Elements of a Good Workplace

May 3, 2013 by Leave a Comment

GallupMany of us have experienced the horrors of a  bad workplace but what does a good workplace look like?

Jim Clifton, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Gallup poll organization, says he knows, based upon decades of polling data.

  What follows, according to Clifton, are the 12 most important, and most predictive, workplace elements.  If these elements are in place, the employer has an engaged, healthy workforce where employees innovate, work hard  and achieve results.  If these elements are not in place, it is likely that workers are disengaged, less healthy, less productive, and less invested in the success of the company.

What’s your workplace look like? Feel free to show this article to your boss.

  1.  I know what’s expected of me at work.
  2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
  3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
  4. In the last seven days, I received recognition or praise for doing good work.
  5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
  6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
  7. At work, my opinions seem to count.
  8. The mission and purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
  9. My associates are committed to doing quality work.
  10. I have a best friend at work.
  11. In the last six months, someone at work talked to me about my progress.
  12. In the last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

 According to Clifton, a major reason that workforces are not engaged is bad management or what he calls “management from hell.”

 Gallup research has found that the top 25% of employees — the best-managed — versus the bottom 25% in any workplace — the worst-managed — have nearly 50% fewer accidents and have 41% fewer quality defects. What’s more, he says, people in the top 25% versus the bottom 25% incur far less in healthcare costs.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Judges Who Blog

April 26, 2013 by Leave a Comment

gavelI was surprised to find out this week from LawSites that I may be one of only three judges in the United States who “blog.”

 I am an appellate justice for a Native American tribe in Northern Nevada. I work for a sovereign nation that has its own court and code of laws but  is bound to the United States by a complex series of federal laws and treaties.  I formerly worked as a tribal court judge for another tribe.

 I don’t blog about being a judge, per se, though that experience undoubtedly informs my blog.

I write about employment discrimination, workplace bullying and abuse – from a worker’s perspective.  I began blogging after I took a job at a national domestic violence organization and became a target of a bullying supervisor.  I have since written a book, Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace.

 I find it appalling that the United States is one of the few industrialized countries in the world that does not protect workers from workplace bullying,  which is a widely recognized form of  violence that can severely impact a target’s health, lead to physical violence,  and costs society billions each year in lost work hours, higher medical costs, social services expenditures, etc.

 Back to blogging judges  …

 It seems a shame to me that more judges don’t blog. Their silence supports the status quo, which works largely to benefit corporate interests, the powerful and the rich (who contribute to political campaigns).   

 I would argue that silence does not serve the judiciary.  As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist Papers,  the judiciary is the weakest branch of government because it controls neither sword nor purse.  The judiciary has utterly failed to make its case to American taxpayers for  appropriate funding.

 According to the American Bar Association,  most states have cut court funding by at least ten percent in recent years. Many states have stopped filling judicial vacancies and/or laid off judges. Many states have frozen or cut the salaries of judges or staff, despite ever increasing caseloads.  Many courts have reduced their opening hours or even close on some work days.

 It’s almost like the painful post-Internet downfall of the Post Office, but there is no satisfactory alternative to the court system for the vast majority of Americans.

 By its silence, the judiciary fails in particular to effectively champion the plight of people who need a just resolution of civil disputes. Civil courts are largely inaccessible to the poor and, increasingly, to the middle class. This has led to injustice on a massive scale. Meanwhile,  taxpayers become more disillusioned, which makes the judiciary even weaker.  

 I suspect that some people find the judiciary  to be arrogant and secretive – perhaps because its leaders on the U.S. Supreme Court refuse to allow their proceedings to be televised and it’s virtually impossible to work there unless you graduate from an Ivy League law school.  

Also, judges seem to think – admittedly with some justification – that they will never be promoted if they voice a public opinion on anything that is  more substantial than the weather.

 But the biggest disservice that is done by the silence of the judiciary involves the public perception of the work of a judge.  

 Many people don’t realize that being a judge is really hard work.  Imagine trying to make a good decision,  with the clock running,  rarely enough reliable information or too much conflicting information to be helpful, with emotions running high on both sides.  Even if the stakes seem low to you or me, they are always high to the litigants.

 A few years ago, a judge in Reno, NV, was shot while standing in his office through a plate glass window  by a sniper crouched in a parking lot across the street from the courthouse. The sniper was a litigant in a divorce case who had just murdered his wife. The judge was presiding over that case.   

 A good judge must be strong enough to make the right decision when it does not serve that judge’s interests. When it goes against the grain of powerful people who feel entitled to more justice than they deserve. A good judge must be strong enough to do the right thing when it could alienate a campaign donor or someone with power over the judge. It can be  like a politician from a “red” state  who has to vote on gun control every day.

Justice is the elusive goal that good judges strive to reach in their deliberations.  But justice is often a moving target. It can be difficult to find the bulls-eye. If you make a “mistake,” there is  an appeals court that will point it out.  Sometimes you make the right decision legally but you know in your heart that it isn’t right on a moral or human level.  You don’t forget those cases.

 There is so much about the judiciary that people don’t know because the judiciary has not told them. I think more judges blogging might help people understand that the course of justice is often imperfect, even when everyone is working in good faith toward a just resolution.

Knowing that so few judges blog makes me feel oddly vulnerable – like the soldier who stands up in a field while bullets whistle past.  Alas, it may be  time to  give up any expectation of promotion to the federal bench.  

 

 

Filed Under: ABOUT, CULTURE, DISPATCHES Tagged With: , , , Alexander Hamilton, , Judges, LawSites, Native American Tribe, Post Office, The Federalist Papers,

Rutgers’ “Independent” Investigation

April 6, 2013 by 2 Comments

RutgersOne wonders how an “independent” investigation could support a finding that Rutgers bullying basketball coach Mike Rice should remain on the university payroll?

Rice was forced to resign recently after a videotape was leaked to the public and showed him verbally and physically  abusing players, while using homophobic slurs.

 In his letter of resignation letter to Rutger’s President Robert L. Barchi, Athletic Director Tim Pernetti writes:

 “As you know, my first instincts when I saw the videotape of Coach Rice’s behavior was to fire him immediately. However, Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals and outside counsel. Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal.”

Corporate Counsel  reports that the outside counsel, Attorney John Lacey, an attorney with Connell Foley of Roseland, NJ,  issued a report in January stating that Rice could not be fired “for cause.” because there was no clear violation of his employment contract.

  Lacey found that Rice was extremely demanding of his assistant coaches and players but that his behavior did not constitute “a ‘hostile work environment’ as that term is understood under Rutgers’ anti-discrimination policies.”  Lacy said  the “intensity” of Rice’s misconduct may have breached provisions in his contract against embarrassing the school but, as Rutgers officials conveniently point out, did not recommend termination. 

The conclusion of the so-called independent investigation once again raises questions about these so-called  independent investigations.

 Increasingly,  employers hire  outside parties to “investigate” claims of workplace abuse.  There  often is  an unstated expectation that the result  of the investigation will affirm the employer’s goal of retaining the valued bully while insulating the employer from a potential lawsuit if the less valued target files a lawsuit. Too often the so-called independent investigators are attorneys who place themselves in the position of appearing to be for sale to the highest bidder.

 The videotape is so shocking that it defies reason that any “independent” investigator could reasonably  conclude that Rice’s behavior did not justify dismissal. In fact, some of the basketball  players could have filed criminal assault complaints against Rice for physically manhandling them. Instead of dismissing Rice, Rutgers fined him $50,000 and suspended him for three games in December.

 Just as in the Penn State scandal involving  pedophile football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, Rutgers appears to have tolerated Rice’s bad behavior.

After the videotape was leaked, the dominos began to fall. Rice was fired.  Assistant Coach Jeremy Martelli, Rutger’s General Counsel John Wolf, and Pernetti resigned.  If I were Barchi, I wouldn’t make plans to redecorate the Presidential suite.  Barchi’s  claim that he never took the time to watch the videotape.until it was made public was met with obvious disdain at a press conference. Barchi blamed his bad decision on a “failure of process.”

Here is what needs to happen so that employers will take workplace bullying seriously – managers  need to be held accountable.  

These student athletes are essentially workers who are paid in the form of scholarship assistance by the university.  Like any other worker, they know that  a complaint can result in retaliation and their termination.  These players  relied upon their unofficial employer, Rutgers, to insure they were treated with dignity and respect and certainly not subjected to emotional and p physical abuse.

 Most of the players just put up with Rice’s abuse. However, according to news reports, at least three players transferred from the program as a result of Rice’s abuse.

           

           

Filed Under: CULTURE, DISPATCHES Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Somewhat Improved Healthy Workplace Bill

March 3, 2013 by 3 Comments

… But Still Needs Work

The heretofore anemic  Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB) has received a dose of iron in its latest iteration in Massachusetts.

The version of the  HWB subpumping ironmitted for consideration to the Massachusetts’ legislature omits  the  $25,000 cap on damages for targets who were not subjected to demotion or dismissal.

The Workplace Bullying Institute has pushed the HWB, written by Suffolk University Law Professor David C. Yamada,  for more than a decade as part of state-by-state campaign to pass workplace anti-bullying legislation.  More than 20 states have considered the HWB bill since  2002 but none as yet have adopted it.  This year the bill is under consideration in about a half dozen states.

International scholars criticized the HWB in recent years because it was far less protective of targets of workplace bullying than laws and regulations of other industrialized countries.

This blog criticized the HWB’s  requirements that targets prove malice and psychological damage (the latter was expressly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in federal anti-discrimination laws) and the unreasonably low cap on damages.

The revised bill still defines an abusive work environment as one where “an employer or one or more of its employees, acting with intent to cause pain or distress to an employee, subjects that employee to abusive conduct that causes physical harm, psychological harm, or both.”

How would one go about providing that a  bully acted “with intent to cause pain  or distress?”  I have no idea. Suggestions?

In addition,  workplace bullying almost always involves psychological harm. The bill’s requirement to prove psychological harm penalizes poor people and members of minority groups who tend to visit mental health professionals far less frequently for monetary or cultural reasons.  In addition, this approach was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court as a requirement in race and sex  discrimination cases involving a hostile workplace . (Harris v. Forklift System,  510 U.S. 17 (1993)).

The proposed  Massachusetts bill,  sponsored by Rep. Ellen Story and Sen. Katherine Clark.

A far better alternative to the problem of workplace bullying has been proposed by State Sen. Richard “Tick” Segerblom of Nevada.

Segerblom proposed extending the umbrella of  discrimination laws to protect any worker who is exposed to a “hostile work environment.”  Currently, only workers who have protected status under these laws by virtue of their race, sex, national original, etc. are protected.

If an employer or an employee are held to be in violation of the law, the Massachusetts bill  provides  that a court can  order any relief that is “deemed appropriate, including, but not limited to: reinstatement, removal of the offending party from the complainant’s work environment, back pay, front pay, medical expenses, compensation for pain and suffering, compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.”

According to the proposed bill, an abusive workplace environment is one where “an employer or one or more its employees, acting with intent to cause pain or distress to an employee, subjects that employee to abusive conduct that causes physical harm, psychological harm, or both.”

Abusive conduct involves “acts, omissions, or both, that a reasonable person would find abusive, based on the severity, nature, and frequency of the conduct … .”  This includes but is not limited to:

  • repeated verbal abuse such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets;
  • verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a threatening, intimidating, or humiliating nature;
  • or the sabotage or undermining of an employee’s work performance.

The proposed Massachusetts bill continues to distinguish between targets of  bullying who have and have not been subjected to an adverse employment action (i.e., demotion or dismissal).  The cap is gone but the latter still cannot  recover from the employer  damages for  emotional distress or punitive damages unless the “actionable conduct was extreme and outrageous.” This limitation does not apply to “individually named defendants.”  Thus, an employee who did not suffer an adverse employment action can only seek monetary damages from bully unless the actionable conduct was extreme and outrageous.

The bill also prohibits retaliation against targets who complain and anyone else who testifies, assists or participates in an investigation of workplace bullying.

The stated purpose of the Massachusetts bill is to provide a “legal incentive for employers” to prevent and respond to abusive treatment of employers at work.

Under the bill, it is  an “aggravating factor” if the abusive conduct exploits an employee’s known psychological or physical illness or disability. In that case, a single act that is “especially severe and egregious” would be actionable.

Employers  can escape liability by showing they exercised “reasonable care to prevent and correct  promptly any actionable behavior; and, the complainant employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of appropriate preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.”

Also, employers cannot be penalized if the complaint is based on an adverse employment action made for poor performance, misconduct or economic necessity, a reasonable performance evaluation or “an employer’s reasonable investigation about potentially illegal or unethical activity.”

The bill would require an employee to  file an action within a year of  the last act that constitutes the alleged violation.

Filed Under: DISPATCHES, STATE, WORKPLACE BULLYING Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,