Category: Technology

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Lisa Mitchell-Kastner

As a telecommunications company, AT&T Inc. understands the need for speed. Its product has to move as fast as its customers. But it’s not just AT&T’s services that have to be fast — being able to deliver flexible executive education programs that keep up with employees and industry changes is critical to keeping the company ahead of the curve. That’s where AT&T University’s executive director of training, Lisa Mitchell-Kastner, comes into the picture.

In 2013, AT&T’s chairman announced plans to discontinue all landline communication in favor of cloud-based wireless services by 2020. In response, Mitchell-Kastner’s team had to step up their game in leadership development, and did so by condensing the Leading With Distinction program from 17 months to five months, which generated an estimated $4 million in savings.

“The faster we could align our teams on the strategy and educate our workforce on future trends and technologies, the greater impact we would have,” Mitchell-Kastner, 37, said. “We not only found a way to execute faster without sacrificing quality — our executive team and employees have expressed almost entirely positive feedback, and getting everyone aligned faster will help keep us on track to transform the company by 2020.”

But learning had to be accessible, too. When Mitchell-Kastner found that travel restrictions and work-life balance issues prevented 25 percent of general managers from partaking in live training, she launched a virtual program that would take learning to those outside the classroom. Not only did AT&T move closer to being cloud-based, but also, according to the company, it saved $160,000 in travel costs for 32 participants in one session.

For Mitchell-Kastner, 2020’s all-wireless plans loom large in the not-so-distant future. “What I’m doing is simply putting into motion at AT&T University the operations, courses, interventions, and specific” Leading With Distinction modules that the company’s leaders need, she said.

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Danielle Weinblatt

Danielle Weinblatt Game Changer 2014
Danielle Weinblatt

While pursuing her MBA from Harvard Business School, Danielle Weinblatt was looking for a way to solve the various problems she thinks plague the interview process. In 2011 she used her previous experience as a hiring manager to help her launch Take the Interview to eliminate her perceived lack of communication between managers and recruiters, coordination issues and transparency with candidates throughout the interview process.

Weinblatt, 31, created the company’s interview management platform, which uses video interviews and data analytics to help clients make well-informed hiring decisions. More recently, Take the Interview launched a new interviewing platform powered by Google Glass with hope that wearable technology will soon transform the recruiting industry.

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Elijah Bradshaw

Until 2011, human resources technology firm Beeline had no HR department. So when Elijah Bradshaw arrived that year to launch one, employees were a little nervous about what was in store.

Bradshaw, 30, was brought in from Australia by Beeline’s parent company, Adecco Group, to start the department and help develop its company culture in its Jacksonville, Florida-based headquarters. Under his leadership, employees have come to view HR as a support service to help resolve workplace conflicts and improve collaboration, according to company leaders.

“His innovative approach to solving problems, generating employee morale and implementing new procedures has made him a vital asset to the organization and created a forever-long impact to how Beeline is structured,” said senior marketing manager Jessica Ashcraft in a written statement.

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Kristin Lewis

It has been said that as a leader in the male-dominated human resources technology industry, Kristin Lewis “punches above her weight.” John Sumser, editor-in-chief for The HRExaminer also described Equifax Inc.’s director of product management and workforce analytics as a motivator and quick to innovate.

Sumser said Lewis, 27, is an industry thought-leader in a variety of forums related to employer Affordable Care Act compliance requirements and workforce analytics.

Lewis “continues to develop new solutions that will change the way employers interact with their workforce and market data,” Sumser wrote.

Sumser’s praise for Lewis makes sense. Lewis has a tendency to get into an organization, learn and continually develop. She began as a product manager before being promoted to director at Equifax. And at Blackbaud Inc., her former employer, she was promoted several times and was once labeled a rising star for sales performance.

As lead innovator and developer for an award-winning platform for ACA management, Lewis is now helping employers calculate risk, employee eligibility and offer a deeper understanding of today’s employment landscape.

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Keith Henderson

When he’s not appearing on reality TV show “Big Brother,” mentoring disadvantaged youths from Joliet, Illinois, or coaching high school basketball, Keith Henderson is directing the everyday human resources functions at Job Corps of Illinois.

Henderson, 35, is responsible for maintaining effective programs in recruiting and retention, benefits and compensation, and overall organizational development for Job Corps, a program run by the U.S. Labor Department that offers free education and vocational training to young people aged 16 to 24.

Henderson takes his job as HR director seriously, as he often has to make “decisions that can change people’s lives.” And as the leader of the Footsteps Mentorship Program, he plays an active role in the lives of many disadvantaged youths around Joliet, which is about 40 miles south of Chicago. Henderson said his “biggest win yet” for the program came after one of the participants landed a college basketball scholarship.

Posted on

2014 Game Changer: Claudia Riccomagno

When Microsoft Corp. changed its performance review process last year to sync it with its business goals, Claudia Riccomagno led the way, working with human resources at subsidiaries globally to roll out the new program.

Riccomagno, 32, an HR manager at the software company’s Italy campus, is the implementation lead for Microsoft International and has also been instrumental in talent development and onboarding efforts. She has helped organize quarterly employee meetings and small group breakfasts between employees and company leaders and developed Microsoft’s strategy for high-potential employees.

“She manages to balance pragmatism with patience and decisiveness to lead her virtual team of global HR professionals as we navigate through significant change for the organization,” said Theresa McHenry, Microsoft’s HR director in the United Kingdom, in a written statement.

Riccomagno joined the company in 2006.

Posted on

What the ADA Says About Employee Medical Information and Social Media

The Americans with Disabilities Act protects, as confidential, employee medical information obtained by an employer.

Last year, I asked the following questions about the impact of social media on this confidentiality obligation:

What happens, however, when an employee suffers an on-the-job injury and a supervisor shares information about the injury on a Facebook wall or Twitter page? Or, what about when a supervisor posts about a co-workers illness? It can be as innocuous as, “I hope John Smith has a quick recovery from cancer,” or spiteful, like, “I can’t believe John Smith has cancer and I have his workload while he’s out on medical leave.”

At the time, my questions were hypothetical, as no court had yet to address the issue. A few weeks ago, however, an Indiana federal court — in Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics — began sketching an answer. 
 
George Shoun took a few weeks off from work to recover from a workplace injury, Jane Stewart, a co-worker, knew about his injury because she was responsible for processing his work-comp claim. Stewart went on her personal Facebook page and posted the following about Shoun: “Isn’t [it] amazing how Jimmy experienced a 5 way heart bypass just one month ago and is back to work, especially when you consider George Shoun’s shoulder injury kept him away from work for 11 months and now he is trying to sue us.” 

Shoun sued his employer, claiming that Stewart’s Facebook post violated the ADA’s confidentiality requirements by “deliberate[ly] disclos[ing] [his] medical condition to another person.”

 
The court denied the company’s motion to dismiss Shoun’s lawsuit. The company claimed that its employee had not violated the ADA because Shoun had voluntarily disclosed his medical condition by filing an earlier iteration of his ADA lawsuit before Stewart made her Facebook post. The court disagreed, concluding that Shoun had not voluntarily disclosed his medical condition to Stewart or anyone else at the company; he only disclosed it via a court filing.
 
All is not lost for employers, however. The court made a clear distinction between unprotected medical information that an employee volunteers to co-workers and protected medical information that an employer learns via an employer-sponsored medical examination or program.
 
Despite this glimmer of hope, employees need to be very careful when discussing a co-worker’s health on social media. And, employers need to train their employees about the ADA’s confidentiality rules and the extension of these rules to the 24/7 world of social media. Employees must understand that confidential medical information — workers’ compensation claims, Family and Medical Leave Act claims, reasonable accommodation requests, and other medical information related to the performance of the job — is off-limits for discussion. 

Social media is informal and instantaneous. Employees often post before they think about the implications of what they are posting. ADA violations are likely the furthest from one’s mind when posting about a co-worker’s injury or medical issue. A policy statement — and, more importantly, training — on this issue could save you from a disability discrimination lawsuit down the road.

Posted on

‘Free Speech’ Can Be Costly in the Workplace

In late March, many employees of the Silicon Valley-based tech company Mozilla Corp. took to social media to criticize or defend their then-CEO Brendan Eich after it was reported he donated $1,000 in 2008 to an organization that supported California’s controversial Proposition 8 ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

Eich was named Mozilla’s CEO on March 24, according to a Mozilla news release. The next day blog posts and other media stories about Eich’s political contributions began circulating online, sparking a social media backlash from Mozilla employees. Amid the intense public scrutiny, Eich voluntarily resigned his position April 3.

The Mozilla controversy brought the topic of free speech rights in the workplace to the forefront of the public forum. Strong arguments can be made in support or against Eich’s decision to voluntarily resign as Mozilla’s CEO. Though, when it comes to working for a private corporation, employees oftentimes falsely believe their First Amendment right to free speech fully applies at work.

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech protected from punishment by the government. In most cases of private employment, however, political speech is not a protected right.

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech protected from punishment by the government. In most cases of private employment, however, political speech is not a protected right.

An employer is able to separate itself from any employee viewed to be tarnishing the image it tries to present to the public, legal experts explained.

“In general, the First Amendment does not restrict a private employer’s ability to punish political speech in most states,” said Brian Wassom, a partner at law firm Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. “In most states, employment is at-will. If an employer finds an employee’s speech to run counter to the company’s values and image, there’s nothing preventing them from terminating that employee.”

While Eich voluntarily left Mozilla, his support of Proposition 8 could have been interpreted as an activity that did not align with the company’s commitment to openness and diversity – as many of Mozilla’s employees did.

Employee Activism

The social media response of Mozilla employees to Eich’s appointment is part of a growing trend of employee activism. According to a study published in April by global public relations firm Weber Shandwick, “employee activists draw visibility to their workplace, defend their employers from criticism and act as advocates, both online and off.”  

One in five employees can be considered an employee activist, the study found. Additionally, 33 percent of employees have high potential to become employee activists as well. The study also suggests employers should embrace employee activism and encourage more brand socialization. Brand socialization improves organizational transparency and could lead to an increase in engagement. For example, the research shows employees whose employers encourage social activism are significantly more likely to help boost sales than employees whose employers do not (72 percent vs. 48 percent, respectively).

“The employee activist movement should not be underestimated,” said Micho Spring, Weber Shandwick’s global corporate practice chair, in a written statement. “Identifying and activating employees willing to rise to levels of extraordinary support for their organizations should certainly be an important priority for CEOs.”

Although the study shows social media holds potential benefits for employers, there are risks involved as well, explained legal experts. Many employment lawsuits involving social media deal with issues regarding the National Labor Relations Act.

The act “protects line employees from adverse actions from employers based on statements concerning the terms and conditions of employment that are for the mutual aid and benefits of co-workers,” said Philip Gordon, chair of the privacy and data protection group at law firm Littler Mendelson in Denver.

There are two components that protect employee speech under the NLRA, Gordon explained. The first is that the speech must be concerning terms and conditions of employment, but those terms are broadly defined. For example, discipline or management performance could fall under terms and conditions of employment.

Secondly, the speech must be “concerted,” meaning speech concerning a workplace condition or term of employment that a group of co-workers would like to see changed. An employee could write a post on Facebook that criticized a management policy and thanked co-workers for getting together to discuss it.

To avoid a lawsuit, employers should understand laws like the NLRA and how it applies to social media. Likewise, employees need to realize their employer’s social media policy lest they lose a job over a careless tweet or Facebook post.

“Still, to this day, it’s surprising how few employees really appreciate the power of what they share online,” Wassom said. “The sorts of things we don’t punish in a water-cooler conversation may end up being posted online for the entire world to see. Employers need to really drive home the idea that employees need to think twice about what they post and why it can be more consequential online rather than whispered in a conversation around the water cooler.”

Posted on

NLRB Judge Clips Wings of Hooters’ Workplace Policies

In Hooters of Ontario Mills [pdf], an National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge found that a California franchisee of Hooters unlawfully fired a waitress for complaining about a bikini contest that she perceived as fixed. In the same decision, the ALJ also concluded that the restaurant maintained numerous illegal polices in its employee handbook.

Alexis Hanson, a Hooter Girl in an Ontario, California, outpost of the beer-and-wings establishment, complained to management that she believed that bar’s annual bikini contest was rigged. After the contest, she was terminated for “cursing at” the winner and the store’s Marketing Director. When she protested that she hadn’t cursed at anyone, the manager changed her tune and told Hanson, “Okay. Well, then you are being terminated for your negative social media posts.”

The ALJ concluded that Hanson’s discharge was unlawfully motivated by her protected concerted activity (i.e., her complaints to the manager about the bikini contest). The ALJ was persuaded by the fact that the employer had failed to conduct an investigation before firing Hanson, and also by its shifting reasons for her termination. 

The ALJ also concluded that a variety of policies in the restaurant’s employee handbook were overly broad violations of employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity:
  • NEVER discuss tips with other employees or guests. Employees who do so are subject to discipline up to and including termination.
  • Insubordination to a manager or lack of respect and cooperation with fellow employees or guests may result in discipline up to and including termination.
  • Disrespect to our guests including discussing tips, profanity or negative comments or actions may result in discipline up to and including termination.
  • The unauthorized dispersal of sensitive Company operating materials or information to any unauthorized person or party may result in discipline up to and including termination. This includes, but is not limited to, recipes, policies, procedures, financial information, manuals or any other information in part or in whole as contained in any Company records.
  • Be respectful to the Company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors. Refrain from posting offensive language or pictures that can be viewed by coworkers and clients. Refrain from posting negative comments about Hooters or coworkers. In all cases, NEVER publish any information regarding a coworker or customer.
  • Any other action or activity that the Company reasonably believes represents a threat to the smooth operation, goodwill or profitability of its business may result in discipline up to and including termination.
What are the takeaways from this case?
  1. These employees were non-union. This case serves as a reminder that the NLRA’s protected-concerted-activity rules apply to union and non-union shops.
  2. It’s debatable whether complaints about a workplace bikini contest constitute protected concerted activity. In this case, however, the ALJ appeared to be more persuaded by what the manager did not do in response to the complaints, as opposed to what the employee complained about. The manager did not investigate, and did not maintain a consistent reason for the termination. In other words, the reasons given for the terminated seemed to be a pretext to cover up something else — retaliation for Hanson’s protected concerted activity. The moral of this story? No matter the situation, thorough investigations and maintaining a consistent story will save your bacon in many workplace lawsuits.
  3. As often happens in theses cases, the termination served as an entre for the NLRB to review (and overturn) workplace policies as overly broad. If you don’t want the NLRB to see your policies, don’t fire employees for protected concerted activity. Most of these cases get to the Board because someone was fired, not because someone just decided, out of the blue, to challenge a handbook.
Posted on

Should you Check Your Employee’s Social Media Accounts?

Monday’s Wall Street Journal had a compelling counterpoint about whether employers should be checking their employees’ social media accounts. Nancy Flynn, the founder and executive director of the ePolicy Institute, presented the pro, while Lewis Maltby, the president of the National Workrights Institute, presented the con.

Flynn argued that keeping an eye on employees’ online activities helps companies help themselves.

Management has a right and responsibility to monitor how employees are using social media at all times. If companies don’t pay attention, they may end up facing any number of serious problems. It’s all too easy for disgruntled or tone-deaf employees to go onto social media and criticize customers, harass subordinates and otherwise misbehave. Sometimes that can bring workplace tensions and complaints, sometimes it can damage a company’s reputation in the marketplace, and sometimes it can lead all the way to lawsuits or regulatory action.

Maltby argued that examining employees’ online activities often results in an unreasonable fishing expedition.

Yes, employers have a legal right to monitor employees’ conduct on their work computers. But the only time employers have a legal duty to monitor employee communications is when the employer has reason to believe that the employee is engaged in illegal conduct.… The fact is, the vast majority of what employees do on the Internet has nothing to do with work, takes place during their private lives and is done on their personal computers. Once again, employers should get involved with employees’ private lives only when there is reason to be concerned.

Who’s right? Do employers have a right to monitor employees’ social media accounts, or is this an invasion of their personal lives? I believe that there is nothing private about social media. Even outside of work, what employees say on their not-so-private social pages can impact their employer. Do they post racist, sexist, or other inappropriate statements? Do they divulge confidential information about their workplace? Are they engaging in conduct that would.make them unfit for employment (like illegal drug use)? 

The reality is that employees who believe that what they say on their personal social media sites, away from the workplace, is off-limits to their employer, operate under a grand misconception. Like it or not, we live in a world where, thanks in large part to social media, the line between the personal sphere and the work sphere no long exists (or if it exists it’s really blurred). Employees that fail to recognize this fact take a huge risk.