5 Ways to Make Video Conference Calls More Productive

1. Learn a few stealth moves.

If you decide to leave the room during the call, make sure it’s during a time when no one will notice. When you’re the next one on the agenda, it will be fairly obvious to everyone on the call that you’ve left your computer.

2. Type softly.

A few times throughout the call I took notes. The good part is that when we finished, I had clear notes about what we discussed. The bad part is that I usually hit the keys too hard (bad habit) which can be hard on everyone’s ears.

Click here to continue reading

CEO Council Demands Cuts To Poor, Elderly While Reaping Billions In Government Contracts, Tax Breaks

WASHINGTON — The corporate CEOs who have made a high-profile foray into deficit negotiations have themselves been substantially responsible for the size of the deficit they now want closed.
The companies represented by executives working with the Campaign To Fix The Debt have received trillions in federal war contracts, subsidies and bailouts, as well as specialized tax breaks and loopholes that virtually eliminate the companies’ tax bills.

Click here to continue reading

Employment discrimination lawsuit filed against city prosecutor’s office

A 61-year-old white woman, who says she was wrongfully fired from the Baltimore prosecutors’ office after 25 years on the job, has filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging age, race and gender discrimination in the 2010 termination.

Antoinette E. Swiec, of Baltimore, is seeking $400,000 in compensation from the Baltimore state’s attorney’s office on each of two counts, claiming she was fired because the predominantly young, African American division she worked for wanted her out.

The lawsuit was filed in  U.S. District Court Monday, and was to be served on Baltimore State’s Attorney Gregg Bernstein, though the firing occurred under his predecessor, Patricia C. Jessamy. Bernstein took office in 2011.

Mark Cheshire, a spokesman for the state’s attorneys’ office, declined to comment on the pending litigation “as a matter of policy.”

Swiec says she was the office manager of the Firearms Investigation and Violence Enforcement Unit in 2010, supervising a four-person clerical staff that was “exclusively African American and predominantly young,” with all but one person in their 20s. She reported to FIVE division chief Matthew Fraling III, whom she describes as a black male in his 40s.

 To continue reading, click here.

Ruling expected soon in Iowa employment discrimination lawsuit

(CNN) – According to her resume, Nansi Woods looked like a good fit for the job, an adviser position at the Iowa Workforce Development office. She had a master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling, a bachelor’s degree in communications, one of several preferred fields related to the job and a minor in social work. She more than met the minimum requirements listed in the job description, which asked for an associate’s degree or certificate of education completion.

Another applicant had a bachelor’s degree in a preferred field, but was still taking courses toward a master’s degree in human resources. A third person seeking the job had no degree, no specific job experience and none of the listed computer skills. These last two applicants – both of them white – were offered the job. Woods, who is black, was never granted an interview.

A class action suit filed in 2007 on behalf of Woods and up to 6,000 other African-Americans who were passed over for jobs or promotions with the state of Iowa alleges that they were victims of discrimination.

To continue reading, click here.

Racial Discrimination: Black Employee Fired After Being Called the N-Word

Racial names do not justify slapping customer. A white customer suspected of shoplifting was escorted to a security area for questioning. The customer’s white friend then barged into the area, cursing at the store employees, one of whom was Black. She used the N-word toward the Black store employee, who reacted by slapping the verbally abusive customer in the face.

The police were called and both customers were arrested. The store then fired the employee for having slapped the customer, in violation of its no-violence policy and no-physical-contact-with-customers policy. The fired employee filed a Title VII race-discrimination case, alleging that Kmart was promoting a racially hostile environment and “ratifying hate speech” by firing the victim of harassment. The court ruled against the employee. The customer’s behavior was clearly harassing and improper. However, the store took prompt action to have the police remove the offender. The company had policies on how to deal with customers for these situations and how to raise complaints without escalating a situation. Slapping a customer was against policy and not warranted by a verbal situation. The employee’s escalation to the physical level was unwarranted and justified discharge. Lee v. Kmart Corp. (D. Minn., 2012).  For more on the discrimination and the N-word, read NBA Star John Amaechi: Hate Speech Goes Beyond N- and F-Words.

 To continue reading, click here.

Employment discrimination suit heard in Superior Court

A former employee of the State of Alaska Division of Finance, who claims she was discriminated against, is appealing her case in Juneau Superior Court after her complaint was dismissed.

The 60-something Filipino woman, who declined to be named and who has worked for the division in Juneau for about 25 years, filed a complaint of discrimination against the division, saying it reclassified her position downward in attempt to get her to leave and also passed her over for another job in favor of a younger and less qualified person.

Oral arguments in the case were heard Friday before Judge Philip Pallenberg in Juneau Superior Court, which has the jurisdiction to hear appeals from Alaska Administrative Agencies.

The woman’s attorney Michael P. Nash. told the judge that his client was hired as an accounting clerk in 1984 and worked her way up to an accounting technician. She was tasked with work above her pay grade, such as conducting audits, and, at the urging of her coworkers and a former supervisor, she requested to have her position reclassified to a higher position in 2008.

Nash said that when the state looked into the classification, which determines pay level, the state reclassified her position downward, and the woman was demoted and her salary frozen. She retired early two months later and left in November 2009 to work for the Department of Public Safety.

To continue reading, click here.

5 Reasons to Take Five-Minute Meditation Breaks at Work

1. Meditation increases our memory. A recent study showed that meditating for eight weeks was linked to having a higher density of gray matter, a part of the brain that helps with memory and learning. With all we have to keep in mind during the typical workday, who couldn’t use a little memory boost?

2. Meditation increases our attention span. Having trouble paying concentrating? Try meditating. By practicing keeping your focus on one thing at a time, such as your breath, you improve your ability to pay attention when it really matters, such as during a boring but important meeting.

3. Meditation improves our response to stress and emotion. Studies show that meditation actually changes the way our brain processes emotion, making us more resilient. And that’s not true just during meditation — the effects stay with you long after you’re done. The next time your boss yells at you, it’ll be like water off a duck’s back … well, almost.

4. Meditation gives your brain a true rest. When you take a break from work and go on social media, your brain is reading and analyzing what you’re seeing. This means it never really gets to rest, so when you get back to work you don’t feel refreshed. Meditation allows your brain to rest up so you can perform your best.

5. Meditation improves your cognitive processing. Perhaps because we’re better able to concentrate on what we’re doing and ignore distractions when we’re accustomed to meditating, people who meditate perform better on cognitive tasks. This means you’ll write better reports, come up with better responses in meetings, and do better on just about any project that comes your way.

 To continue reading, click here.

Tips in Proper Etiquette When Sending Email Within the Company

Try to utilize appropriate greetings. For business emails, respectful greeting should be used to be able to send across the emotion you are purporting in the mail. A simple ‘good morning’, ‘good afternoon’ or ‘good day’ will be sufficient to show the respect you have for the other person. Even for the co-worker, these starting and ending greetings should be in place to create that positive vibe. After the letter is composed, say ‘thank you’, ‘respectfully’, ‘best regards’ or other appropriate greeting to end the mail.

Use the right level of formality. As what you are making are business emails, uphold the level of formality that is called for. Address the person you are sending the email with ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ for those with higher positions. Some companies accept being addressed with a simple ‘Mr.’ or ‘Ms.’ before their names. Better ask before sending any electronic mail the right one to use. And do not forget to spell the names correctly as this can be viewed as carelessness on the recipient’s part when names are misspelled. If putting the position of the person, be sure it is the right one.

Check the spelling of all the words. Make sure that all words in the emails are spelled correctly as well. Typos that appear will already come across as emails not to be taken seriously. It may even be something that can turn off the employer for not practicing diligence before sending any email. If you are not sure how a word is spelled ask around from the co-workers or simply search the internet. There are many sources around you to ensure that all the words utilized are exact and accurate.

To continue reading, click here.

Workplace Discrimination: Not Just About Race Anymore

In the last year alone, a court awarded a victim of sexual harassment a record payout ($95 million), the Supreme Court dismissed the biggest civil rights class action suit in U.S. history, and people called discrimination on everything from HIV status to a peanut allergy. The number of workplace discrimination claims concerning race and ethnicity has been increasing along a straight line for the last decade, and total claims grazed a record 100,000 in 2010, the last year for which data is available.

As we observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day, that’s sobering to consider.

“We haven’t achieved anything like the racially just and equal society that MLK envisioned,” says Ralph Richard Banks, a professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in African American issues. But that increase might also be due to more willingness to report incidents, as opposed to shrugging off bigotry, as well more awareness of what amounts to discrimination.

“But at a minimum,” says Derek Avery, a leading scholar in workplace discrimination at the Fox School of Business at Temple University, “those numbers suggest that we’re not heading in the direction that one would anticipate, as we approach 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

To continue reading, click here.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CAUSED BY MENTAL DISORDERS IN THE WORKPLACE

In March 2012 a federal district court held an employer liable fordisability discrimination after it terminated an employee shortly after he had requested a leave of absence to adjust to new medication for bipolar disorder. The court awarded $315,000 to the employee. This case serves as a reminder that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)applies to both mental and physical disabilities.

Under the ADA, an individual has a disability if he/she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual. A “mental impairment” is defined as “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as . . . emotional or mental illness.” Examples of “emotional or mental illness” include major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders (which include panic disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders), schizophrenia and personality disorders.

Similar to employees with physical disabilities, employees with mental impairments are entitled to a reasonable accommodation, which may include changes to workplace policies, procedures or practices; leaves of absence; or physical changes to the workplace. In addition, a supervisor may be required to adjust the way he/she interacts with an employee as a reasonable accommodation. Determining whether an accommodation is reasonable is fact specific. Therefore, it is critical that an employer engage in an interactive process to determine if a reasonable accommodation exists.

To continue reading, click here.

Disabled Discrimination in the Workplace

Employees and job applicants with disabilities are legally entitled to the same rights and consideration that workers without disabilities enjoy. Under federal law, an employer cannot consider a person’s disability when making hiring decisions and cannot treat him differently in the workplace because of it. If the employer does, the employee can take legal action.

Legal Definition of Disabled

The Americans With Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, protects job applicants and employees from workplace discrimination based on disability. The law defines a disability as a permanent or chronic injury or medical condition, such as blindness, hearing impairment or mobility issues such as those requiring the use of a wheelchair. Temporary ailments, such as a broken bone or a short-term illness, aren’t covered by these federal anti-discrimination laws. However, a history of illness, such as cancer now in remission, is covered. The law applies not only to obvious disabilities such as physical impairment, but also to less noticeable conditions such as emotional or mental disabilities, including learning disabilities.

To continue reading, click here.
 

 

How to Recognize Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

Disability discrimination in the workplace is often illegal. Learn how to identify it and hold offenders accountable. September 14, 2012 (24-7PressRelease)– All employers have a duty to provide safe and fair working environments for their employees. Unfortunately, some employers discriminate against disabled workers. All employees should be educated in recognizing when an employer is discriminating against a disabled worker or job applicant and understand how employers can be held responsible for such illegal behavior.


This is the reason that www.AbilityJobsPlus.com was created. To help disabled individuals find employment – without being discriminated against.

Read the complete article.

Disability Discrimination In The Workplace On The Rise

2010 saw a drastic increase in the number of workplace disability discrimination claims. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency received a record 100,000 complaints of disability discrimination in 2010, a 17% increase over the previous year.

The rise in claims was attributed in part to amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that went into effect in 2009. Under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Congress increased the scope of qualifying disabilities to make it easier for individuals to receive protection under the important federal civil rights law. This included overturning a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said available mitigating measures must be considered prior to determining if an individual has a disability.

To continue reading, click here.

Disability Discrimination Information

Discrimination against the disabled or ableism is discrimination action against people based on the physical ability of their body especially against people with disabilities (Definitions of Disability) in favor of people who are not disabled.

An ableist society is said to be one that treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of “normal living”, which results in public and private places and services, education, and social work that are built to serve ‘standard’ people, thereby inherently excluding those with various disabilities.

To continue reading, click here.

ESCO Corporation Portland Oregon: Discrimination in the workplace

Fairness and privacy rights in the workplace are important issues! No one should be treated differently because they don’t have an certain title, work in a certain department, or have a relative in high places. Company policies should be applicable for all employees. Companies should also offer compassion and options when their employees have circumstances that may put their job in jeopardy.

Click here to continue reading

ESCO Corporation discriminates against its employees

Portland, Oregon: On September 5th, 2012, ESCO Corporation told their employees that the company was conducting a “universal” drug screening test and that all employees would have to participate on that day.

1. Universal implies that everyone is under the same policy and rules and should have been included in the procedure. Many upper management and various other employees were exempt from the procedure and not tested.

2. Privacy rights were broken when the company conducted their screenings in a group setting. This allowed everyone to see who passed or failed as the HR person escorted those who failed away. Employees also had the ability to visually see other employee test samples that were under suspect.

Click here to continue reading

ESCO Corporation chooses employee termination over layoffs, another effect of Obamacare?

How does a company decide the best method of attack when they need to “thin the herd” in these tough times, and where do they point the blame finger at?
Headquartered in Portland, Oregon, ESCO Corporation is a leading manufacturer of high-quality products for mining, construction, wood processing, rock crushing, dredging and other industrial industries. With Obamacare hovering over them, production numbers down, and a major customer pulling out, panic set in and they created a disastrous plan of action.

Click here to continue reading

Fact Sheet: The Wage Gap for Women The Consequences of Workplace Pay Inequity for Women in America

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named after Lilly Ledbetter, left, was a step forward, but it fails to get to the root of the problem. The Paycheck Fairness Act would outlaw workplace policies that make disclosing one’s salary a cause for being fired.

Americans are working hard to pay their bills and take care of their families, yet too many employers make it impossible to juggle those work and family obligations. The danger of losing a job or missing a promotion because of illness, pregnancy, or taking care of loved ones when so many companies are focused solely on the bottom line leaves too many moms and dads having to choose between their jobs and their families.

Click here to continue reading