|
Your source for the latest developments in workplace rights and employment law, "Today's Workplace" is the blog (weblog) written by Paula Brantner, Executive Director of Workplace Fairness. In each entry, Paula focuses on legal and political information relevant to employee rights and fairness issues in the workplace.
|
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Wondering whether it's important for you to vote in November? The recent actions of America's largest employer, Wal-Mart, should tell you all you need to know. Wal-Mart claims it wasn't telling its employees how to vote, and as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, neither will we. But we will ask you to look at what Wal-Mart has been up to and make your own decision about the importance of voting in November.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Wal-Mart has been
(See Wall Street Journal article.) In a series of mandatory meetings with its management staff, Wal-Mart officials have been standing up and saying things such as: "I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union." A Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri responded for the article, "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote."
Once the Wall Street Journal article appeared, Wal-Mart's backpedaling began. The company said that "We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it," but that it wasn't advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation. Spokesperson David Tovar said, "If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression... they are wrong and acting without approval. He said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats, donating to political action committees representing both sides of the aisle, and recently promoting some policies that are considered more progressive, such as environmental sustainability, its program to offer $4 prescription drugs and improved benefits for workers. (See Associated Press article.)
What is this bill that has the behemoth Wal-Mart running scared? The Employee Free Choice Act would make it easier for workers to join a union in their workplaces. In a time when paychecks are shrinking, health care is skyrocketing, and America's workers are struggling to make ends meet, workers in unions earn 28% higher wages on average, and are 62% more likely to have health care coverage. Right now, companies who want to make it harder for employees to join unions can resist tooth-and-nail, by forcing workers to attend anti-union meetings, threatening to move overseas, and delaying elections as long as possible. Thirty percent of employers faced with an organizing effort fire workers for supporting a union. (See Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior During Union Representation Campaigns.)
Some think Wal-Mart's behavior might backfire. Art Levine reports at Huffington Post,
(See Huffington Post article.) If you haven't been paying attention to Wal-Mart lately, don't think they're not up to their same old tricks. As recently as June 2008, the New York Times was reporting that Wal-Mart's conduct has improved significantly enough that some of its opposition was backing off. (See Wal-Mart's Detractors Come In From the Cold.) Given that unions have funded the leading opposition groups, Wal-Mart Watch and WakeUpWalMart, perhaps Wal-Mart's apparent softening was just a ploy to distract us all while they geared up to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. It certainly doesn't represent a significant deviation from the Wal-Mart we're used to opposing at every turn.
So, what's a worker to do? First, join those who want to see the Employee Free Choice Act by signing a petition that will add your name to the expected one million workers who support making it easier to join unions.
Sign The Petition
Then, join those who are calling for Wal-Mart to be investigated by the Federal Election Commission for violating federal election law. (See Time To Investigate Wal-Mart's Anti-Democrat Electioneering for more information about this effort.)
Tell the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart
And if you don't think signing petitions is nearly enough, then plan to vote in November. If you're not registered yet, what are you waiting for?
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Wal-Mart has been
mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.
(See Wall Street Journal article.) In a series of mandatory meetings with its management staff, Wal-Mart officials have been standing up and saying things such as: "I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union." A Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri responded for the article, "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote."
Once the Wall Street Journal article appeared, Wal-Mart's backpedaling began. The company said that "We believe the Employee Free Choice Act is a bad bill and we have been on the record as opposed to it," but that it wasn't advocating that its employees vote against backers of the legislation. Spokesperson David Tovar said, "If anyone representing Wal-Mart gave the impression... they are wrong and acting without approval. He said that Wal-Mart has been working with both Republicans and Democrats, donating to political action committees representing both sides of the aisle, and recently promoting some policies that are considered more progressive, such as environmental sustainability, its program to offer $4 prescription drugs and improved benefits for workers. (See Associated Press article.)
What is this bill that has the behemoth Wal-Mart running scared? The Employee Free Choice Act would make it easier for workers to join a union in their workplaces. In a time when paychecks are shrinking, health care is skyrocketing, and America's workers are struggling to make ends meet, workers in unions earn 28% higher wages on average, and are 62% more likely to have health care coverage. Right now, companies who want to make it harder for employees to join unions can resist tooth-and-nail, by forcing workers to attend anti-union meetings, threatening to move overseas, and delaying elections as long as possible. Thirty percent of employers faced with an organizing effort fire workers for supporting a union. (See Undermining the Right to Organize: Employer Behavior During Union Representation Campaigns.)
Some think Wal-Mart's behavior might backfire. Art Levine reports at Huffington Post,
Wal-Mart may have inadvertently done workers a big favor with its threats that a Democratic victory in November could lead to passage of a new law making organizing unions easier. Now progressive media and cable shows are giving the right to unionize greater attention, and a petition drive has been launched by pro-union groups asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate Wal-Mart for illegal electioneering ( a charge the company denies.)
(See Huffington Post article.) If you haven't been paying attention to Wal-Mart lately, don't think they're not up to their same old tricks. As recently as June 2008, the New York Times was reporting that Wal-Mart's conduct has improved significantly enough that some of its opposition was backing off. (See Wal-Mart's Detractors Come In From the Cold.) Given that unions have funded the leading opposition groups, Wal-Mart Watch and WakeUpWalMart, perhaps Wal-Mart's apparent softening was just a ploy to distract us all while they geared up to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. It certainly doesn't represent a significant deviation from the Wal-Mart we're used to opposing at every turn.
So, what's a worker to do? First, join those who want to see the Employee Free Choice Act by signing a petition that will add your name to the expected one million workers who support making it easier to join unions.
Sign The Petition
Then, join those who are calling for Wal-Mart to be investigated by the Federal Election Commission for violating federal election law. (See Time To Investigate Wal-Mart's Anti-Democrat Electioneering for more information about this effort.)
Tell the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart
And if you don't think signing petitions is nearly enough, then plan to vote in November. If you're not registered yet, what are you waiting for?
 |
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, August 01, 2008
By the time the Inspector General's investigative report was issued on July 28, not too many were surprised to learn that political appointees at the Justice Department, starting back in 2002, attempted to pack the department with conservatives by screening out candidates with so-called liberal references on their resumes. While it's almost amusing to learn the lengths to which Monica Goodling and other true believers went to ferret out lefty leanings, what's less amusing is that in most situations in the private sector, discrimination on the basis of political affiliation is not against the law. Just something to think about when your water cooler conversation gets a little overheated...
In 2006, nine U.S. Attorneys were forced to resign their posts in the midst of a presidential administration, triggering an investigation of what many considered at the time to be a scandal, charging that the resignations were required for improper reasons. See Wikipedia: Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy.) An investigation of the U.S. Attorneys firings led to allegations that these firings were part of a much larger problem at the Department of Justice, namely that there was a concerted attempt underway to transform the political makeup of the department by selecting conservatives for open positions.
While the U.S. Attorney investigation is still underway, recently the Inspector General's office released two reports, confirming the suspicions of many that political considerations were indeed hard at work shaping the DOJ hiring process over the last five years in an impermissible way. This effort was primarily the handiwork of one Monica Goodling, whose work at DOJ was designed to stock the department with conservative lawyers who espoused the ideals of the current administration, even though the hiring process for career DOJ attorneys is supposed to be merit-based without regard for political considerations.
The first report, released in June and entitled An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program, indicated that in hiring for the program to bring new lawyers into the department, either for the summer or for their first job following law school, once the hiring process was shifted from the supervision of career attorneys to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's advisors, the process became more politicized. (See Washington Post article.) This program was investigated once a group of Justice Department attorneys unhappy with the politicization of the process wrote an anonymous letter to Congress in 2007 drawing attention to the change in policy. (See Letter from A Group of Concerned Department of Justice Employees.)
As a result of the letter, the process was restored to again have career DOJ attorneys making the hiring selections for the DOJ programs. (See Washington Post article.) Now, some of the rejected applicants are suing, and the Office of Special Counsel is trying to figure out whether it can discipline the Justice employees who acted improperly, since they are no longer with the Department of Justice. (See Washington Post article.) (Ironically, the Office of Special Counsel has its own similar problems right now, as Special Counsel Scott Bloch is under investigation for obstruction of justice, and--you guessed it--using his office for partisan political activities.) (See NPR article.)
On July 28, a second report was released, focusing on whether certain Justice employees violated the law when politicizing the hiring process at the Justice Department. (See An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General.) As the title of the document suggests, Monica Goodling's behavior was the focus of the investigation, although as the investigation concludes, she apparently wasn't the only one engaged in inappropriate behavior: several other Justice employees, including the chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, and Goodling's predecessor as White House liaison, Jan Williams, all "violated federal law and Department policy...by considering political and ideological affiliations" in hiring processes.
In Goodling's case, not only did she engage in improper conduct on the basis of political affiliation, but also on the basis of sexual orientation. Based on rumors about an assistant U.S. Attorney's (AUSA) relationship with her boss, a U.S. Attorney (a relationship which both women steadfastly have denied), Goodling denied an extension to the AUSA's detail, and prevented her from accepting a plum assignment for which she was very qualified. Her boss, the U.S. Attorney, was ultimately one of the ones fired in the purge of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. (See Los Angeles Times article.) Unfortunately, however, Goodling was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony before Congress in May 2007. (See Goodling Testifies Before The House Judiciary Committee.) Therefore, it is unclear what, if anything, can be done to penalize her illegal and inappropriate behavior.
As outraged as many are about Goodling's behavior, it is also outrageous that if Goodling were in charge of hiring decisions in the private sector, many of her actions would not violate the law. Only a handful of states have laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation on the basis of political activity or affiliation, so the bulk of Goodling's misconduct wouldn't violate any laws. (See Retaliation: Political Activity.) While more states have laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation (and generally perceived sexual orientation is included in that), there are still 30 states which don't have these laws. (See Discrimination: Sexual Orientation.)
So the next time those talks around the watercooler start to involve politics or speculation about a co-worker's sexual orientation, remember that there might not be any legal recourse if those in charge of hiring and firing use that information against an employee. Since it looks like Monica Goodling is going to have to get a job in the private sector (the investigative report recommends that her misconduct be taken into account if she requests to be rehired by the government ever again), be sure she's not standing anywhere nearby when these conversations take place. Since she received immunity, we can't be sure she's learned her lesson.
In 2006, nine U.S. Attorneys were forced to resign their posts in the midst of a presidential administration, triggering an investigation of what many considered at the time to be a scandal, charging that the resignations were required for improper reasons. See Wikipedia: Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy.) An investigation of the U.S. Attorneys firings led to allegations that these firings were part of a much larger problem at the Department of Justice, namely that there was a concerted attempt underway to transform the political makeup of the department by selecting conservatives for open positions.
While the U.S. Attorney investigation is still underway, recently the Inspector General's office released two reports, confirming the suspicions of many that political considerations were indeed hard at work shaping the DOJ hiring process over the last five years in an impermissible way. This effort was primarily the handiwork of one Monica Goodling, whose work at DOJ was designed to stock the department with conservative lawyers who espoused the ideals of the current administration, even though the hiring process for career DOJ attorneys is supposed to be merit-based without regard for political considerations.
The first report, released in June and entitled An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program, indicated that in hiring for the program to bring new lawyers into the department, either for the summer or for their first job following law school, once the hiring process was shifted from the supervision of career attorneys to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's advisors, the process became more politicized. (See Washington Post article.) This program was investigated once a group of Justice Department attorneys unhappy with the politicization of the process wrote an anonymous letter to Congress in 2007 drawing attention to the change in policy. (See Letter from A Group of Concerned Department of Justice Employees.)
As a result of the letter, the process was restored to again have career DOJ attorneys making the hiring selections for the DOJ programs. (See Washington Post article.) Now, some of the rejected applicants are suing, and the Office of Special Counsel is trying to figure out whether it can discipline the Justice employees who acted improperly, since they are no longer with the Department of Justice. (See Washington Post article.) (Ironically, the Office of Special Counsel has its own similar problems right now, as Special Counsel Scott Bloch is under investigation for obstruction of justice, and--you guessed it--using his office for partisan political activities.) (See NPR article.)
On July 28, a second report was released, focusing on whether certain Justice employees violated the law when politicizing the hiring process at the Justice Department. (See An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General.) As the title of the document suggests, Monica Goodling's behavior was the focus of the investigation, although as the investigation concludes, she apparently wasn't the only one engaged in inappropriate behavior: several other Justice employees, including the chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, and Goodling's predecessor as White House liaison, Jan Williams, all "violated federal law and Department policy...by considering political and ideological affiliations" in hiring processes.
In Goodling's case, not only did she engage in improper conduct on the basis of political affiliation, but also on the basis of sexual orientation. Based on rumors about an assistant U.S. Attorney's (AUSA) relationship with her boss, a U.S. Attorney (a relationship which both women steadfastly have denied), Goodling denied an extension to the AUSA's detail, and prevented her from accepting a plum assignment for which she was very qualified. Her boss, the U.S. Attorney, was ultimately one of the ones fired in the purge of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. (See Los Angeles Times article.) Unfortunately, however, Goodling was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony before Congress in May 2007. (See Goodling Testifies Before The House Judiciary Committee.) Therefore, it is unclear what, if anything, can be done to penalize her illegal and inappropriate behavior.
As outraged as many are about Goodling's behavior, it is also outrageous that if Goodling were in charge of hiring decisions in the private sector, many of her actions would not violate the law. Only a handful of states have laws prohibiting discrimination or retaliation on the basis of political activity or affiliation, so the bulk of Goodling's misconduct wouldn't violate any laws. (See Retaliation: Political Activity.) While more states have laws prohibiting discrimination and retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation (and generally perceived sexual orientation is included in that), there are still 30 states which don't have these laws. (See Discrimination: Sexual Orientation.)
So the next time those talks around the watercooler start to involve politics or speculation about a co-worker's sexual orientation, remember that there might not be any legal recourse if those in charge of hiring and firing use that information against an employee. Since it looks like Monica Goodling is going to have to get a job in the private sector (the investigative report recommends that her misconduct be taken into account if she requests to be rehired by the government ever again), be sure she's not standing anywhere nearby when these conversations take place. Since she received immunity, we can't be sure she's learned her lesson.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Did you get a raise today?
You might have, if you work for the minimum wage, or live in a state where the state minimum wage is tied to an increase in the federal minimum wage. Today, the federal minimum wage rose to $6.55 an hour, from $5.85. This also trigged an increase in some states which have minimum wages higher than the federal law. I guess any increase is better than nothing, but it still isn't worth more than it was in the 1950s when adjusted for inflation, and still isn't enough to keep families out of poverty. Yet there are still those who wrongly insist that raising the minimum wage costs us jobs and interferes with free enterprise -- go figure.
This is a great time to announce that Workplace Fairness has just added 50 new pages to our site, discussing the wage and hour laws in every state. (A big thank you goes to the law firm of Goldstein Demchak Baller Borden and Dardarian, who conducted the research, and Prof. Douglas Scherer, Vice President of the Workplace Fairness Board of Directors, who updated the research to reflect the current changes.) So if you'd like to see the minimum wage in your state, please go to our site's page on filing a wage claim, and select your state for up-to-date information wherever you are.
As a number of commentators pointed out today, this increase is hardly enough. As one article points out, the minimum wage hike is "a drop in the bucket compared to the increases in costs, declining labor market, and declining household wealth that consumers have experienced in the past year." (See MSNBC article.)
Jonathan Tasini at Huffington Post says,
One way to keep the minimum wage from being held hostage by politics, and to insure regular increases, is to tie the minimum wage to inflation. Ten states already do so (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.) (See TomPaine.com article.) These states index their minimum wages to the federal government's consumer price index, instead of the federal minimum wage, which until last year had not been raised since 1997. As Isaiah Poole of TomPaine.com tells us, fighting to index the minimum wage to inflation is the next big minimum wage battle likely to take place in the next administration.
Even after last year's battle to raise the minimum wage, opponents still trot out the same old chestnuts: that raising the minimum wage costs low-income workers (and especially minority youth) jobs; that consumers will pay more for goods and services, and that African-American unemployment will go up. (See TomPaine.com article.) Yet report after report demonstrate just how flimsy these arguments are, giving the straw man a run for his money.
For example, the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at UC-Berkeley recently released a study that shows that the effect of raising the minimum wage on teen employment is insignificant. (See IRLE report, although if you suffer from insomnia, you might want to consider starting to wade through this one, because it is filled with enough jargon to defeat even the most committed data geeks.)
It's unfathomable why some people worry so much about minimum wage increases and not about economic developments like this one: Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow. This article tells us that the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929. But yet we can't keep those who collect minimum wage over the poverty line, forcing them to work multiple jobs just to support their families. Jonathan Tasini is right: it really is a disgrace that we even have to have this conversation.
More Information:
Department of Labor's Minimum Wage Laws in the States
Economic Policy Institute: Minimum Wage Issue Guide
You might have, if you work for the minimum wage, or live in a state where the state minimum wage is tied to an increase in the federal minimum wage. Today, the federal minimum wage rose to $6.55 an hour, from $5.85. This also trigged an increase in some states which have minimum wages higher than the federal law. I guess any increase is better than nothing, but it still isn't worth more than it was in the 1950s when adjusted for inflation, and still isn't enough to keep families out of poverty. Yet there are still those who wrongly insist that raising the minimum wage costs us jobs and interferes with free enterprise -- go figure.
This is a great time to announce that Workplace Fairness has just added 50 new pages to our site, discussing the wage and hour laws in every state. (A big thank you goes to the law firm of Goldstein Demchak Baller Borden and Dardarian, who conducted the research, and Prof. Douglas Scherer, Vice President of the Workplace Fairness Board of Directors, who updated the research to reflect the current changes.) So if you'd like to see the minimum wage in your state, please go to our site's page on filing a wage claim, and select your state for up-to-date information wherever you are.
As a number of commentators pointed out today, this increase is hardly enough. As one article points out, the minimum wage hike is "a drop in the bucket compared to the increases in costs, declining labor market, and declining household wealth that consumers have experienced in the past year." (See MSNBC article.)
Jonathan Tasini at Huffington Post says,
[W]e should keep in mind that, at the grand new sum of $6.55 an hour, the minimum wage is a disgrace and a sad commentary about the state of our social safety net, the economy and our political system. If you do the math, it's pretty stark. If you worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you would earn $13,624. Not a single day off. No sick days. No health care. No pension.(See Huffington Post article.) Tasini goes on to point out that
- adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage today is what it was in the 1950s -- more than half a century ago.
- To really make ends meet at minimum wage pay, two people in a household have to work three full-time minimum wage jobs.
One way to keep the minimum wage from being held hostage by politics, and to insure regular increases, is to tie the minimum wage to inflation. Ten states already do so (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.) (See TomPaine.com article.) These states index their minimum wages to the federal government's consumer price index, instead of the federal minimum wage, which until last year had not been raised since 1997. As Isaiah Poole of TomPaine.com tells us, fighting to index the minimum wage to inflation is the next big minimum wage battle likely to take place in the next administration.
Even after last year's battle to raise the minimum wage, opponents still trot out the same old chestnuts: that raising the minimum wage costs low-income workers (and especially minority youth) jobs; that consumers will pay more for goods and services, and that African-American unemployment will go up. (See TomPaine.com article.) Yet report after report demonstrate just how flimsy these arguments are, giving the straw man a run for his money.
For example, the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at UC-Berkeley recently released a study that shows that the effect of raising the minimum wage on teen employment is insignificant. (See IRLE report, although if you suffer from insomnia, you might want to consider starting to wade through this one, because it is filled with enough jargon to defeat even the most committed data geeks.)
It's unfathomable why some people worry so much about minimum wage increases and not about economic developments like this one: Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow. This article tells us that the richest 1% of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929. But yet we can't keep those who collect minimum wage over the poverty line, forcing them to work multiple jobs just to support their families. Jonathan Tasini is right: it really is a disgrace that we even have to have this conversation.
More Information:
Department of Labor's Minimum Wage Laws in the States
Economic Policy Institute: Minimum Wage Issue Guide
Comments:
Post a Comment
It seems to have finally occurred to the Department of Labor that there is about to be a change in administrations in a few months. It's otherwise hard to explain why, after 7 1/2 years, DOL is suddenly and stealthily trying to make it harder for you to be protected from toxic chemicals in the workplace. If DOL could sneak in a new regulation before there's a new president, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao can continue to boost her legacy of harming the very workers her job it is to protect.
It was front page news in the Washington Post: U.S. Rushes to Change Workplace Toxin Rules. The Department of Labor is trying to push through a rule "making it tougher to regulate workers' on-the-job exposure to chemicals and toxins." Instead of disclosing this rule change publicly in a regulatory plan, allowing for input from agency staff, lawyers and outside experts, DOL instead quietly submitted the proposal to the White House's Office of Management & Budget (OMB). After the draft rule is published, the public will only have 30 days for comment.
While the draft rule has not yet been made public, an early draft reviewed by the Washington Post shows that the agency is trying to change the process by which the risk of chemical exposure is assessed. Current policy requires an assumption that workers will stay in a job and be exposed to the same toxins for 45 years. Businesses have complained that this overstates the risk that workers are exposed to, as most workers nowadays don't stay in their jobs that long. (See New York Sun article.)
While that may be true for most, there are some who do stay in a certain workplace (or in the same industry) that long, and their high level of exposure should serve as a baseline for everyone else. (With the ability to retire comfortably dramatically affected in the last several years, workers are forced to have even longer careers, and it would be nice if they were in good enough health to work as long as they need to and still retire healthy.) As the New York Sun article itself concedes, in many of these jobs, workers may work overtime and have less vacation time, than contemplated by the rule, so may have more intense exposure in shorter time periods than 45 years.
The new policy would also make it more difficult (by adding an additional round of challenges) to set new limits on workplace exposure. As epidemiologist and workplace safety professor David Michaels points out, "This is a guarantee to keep any more worker safety regulation from ever coming out of OSHA." (See Washington Post article.)
Submitting this proposal in such a rush even contradicts the Administration's own edict from Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, who had ordered agencies to submit all proposed regulations by June 1 and "resist the historical tendency of administrations to increase regulatory activity in their final months." (See Washington Post article.) It seems like Secretary Chao just couldn't resist, given that in the last 7 1/2 years, the Department of Labor has only issued one worker-safety regulation, and that was one required by a court order.
After the first Post article was published, the Democratic leaders of both committees responsible for workplace safety, Sen. Edward Kennedy of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Rep. George Miller of the House Committee on Education and Labor, responded with outrage at DOL's eleventh-hour attempt. Rep. Miller says,
With the light now shining on this proposed change, perhaps it can be stopped before it goes into effect. Otherwise, it will depend on who is elected as President. We could indeed see a swift regulatory reversal like we saw when President Bush took office: one of his first acts as President was to reverse OSHA's ergonomic regulation that the Clinton Administration had spent years to carefully create, and which finally took effect four days before President Clinton left office. (See CNN article.) Or we might not, with this close-to-midnight change becoming the new standard we have to live with (or not live with, given its impact.)
Just another reason why the election matters for workers, so be sure you're registered to vote.
More Information:
Workplace Health and Safety Protections
It was front page news in the Washington Post: U.S. Rushes to Change Workplace Toxin Rules. The Department of Labor is trying to push through a rule "making it tougher to regulate workers' on-the-job exposure to chemicals and toxins." Instead of disclosing this rule change publicly in a regulatory plan, allowing for input from agency staff, lawyers and outside experts, DOL instead quietly submitted the proposal to the White House's Office of Management & Budget (OMB). After the draft rule is published, the public will only have 30 days for comment.
While the draft rule has not yet been made public, an early draft reviewed by the Washington Post shows that the agency is trying to change the process by which the risk of chemical exposure is assessed. Current policy requires an assumption that workers will stay in a job and be exposed to the same toxins for 45 years. Businesses have complained that this overstates the risk that workers are exposed to, as most workers nowadays don't stay in their jobs that long. (See New York Sun article.)
While that may be true for most, there are some who do stay in a certain workplace (or in the same industry) that long, and their high level of exposure should serve as a baseline for everyone else. (With the ability to retire comfortably dramatically affected in the last several years, workers are forced to have even longer careers, and it would be nice if they were in good enough health to work as long as they need to and still retire healthy.) As the New York Sun article itself concedes, in many of these jobs, workers may work overtime and have less vacation time, than contemplated by the rule, so may have more intense exposure in shorter time periods than 45 years.
The new policy would also make it more difficult (by adding an additional round of challenges) to set new limits on workplace exposure. As epidemiologist and workplace safety professor David Michaels points out, "This is a guarantee to keep any more worker safety regulation from ever coming out of OSHA." (See Washington Post article.)
Submitting this proposal in such a rush even contradicts the Administration's own edict from Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, who had ordered agencies to submit all proposed regulations by June 1 and "resist the historical tendency of administrations to increase regulatory activity in their final months." (See Washington Post article.) It seems like Secretary Chao just couldn't resist, given that in the last 7 1/2 years, the Department of Labor has only issued one worker-safety regulation, and that was one required by a court order.
After the first Post article was published, the Democratic leaders of both committees responsible for workplace safety, Sen. Edward Kennedy of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Rep. George Miller of the House Committee on Education and Labor, responded with outrage at DOL's eleventh-hour attempt. Rep. Miller says,
For nearly eight years, this administration has consistently failed to respond in a meaningful way to the real health and safety threats workers face while on the job. But now they will stop at nothing to rush through a secret rule that will tie the hands of health and safety experts.(See Washington Post article.)
With the light now shining on this proposed change, perhaps it can be stopped before it goes into effect. Otherwise, it will depend on who is elected as President. We could indeed see a swift regulatory reversal like we saw when President Bush took office: one of his first acts as President was to reverse OSHA's ergonomic regulation that the Clinton Administration had spent years to carefully create, and which finally took effect four days before President Clinton left office. (See CNN article.) Or we might not, with this close-to-midnight change becoming the new standard we have to live with (or not live with, given its impact.)
Just another reason why the election matters for workers, so be sure you're registered to vote.
|
More Information:
Workplace Health and Safety Protections
Comments:
Elaine Chao does nothing for 7 1/2 years, and then tries to pull this fast one. The fact that she's trying to do this at the last minute and under the radar tells us that there are powerful special interests at work here...or maybe just the personal interests of the president, who has demonstrated time and again that that's what he is about - being rich and powerful, damn you and me.
And Chao is a disgrace. Under her leadership, the Department of Labor has been transformed into nothing less than than the meek, biddable woman happy to walk two steps behind the alpha male.
Post a Comment
And Chao is a disgrace. Under her leadership, the Department of Labor has been transformed into nothing less than than the meek, biddable woman happy to walk two steps behind the alpha male.
# posted by 
: 4:29 PM
: 4:29 PMFriday, July 18, 2008
Wondering why you've been hearing more from Workplace Fairness lately? One very big reason is a donation that we recently received as part of a consumer class action lawsuit. We owe some very huge thanks to Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., and Grange Insurance, whose settlement has made it possible for Workplace Fairness to resume staffed operations and carry out its mission to educate workers in a more comprehensive and effective way.
The 1994 consumer class action suit [Martin v. Grange Mutual Insurance Co.] alleged that consumers were incorrectly charged for uninsured motorist insurance. As part of the settlement of the case, Dworken and Bernstein and Grange agreed that the unclaimed funds would go to the benefit of national and Ohio-based nonprofit organizations, a practice known as cy pres.
"We commend Grange for working with us to use unclaimed funds for the benefit of charitable and non-profits in a broad range of areas, including help to the homeless, hunger prevention, drug and alcohol addiction prevention, fair treatment of employees, and a host of others," said plaintiff's counsel Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein. The parties chose 33 organizations to share in the unclaimed funds from the settlement of over $10 million, the largest class action residual fund donated to charity in history.
"We encourage attorneys around the country to provide for charitable reverter of a reasonable portion of unclaimed funds in all class suits. The practice can provide needed help to the community in a very difficult economic time," said Perotti. If you'd like to hear Pat talking more about the practice of using cy pres funds to help worthy organizations, check out his YouTube video here, where he explains how this process works:
Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, president of Workplace Fairness, which provides information to workers about their legal rights in the workplace, said her organization is honored to be part of the resolution of this important case. "With the residual funds, we will be able to help thousands of workers to understand, protect and strengthen their rights through our website at www.workplacefairness.org," she said.
The funds will be used to enable Workplace Fairness to resume staffed operations, with the hiring of Paula Brantner (that's me) as Executive Director, and to assist in completing Workplace Fairness’ program priorities, including making the organization’s website fully accessible to users with disabilities.
We owe Pat Perotti an enormous debt of gratitude, but as he'll be the first to tell you, he has done something with this case that many attorneys have the opportunity to do, but don't always do when settling cases. Instead of allowing unclaimed funds to revert to the alleged wrongdoer, attorneys on both sides have an opportunity to benefit their local communities and worthwhile causes by using the cy pres mechanism to distribute funds. Pat is adamant that he will not settle cases without making this provision, and feels that other attorneys should insist on doing the same.
For additional information about the organizations participating in the settlement proceeds, see:
ohiolawyersgiveback.org
You'll also see highlights from the July 18 luncheon in Cleveland, where lots of happy people from great organizations talked about how this donation has transformed their work in extraordinary ways.
The 1994 consumer class action suit [Martin v. Grange Mutual Insurance Co.] alleged that consumers were incorrectly charged for uninsured motorist insurance. As part of the settlement of the case, Dworken and Bernstein and Grange agreed that the unclaimed funds would go to the benefit of national and Ohio-based nonprofit organizations, a practice known as cy pres.
"We commend Grange for working with us to use unclaimed funds for the benefit of charitable and non-profits in a broad range of areas, including help to the homeless, hunger prevention, drug and alcohol addiction prevention, fair treatment of employees, and a host of others," said plaintiff's counsel Patrick J. Perotti of Dworken & Bernstein. The parties chose 33 organizations to share in the unclaimed funds from the settlement of over $10 million, the largest class action residual fund donated to charity in history.
"We encourage attorneys around the country to provide for charitable reverter of a reasonable portion of unclaimed funds in all class suits. The practice can provide needed help to the community in a very difficult economic time," said Perotti. If you'd like to hear Pat talking more about the practice of using cy pres funds to help worthy organizations, check out his YouTube video here, where he explains how this process works:
Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, president of Workplace Fairness, which provides information to workers about their legal rights in the workplace, said her organization is honored to be part of the resolution of this important case. "With the residual funds, we will be able to help thousands of workers to understand, protect and strengthen their rights through our website at www.workplacefairness.org," she said.
The funds will be used to enable Workplace Fairness to resume staffed operations, with the hiring of Paula Brantner (that's me) as Executive Director, and to assist in completing Workplace Fairness’ program priorities, including making the organization’s website fully accessible to users with disabilities.
We owe Pat Perotti an enormous debt of gratitude, but as he'll be the first to tell you, he has done something with this case that many attorneys have the opportunity to do, but don't always do when settling cases. Instead of allowing unclaimed funds to revert to the alleged wrongdoer, attorneys on both sides have an opportunity to benefit their local communities and worthwhile causes by using the cy pres mechanism to distribute funds. Pat is adamant that he will not settle cases without making this provision, and feels that other attorneys should insist on doing the same.
For additional information about the organizations participating in the settlement proceeds, see:
ohiolawyersgiveback.org
You'll also see highlights from the July 18 luncheon in Cleveland, where lots of happy people from great organizations talked about how this donation has transformed their work in extraordinary ways.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, June 13, 2008
When I go to a restaurant by myself, one of my pet peeves is to be asked, "just one?" like it's a sign of my own personal failure to be there without another guest. A public employee in Oregon can probably relate -- she just had her own version of "just one" shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you've been treated arbitrarily or irrationally, you better find someone else to join you at the table, says the Court.
Anup Engquist, a woman from India, sued her employer, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, after years of torment at the hands of a coworker, Joseph Hyatt, that ultimately resulted in her termination, allegedly for financial reasons. Over the years that he worked with Engquist, Hyatt refused to give her information she needed to do her job, made false, derogatory statements about her, and constantly monitored her, even when she went to the ladies room. (See Petitioner's Brief at 3). Even after Hyatt was twice denied a managerial promotion, and transferred to another department in the same building, he continued to torment Engquist. Ultimately, he worked with another manager, John Szczepanski, to get Engquist laid off, ostensibly for financial reasons.
Engquist filed a lawsuit challenging her treatment, and in a trial on the merits of her case, introduced a mountain of evidence showing Hyatt's hatred of Engquist and his constant efforts to undermine her, which the jury believed in awarding a verdict of $425,000 in damages in her favor, not because she was fired due to her race, sex, or national origin, but because the jury believed she had been treated arbitrarily and unfairly. However, that verdict was appealed, and a 2-1 panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in her favor. (See Ninth Circuit opinion.) Engquist then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled against Engquist 6-3, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. (See Supreme Court opinion.) The primary issue before the Court was whether Engquist could bring an Equal Protection argument demonstrating that she had been treated arbitrarily and irrationally, if she was a "class of one," -- the only person making this argument. Generally, equal protection cases are brought by individuals claiming unfair treatment as a result of their membership in a particular class: race, sex, national origin, etc.) However, although Engquist was an Indian woman, the portion of the case before the Supreme Court was whether she could be fired for "arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons." This was considered a "class of one" equal protection claim.
A "class of one" claim appeared to be permitted by an earlier Supreme Court case which involved housing discrimination, and a few lower courts had applied it in other public employee cases. But the Supreme Court had never directly applied the theory in cases involving public employees before, and ruled that it was not appropriate to do so in this setting either. Essentially, the Court ruled that the government as a public employer has more leeway to act arbitrarily than it does when using its power against ordinary citizens, and that allowing the "class of one" claims to move forward would permit too much litigation against governmental employers.
Chief Justice Roberts, in writing for the Court, states:
(Supreme Court opinion at 12.)
According to this decision, if a public employee is treated differently than other employees, he or she must show not just that they were treated differently, but that the reason for this treatment is due to their membership in a protected group.
(Supreme Court opinion at 12-13.)
So public employees who have been treated arbitrarily and irrationally by their employers have to bring someone to court with them, in essence demonstrating that there are other members of their protected class who would have been treated the same way, while others not in their protected class were treated more advantageously.
If the answer is "just one," then the federal courts will "just say no," which denied Engquist her place at the table, and will do the same for other government employees who can't show they are part of a class of people treated differently than others.
Anup Engquist, a woman from India, sued her employer, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, after years of torment at the hands of a coworker, Joseph Hyatt, that ultimately resulted in her termination, allegedly for financial reasons. Over the years that he worked with Engquist, Hyatt refused to give her information she needed to do her job, made false, derogatory statements about her, and constantly monitored her, even when she went to the ladies room. (See Petitioner's Brief at 3). Even after Hyatt was twice denied a managerial promotion, and transferred to another department in the same building, he continued to torment Engquist. Ultimately, he worked with another manager, John Szczepanski, to get Engquist laid off, ostensibly for financial reasons.
Engquist filed a lawsuit challenging her treatment, and in a trial on the merits of her case, introduced a mountain of evidence showing Hyatt's hatred of Engquist and his constant efforts to undermine her, which the jury believed in awarding a verdict of $425,000 in damages in her favor, not because she was fired due to her race, sex, or national origin, but because the jury believed she had been treated arbitrarily and unfairly. However, that verdict was appealed, and a 2-1 panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in her favor. (See Ninth Circuit opinion.) Engquist then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled against Engquist 6-3, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. (See Supreme Court opinion.) The primary issue before the Court was whether Engquist could bring an Equal Protection argument demonstrating that she had been treated arbitrarily and irrationally, if she was a "class of one," -- the only person making this argument. Generally, equal protection cases are brought by individuals claiming unfair treatment as a result of their membership in a particular class: race, sex, national origin, etc.) However, although Engquist was an Indian woman, the portion of the case before the Supreme Court was whether she could be fired for "arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons." This was considered a "class of one" equal protection claim.
A "class of one" claim appeared to be permitted by an earlier Supreme Court case which involved housing discrimination, and a few lower courts had applied it in other public employee cases. But the Supreme Court had never directly applied the theory in cases involving public employees before, and ruled that it was not appropriate to do so in this setting either. Essentially, the Court ruled that the government as a public employer has more leeway to act arbitrarily than it does when using its power against ordinary citizens, and that allowing the "class of one" claims to move forward would permit too much litigation against governmental employers.
Chief Justice Roberts, in writing for the Court, states:
Thus, the class-of-one theory of equal protection—which presupposes that like
individuals should be treated alike, and that to treat them differently is to
classify them in a way that must survive at least rationality review—is simply a
poor fit in the public employment context. To treat employees differently is not
to classify them in a way that raises equal protection concerns. Rather, it is
simply to exercise the broad discretion that typically characterizes the
employer-employee relationship.
(Supreme Court opinion at 12.)
According to this decision, if a public employee is treated differently than other employees, he or she must show not just that they were treated differently, but that the reason for this treatment is due to their membership in a protected group.
Indeed, our cases make clear that the Equal Protection Clause is implicated when
the government makes class-based decisions in the employment context, treating
distinct groups of individuals categorically differently.
(Supreme Court opinion at 12-13.)
So public employees who have been treated arbitrarily and irrationally by their employers have to bring someone to court with them, in essence demonstrating that there are other members of their protected class who would have been treated the same way, while others not in their protected class were treated more advantageously.
If the answer is "just one," then the federal courts will "just say no," which denied Engquist her place at the table, and will do the same for other government employees who can't show they are part of a class of people treated differently than others.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Unfortunately, we live in a world where harassment and retaliation cases haven't gone away, and there are still some pretty egregious ones there. But a couple of suits filed recently caught my eye in that they involve the actions of the employer's spouse. In both cases, powerful people brought their spouses into their workplace to work with them, but their employees allege their boss wasn't doing enough to curb their spouse's egregious behavior. These cases highlight the worst side of nepotism, where bosses don't hold their spouses to the same standards of behavior to which the rest of their employees would be subjected.
Wendy Williams is a national radio personality and host of the show "The Wendy Williams Experience," also featured on VH-1. Kevin Hunter is Ms. Williams' husband and manager. Williams' talent booker and publicist Nicole Spence recently filed a lawsuit against the show, its broadcasting company, Williams, and Hunter, alleging that due to Hunter's conduct, she felt unsafe at the office.
Ms. Spence alleges that Hunter screamed and cursed at her at work, and called her late at night to tell her about his sexual fantasies and proposition her. When she refused his advances, Ms. Spence claims that Hunter's conduct became even more threatening. Ms. Spence also feared for her safety because of the way Hunter treated his wife. She claims that Hunter once stormed into an office meeting, "pinning (his wife) against the wall with his hand around her neck, choking her while repeatedly pounding his fist into the wall directly by her head" -- all because, she says, Williams failed to quit smoking. (See Associated Press article.) Another explosive allegation contained in the lawsuit is that Hunter attempted to find a hit man to have one of Williams' on-air rivals killed after she bad-mouthed Williams. (See Black Voices blog.)
Even after the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Spence continues to work at the station. (I bet the environment is a little tense these days, however, and it sounds like she might want to watch her back.) As is typical, Williams has denied the allegations, saying that "Her allegations are totally false. This b*tch is out of her mind...." Hunter added that the allegations were "so far from the truth. It's insane." (See New York Post article.)
In Kansas City (my former home), Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who has already weathered several scandals since taking office in May 2007 (see Kansas City Star article), now has his hands full with a new lawsuit filed by a former aide, Ruth Bates, that primarily focuses on the behavior of Funkhouser's wife, Gloria Squitiro. (See Petition for Damages, Bates v. City of Kansas City.) The legal issues raised by the case are compounded by Squitiro's status in the mayor's office as an unpaid full-time volunteer -- albeit one that speaks on the mayor's behalf. (See Kansas City Star article.)
Ms. Bates volunteered with Mayor Funkhouser's campaign while he was running for office, and says she was asked to attend campaign events with her son and his friends, who were often the only African-Americans at those events. (See Kansas City Star article.) (Funkhouser ran against a popular African-American city council member, Alvin Brooks, who was supported by many local black politicians). After Funkhouser narrowly won election, Ms. Bates observed that the majority of the aides Funkhouser hired were white men. After Ms. Bates complained, she was offered a staff post as Administrator of Boards and Commissions. (See Petition for Damages, Bates v. City of Kansas City.)
However, Ms. Bates claims that she was the lowest paid full-time member of the mayor's stuff, and was paid considerably less than other aides with less experience and education than she had. (Salary information for city employees, which is public, is available here: Kansas City employees database.) She also claims that Squitiro called her "Mammy," while calling the only other African-American employee in the office "Bernie Mac" and "Mammy." Squitiro is alleged to have said, when discussing attendance at a meeting in a Hispanic neighborhood, "I hope they don't throw hot tamales at us." Squitiro is also accused of making a number of sexually-charged comments in the office, and when another employee complained, responded that she was the only "fun" employee in the office. (See Petition for Damages, Bates v. City of Kansas City.)
Bates filed an administrative claim with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights last fall, and claims to have suffered additional retaliation after her claim was filed, including being denied the small raise she was promised after complaining about her low salary, and termination on May 19, after she was told she would have to leave the Mayor's office for a position in another department. (See Kansas City Star article.)
The mayor's office has not commented on the allegations, except to tell supporters, "We are entering a difficult time again, and as such, we also know that our supporters will be sharing the difficulty with us as well. We apologize for this, and, as always, we are working hard to continue to earn and keep your faith and trust." (See Kansas City Star article.) Funkhouser has also declined to change Squitiro's volunteer role with his office.
If the allegations in these cases are true, you have a situation where employees have the ability to wield tremendous power over other employees, not by virtue of their role as a supervisor or manager, but by virtue of their relationship with the head of the office, which in each case is the powerful figurehead and the reason for the office's existence. There would be no "Wendy Williams Experience" without Wendy Williams, and Mark Funkhouser is the elected official who heads the mayor's office.
Because the office, in essence, revolves around them, they have the authority to install their spouse as a staff member in the office. It's safe to say that there was no hiring mechanism when their spouses were brought on board. And, as these employees have learned, there's no real way to complain when the spouse's behavior is out of line. These figureheads are unlikely to fire their spouses without it having a significant impact on the relationship, and they aren't going to fire themselves for making bad personnel decision.
With the high percentage of relationships where both partners work, and the ever-increasing number of couples who meet at the workplace, we are likely to see more situations where a spouse's behavior adversely impacts the office environment. It's not something that it's easy to legislate around. While there are instances where there are legal limits on nepotism in government offices, here, where Squitiro is a volunteer, it may be more difficult to limit her influence. And corporate policies are unlikely to make a difference in situations where the company is structured around the office figurehead who wants to hire her spouse.
But all workers are entitled to a harassment and retaliation-free workplace, and so going to court may be the only way to resolve some of the most egregious situations where a spouse's behavior is seriously out of line. As these lawsuits progress, we'll see if having to take such a drastic step is the only real solution for Ms. Bates and Ms. Spence.
Wendy Williams is a national radio personality and host of the show "The Wendy Williams Experience," also featured on VH-1. Kevin Hunter is Ms. Williams' husband and manager. Williams' talent booker and publicist Nicole Spence recently filed a lawsuit against the show, its broadcasting company, Williams, and Hunter, alleging that due to Hunter's conduct, she felt unsafe at the office.
Ms. Spence alleges that Hunter screamed and cursed at her at work, and called her late at night to tell her about his sexual fantasies and proposition her. When she refused his advances, Ms. Spence claims that Hunter's conduct became even more threatening. Ms. Spence also feared for her safety because of the way Hunter treated his wife. She claims that Hunter once stormed into an office meeting, "pinning (his wife) against the wall with his hand around her neck, choking her while repeatedly pounding his fist into the wall directly by her head" -- all because, she says, Williams failed to quit smoking. (See Associated Press article.) Another explosive allegation contained in the lawsuit is that Hunter attempted to find a hit man to have one of Williams' on-air rivals killed after she bad-mouthed Williams. (See Black Voices blog.)
Even after the lawsuit was filed, Ms. Spence continues to work at the station. (I bet the environment is a little tense these days, however, and it sounds like she might want to watch her back.) As is typical, Williams has denied the allegations, saying that "Her allegations are totally false. This b*tch is out of her mind...." Hunter added that the allegations were "so far from the truth. It's insane." (See New York Post article.)
In Kansas City (my former home), Mayor Mark Funkhouser, who has already weathered several scandals since taking office in May 2007 (see Kansas City Star article), now has his hands full with a new lawsuit filed by a former aide, Ruth Bates, that primarily focuses on the behavior of Funkhouser's wife, Gloria Squitiro. (See Petition for Damages, Bates v. City of Kansas City.) The legal issues raised by the case are compounded by Squitiro's status in the mayor's office as an unpaid full-time volunteer -- albeit one that speaks on the mayor's behalf. (See Kansas City Star article.)
Ms. Bates volunteered with Mayor Funkhouser's campaign while he was running for office, and says she was asked to attend campaign events with her son and his friends, who were often the only African-Americans at those events. (See Kansas City Star article.) (Funkhouser ran against a popular African-American city council member, Alvin Brooks, who was supported by many local black politicians). After Funkhouser narrowly won election, Ms. Bates observed that the majority of the aides Funkhouser hired were white men. After Ms. Bates complained, she was offered a staff post as Administrator of Boards and Commissions. (See Petition for Damages, Bates v. City of Kansas City.)
However, Ms. Bates claims that she was the lowest paid full-time member of the mayor's stuff, and was paid considerably less than other aides with less experience and education than she had. (Salary information for city employees, which is public, is available here: Kansas City employees database.) She also claims that Squitiro called her "Mammy," while calling the only other African-American employee in the office "Bernie Mac" and "Mammy." Squitiro is alleged to have said, when discussing attendance at a meeting in a Hispanic neighborhood, "I hope they don't throw hot tamales at us." Squitiro is also accused of making a number of sexually-charged comments in the office, and when another employee complained, responded that she was the only "fun" employee in the office. (See Petition for Damages, Bates v. City of Kansas City.)
Bates filed an administrative claim with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights last fall, and claims to have suffered additional retaliation after her claim was filed, including being denied the small raise she was promised after complaining about her low salary, and termination on May 19, after she was told she would have to leave the Mayor's office for a position in another department. (See Kansas City Star article.)
The mayor's office has not commented on the allegations, except to tell supporters, "We are entering a difficult time again, and as such, we also know that our supporters will be sharing the difficulty with us as well. We apologize for this, and, as always, we are working hard to continue to earn and keep your faith and trust." (See Kansas City Star article.) Funkhouser has also declined to change Squitiro's volunteer role with his office.
If the allegations in these cases are true, you have a situation where employees have the ability to wield tremendous power over other employees, not by virtue of their role as a supervisor or manager, but by virtue of their relationship with the head of the office, which in each case is the powerful figurehead and the reason for the office's existence. There would be no "Wendy Williams Experience" without Wendy Williams, and Mark Funkhouser is the elected official who heads the mayor's office.
Because the office, in essence, revolves around them, they have the authority to install their spouse as a staff member in the office. It's safe to say that there was no hiring mechanism when their spouses were brought on board. And, as these employees have learned, there's no real way to complain when the spouse's behavior is out of line. These figureheads are unlikely to fire their spouses without it having a significant impact on the relationship, and they aren't going to fire themselves for making bad personnel decision.
With the high percentage of relationships where both partners work, and the ever-increasing number of couples who meet at the workplace, we are likely to see more situations where a spouse's behavior adversely impacts the office environment. It's not something that it's easy to legislate around. While there are instances where there are legal limits on nepotism in government offices, here, where Squitiro is a volunteer, it may be more difficult to limit her influence. And corporate policies are unlikely to make a difference in situations where the company is structured around the office figurehead who wants to hire her spouse.
But all workers are entitled to a harassment and retaliation-free workplace, and so going to court may be the only way to resolve some of the most egregious situations where a spouse's behavior is seriously out of line. As these lawsuits progress, we'll see if having to take such a drastic step is the only real solution for Ms. Bates and Ms. Spence.
Comments:
Interesting stories.
It will be interesting to see how these roll out eventually.
Workplace protocols are changing definitely, but there is still no room for bad behavior.
I will list your site as a resource for the career blog readers at BullsEyeResumes. We would really appreciate it if you added our blog as a resource on your site as well.
Marcia
Post a Comment
It will be interesting to see how these roll out eventually.
Workplace protocols are changing definitely, but there is still no room for bad behavior.
I will list your site as a resource for the career blog readers at BullsEyeResumes. We would really appreciate it if you added our blog as a resource on your site as well.
Marcia
Monday, June 02, 2008
I am thrilled to announce that today, June 2, I return to work with Workplace Fairness as the organization's Executive Director. Workplace Fairness' mission of providing information and education to workers and representing the pro-worker voice in public policy debates is as viable as it has ever been in a workplace environment that is becoming ever more inhospitable to workers. I will be working with the WF Board of Directors to ensure the organization is again able to be a leading voice for workers in this country by continuing our programs, revitalizing our website, and maintaining financial stability.
In March 2007, Workplace Fairness was unfortunately required to eliminate its staff for financial reasons, and I had to leave the organization for whom I had worked since 2002. I joined Working America, the AFL-CIO's community affiliate for non-union workers, as Program Director. In the meantime, the WF Board of Directors, and especially President Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, stepped in to oversee the organization's operations and to keep it functioning without paid staff. In December 2007, I resumed work on this blog, Today's Workplace, and our weekly e-newsletter, Workplace Week.
Some recent improvements in our financial situation have made it possible for WF to resume operations, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to rejoin Workplace Fairness at this critical time. Shortly after Workplace Fairness became unstaffed, we learned that the organization's website, www.workplacefairness.org, was a Webby nominee, as a top site in the Employment category. A top priority will be continuing our website's innovation and further strengthening its value as a resource for workers.
We look forward to announcing many more positive developments in the days to come, and thank you for your ongoing support during our most difficult times. I look forward to speaking with many of you personally in the next few months to hear more about what you would like to see Workplace Fairness achieve. We will continue to work with you to ensure that workers have the information they need and a voice in the policies that affect them most.
In March 2007, Workplace Fairness was unfortunately required to eliminate its staff for financial reasons, and I had to leave the organization for whom I had worked since 2002. I joined Working America, the AFL-CIO's community affiliate for non-union workers, as Program Director. In the meantime, the WF Board of Directors, and especially President Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, stepped in to oversee the organization's operations and to keep it functioning without paid staff. In December 2007, I resumed work on this blog, Today's Workplace, and our weekly e-newsletter, Workplace Week.
Some recent improvements in our financial situation have made it possible for WF to resume operations, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to rejoin Workplace Fairness at this critical time. Shortly after Workplace Fairness became unstaffed, we learned that the organization's website, www.workplacefairness.org, was a Webby nominee, as a top site in the Employment category. A top priority will be continuing our website's innovation and further strengthening its value as a resource for workers.
We look forward to announcing many more positive developments in the days to come, and thank you for your ongoing support during our most difficult times. I look forward to speaking with many of you personally in the next few months to hear more about what you would like to see Workplace Fairness achieve. We will continue to work with you to ensure that workers have the information they need and a voice in the policies that affect them most.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Archive
