Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace: Biology is Not Destiny

For many women, pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is a reality―or at least a real fear. The other day, my partner and I found out that his newly-married cousin was pregnant. It was a surprise to her, and a delight to the family. Instead of questions about gender, due dates, baby showers, or bigger apartments, however, the first question on everyone’s lips was whether or not she had passed the three-month the probationary period of her new job. The period d’essai is a shaky time for any new hire in France, as an employer has license to fire an employee without an obligation to justify the dismissal, but it is an especially shaky time for women of child-bearing age, namely because women of child-bearing age are seen as carrying risks and expenses that their male counterparts do not carry as a result of both their anatomy and societal role as mothers.


While anti-discrimination laws exist to protect pregnant women in almost every developed country, a number of studies have shown that these laws have done little to change perception or practice regarding the hiring of pregnant, potentially pregnant, or soon-to-be pregnant women.  A 2009 survey by HireScores.com recorded that 81% of British business managers “would ask female job applicants if they were pregnant, planned on having children or already had children” if they could.  What’s worse, “almost 50% of managers admit to factoring in a woman’s age and relationship status when trying to establish whether they could potentially be getting pregnant in the future.”

To continue reading, click here.

What Obama Should Do About Workplace Discrimination

LAST week, the defense contractor DynCorp International announced that it had changed its corporate policies to forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The company’s decision was voluntary but came under pressure: DynCorp recently agreed to a $155,000 settlement with an aircraft mechanic named James Friso, a heterosexual man who endured anti-gay epithets and other harassment at his DynCorp workplace. Publicity about that case drove more than 50,000 people to sign an online petition urging the company to change its policy.

DynCorp’s new policy is a welcome development — but it’s unfortunate that federal law still allows such discrimination. DynCorp has received billions of dollars in federal contracts over the last decade. Why should taxpayer money be used to buy goods and services from companies that permit discrimination based on a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity?

Making sure taxpayer dollars don’t support companies that discriminate does not require an act of Congress. By issuing an executive order, President Obama can — and should — make nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity a requirement for doing business with the American public.

To continue reading, click here.

The Incredible Disappearing Health Benefits Can a coal company get away with breaking promises to workers?

Eddie Bullock spent 27 years in the southern Illinois coal mines working for Peabody Energy, the largest coal-mining company in the world (infamously memorialized by John Prine.) He retired in 1998, when his mine shut down. He’s now 72 years old and suffers from black lung disease; his wife has emphysema, and both have oxygen tanks at their side at all times. But they’re fortunate in one regard: Bullock has a good pension and solid health benefits that were negotiated for him at Peabody by the United Mine Workers of America.

Or he did, at least. In 2007, Peabody created a new entity called Patriot Coal, and transferred to it 13 percent of its coal reserves. It also transferred to it about 40 percent of its health care liabilities—the obligations for 8,400 former Peabody employees. A year later, Patriot Coal was loaded up with even more liabilities when it acquired Magnum Coal, an offshoot of the country’s second-largest mining company, Arch Coal. This left Patriot with responsibility for another 2,300 retirees, and, by last year, total liabilities of $1.37 billion. Patriot Coal is now seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy, through which it will seek to limit or discharge its pension and health obligations to 22,000 retired miners and their spouses, 90 percent of whom never worked for Patriot Coal—among them Eddie Bullock, who, oxygen tank and all, joined the UMWA’s outspoken president, Cecil Roberts, and a handful of other former Peabody miners in getting arrested at the first of two recent rallies at Peabody’s St. Louis headquarters.

To continue reading, click here.

Battle Workplace Weight Discrimination

 

When hit film director Kevin Smith was kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight in 2010 after the carrier declared him too fat to fly, it dramatically illustrated the challenges — and routine humiliations — overweight Americans face.

Indeed, research from Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity reported that weight discrimination increased 66 percent from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. What’s more, at a time when more than two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese, the Rudd Center says obesity discrimination is now more prevalent than bias based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and physical disability.

Despite these sobering statistics, no federal law protects workers from obesity-related workplace discrimination. Courts have ruled in favor of individuals who have successfully proved that their weight directly affected their job performance, but such instances are rare. At the state level, Michigan is the only state whose workplace anti-discrimination laws include body size bias — leaving most overweight workers with little recourse when it comes to protecting their rights.

“This kind of bias affects people from the time they are hired to the time they are fired,” says Rebecca Puhl, the Rudd Center’s director of research and weight stigma initiatives. “Our research shows that obese workers are less likely to be hired and less likely to be promoted,” she says. “Obese men earn on average 3 percent less than their slim counterparts — obese women more than 6 percent less.”

 To continue reading, click here.

Discrimination Against Women in the Workplace

This topic is a multifaceted issue with lots of complexities and gender intertwining. So it is impossible to cover all those aspects in a single article. This is going to be my attempt towards dabbling at explaining this vast topic.

Women got their voting rights after men. Why? Never mind, it is history, dead and gone. But the fairer sex empowerment notwithstanding and its capabilities not underestimated, women still have to get what they deserve. Come to think of it, some of us believe that the age of gender equality has arrived. But I beg to differ (even though I know that I am no Simone de Beauvoir or any other feminist). Perhaps we are still long way from that. (Again, neither am I into staunch feminism or an expert). I am saying this totally on the basis of being a woman. One of the aspects which lead me to believe that, is the discrimination against women in the workplace. The naysayers would vehemently deny that, but unfortunately that is the harsh reality in quite a few parts of the globe in a so-called modern world. The text to come will try and map this complicated women’s issue.

To continue reading, click here.

Workplace Discrimination: Who Suffers the Most?

As you can see, black Americans are almost twice as likely to be out of work as white Americans. According to theNew York Times, a college degree doesn’t always help when it comes to race. “The unemployment rate for black male college graduates twenty-five and older in 2009 has been nearly twice that of white male college graduates—8.4 percent compared with 4.4 percent.”

If African American applicants with a college degree are having problems, imagine how hopeless it must feel to anyone with a criminal record. Devah Pager, sociology professor and author of Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration studies the problems ex-convicts face when looking for a job. Pager randomly assigned young, articulate, attractive, and capable men criminal records and then sent them looking for jobs. Ex-offenders received less than half of the callbacks of equally qualified applicants without criminal backgrounds. She also found that it is easier for a white person with a criminal record to get a job than a black person with no criminal record.

To continue reading, click here.

The cruelty of age discrimination

‘There are others who feel the way I do and have experienced the same circumstances, but only I and one other of my colleagues were willing to come forward and speak of the injustice that is currently taking place with the practice of mandatory retirement. I am not afraid.’ Cecil Whitecross, avid sportsman, age 65 years old, forced to retire because of his age

This is the last in a series of articles by Age Concern Bermuda that seek to highlight the most critical social issues facing the ageing population of Bermuda. Today’s article focuses on how mandatory retirement at age 65 years old is affecting a healthy, vibrant older population that is willing and able to work.

The saying goes that 60 is the new 40, and for retired, 65-year-old Custodian, Cecile Whitecross even the age of 40 seems far too old.

Mr Whitecross is in peak form, running at least seven miles a day. He boasts that he runs over the steep Knapton Hill daily and has no problem in keeping up with his younger running partner. Mr. Whitecross is in such good form that he has been running in the Bermuda Marathon Derby for the past 16 years.

One would think that with all of his vitality that Mr. Whitecross would be more than capable of handling the physical demands of his previous employment as a Custodian at a public primary school. However, when the conversation changes from his excellent physical condition to his recent forced retirement, Mr Whitecross’ tone quickly changes to anger and disappointment.

To continue reading, click here.

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

It’s a staple of feminist rhetoric: Women make less money than men because of discrimination.“We’d all like to think, in 2012, that pay discrimination is a thing of the past,” the progressive activist Joy Lawson wrote in the Huffington Post recently. “But the pay gap still exists, and it’s big: women earn an average of 77 cents on a man’s dollar.”

April 17 has been designated Equal Pay Day: Supposedly that’s how long women have to work to catch up to men’s pay from the previous year.

U.S. President Barack Obama has cited a similar statistic to promote legislation to make it easier to sue employers for discrimination. Democrats accuse Republicans who resist such laws of waging a “war on women.” Expect to hear more about the issue during the fall campaign.

Here’s the truth you won’t hear: The pay gap is exaggerated, discrimination doesn’t drive it and it’s not clear that government can eliminate it — or should even try.

To continue reading, click here.

Tennessee women file sex discrimination lawsuit against Walmart

Three Tennessee women and long-time employees of Walmart have filed a class action lawsuit against the discount retailer, claiming they were denied promotions because of their gender and paid less than their male counterparts.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Nashville on Tuesday, targets employment practices in Tennessee as well as parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi.

The complaint “seeks to end Walmart’s discriminatory practices regarding the pay and promotion of female employees,” said Nashville-based attorneys Barrett Johnston.

It also seeks unspecified punitive damages.

The three plaintiffs, Cheryl Phipps, Bobbi Millner and Shawn Gibbons have spent between 11 and 26 years working for stores in three different towns in Tennessee.

They detail years of bias and unequal pay.

Millner says in the complaint that she was accidentally handed a paycheck of a fellow assistant manager, and “discovered he was earning thousands of dollars more per year that she was despite having considerably less experience,” the lawsuit claims.

Other female workers, including a Navy veteran, were told they could not be promoted to management because it was a “man’s job,” attorneys said. A manager at a Franklin, Tenn., store told a female worker that “women should be seen and not heard,” the lawsuit alleges.

A Walmart spokesman told the Daily News it has “strong policies against discrimination.”

To continue reading, click here.

Global pattern of experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with major depressive disorder: a cross-sectional survey

Depression is the third leading contributor to the worldwide burden of disease. We assessed the nature and severity of experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by adults with major depressive disorder worldwide. Moreover, we investigated whether experienced discrimination is related to clinical history, provision of health care, and disclosure of diagnosis and whether anticipated discrimination is associated with disclosure and previous experiences of discrimination.

Methods

In a cross-sectional survey, people with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder were interviewed in 39 sites (35 countries) worldwide with the discrimination and stigma scale (version 12; DISC-12). Other inclusion criteria were ability to understand and speak the main local language and age 18 years or older. The DISC-12 subscores assessed were reported discrimination and anticipated discrimination. Multivariable regression was used to analyse the data.

Findings

1082 people with depression completed the DISC-12. Of these, 855 (79%) reported experiencing discrimination in at least one life domain. 405 (37%) participants had stopped themselves from initiating a close personal relationship, 271 (25%) from applying for work, and 218 (20%) from applying for education or training. We noted that higher levels of experienced discrimination were associated with several lifetime depressive episodes (negative binomial regression coefficient 0·20 [95% CI 0·09—0·32], p=0·001); at least one lifetime psychiatric hospital admission (0·29 [0·15—0·42], p=0·001); poorer levels of social functioning (widowed, separated, or divorced 0·10 [0·01—0·19], p=0·032; unpaid employed 0·34 [0·09—0·60], p=0·007; looking for a job 0·26 [0·09—0·43], p=0·002; and unemployed 0·22 [0·03—0·41], p=0·022). Experienced discrimination was also associated with lower willingness to disclose a diagnosis of depression (mean discrimination score 4·18 [SD 3·68] for concealing depression vs 2·25 [2·65] for disclosing depression; p<0·0001). Anticipated discrimination is not necessarily associated with experienced discrimination because 147 (47%) of 316 participants who anticipated discrimination in finding or keeping a job and 160 (45%) of 353 in their intimate relationships had not experienced discrimination.

 

To continue reading, click here.

 

Age Discrimination: Older Workers Worry About Hiring Bias

In the first 919 days that Jim Pawlak was out of work, he sent out 908 resumes and was called for fewer than 50 interviews. He has just one explanation: age discrimination. It’s a “first to be fired” and “last to be hired” syndrome, said the 48-year-old former Xerox employee.

The unemployment rate for older workers (those age 55+) remained unchanged at 5.9 percent in September, the Labor Department announced last week. But workers over age 55 made up 54 percent of the long-term unemployed — defined as people out of work for more than 27 weeks — up from 50.9 percent in August, according to an analysis by the AARP Public Policy Institute.

Moreover, older Americans stayed jobless longer — an average of nearly 56 weeks, compared to 37 weeks for younger workers. When they do find jobs, these employees typically take a bigger pay cut than their younger counterparts, according to a Government Accountability Office study released earlier this year.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects people 40 and older from employment discrimination based on age, and applies to both employees and job applicants. Age discrimination now accounts for nearly one-quarter of all complaints filed with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. An AARP survey found one-third to one-half of baby boomers had experienced age bias in a job search.

To continue reading, click here.

Harassment in the Workplace

The Supreme Court this week heard the case of Maetta Vance, who, for many years, worked for the catering department of Ball State University, often as the only African-American in its dining services. In 2005, Saundra Davis, who is white, was given authority to direct the work of Ms. Vance, among others.

Ms. Vance sued Ball State for racial harassment and intimidation, claiming that Ms. Davis made her life miserable, using racial epithets and threatening her physically. The harassment, she said, did not end when she formally complained to the department’s general manager.

Under the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII, employers like Ball State are liable for discrimination that creates a hostile work environment, though the standard for liability depends on the harasser’s status. An employer is responsible for a supervisor’s harassment, but when the harasser is a co-worker, the employer is liable only if the victim proves that the employer was negligent in failing to stop the harassment.

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the university was not liable because Ms. Davis was not Ms. Vance’s supervisor because she lacked “the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline,” even though she directed Ms. Vance’s work. The Supreme Court should overturn the appeals court’s narrow, unfair definition of a supervisor. The justices should send the case back to the trial court to gather a full factual record and apply the legal standard that an employee who controls another employee’s work qualifies as a supervisor.

To continue reading, click here.

For Women In the Workplace, It’s Time to Abandon “Have It All” Rhetoric

While the recent article by Ann-Marie Slaughter in the Atlantic Monthly “ Why Women Still Can’t Have it All”, makes several inarguable points regarding what women need in order to be successful – more role models in high-powered positions and institutions that support working mothers – the narrative she chooses to illustrate her points may do more to stymie those goals than to promote them. If readers extrapolate her story as a manifesto for all working women, as exposure on such a public platform inevitably leads to, we may end up back where we started; promoting the idea that deep down women feel better giving up powerful positions at work in order to spend more time at home. When in fact, the issue may not be what women give up for positions of power, but rather what positions of power, by their very nature, require us to give up regardless of gender.

The antiquated rhetoric of “having it all” disregards the basis of every economic relationship; the idea of tradeoffs. All of us are dealing with the constrained optimization that is life, attempting to maximize our utility based on parameters like career, kids, relationships, etc., doing our best to allocate the resource of time. Due to the scarcity of this resource, therefore, none of us can “have it all”, and those who claim to are most likely lying.

To continue reading, click here.

Should The Minimum Wage Be The Same In All States?

While there is a current federal minimum wage set nationwide, numerous states set their own standards. There is also a great deal to be said for this and certain politicians and members of the public would like to see it be uniform across the country.

There is an overwhelming case for it not be, due to major differences occurring from state to state both in terms of taxation and extremely different costs of living. As an example car insurance in New Jersey can be up to double the cost of that found in Virginia for exactly the same coverage. Such differentials multiplied across everything that you purchase can amount to very different overall costs-of-living from state to state. This can mean that the minimum wage can go much further in one state than another, but equally so it can mean that it goes far less further in another state.
Accordingly there are state by state exceptions and as an example in some states such as Montana it can be set as low as four dollars per hour provided that the business is turning over less than $110,000 per year, but for businesses turning over $110,000 a year the minimum wage is set at $7.80 per hour. Numerous states adopt a similar approach, however the minimum labor rates do vary considerably from state to state and you could find that in a nearby state the minimum wage for businesses turning over less than $110,000 is $5.25 as an example.
While this type of pricing can be seen to be helping out small businesses to help get them going it can also give them a headache that when they reach this threshold that they are faced with a dramatic increase in the minimum wage that they have to pay out, which is undoubtedly a hard hurdle for a lot of businesses to overcome particularly in the current economic climate. In such circumstances one could argue that at least within the state there should be some consistency with no such threshold set up at the $110,000 mark, in order to put all businesses on an equal footing, however many politicians and members of the public would argue both for and against such a change. It is a sort of Catch-22 as many large businesses would love to be paying the much lower minimum wage rates that small businesses do in such circumstances as described above. However should big businesses ever be able to push through such a change then it would undoubtedly push many people far below the nationwide poverty line, if ever allowed to happen.
Also in numerous states the Federal minimum wage replaces the states minimum wage if it is higher. Currently the rule is that the federal minimum wage law supersedes the state minimum wage laws when the state minimum wage is less than the federal standard. This seems to level things out somewhat, however there must be case to be argued that all minimum wage rates should be set by the federal authorities and not on a state-by-state basis to avoid the large discrepancies that currently exist such as Washington with a minimum wage of $9.19 and Georgia with just $5.15 per hour.

The Upstander: Co-Workers,Prevention and the Workplace Impact of Domestic and Sexual Violence and Stalking

On September 11, 2012, Amanda Connors drove up to the front door of the hair salon she managed in South Dakota and confronted Tyrone Leon Smith, the gun-wielding boyfriend of her employee, Heidi Weber. Mr. Smith fatally shot Ms. Connors and then turned the gun on himself A few days earlier, Ms. Weber had obtained a temporary protection order against Mr. Smith, after he was arrested on a domestic assault charge. After leaving jail, Mr. Smith took the children from their babysitter and drove to the salon’s parking lot.  He then entered the salon and tied up the employees, who were later freed upon the intervention of Ms. Weber.¹

This tragic event takes place with numbing regularity.  Week after week, the news media report stories of women (rarely men) who are stalked and attacked, or fatally wounded, by current or former husbands or boyfriends at workplaces, frequently after obtaining an order of protection.² Sometimes the intervention of co-workers, customers or other bystanders alleviates the situation, but often bystanders become caught in the crossfire.  This column will focus on ways in which co-workers can serve as “upstanders” in preventing the workplace effects of domestic and sexual violence.

To continue reading, click here.

The 5 Best Bonding Outings for Co-Workers

Do office ice breakers set your teeth on edge? Well, you’re not alone: Almost a third of U.S. office workers dislike team-building activities, according to a 2012 Wake field Research Study commissioned by the cloud technology company Citrix. Although companies have the best intentions when they plan these activities, says David W. Ballard of the American Psychological Association, they can be counterproductive if not executed properly—disrupting trust, heightening tensions, and allowing cynicism to grow in the workplace.

“An entire industry has grown around corporate team-building programs, from ropes courses, wilderness programs, and paintball to ice breakers, trust exercises, and coaching sessions based on questionable personality tests,” says Ballard. He adds that while it’s not unusual for vendors to “pitch high-priced programs” and “tout amazing performance improvements” that companies have achieved as a result of such activities, employers should still take these promises with a grain of salt.

Team-building activities should bolster the work employees complete together, or provide a genuine opportunity to relax and unwind. Not everyone is comfortable with seances or group meditation, and supervisors should be sensitive to that. “Take care to avoid putting employees in embarrassing or uncomfortable situations,” Ballard says. “Recognize that people have different preferences and respect employee boundaries regarding physical contact and the disclosure of personal information.”

To continue reading, click here.

Workplace Whiners and the Other Coworkers You’ll Know

Today in The Wall Street Journal Sue Shellenbarger discusses a type of coworker you’ve surely had the occasion to work with, assuming you’ve been working in an office environment for any time at all. This is, Shellenbarger writes, the “workplace whiner.” Not only are such coworkers an inherent productivity problem—did you know that just listening to someone complain constantly can undermine your own performance?—but also, God almighty, they are annoying. You’re just trying to complete that spreadsheet peacefully, a bagel and coffee by your side, and suddenly you have to listen to innumerable gripes about the office water bubble temperature, really?

Shellenbarger points out, though, that it’s not always so easy just to shut your ears and try to ignore. Listening and nodding can backfire and make you the subject of the complainer’s next complaint. Telling someone they complain too much rarely goes well. And while the experts recommend “setting an example” and attempting to bond, that’s not too appealing in the fifth hour of your coworker’s screed about his or her latest perceived injustice. You can buy headphones, of course, but will they even work? All of a sudden, you’re complaining, too!

Tips in Shellenbarger’s piece to combat all this include changing the subject, zoning out, asking your whiny coworker what he or she plans to do about the issue or suggesting taking it to a superior, moving your desk to a complaint-free zone, and so on. Some bosses have even incorporated cash reward programs for workers able to keep from complaining or gossiping for a certain amount of time. But this got us thinking: Is the workplace whiner the worst sort of office inhabitant? There are plenty of others, too, and they are indisputably grating in their own ways. The list goes on and on, but here are a few.*

To continue reading, click here.

U.S. Workers See Real Rewards from Workplace Wellness Programs

Jan. 30, 2013 — More U.S. workers recognize the rewards of participating in workplace wellness programs, according to the “Principal Financial Well-Being Index: American Workers.” 62% of workers, up from 55% in 2011, believe workplace wellness activities are successful in improving health and reducing health risks.
The index, which surveys U.S. workers at growing businesses with 10 to 1,000 workers, was released by the Principal Financial Group and conducted by Harris Interactive. The findings focus specifically on wellness attitudes and behaviors among U.S. workers, and were taken from the fourth quarter 2012 index.
By taking advantage of workplace wellness offerings, U.S. employees are approaching their work with more energy and motivation. 51% of program participants feel wellness benefits encourage them to work harder and perform better, and 59% say they have more energy to be productive at work as a result of their participation in employer-sponsored wellness programs.
“As wellness programs become more established in the workplace, we are seeing a growing number of employees appreciate — and expect — that their employer offers these benefits,” said Lee Dukes, president of Principal Wellness Company, a subsidiary of the Principal Financial Group. “In the wake of the financial crisis, which has left many companies stretched thin, maintaining a productive workforce is a priority for organizations.”
Nearly half (45%) of employees agree that an employer-sponsored wellness program would encourage them to stay in their current employment situation, up from 40% in 2011. Additionally, 43% of participants say wellness programs have led them to miss fewer days of work, up 8% from 2011. Despite the apparent benefits, about a third (34%) of workers still do not participate in any of the wellness programs offered by their employers.
As wellness programs become more popular, employers are offering a variety of ways to encourage employees to participate. The survey shows the top three ways employees are encouraged by their employers to participate in wellness programs:

• Encouragement by management (20%)
• Lower health insurance costs to those who participate (20%)
• Allotted time for participation during the workday (20%, up from 9%)

A little more than one-third (36%) say their employers do not offer any encouragement to participate in wellness benefits, a significant divergence from the previous three years, when about half of participants said their employer did nothing to encourage wellness program participation.
Participants also cited an increase in the following employer incentives:

• 17%, up from 9% the previous year, said their employer offers contributions into a health savings account or health reimbursement account.
• 16%, up from 12% the previous year, said their employer provides other financial incentives such as gift certificates or discounts for those who participate.
• 10%, up from 6% the previous year, reported that their employer rewards additional paid time off from work to participants.

“It”s in every employer’s interest to have healthier, happier, more productive employees,” Dukes said. “Employers have to do more than offer wellness programs; in order to see the benefits, they have to incent participation.”

REPOST ARTICLE SOURCE: http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=70689

Women In the Workplace: A Call For Change

The July/August issue of Atlantic Magazine presented an op-ed by former State Department Director of Policy Planning, Anne-Marie Slaughter, entitled “Why Women Still Can’t Have it All”. The op-ed quickly went viral, provoking a variety of responses. If the piece sounds a like an affront to some traditional feminist ideals, that is because it is. Slaughter draws from her own experience, explaining the mere impossibility of sustaining both her responsibilities as a mother with two teenage sons and a woman with a high profile government position.

But what now? Whether you side with those who believe one can “have it all” or whether you believe “having it all” is a naive wish, what action should take place to make the workplace more equitable?

Most women, will likely at some point in their lives, desire to have a child. Privileged women in executive leadership roles however, may have difficult priorities to choose from when contemplating children and striving to reach elite professional success. Traditionally, their male counterparts rarely faced the same problem but in our modern times, even that may be changing.

To continue reading, click here.

One Billion Women to Enter Workplace in Next Decade: Report

They say it is a man’s world, but perhaps not for much longer as up to one billion women are expected to enter the workplace in the next decade, according to the latest survey from Booz and Co. on women in the workplace.

The report from the global management and strategy consultancy said the surge in women employees, employers, producers, and entrepreneurs in the next 10 years would improve not only gender equality, but global economic growth — however, it also warned that governments could miss out on this potential.

“As the world economy grows and develops, countries cannot afford to ignore over 50 percent of their talent pool, ” Penney Frohling, business strategist and partner at Booz and Co., told CNBC. “There is a view that countries that are able to tap into that talent pool are going to see higher growth. There is a very clear correlation between empowering women and GDP growth , literacy rates, infant mortality rates.”

To continue reading, click here.

Climate Justice Activists in Portland, OR Occupy Exhibit for Tar Sands Profiteer ESCO Corp.

Today our friends at Portland Rising Tide exposed ESCO Corp as a major tar sands profiteer. They occupied an exhibit celebrating the corporation’s 100 year history of building heavy equipment used in fossil fuel extraction. Below is their full press release about the action.

To continue reading, click here.

ESCO Steel — A legacy worth celebrating?

ESCO steel reported $849 million in global sales in 2010. This was enough to earn them lavish praise from local business journalist Richard Read, who suggests that companies like ESCO form an under-appreciated but decidedly manly backbone for Portland’s “weird” economy. One of ESCO’s plants is actually five blocks from Chapman elementary in Northwest Portland – close enough to show the kids what ‘real jobs’ look like. And also close enough to be the top source of its air pollution, catapulting it into the top 5% of schools with the greatest exposure to hazardous air toxins.

As it turns out, thirty five Portland-area schools are in the top 5% of national schools with the most dangerous exposure to air toxins. And for all seven schools in Northwest Portland, the #1 source of pollution was ESCO Steel. The Department of Environmental Quality has a cozy relationship with ESCO, as it does with all the agencies it “regulates” – in exchange for issuing their pollution permits, they provide DEQ with roughly 70% of its funding. So initially the DEQ worked alongside ESCO to downplay this information. They were later forced to backtrack, and in 2010, even DEQ’s Andy Ginsberg asserted that for people who live near the ESCO foundry, its emissions amount for 95% of all toxic compounds in the air they breathe.

Can we learn to subtract the health effects of this pollution? I sure as hell can. But until ESCO pays for them, they are essentially stealing from us – taking away our health and then bankrupting us with medical bills. Sort of like a mugging, but on an industrial scale. And the magnitude of this becomes much greater when we investigate what ESCO is making that requires all this pollution.

ESCO has recently become heavily invested in tar sands extraction, coal mining, and fracking for natural gas, and is staking its future on building vital, “mission-critical” enabling equipment for all three – particularly drill bits which wear out quickly and need frequent replacement. In a report to the SEC they even brag that they “… have established direct sales channels in the Canadian oil sands, Wyoming Powder River Basin and Brazil,”, the former two being perhaps the most controversial energy extraction sites in North America.

Screen shot 2013-02-15 at 5.30.56 PM
Above: The “innovation” of Boreal Forests in Alberta, British Columbia. Thanks, ESCO!

Tar sands extraction is the perfect example of the kind of hideously immoral project that will lock us in to an unlivable future, offering a few paltry construction jobs while unraveling the ecosystems on which entire industries and living communities depend. Tar oil is three times more carbon intensive than traditional oil, and the extraction process alone is so energy intensive that it apparently requires a small nuclear reactor. The easily corroded Keystone Pipeline that is being planned to move tar sands to Texas is being planned over the Ogallala aquifer – one of the largest and most important fresh-water aquifers in the country, supplying 1/3rd of the country’s water for irrigation, as well as drinking water for 82% of the people who live nearby. There have already been spills in places like Kalamazoo, and we have evidence that Transcanada laid defective pipe in Texas. What happens to our farmers and our food when Transcanada deciderates to “build jobs here”? According to NASA’s James Hansen, it means “game over”.

All of this has led to significant civil disobedience, both from First Nations in Canada and the cultural mainstream in Canada and the States, including hundreds of die-ins, blockades, tree-sits, and lock-ins. The actions of the Idle No More movement in Canada, along with the boldness exhibited by blockaders in rural Texas, have even inspired the Sierra Club to lift its historic opposition to direct action – its executive director was arrested yesterday with 47 other people, protesting the Keystone Pipeline.

And let’s not forget the Powder River Basin – the source of $1 / ton coal that coal companies are desperately trying to sell to China with rushed terminals in Oregon and Washington. If these terminals aren’t built, the coal will very likely stay in the ground. And this is critical, because according to the Sightline Institute, the carbon impact of American coal burned in China would be greater than the Keystone pipeline. In other words, double game over. So let’s pray that ESCO never gets any business in the Powder River Basin. And then let’s answer our own prayers.

The community should be angry that a local company is playing such a key role in melting the planet and destabilizing its life-support systems. Its workers should be angry that their managers have staked their livelihood on producing for industries that are destroying the world they grew up in, and which might not be around in a few years. And investors should think twice before throwing money at a company that is angering locals while slapping the word “innovation” on the fossil-fuel industry. In their own report to the SEC, the company even frets about the “substantial costs” they would face if greenhouse gases were regulated. To everyone else in the world, it would be a very great relief.

We need to start telling our own story about ESCO, about how they treat this city, how they treat their workers, and how they need to change. We can tell ESCO that what they are doing is not welcome in our city, and that we do not accept profiting off of runaway climate change or other threats to public health. And perhaps most importantly, we can engage their workers, and ask those workers what workplace democracy at ESCO might look like. We can start by joining 402 people who are asking ESCO to restore health insurance to an employee they wrongfully fired last year after 39 years at the company, which is depriving his wife of cancer treatments.

“Profiting from the Tar Sands in the Green City” livestream (and less-than-live stream) footage

Earlier today, a group of hearty activists — spurred by the propaganda being espoused on behalf of ecological criminal Esco Corp at the Oregon Historical Society — decided to create an exhibit of our own. Awesomely, the staff loved us, and even cheered us on. Security, on the other hand, was less than amused. Stay tuned for a highlight from that story!
Part 1: Assembling at Shemanski Park, and obtaining tickets to entry


Video streaming by Ustream Part 2: The action begins, at the Oregon Historical Society! (Recorded offline.)


Video streaming by Ustream Part 3: The remainder of the action, and our victorious egress. (Recorded offline.)


Video streaming by Ustream

Health and Wellness Programs – How to Start or Support Yours Right Now

Most people have heard about those “dream” companies that offer on-site fitness facilities with premier equipment, flat screen televisions and basketball courts, or an office café with a gourmet chef at the helm. But for most organizations, these high-end perks are out of reach because they simply don’t have the resources to invest.
The good news is that wellness efforts don’t need to be fancy or expensive to make an impact at work. With a little commitment, creativity and effort, your organization can start up a workplace wellness initiative, or support the success of one already in place, right here and right now.
Who has time for health and wellness initiatives?
As a leader, you probably already have a lot on your plate. From meeting deadlines and motivating your staff to managing employee performance issues, leading a team can be incredibly satisfying and equally challenging. You might think, “Who’s got time to pitch in with health and wellness initiatives?”
Numbers You Should Know
Before you close the book on helping out with health and wellness in your organization, consider:

• Employees who are sedentary, overweight, smoke and have a high alcohol intake miss work 50% more often than those who don’t have these four risk factors. They also use up two to three times more in health costs.
• Chronic conditions related to obesity cost Canada $4.6 billion in 2008, which included lost work time due to employee absences.
• In 2007 – 2009 24.1% of Canadians were obese. In the US that number hit 34.4%.
• According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, 83.1% of workers in Canada think stress in their organization is a big concern.
• High levels of job stress can double the risk for heart attack.

What happens when I encourage and support health and wellness?
It may take a little time, but organizations that support and promote health and wellness report:

• Fewer absences
• Better productivity
• Lower health costs (disability, worker’s compensation, benefits costs, etc.)
• Improved morale and loyalty

What can I do to create a healthier workplace now?
Everyone, especially leaders, can play a role in organizational health. If you’re lucky enough to have a workplace health and wellness committee, join it or encourage members of your team to sign on. Don’t have one?  Maybe it’s time to lead the way and start one.
In fact, the more diverse your team is, the more ideas and insights will be brought to the table. Whether you’re a large organization with a moderate budget or a smaller company with limited resources, these five quick tips can help get the ball rolling.

1. Look at the issues. Gather up whatever data you can and figure out if there are any specific health-related concerns or patterns. Have you noticed productivity slipping?  Are people getting sick more often? Has the vending machine become most employees’ lunch of choice?
2. Ask around. Whether you send out a formal survey, get feedback from a “healthy workplace focus group” or simply talk to people on their lunch break, find out what’s important to your employees. After all, building a high-end gym is meaningless if what people really want is simply the availability of healthy snacks.
3. Enlist others. A healthier path can sometimes feel like a lonely road. Get support from other members on your team. If you don’t ask, you may never discover that your quiet and collected colleague is actually a yoga guru or that your assistant is a healthy chef extraordinaire.
4. Start small and stick to it. The little things can make a huge difference. Set goals that are realistic for your time and resources and are consistent and ongoing. Some “small” healthy ideas include:
   • Forming a work team – be it bowling, soccer or baseball that plays every week.
   • Launching a “Fresh Friday” potluck event that focuses on healthy food.
   • Putting up a bulletin board in the lunchroom and asking employees to contribute “healthy hints” and recipes.
   • Negotiating corporate discounts with local gyms.
   • Handing out pedometers and honouring a weekly or monthly “Best Step Star”.
5. Celebrate the victories. Did the work soccer team win the championships? Or did that walking program result in some serious weight loss? Don’t forget to celebrate these wins! They not only make those participating feel connected, but also encourage others still on the sidelines to get involved.

What can I do to support ongoing initiatives?
If you already have a health and wellness program in place you can still do your part to lead the way by:

• Walking the talk. As a leader, you help to set the vibe for your team. If you eat chips for lunch every day while buried under paperwork in your office, you’re not so subtly letting your employees know health is low on your priority list. Instead, try embracing healthy initiatives and chances are at least some of your team will follow.
• Helping to sell. You likely have a lot more influence on workplace health than you realize. A personal invite from their boss to join the work soccer team or contribute to the monthly healthy potluck event can help team members feel included and motivated.
• Flexing for success. It’s one thing to wax poetic about the benefits of good health and quite another to actually support it. For the most part, employees need you to provide a little time and flexibility – whether it’s time to attend a wellness event, a committee meeting, or doling out a balanced enough workload so they have time to hit the gym after work.

Your support of employee health – no matter how big or how small – can go a long way in creating a healthier and more productive group that’s committed to supporting the team and you as a leader.

REPOST ARTICLE SOURCE:
 http://www.shepellfgi.com/EN-CA/Employees%20and%20Families/Wellness%20Articles/Healthy%20Working/_HealthWellnessPrograms.asp

Drug and Alcohol Testing After Employment

Many different state and federal laws govern an employer’s right to perform drug and alcohol screening on employees. As a result, understanding your rights can be very confusing. Compounding the problem is the fact that government and private sector employees are often subject to separate rules. If you are tempted to object to taking an alcohol or drug test at work, it’s a good idea to get some legal advice before making any decisions.

Private and Public Employees’ Rights Differ

Private sector employers have the freedom to screen their employees for drug and alcohol use whenever they want, with minimal interference from government. Government employers, however, face many restrictions. Federal law requires government employers to have a compelling reason for performing drug and alcohol testing. Forcing a government employee to take such a test would violate the employee’s protections against “unreasonable search and seizure.” Private employers don’t violate this right since the U.S. Constitution only stops the government, not private employers, from performing unreasonable searches and seizures. Exceptions exist for some government employees, such as pilots, whose drug or alcohol use could cause public safety issues.

Your Employer May Need a Written Policy

Before employers can subject employees to screenings, some states require that they have in place a written drug and alcohol testing policy. These policies generally need to outline which employees are subject to testing, when a screening may be required, and the consequences of failing to comply. Before submitting to a drug or alcohol test, you should review your employer’s policy.

Alcohol and Drug Test Results Are Confidential

Employers must keep the results of your drug or alcohol screening confidential. In the event your employer violates confidentiality laws, your state may allow you to seek damages. Possible court awards include reinstatement to your job if you were terminated for positive results, as well as back pay and reimbursement for your attorney fees.

Refusing to Take a Drug or Alcohol Test

At times, refusing to take a drug or alcohol test can be worse than taking the test and having it come back positive. Many state laws allow your employer to terminate you immediately for refusing a drug or alcohol screening. If you are not terminated, your employer can’t treat you differently from other employees who refuse the test or even those with positive results. If you feel you’re being singled out and discriminated against because of your refusal, you may have a discrimination claim against your employer.

An Employment Lawyer Can Help

The law surrounding employee drug and alcohol testing is complicated. Plus, the facts of each case are unique. This article provides a brief, general introduction to the topic. For more detailed, specific information, please contact an employment lawyer.

Re Post Article Source :http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/human-resources-law/Drug-and-Alcohol-Testing-After-Employment.html

Unfair dismissal and employment law

It is also unfair dismissal when the employer doesn’t follow the correct process for the dismissal.
However, an employer does have the right to dismiss employees for reasons related to their conduct (such as substance abuse or theft), ability to do their work (ie performance-related) or long-term illness.

When can you make an unfair dismissal claim?

If you believe you have been dismissed without a fair reason then one of our recommended unfair dismissal lawyers can help you make a claim to an employment tribunal. Please bear in mind however that you must have been with your employer for a certain prescribed period of time.
Unfair dismissal claims are most often made due to:

• Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, disability, religion, sexual orientation or age
• Maternity, paternity or adoption leave
• Notice periods
• Whistleblowing
• Before, during or after business transfers
• Unfair selection for redundancy
• In connection with disciplinary or grievance hearings
• Trade union involvement

Using an unfair dismissal lawyer

Contact Law works with a national network of specialised employment solicitors and unfair dismissal lawyers. As such, we can put you in touch with the right unfair dismissal solicitor according to your needs. An employment lawyer can negotiate with your employer or start an employment-tribunal claim on your behalf.

Using a no-win no-fee unfair dismissal lawyer

Many of our recommended unfair dismissal solicitors will consider taking cases on a no-win, no-fee basis. Please be aware, however, that in some instances it may actually be more cost-effective to engage a solicitor on a fixed-fee- or hourly-fee basis rather than on a no-win, no-fee arrangement.
Call us on 0808 1596 622 for more advice and to instruct an unfair dismissal lawyer to make an unfair dismissal claim today.

How to Make Your Staff Want to Work Hard for You?

The saying goes that every business is only as good as its employees.
That’s why your team is the most valuable resource. Forget your perfect product, winning website, and magical marketing strategy. None of this matters if your staff doesn’t care about your business.
It is so easy to make your employees hate you. It is even easier to make them want to work hard for you. Here are seven secrets to motivating your team, and encouraging them to commit and care about your business:
1. Recognize and Reward Achievements
A recent survey showed that 69% of employees would work harder if their bosses recognized and rewarded their hard work.
By actively and openly celebrating hard work, your staff will be much more motivated to work hard for you. This involves everything from a simple “well done” when staff produce a great piece of work; right through to rewards such as “Employee of the Month”, and even financial bonuses.
A pat on the back, round of applause, and verbal praise costs nothing. But it can give a huge boost to an employee, and really drive them forward. You should also endeavor to be constructive in your criticism, citing what’s done well and emphasizing this.
2. Offer Extra Training and Qualifications
Offering employees the chance to enjoy the perks of additional training is great motivation. By encouraging them to learn new skills and gain extra qualifications, you can boost their confidence as well as maximize your business’s potential.
Be sure to offer to pay for all or part of the training, and emphasis why they have been put forward. If you can, train everyone in a certain team in a new area. The additional skills are a short-term way of enhancing the long-term success and performance of your business.
3. Create a Great Work Atmosphere
A positive and welcoming work atmosphere is a great way to make your staff want to work hard for you.
Aesthetically, you want a warm, light and open office. Make sure it is decorated with plants, photographs, and personal touches. You could have a notice board filled with staff images to help promote a team spirit. You should also make sure employees have enough space, and are comfortable.
A great atmosphere also refers to how well employees gel and work together.
4. Bring Everyone Together
Encouraging your team to interact out of work is another great way to drive motivation and success. Work nights and days out, are great ways to help staff gel and connect as a team. If people get on, they can work together and work hard. A warm, welcoming and friendly workplace is one that people want to go to everyday.
You should also work hard to avoid – or quickly diffuse – any workplace conflicts.
5. Give Them Increased Responsibility
Part of feeling valued and appreciated, is being entrusted with increased responsibility. Encourage staff to work hard for you, by letting them prove themselves. Let them take an active role in the business and trust their judgement. Those who prove themselves can be given more responsibility, and will always be willing to go above and beyond to show they deserve the role.
6. Offer Your Staff a Career, Not a Job
Everyone that works for you has an idea of where they want their career to take them. They know where they want to be in 5 months and 5 years. You need to be offering people more than just a job – you need to be offering them a career path.
Staff are much more likely to work hard for you if they know what opportunities lie ahead. Can you offer internal promotions? What opportunities are there for your members of staff? This will send a positive message to your staff that they are valuable to you. If staff feel valued they are much more likely to work hard for you.
7. Don’t Make an Exception for Yourself
Some managers have a tendency to forget that they should lead by example. If you’re afraid to get your hands dirty and don’t play an active role in the team, your staff will feel like they don’t have to either.
Simple things like making sure you’re always on time can really boost office moral and prove that you’re someone worth working hard for. Make sure you’re always there for your employees too. They will look up to you, so set an example for them to follow.
Making your staff want to work hard for you is easier than you think. By creating a positive work place, and generally promoting a great work ethic; you can enjoy the benefits of a hard working and motivated workforce.
Are you looking to employ hard-working staff? Outcomes UK is a  recruitment company specializing in executive search and selection. Visit their website to see what they can do for you.

Santorum Faces Questions on Women in the Work Force

WASHINGTON — Only days after having to explain a comment about women in the military and emotions in combat, Rick Santorum seemed to struggle a bit on Sunday to explain a remark in his book “It Takes a Family” that accuses “radical feminists” of undermining families and trying to convince women that they could find fulfillment only in the workplace.

Asked by George Stephanopoulos about that remark on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Santorum said that his wife, Karen, had written that section of the 2005 book — though only his name is on the cover and he does not list her, in his acknowledgements, among those “who assisted me in the writing of this book.” He said that when Ms. Santorum, a nurse and a lawyer, had quit her job to raise the couple’s children, she felt that many people “looked down their nose at that decision.”

“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” Mr. Santorum, or his wife, wrote in the book. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

In the interview Sunday with Mr. Stephanopoulos, Mr. Santorum pleaded unfamiliarity with the citation, saying, “I don’t know — that’s a new quote for me,” before adding that “the bottom line is that people should have equal opportunity to rise in the work force.”

But criticism of his argument that more women should perhaps stay home should not have come as news to Mr. Santorum as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination. The book was sharply debated during his unsuccessful 2006 bid for re-election as a senator from Pennsylvania, drawing pointed criticism from women’s groups and Democratic officials at the time.

To continue reading, click here.

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

Regional and state unemployment rates were generally little changed in December. 
Twenty-two states recorded unemployment rate decreases, 16 states and the 
District of Columbia posted increases, and 12 states had no change, the U.S. 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Forty-two states and the District 
of Columbia registered unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier, six 
states experienced increases, and two states had no change. The national 
jobless rate, 7.8 percent, was unchanged from November and was 0.7 percentage 
point lower than in December 2011.

In December 2012, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 27 states and the 
District of Columbia and decreased in 23 states. The largest over-the-month 
increase in employment occurred in New York (+35,100), followed by New Jersey 
(+30,200), Georgia (+14,400), and Missouri (+10,200). The largest over-the-month 
decrease in employment occurred in California (-17,500), followed by Florida 
(-15,300), Louisiana (-11,400), and Michigan (-10,600). New Jersey experienced 
the largest over-the-month percentage increase in employment (+0.8 percent),
followed by Kansas (+0.6 percent) and Alaska, Georgia, Missouri, and New York 
(+0.4 percent each). Hawaii experienced the largest over-the-month percentage 
decline in employment (-0.7 percent), followed by Louisiana and Wyoming (-0.6 
percent each). Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 44 states and 
decreased in 6 states and the District of Columbia. The largest over-the-year 
percentage increases occurred in North Dakota (+3.6 percent) and Utah (+3.0 
percent). The largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment occurred 
in West Virginia (-1.8 percent).

To continue reading, click here. 

Unemployment Rate Falls To 8.1 Percent As People Give Up On Looking For Work

While the U.S. unemployment rate in April was the lowest it’s been in more than three years, the unemployed may simply be falling off the government’s radar as they give up looking for work.

Meanwhile, job growth has slowed sharply after a fast start to the year, suggesting another bump in what has been an agonizingly long road to recovery for the job market.

Unemployment fell to 8.1 percent in April, the lowest since January 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday morning. But the decline was mainly due to 342,000 people leaving the labor force, meaning the BLS had stopped counting them as unemployed. The number of employed people in the nation actually fell by 169,000.

Nonfarm employers added 115,000 jobs to their payrolls in April, according to a survey of businesses that is different than the household survey that generates the unemployment rate. That job growth was lower than the 170,000 or so economists had expected, though the BLS revised upward the number of jobs that were created in February and March, adding about 53,000 additional jobs to payrolls.

To continue reading,click here.

Is the Unemployment Rate Misleading?

The April employment statistics were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS) last Friday.  The official U.S.unemployment rate for April 2012 dropped to 8.1%.  It hasn’t been this low since January 2009.

According to the BLS, 115,000 new jobs were added to the workforce in April.  Certainly that is good news for the 115,000 who are now employed, and after three years of high unemployment, it’s encouraging to see the rate dropping.

The report has been out for a week, which has given people more opportunity to dig into the numbers.  Unfortunately, the headline is much more encouraging than some of the supporting data.

To continue reading. click here.

Don’t Be Misled by the U.S. Unemployment Rate

U.S. unemployment was 8.1% in August, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Meaning, of all the people who want to work or are actively looking for a job, 8.1% don’t have one. This number gets an awful lot of media attention, particularly in an election year, but it is deeply misleading. For example, in August, relatively few jobs were added but more workers dropped out of the workforce, so the unemployment rate went down.

Most leaders and citizens probably don’t know what the unemployment number represents. I suspect most don’t even know that it’s actually a survey of 60,000 households conducted each month by the Current Population Survey on behalf of the BLS. Some think it is an actual tally of paperwork from claims. It is not — it’s an estimate drawn from monthly tracking surveys.

The problem with the unemployment metric is that an additional 6.6% report being “underemployed,” meaning they are left out of the 8.1% unemployed because they have part-time work but wish they were employed full time; they’re not classified as “unemployed.” They’re not in the 8.1% everyone’s watching, and this makes things complicated. Nearly 15% underemployed, including the unemployed, is much more accurate and significant than the single 8.1%.

To continue reading, click here.