Second-Hand Workplace Abuse

February 14, 2013 3 Comments

second hand smokeNote: For a related story, see Bullying Causes Coworker Stress. Pat

 

 

Bosses who bully their subordinates also  damage co-workers who see or hear about the abuse, much like second-hand smoke affects those in the vicinity of a smoker.

That is the conclusion of a study published recently  in The Journal of Social Psychology, “An Investigation of Abusive Supervision, Vicarious Abuse Supervision, and Their Joint Impacts.”   The study was conducted by Paul Harvey from the University of New Hampshire,  Kenneth Harris and Raina Harris from Indiana University Southeast and Melissa Cast from New Mexico State University.”

The study defines abusive supervision as a dysfunctional type of leadership that includes a sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward subordinates. The authors say abusive supervision generally  is positively related to  job frustration and co-worker abuse and  negatively related to perceived organizational support.

“Although the effects of abusive supervision may not be physically harmful as other types of dysfunctional behavior (workplace violence or aggression), the actions are likely to leave longer lasting wounds. One reason for these long-lasting “scars” is that workplace violence and aggression are often stopped quickly, whereas abusive supervisory behaviors (such as being rude or giving the silent treatment) can continue for considerable times,” the researchers state.

Vicarious supervisory abuse occurs when an employee hears rumors of abusive behavior from coworkers, reads about such behaviors in an email, or actually witnesses the abuse of a coworker.

The report posits that workers who do not experience the abuse first hand may experience similar negative effects as the worker who is being abused. They may realize they could become targets for abuse by the same  supervisor  or they could be transferred to work under an abusive supervisor.

According to the study, employees expect to be treated with respect and consideration by their supervisors. In exchange, they work hard, have positive attitudes about their work and the workplace, and treat others with consideration. When abusive supervision occurs, employees are likely to feel less positively about their work (higher frustration and lower perceived organizational support) and react negatively toward coworkers who are a “safe target” upon which to  vent aggression.

The researchers found similar negative impacts of first-hand supervisory abuse and second-hand vicarious supervisory abuse: greater job frustration, tendency to abuse other coworkers, and a lack of perceived organizational support.

 The researchers queried a sample of 233 people who work in a wide range of occupations in the Southeast United States. Demographically, the sample was 46 percent men, 86 percent white, had an average age of 42.6 years, had worked in their job for seven years, had worked at their company for 10 years, and worked an average of 46 hours a week. Survey respondents were asked about supervisory abuse, vicarious supervisory abuse, job frustration, perceived organizational support, and coworker abuse.

“Our research suggests that vicarious abusive supervision is as likely as abusive supervision to negatively affect desired outcomes, with the worst outcomes resulting when both vicarious abusive supervision and abusive supervision are present,” the researchers said. “Top management needs further education regarding the potential impacts of vicarious abuse supervision on employees to prevent and/or mitigate the effects of such abuse.”

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Strippers are ‘Employees’

February 10, 2013 Leave a comment

When is a worker  an employee who is entitled to a salary and unemployment benefits?

This question was at issue in a Kansas case that sheds light on the exploitative world of strip clubs and so-called gentlemen clubs.

Shortly after Milano’s, Inc. purchased a Topeka strip club called Club Orleans in 2002,  company President John Samples began treating the club’s exotic dancers as independent contractors rather than employees.  This meant the dancers were no longer paid even a nominal weekly wage, instead earning only tips paid by customers of Club Orleans. And they were not paid health or insurance benefits.

In 2005,  one of the dancers filed an unemployment claim, prompting the state to assign an auditor to investigate Milano’s. The auditor concluded  the dancers were not independent contractors but were employees under Kansas law.

Milano’s challenged the auditor’s determination on various technical grounds and two  lower courts upheld the determination. The case finally reached the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.

Earlier this month, the Kansas Supreme Court  ruled that the determinative question was whether the dancers had the status of employees under common law rules that determine the employer-employee relationship. The Court said in Milano’s, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor that the critical common-law factor in the analysis was the employer’s right of control over the employee and her work.

The record showed that the dancers were required to sign what was essentially  a “contract for hire” in the form of an application to work at Milano’s. The contract required the dancers to  abide by the house rules and gave Milano’s the right to fine or terminate the dancers.  Furthermore,  Milano’s, without consulting the dancers, adopted a  minimum tip policy for various types of dances and required the dancers to accept drinks from customers. Milano’s enforced the house rules.

According to the Court:

“Ample substantial competent evidence in the record before us, as echoed in the factual findings below, demonstrates that Milano’s possessed such a right of control over the dancers at Club Orleans. Most telling, the house set various rules, and dancers’ violations of those rules were punishable by fines and termination.”

The Court concluded that exotic dancers subject to a right of control by the owner of the club where they perform are employees under the “usual common law rules” incorporated into K.S.A. 44-703(i)(1)(B) of the Kansas Employment Security Law.

Although the ruling was limited to unemployment insurance benefits, it could have an impact on other independent contractors who seek employee status to be eligible for employment benefits such as workers compensation, disability benefits, etc.

Wage theft is epidemic  in the United States, according to the Progressive States Network (PSN),  a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the work of progressive state legislators around the country and to the advancement of state policies that support issues that matter to working families.

Wage theft occurs when employers  misclassify workers as exempt employees when they are actually non-expempt employees (who are entitled to overtime)  or  misclassify workers as  independent contractors when they are truly employees.

The PSN estimates that more than 60% of low-wage workers suffer wage violations each week. On average, the PSN reports, low-wage workers lose $51 per week to wage theft, or $2,634 per year.  For low-wage workers, that amounts to 15% of their annual income, at average earnings of $17,616 per year.

 

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with Contract for Hire, definition of employee, , Inc. v. Dep't of Labor", , Kansas Supreme Court, Milano's, , Supreme Court of the State of Kansas,

EEOC: Then and Now

February 5, 2013 Leave a comment

Chart going downWhen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was 20 years old in 1987, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging sharply criticized the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for failing to enforce the ADEA.

What would  Senators Melcher, Heinz, Chiles, Chafee, et. al, say about the EEOC today?

The 1987 Senate  Committee blasted the EEOC in 1987 for, among other things, filing too few lawsuits and  hiring too few experienced staff to evaluated cases.

Today, there are fewer full-time staff members working at the EEOC than there were in 1987 during the Republican administration of Ronald Reagan (who was widely perceived to be hostile to civil rights).

There were 2,941 full-time employees working at the EEOC in 1987, compared to 2,505 in 2011.

And it appears the EEOC filed many more lawsuits in 1987 than it did last year.

Clarence Thomas, now a U.S.  Supreme Court Justice, was appointed to the EEOC in 1982 and was serving as its controversial chairperson in 1987.  Thomas  told the  Committee that the EEOC filed  526 actions in federal district courts in 1986. Of these, he said, a record 109 were lawsuits filed under the ADEA.  More than 25 percent of all cases filed in 1986 were class actions, said Thomas.  And  more than 40 percent of the class action lawsuits were age cases.

The EEOC recently reported that in fiscal year 2012 it filed only 122 lawsuits in federal court,  including 86 individual suits, 26 multiple-victim suits (with fewer than 20 victims) and 10 “systemic suits.”

Does lack of funding account for the paltry  number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC in 2012 compared to 1987?  No. The EEOC budget was $165,000 million in 1987 compared to $360,000 million in 2012.

The 1987 commitee generally was not satisfied with the EEOC’s performance. “It’s all well and good to have a strong bill on the record protecting the aged and preventing discrimination based on age in the work force but if the law isn’t enforced, then we haven’t got much,” said committee member John Chafee, then a senator from Rhode Island.

It appears that no one is criticizing the EEOC’s performance today.

Successor Committee

Interestingly, there is still a U.S. Senate Special  Committee on Aging in existance – though it  appears to lack   the diligence of the 1987 committee.

Today’s Senate Select Committee on Aging does not mention the problem of age discrimination on its web page. Nor does it mention age discrimination as an issue of concern on its issue page. And it has no schedule listed for hearings in 2013.

The  issues of interest to the modern-day U.S. Senate Committee on Aging are elder abuse and fraud, long-term care, Social Security and Medicare, prescription drug costs and retirement security.

The Committee explains the retirement security problems this way: “Saving for retirement has shifted dramatically in recent decades, and seniors now increasingly face retirement with little money saved or little guaranteed income due to the shift away from traditional pension plans toward the 401(k) plan.

Of course, this explanation fails to acknowledge that many people over the age of 40 consider age discrimination to be a problem that has serious implications for retirement security.

In 2012, the EEOC received 22,857 complaints of age discrimination – 23 percent of  the 99,412 discrimination complaints it received that year.

According to a  report last year in  the New York Times, a “startling proportion” of older people report they’ve experienced discrimination -  63 percent -  in a study recently published in Research on Aging.  Age is the most commonly cited cause, followed by gender, race or ancestry, disabilities or appearance.

 Cases harder to Win

Meanwhile, it is considerably more difficult today for older workers to win an age discrimination lawsuit, no matter how egregious the discrimination, because of a  decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,  Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009).

The Supreme Court held in Gross that a plaintiff in an age discrimination case must prove that  “but for” age discrimination, he or she would not have suffered the adverse job action (i.e. demotion, dismissal).   In most other types of discrimination, the plaintiff must only show the existence of age discrimination — not that it was the cause of the adverse action.

Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Thomas, the first African-American to head the EEOC and to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court,  wrote the Gross  opinion.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , Clarence Thomas, , , , retirement security, Ronald Reagan, Sen. John Chafee, ,

The Incredible Shrinking EEOC

January 30, 2013 1 Comment

incredible shrinking manThe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC )  received 99,412 private sector workplace discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012 but determined that only 4.3 percent – or 1,800 cases – were based on “reasonable cause.”

That tiny number actually reflects a slight increase from 2011, when the EEOC found that 4.1 percent of cases (1,707 cases) were based on reasonable cause. This was the lowest number since 1998.

If the EEOC  concludes a case is not based upon reasonable cause, it will not  pursue the case. The charging party can still bring a private court action – if he or she has the money to pursue litigation and can find an attorney who will take an employment discrimination case in the face of a federal judiciary that is  hostile these types of cases.

The number of charges determined by the EEOC to have “reasonable cause” has steadily declined from a high of 12 percent in 2001, when the EEOC found that 3,012 cases were based on reasonable cause.

Does this indicate that more workers  are filing bogus charges against their employers? According to the EEOC, a finding of “reasonable cause” means the EEOC believes “that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation.” A finding of “no reasonable cause” means the EEOC found “no reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation.”

Linguistics  notwithstanding, the decline in cases that the EEOC deems are based on ““reasonable cause” more likely reflects  the  EEOC’s changing priorities  in the face of budget cutbacks. The EEOC last year adopted a strategic plan to focus more upon systemic patterns of discrimination. Meanwhile, the EEOC is attempting to whittle down a massive backlog of more than 70,000 cases.

The EEOC reports that in 2012 it filed a total of 122 lawsuits, including 86 individual suits, 26 multiple-victim suits (with fewer than 20 victims) and 10 systemic suits

The EEOC’s legal staff resolved 254 lawsuits for a total monetary recovery of $44.2 million.The year-end data show that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512) and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were, respectively, the most frequently filed charges.

The EEOC lost about nine percent of its staff as a result of budget cuts in the past two years, according to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). Gabrielle Martin, president of AmericAFGE’s National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216, warns  that threatened budget cuts in March would effectively cripple the EEOC and mean that “the United States would cease to have enforceable civil rights in the workplace.”

Overall, the EEOC  in 2012 secured monetary and non-monetary benefits for more than 23,446 people through administrative enforcement activities – mediation, settlements, conciliations, and withdrawals with benefits. The number of charges resolved through successful conciliation, the last step in the EEOC administrative process prior to litigation, increased by 18 percent over 2011.

The fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with AFGE, American Federatoin of Government Employees, , , , Gabrielle Martin

Dance Over: College Must Pay

January 15, 2013 1 Comment

The dance is over for Marymount Manhattan College.

 The EEOC has announced that  Marymount, a private liberal arts cllege in New York City,  has settled a lawsuit filed by EEOC alleging that it refused to hire a choreography instructor for a tenure-track assistant professorship because of her age.

dancer The EEOC prosecution  appeared to be the first salvo by the EEOC in the war against rampant age discrimination in higher education.

 According to the EEOC’s suit, Marymount passed over a 64-year-old applicant for an assistant professorship in dance composition who had been working at Marymount, and instead hired a 38-year-old applicant. The suit charged that this violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination against employees and job applicants who are age 40 or older.

 By the terms of the consent decree settling the suit, Marymount agreed to pay $125,000 to Patricia Catterson. Further, it agrees to comply with the requirements of the ADEA. The decree also requires monitoring and training on anti-discrimination law. The decree will last for four years.

Marymount initially selected Ms. Catterson and two other applicants as finalists for an assistant professorship in dance composition.  After determining that the  Ms. Catterson was the leading candidate,  Marymount’s search committee expanded its search to include the less qualified younger applicant as a fourth finalist because it considered her to be “at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position.”

 New York District Director EEOC Kevin Berry said, “Under the law, age has no place in making hiring decisions – and tenure-track positions in academia are no exception.

Ms. Catterson had been teaching as an adjunct professor in MMC’s Dance Department for 10 years. She had also been on the faculty of The Juilliard School, Princeton University, and Manhattanville College.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

When Workplace Bullying is Illegal

January 2, 2013 6 Comments

blackandwhiteWhat is the  difference  between workplace bullying and illegal harassment?

The major difference is that no law at present prohibits workplace bullying -  despite the fact that workplace bullying can severely impact an employee’s emotional and physical well-being.  And most other industrialized countries have enacted laws or regulations that address workplace bullying.

However, bullying  can become illegal when it creates a hostile or abusive work environment in violation of  federal or state civil rights laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 Generally, two factors must exist:

  •  The harassing conduct must create a “hostile work environment.”
  •  The harassing conduct must be directed toward a characteristic that is protected under  federal and state  civil rights laws.  Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Therefore, workplace bullying may be illegal if it creates a hostile or abusive work environment and it is directed toward an individual who has protection under federal and state civil rights laws on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, etc.

What is a hostile work environment?  The U.S. Supreme Court says a hostile work environment  is a workplace that is permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of a victim’s employment and to create an abusive working environment.  Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993).  The Court has repeatedly said that Title VII  does not prohibit simple teasing or a merely offensive utterance.

NOTE:  A  target of illegal harassment does not have to suffer a nervous breakdown to gain the protection of Title VII. The U.S. Supreme Court says that as long as the environment would reasonably be perceived and was perceived as hostile or abusive, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious. The court says psychological harm could be taken into account but is not required by the statute.

To sum up,  there may be no substantive difference between  the conduct that constitutes serious workplace bullying and the conduct that is acknowledged under the law to create an illegal hostile or abusive work environment.  The harassing conduct can be identical, with the exact same devestating  result.

The significant difference between serious workplace bullying and illegal harassment  is a legal distinction pertaining to  the characteristics of the  target of the conduct.

Nevada State Sen. Richard Segerblom has proposed making Title VII “status blind” so that the law provides a remedy for  all targets of a hostile or abusive workplace, whether or not they fall within a category that is now  protected under the law.

 As Shakespeare once observed: “If you prick us, do we not bleed.”

Individuals who are targets of workplace bullying may have other legal recourse, in addition to federal and state civil rights laws.  All targets of workplace bullying  are  encouraged to consult an attorney who specializes in employment law for employees (not companies) to discuss the specific facts of their case and any potential legal remedies within their jurisdiction.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

OK to Fire Object of Desire

December 29, 2012 Leave a comment

flossIn a small office, an employee often has no where to go  when she is mistreated by an employer.

The perils of this predicament are amply demonstrated in a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Iowa.

The all-male Court  ruled that a dentist did not violate sex discrimination laws when he fired his long-time dental assistant because he (and his wife) was afraid he would have an affair with her.

The  Court upheld a lower court’s grant of summary judgment  in the case of Nelson v. Knight, No. 11–1857 (Dec. 21, 2012). This means the Court concluded  there was absolutely no way a jury could decide against Dentist James H. Knight and hold in favor of his assistant, Melissa Nelson.  Therefore, the case was dismissed before  trial.

Knight said he fired  Nelson, who had worked for him for ten years,  after his wife insisted that Nelson had to go. He gave Nelson one month’s severance.

 Knight admits that on several occasions he asked Nelson to put on a lab coat because her clothing was too tight, revealing and “distracting.”  Nelson denied that her clothing was tight or in any way inappropriate and said she complained to Knight at one point that his criticism was unfair.

 Nelson also recalls that  Knight once texted her to ask how often she experienced an orgasm. Nelson did not answer the text. The Court found it significant that  Nelson did  not remember ever telling  Knight not to text her or telling him that she was offended.

 When Knight’s wife found out that her husband and Nelson had been  texting each other, she confronted her husband and demanded that he terminate Nelson’s employment.  The Court finds it significant that Knight and his wife  consulted with the senior pastor of their church, who agreed with the decision.

After the firing, Knight told Nelson’s husband that nothing was going on but that he feared he would try to have an affair with her down the road if he did not fire her.

Nelson charged that Knight had discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. She contended that she would not have been fired if she were male. Nelson did not raise the issue of sexual harassment.

 The Court states in its decision that the question  to be decided was “whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction.”   In this case, the Court held that  Knight’s decision was driven by individual feelings and emotions regarding a specific person. The Court concluded Knight’s decision was not gender-based or based on factors that might be a proxy for gender.

The Court states that an employer does not violate sex discrimination laws by ” treating an employee unfairly so long as the employer does not engage in discrimination based upon the employee’s protected status.”

 The Court did concede that it might be possible to infer that gender was an issue if an employer repeatedly took adverse employment actions against persons of a particular gender because of alleged personal relationship issues.

 So if  Knight repeatedly fires future assistants because he thinks he might want to have an affair with them, or if Knights’ wife demands that he fire future assistants because she thinks he might want to have an affair with them,  presumably a Court could find discrimination  on the basis of sex.

Meanwhile, Melissa Nelson is unemployed, with one month’s severance.

This may not come as a surprise to some readers but, according to the Court’s web site, there are no women justices on the Iowa Supreme Court. The seven justices are Chief Justice Mark S. Cady, David S. Wiggins, Daryl L. Hecht, Brent R. Appel, Thomas D. Waterman, Edward Mansfield and Bruce Zager.  Justice Mansfield wrote the opinion.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The “Crime” of Sexual Harassment

December 28, 2012 Leave a comment

_41030565_mugging_203_bbcWhy isn’t sexual harassment a crime in the United States?

 It is in France.

 France’s General Assembly enacted a new sexual harassment law on July 31, 2012 that includes criminal penalties of up to three years in prison and a fine of approximately $56,000 for serious cases.

 The new French law defines harassment as imposing on someone, in a repeated way, words or actions that have a sexual nature and either undermine the person’s dignity because of their degrading or humiliating nature or create an intimidating, hostile or offensive situation.

 In the United States, sexual harassment is prohibited by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The remedy is civil, which means it is up to the victim to sue and the damages are monetary and/or  injunctive relief.  In criminal cases, a prosecutor sues on behalf of the state and may seek  fines and imprisonment.

It can be very difficult to win a sexual harassment case in the United States. The  U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that U.S. law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious.  This leaves a lot of room for interpretation by judges, especially with respect to whether sexually harassing conduct  is frequent enough  and severe enough to be actionable.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently announced that WirelessComm, a Northern California distributor for the Metro PCS cell phone service provider, had agreed to pay $97,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the agency.

 According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the store manager of WirelessComm in Watsonville, CA,    subjected then-19-year-old Deisy Mora to abuse throughout her seven months of employment at the store

He frequently commented about her physical  appearance, texted her photos of himself and the words “Te quiero” (‘I love  you’ in Spanish), and referred to women in general with slurs and epithets.

In addition, the EEOC said, the store owner  contributed  to the harassmen by inviting Ms. Mora to travel with him, asking her and others if  they were pregnant and, on one occasion, asking her to text photos of herself  and other female staff members.

The EEOC says Ms. Mora’s complaints were not addressed and she eventually quit her job  when she could no longer endure the harassment.

 What happened to the store manager and the store owner?

Under the consent decree, WirelessComm agreed to train the store owner and staff regarding anti-discrimination laws.  But there is no indication the WirelssComm store owner and store manager didn’t understand anti-discrimination laws in the first place, only that they didn’t place any importance on these laws and didn’t follow them.

The EEOC said  WirelessComm also  agreed to hire an equal employment opportunity consultant and a human resources consultant to revise its EEO policies; monitor the workplace; respond to any allegations of harassment arising during the three-year  pendency of the decree; and report harassment complaints to the EEOC.

In other words, WirelessComm will start following the law.

In  the final analysis, it seems like a small price  to pay for a campaign of a harassment waged by two adult men in positions of authority against a  vulnerable teenager.  If the store owner and store manager had mugged Ms. Dora while she was walking down a street, they’d probably spend at least some time in jail.  Here  they stole  her peace of mind and robbed her of  financial security in a time of high un employment.

 The United States recognizes two types of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo and (2) hostile environment.

 Quid pro quo is Latin for “this for that.” This type of harassment occurs when a  boss or supervisor asks for a sexual favor in return for a job benefit.

 Hostile environment sexual harassment occurs when the harassment is so severe or pervasive that it creates a sexually intimidating or abusive work environment. Hostile environment sexual harassment must be:

  • based on sex (sexual conduct, sexual comments, or nonsexual conduct that is based on your gender);
  • unwelcome (you must show that you do not enjoy the harasser’s attention and that you are not encouraging it); and either
  • severe (one or more serious incidents that affect your job) or pervasive (a pattern or series of smaller incidents that are so widespread that you have trouble doing your job as a result).

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , Deisy Mora, , France, French sexual harassment law, , Metro PCS cell phone service, Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment, , , , WirelessComm

Getting Fired

December 27, 2012 3 Comments

FIRED!

The capstone of a campaign  of workplace abuse and bullying is often termination from the job.

 And that reality  – or even the fear of being fired  - can be a devastating blow to a worker who has endured months of  abuse that has stripped away his or her sense of mental and physical well-being.

 But today what does it really mean to be fired?

 I know business leaders who were fired  and recovered to achieve impressive new success.

 Sallie Krawcheck, past president of Merrill Lynch, US Trust, Smith Barney, the largest wealth management business in the world, suggests that if you don’t get fired at least once, maybe you’re not trying hard enough?

 She says that as the pace of change in business increases, the chances of having a placid career are receding. And if in this period of rapid change, you’re not making some notable mistakes along the way, you’re certainly not taking enough business and career chances.

 Being fired is not always a reflection of performance.

Research shows that some targets of workplace bullying are dismissed because they are creative, hard-working and well-liked employees who are seen as a threat by a supervisor or co-worker. They may be among the best in their workplace and that is why they are targeted.

 I also know bureaucrats (and I use that term  in the worst sense of the word)  who should be fired but probably never will be, despite their obvious incompetence.  They have managed to insinuate themselves into secure positions, by surrounding themselves with synchophants and/or by avoiding any personal responsibility for anything, except to claim success for others’ work.

Many  employees are fired because  a new supervisor wants to put in his or her own team in place or the worker’s values or vision don’t  comport with that of  the supervisor.

Many workers are fired for illegal reasons -  they are victim of discrimination on the basis of  age, sex, race, religion, etc.  Some are fired because they asked for a legal right – such as the right to be paid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 So if you were fired in the past year or expect to be in the year ahead, try to  keep it in perspective. Any employee who was fired can likely think of some things that they could have done better.  Hindsight is 50-50.  Nobody’s perfect.  Etc.   Hopefully, your new and hard-earned  knowledge will help you succeed the next time?

 Ms. Krawcheck also advises:

 I  had a friend tell me shortly after I left “When something like this happens, you think you’re thinking straight, but you’re not. You won’t think straight for at least three months.” If you have the luxury of avoiding any major career decisions that long, the perspective you gain after decompressing can be valuable.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , , , dismissal, , Fired, Merrill Lynch, Sallie Krawcheck, ,

Arms Race at Elementary Schools

December 22, 2012 Leave a comment

NewtownMournsOnly the National Rifle Association could find a way to make the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre a marketing moment.

At a press conference, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, argued that the most effective way to protect our children from horrors like the Connecticut school shooting is to provide armed security personnel at all schools.

“We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security,” LaPierre said, reading from a prepared statement.

The logical extension of LaPierre’s argument is that schools must literally become armed fortresses.

A security officer toting what normal people think of as a  ”gun” won’t provide much security when faced with a teenager wielding an automatic or semi-automatic weapon with clips containing hundreds of bullets.  So the security officer will have to tote an automatic or semi-automatic weapons with clips containing hundreds of bullets.  (Think of the gun sales!)

If the kiddies are caught in the cross fire, we can arm them with guns and teach them to defend themselves. Or we can equip each student, teacher and administrator with a flak jacket and running shoes.

LaPierre says the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

But why should any guy have an automatic or semi-automatic weapon with clips containing hundreds of bullets?

The obvious answer to the problem is and has always been to ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons and clips containing hundreds of bullets – which collectively exist only to kill people on a massive scale and should have no place in modern society.  There is no other answer – our weak-willed and easily-bribed elected officials must enact reasonable gun control

The idea that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution sanctions this type of insanity is at best a flawed reading of the document and, at worst, a cynical ploy by mercenaries who have no discernable  sense of decency.

LaPierre was interrupted twice by protesters shouting anti-NRA slogans and bearing banners in front of his podium, including one that said “NRA killing our kids.”

Adam Lanza shot 20 children and six adults before taking his own life at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.  He  killed his mother before arriving at the school.

Not surprisingly, the British Broadcasting Corporation reportedly preceded its radio report on LaPierre’s statement with the caution: THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

Children in elementary school often read fairy tales like, The Emporer Has No Clothes.  The  NRA is now standing naked before the American public.  It is the marketing arm of the gun lobby and nothing else.

.

Filed under Assorted Articles, DISPATCHES Tagged with , BBC, CT, , Newtown, NRA, Second Amendment, Wayne LaPierre

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 83 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com