let’s talk about the word fair:
.
Like Louie in the clip above, I tell my kids this all the time. “Why can’t I stay up an extra half-hour? She’s not in bed yet.” “Because it’s time to go to bed. Tomorrow’s a school day.” “But it’s not fair.” “Why can’t I have ice cream, too? He had ice cream.” “Because you weren’t with us; you were doing something else.” “But it’s not fair.” Life is not designed to be fair. Tough lesson for a kid. Heck, it’s a tough lesson for an adult, too.
Must the workplace be fair? What does the word “fair” even mean at work? Nothing in the law requires the workplace to be fair. It only requires that you treat similarly situated people of different protected groups similarly. Equality across protected classes, however, is not the same as fairness.
Consider the following, which I read on HRhero.com:
Most adults have internalized a sense of fair play that we learned as small children. And when a situation is unfair, we feel there should be some accounting for it. Conversely, research indicates that if an individual feels that he has been treated with kindness, respect, and honesty, he is less likely to file a civil lawsuit. As a result, you should place a premium on good communication and fairness in your terminations.
There are exceptions to every rule. But, in general, a good termination should be foreseeable. If the termination is the result of ongoing performance problems, there should be a history of meetings and written documentation of the problems. No employee should find out that her performance is unsatisfactory for the first time at a termination meeting.
If society expects fairness, unfairness begets lawsuits, and members of the same fairness-expecting society will comprise the judges and juries that will decide the legality of your terminations, then some basis of fundamental fairness should ground your terminations.

What does fundamental fairness in the workplace look like?

    • Don’t ambush your employees. They should understand why they being fired via prior discussions, prior performance reviews, and prior discipline.
    • The punishment must fit the crime. Do you really need to fire the employee who is late for work occasionally? Maybe, if he or she has been repeatedly warned. But the first time? If the punishment far exceeds the misconduct, the employee will look for a reason for the mistreatment and unfairness, such as race, sex, age, or disability. Do not provide an impetus to look past the stated reason. Alternatively, a sufficiently serious offense (e.g., sexual harassment, theft, violence) may support a termination on the spot. Otherwise, however, employees should have an ample and bona fide opportunity to correct their misbehavior.
    • Have documentation to support your decision. Do you have a performance review, written warning, or other contemporaneous note in a personnel file to support your decision? If not, it’s best to wait until you do. And, no, this is not an excuse to create a paper trail after the fact. Documentation should be contemporaneous to the misconduct.
  • Be consistent. Do you handle similar disciplinary problems similarly and to the same degree? If not, those that suffer the worst will ask why, and they may do it via their attorney in a lawsuit.

To make this concept of workplace fairness even simpler, do unto your employees as you would have your employer do unto you. If you treat your employees as you would want to treated (or as you would want your wife, kids, parents, etc. to be treated), most employment cases would never be filed, and most that are filed would end in the employer’s favor. Juries are comprised of many more employees than employers, and if jurors feel that the plaintiff was treated the same way the jurors would want to be treated (i.e., fairly), the jury will be much less likely to find in the employee’s favor.

And that result would be way better than fair.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

  

Posted on

Is Your Company Protected From Insider Cyber Threats?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
I’ve previously suggested that your employees are your company’s weakest link, and therefore, your greatest threat to suffering a cyber-attack and resulting data breach. While employee negligence (that is, employees not knowing or understanding how their actions risk your company’s data security) remains the biggest cyber risk, another is growing and also demands your attention — the malicious insider.

Dark Reading reports on a recent survey titled, “Monetizing the Insider: The Growing Symbiosis of Insiders and the Dark Web.”

Recruitment of insiders is increasing, and the use of the dark web is the current methodology that malicious actors are using to find insiders,” explains researcher Tim Condello, technical account manager and security researcher at RedOwl.

Cybercriminals recruit with the goal of finding insiders to steal data, make illegal trades, or otherwise generate profit. Advanced threat actors look for insiders to place malware within a business’ perimeter security. …

Think your business is safe? Think again. All insiders pose a risk, regardless of their seniority or technical ability, experts say. As major data breaches continue to make headlines, people are recognizing the tremendous impact leaked data can have on a business—and how they can profit from it.

There are three types of people who fall into the “insider” category, says Condello: negligent employees who don’t practice good cyber hygiene, disgruntled employees with ill will, and malicious employees who join organizations with the intent to defraud them.

What is a company to do? I’ve already discussed how to protect against the negligent employees who don’t practice good cyber hygiene—training, training, and more cyber-training.

No amount of training, however, will stop a disgruntled employee with ill intent, or a malicious employee who joins to do harm.

These latter two categories need more specialized attention—an insider threat program. The Wall Street Journal explains:

Companies are increasingly building out cyber programs to protect themselves from their own employees. … Businesses … are taking advantage of systems … to find internal users who are accidentally exposing their company to hackers or malicious insiders attacking the company.

These “systems,” however, can prove costly, especially for the small-business owner. While investment in a technological solution is one way to tackle this serious problem, it’s not the only way. Indeed, there is lots any company, of any size, with any amount of resources, can do to develop an insider threat program.

Aside from the expense of costly monitoring programs, what types of issues should employers include in an insider threat program? Here are four suggestions:

  • Extra monitoring of high-risk employees, such as those who previously violated IT policies, those who seek access to non-job-related business information, and those who are, or are likely to be, disgruntled (i.e., employees who express job dissatisfaction, who are on a performance improvement plan, or who are pending termination).
  • Inventories and audits for computers, mobile devices, and removable media (i.e., USB and external hard drives), both during employment and post-employment.
  • Policies and programs that promote the resolution of employee grievances and protect whistleblowers.
  • Pre-employment background checks to help screen out potential problem employees before they become problems.
No company can make itself bulletproof from a cyber attack. Indeed, for all businesses, data breaches are a when issue, not an if issue. However, ignoring the serious threat insiders pose to your company’s cybersecurity will only serve to accelerate the when.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on

Snap Offers Small Diversity Nugget in Advance of IPO

Snapchat is hot. It has more than

In advance of that date, which is poised to be one of the biggest tech IPOs in a while, Snap released some, shall we say, light information about its diversity strategy. It seems like they have great intentions, particularly around diversity of thought. But intentions are like wishes. Sometimes they come true, most times they don’t. Why? Because without a plan, wishes or intentions are just talk.

You need action, measured steps in a determined direction. And Snap is saying all the right things, but there’s no data, no transparency, and because there’s no transparency, there’s little to no formal accountability.

According to a TechCrunch article published recently, the company says:

“We fundamentally believe that having a team of diverse backgrounds and voices working together is our best shot at being able to create innovative products that improve the way people live and communicate. There are two things we focus on to achieve this goal. The first—creating a diverse workplace—helps us assemble this team…”

OK, now would be the perfect time to detail planned recruiting strategies to increase women and minorities at various levels throughout the organization; and a few numbers to provide context and illustrate projected success rates, or even how steep a climb the company has to hike, wouldn’t go amiss.

“We convene at the conferences, host the hackathons, and invest in the institutions that bring us amazing diverse talent every year…”

Oh, yeah? Which ones? Are you sponsoring any of those conferences? Who attends? Where are they marketed and to who? What about job fairs? Or, how about internships in high schools in underrepresented communities? Silence.

Specifics lend credibility. Without details, it’s just talk, no?

“The second—creating an inclusive workplace—is much harder to get right, but we believe it is required to unleash the potential of having a diverse team. That’s because we believe diversity is about more than numbers…”

That bit about the diverse team, well said. And diversity is absolutely about more than just numbers. But when you’re a public company, data, numbers, they matter. Showing even a little progress in strategic diversity management can inspire product confidence and brand loyalty, and get you out of jail free when your overall lack of diversity starts tongues to wagging and fingers to pointing.

“To us, it is really about creating a culture where everyone comes to work knowing that they have a seat at the table and will always be supported both personally and professionally…”

Again, well said. No argument here. But without details, strategies, something to indicate this is more than just a well written media sop to throw the more critical of us off the scent, the whole speech is just thin.

“We started by challenging our management team to set this tone every day with each of their teams, and by investing in inclusion-focused programs ranging from community outreach to internal professional development…”

What are these inclusion-focused programs? What is Snap’s idea of community outreach? What form will this internal professional development take? Challenge is almost always good, especially at the highest organizational levels. But how will you know when or if your leaders have met the challenge? And exactly is the challenge? I only ask because if I’m not sure, you might want to check to make sure your leaders are. Granted, I’m just Joe Q public, but it’s the public who will buy this stock next month, right?

“We still have a long and difficult road ahead in all of these efforts, but believe they represent one of our biggest opportunities to create a business that is not only successful but also one that we are proud to be a part of.”

Yeah, OK. It’s smart to acknowledge diversity isn’t always easy, and again, you certainly can’t argue with the desire or intent behind statements like these. At least, not until you scratch beneath the surface, look for the meat and find there’s nothing there to grab on too. Call me cynical, but I don’t believe it. There are too many unanswered questions, too little information, too many vague statements about their stance on diversity and inclusion. I can’t get a clear picture of what exactly needs to be done, who will do it, how they’ll do it, and on what timetable.

Stakeholders demand a solid accounting. Apple found that out. This month the company’s shareholders will vote to try and increase management diversity, “a proposal being pushed by its major investors.” A Diversity Inc. article reported that Apple’s current management said such efforts are “not necessary.” We’ll see. But, as much as it pains me to say it, they could be right. Apple might be able to get away with ignoring efforts to diversify its leadership ranks – at least for a while – because of the depth of market penetration – not to mention the almost rabid brand loyalty – its products have achieved globally.

Snap, however, is not Apple. It’s main product, Snapchat, is popular, but it does not have Apple’s Pied Piper-esque pull. As evidence, the August 2016 introduction of competitor Instagram Stories caused a serious slowdown on Snapchat’s growth. If the tide turned against Snapchat, all it would take is Kylie Jenner hopping on another platform, and they’d be toast.

Brands and products and the companies that love them need the public’s approval. How fast did Nordstrom drop Ivanka Trump’s brand this week following protests from anti-Trump movement #GrabYourWallet? The retailer says Trump got the boot because of poor performance, but I think we all know why her brand isn’t performing well. It’s not the clothes. I’ve seen many of them, and her stuff is cute. Until you see that name, and drop it’s hot. At least, that’s what I do.

Diversity as a facet of brand reputation, recruiting, talent management or promoting business performance is not something you want to mess with. These days – thank everything – many times the public won’t let you.

Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.

Posted on

Spontaneity Is for Last-Minute Gifts, not Diversity

Periodically I plug the word “diversity” into Twitter search to see what comes up. I’ve found some great information that way. I’ve also found some things that gave me forehead wrinkles.

 

For instance, I saw this tweet:

leen ‏@calucsonil 11m

11 minutes ago

diversity is amazing and representation is important but only when it’s SPONTANEOUS

I clicked on the bio info for this tweeter; the picture is distorted, but it looks like a white man. Here’s why that’s relevant. That white man has the luxury to wait on nebulous things like spontaneity. Women and minorities don’t. We literally don’t have enough life left to wait on spontaneity when the topic is gender parity.

I wracked my brain, and I couldn’t think of one single thing about workplace diversity and inclusion that was spontaneous — and positive. Complaints are spontaneous. So are demands, attacks, knee-jerk policy changes and politically or culturally motivated arguments around the water cooler. Are those things positive? Not so much.

But the reason spontaneity and workplace diversity are so mismatched is because spontaneity is fast, it’s relatively furious, and in its context change is easy, it’s expected, it’s desired. Workplace diversity, on the other hand, is the antithesis of change and speed. It’s a battle, a slow, often painful struggle that finds every living and dying excuse to maintain and sustain its present state: lack of money and/or resources, no time, no strategy, no bandwidth, no real desire … .

the global gag rule and diversity
The global gag rule is about exerting control over half of the population for reasons that have nothing to do with their well-being and everything to do ensuring there is no shift in power.

So, no. Spontaneity is actually ridiculous when the related topic is workplace diversity. Today, given the societal, financial, psychological and cultural constraints in which we operate, diversity requires intention. It requires discipline and repeat, consistent, sustainable effort. Let’s reserve the spontaneity to celebrate those “aha” moments that crop up as a result of strategic diverse management.

And speaking of knee-jerk policy changes, can I kvetch about the global gag rule for a minute? At its heart the central topic is abortion, not workplace diversity, but it’s relevant, trust me.

The Global Gag Rule, which that person signed back into policy on Jan. 20 — I’ve made a vow to avoid speaking his name, but you know who he is; he’s living in former President Obama’s old house — prevents U.S. funded health care providers around the world from even talking about abortion as a segment of family planning. According to one article I read, “Trump’s reimagining of the gag rule is even more severe than the original prohibition devised by President Ronald Reagan, which was limited to clinics that provide family planning services. The Trump gag extends to any health care providers around the world — which would cut an estimated $8.5 billion in aid.”

Obviously, this is terrible news for women and families everywhere. In the aforementioned article, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said the “policy could have terrible consequences for women and families around the world. I started my career working at the World Bank on health care in India. I saw firsthand how clinics funded by foreign aid are often the only source of health care for women. When women are given even the most basic health care information and services, they live longer, healthier lives — and they give birth to children who live longer, healthier lives.”

That’s major. But while health care or a lack thereof is undoubtedly important, for me the implications of the Global Gag Rule aren’t just about denying family planning and other ancillary health care services that women need, deserve and want. It’s about exerting control over more than half of the population for reasons that have nothing to do with their well-being, and everything to do ensuring there is no shift in power and control.

What happens if women are denied these types of family planning services? Let’s say they all deliver healthy babies — no doubt that absolute has already sparked all sorts of pushback in your brain because absolutes tend to do that, but bear with me — and life and death is no longer a issue. These mamas stay home with their babies, right? That’s not so bad. Kids need mamas.

Now let’s unpack that a little bit more. In many countries, including the U.S., those mamas are young, really young, school age. Having children means you don’t go to school. No school means no job. No job means no salary. No salary means no economic freedom, authority, input or power.

You see where I’m going with this? One knee-jerk policy change has impact that reverberates throughout the global community from the home to the workplace to the lack of innovation and missed opportunities some women won’t be bringing into the workplace because they won’t be there. And that policy change wasn’t spontaneous. Diversity and the word spontaneous are completely incompatible.

Yes, I know the issue is far more complex than a few pithy sentences in a blog paragraph. I’m aware. Diversity and inclusion, or a lack of those things, are systemic issues woven into the infrastructure and fabric of society’s blood. Those issues are not new. They didn’t just crop up. Therefore, spontaneity or any discussion of something similar is completely irrelevant.

And what about the generational implications of that scenario I painted with all those young mothers trapped in a cycle of ill-educated, subservient poverty? It only takes nine months to make a baby, but once he or she is here, that’s a lifelong commitment. Mama didn’t go to school. She didn’t go to work. How hard will it be for her daughter or her daughter’s daughter to do those things?

Whether it’s a tweet, or the Global Gag Rule, when push comes to shove, we women don’t have the time or the wherewithal to wait on the white, male patriarchy to determine what’s best for the course of our global lives. If women are occupied having babies and struggling with preventable female illnesses, there will be no school. Certainly there will be no advanced level schooling, which is now a requirement for advancement in our knowledge-worker-driven global marketplace.

Women don’t have time to wait or hope for spontaneous acts of diversity. No innovation-savvy workplace does either.

Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce magazine. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.

Posted on

Trump’s Un-American Travel Ban and the Workplace

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I’ve had an internal debate all weekend long over whether I should blog about Trump’s executive order that bans immigration from seven Muslim countries, suspends refugees for 120 days and bars all Syrian refugees indefinitely. Ultimately, I decided that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, and this issue is too important to remain silent. I choose to be on the correct side of history.

If you are a staunch defender of the president who does not care to read an opposing view, I suggest you stop reading now, and come back tomorrow for a more benign post. Or, better yet, post a comment and let’s have an intelligent debate about this issue.

And, if you choose to unfollow or unfriend me because of my opinion, you are more than welcome to do that, too. This is still America, and I respect your right to have an opinion even if I disagree with it. I hope, however, that you show me and my opinion the same respect and patriotism that I would show you and yours.

This issue, however, is not a left issue, or a right issue, or a Democrat issue, or a Republican issue. It’s also not a legal issue, even though the courts will ultimately decide its fate.

Instead, it’s a moral issue; it’s an American issue. It’s how we choose to define ourselves as Americans. It’s who we are, and, perhaps more importantly who we choose to be as a nation.

I am proud that members of my profession have taken a stand, appearing at airports at all hours of the weekend to help those detained and facing deportation. I am proud of those that marched nationwide to protest Trump and his actions. And I am proud of the judge (now judges) that stood up to block this action, albeit temporarily.

As for employers (this is an employment law blog after all), some have chosen to take a stand.

For example, my alma mater, Binghamton University:

We know that these are difficult circumstances, leaving many of us concerned. Binghamton University remains committed to the continued success of all of our students, regardless of religious belief, country of birth or citizenship, and we are here to provide all students and faculty with support through this difficult time.

And Google:

We’re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that create barriers to bringing great talent to the U.S. We’ll continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.

And Microsoft:

We believe that immigration laws can and should protect the public without sacrificing people’s freedom of expression or religion. And we believe in the importance of protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.

And Netflix:

Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all. Worse, these actions will make America less safe (through hatred and loss of allies) rather than more safe. A very sad week, and more to come with the lives of over 600,000 Dreamers here in a America under imminent threat. It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.

And Facebook:

We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help. That’s who we are.

And Apple:

As I’ve said many times, diversity makes our team stronger. And if there’s one thing I know about the people at Apple, it’s the depth of our empathy and support for one another. It’s as important now as it’s ever been, and it will not weaken one bit. I know I can count on all of you to make sure everyone at Apple feels welcome, respected and valued. Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.

And others, like Starbucks, which promised to hire 10,000 refugees over the next five years, and Lyft, which has pledged $1 million to the ACLU.

What about your workplace? How you choose to respond is a decision I cannot make for you. It will depend on your political beliefs, moral constitution, and the composition of your workforce. Know, however, that the issues of national original discrimination and religious discrimination are very much on the EEOC’s radar, and its recently appointed acting chair, Victoria Lipnic, likely will not deviate much, if at all, from this focus.

In the aftermath of the November 2015 Paris attack, I wrote the following:

We cannot let this type of discrimination again pervade our workplaces, no matter how angry we are over the murderous crimes of a few acting in the name of Islam. …

No doubt, we live in scary times. Some well tell you (and I don’t necessarily disagree) that we are amid the third world war (even if it looks very different than any war we’ve fought before). One of this war’s battle lines will be drawn at the ballot box over the issues of immigration and immigrant rights. We must resist the urge to fight this war in our workplaces by harassing and otherwise discriminating against those who have the right to work, and enjoy that right free from discrimination and harassment.

Oh how I hate being correct in this case.

I will leave you with this thought. The plaque at the base of the Statute of Liberty reads:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

In celebrating the centennial of the statue in 1986, President Reagan famously noted that liberty “is of foreign birth.”

I remain convinced that inscription, and President Reagan’s words, are America. To my readers, prove me right, that we as a nation are better than, and not defined by, this Executive Order.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on

We Have Our Second Nominee for Worst Employer of 2017

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Our next nominee for the Worst Employer of 2017 comes from my very own backyard — Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

Here in Northeast Ohio we take our snow removal very seriously, especially (we hope) at the airport, where an icy or snow-covered runway could cause disaster. In 2015, airfield manager Abdul Malik-Al complained to his bosses about his belief that the airport did not sufficiently support its winter-weather crews. Those comments led to the FAA levying a $200,000 fine against the airport.

These issues, however, appear to remain. According to Scene Magazine, on Jan. 19, airfield-maintenance manager Robert Henderson allegedly rounded up his staff and threatened them with retaliation if they leaked any information to the press. Unluckily for Henderson, but luckily for us, an employee recorded his outburst:

If anybody is caught associating with anything like that, the penalties will be great. So I’m calling y’all together now. Let’s go ahead and put it out there; let’s talk about it right now. So we can get it out of the way. Because if anyone is caught sitting there having a sideline conversations about this, or with [unintelligible] did to somebody else, or let me send it to this friend or let me me do that, that could connect you with something that’s, that’s frowned upon in the organization — to take internal stuff and leak it out to the media. So please don’t engage in, in all that. I’m putting it out right here, right now. It ain’t nothing to whisper about.

Congratulations, Cleveland Hopkins Airport — or, more specifically, Robert Henderson. You are our second nominee for the Worst Employer of 2017.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.