Treating your workers well now may pay off when the economy recovers

Market economies go through up and down cycles.  While this meltdown has been a particularly brutal one, if history is any indication, the job market should make at least a modest recovery.  There may be evidence of that happening already in the fall monthly national jobs reports.

In the meantime, employers that have attempted to treat their workers well during the recession may reap the rewards in terms of employee loyalty, while those that have regarded the recession as an opportunity to crack down on their workers may pay a price as jobs become more plentiful.

In a wide-ranging Workforce Management blog post titled “The Rueff Truth on ‘Abusive’ Employers and the Talent Flight Ahead,” Ed Frauenheim quotes Rusty Rueff, former HR director for videogame company Electronic Arts, who claims that rounds of layoffs at some firms have helped to create an “abusive” employer-employee relationship.  Rueff labels some of the management practices during the recession ”callous” and “insensitive” and done to please Wall Street at the cost of individual workers.

Frauenheim further suggests that bad management practices may result in greater attrition as the economy rebounds:

And many workers say they are ready to bolt. Sixty percent of employees intend to leave their firms as the economy improves next year, and an additional 27 percent are networking or have updated their résumés, according to a recent survey of 904 workers in North America by advisory firm Right Management.

Will some firms see a talent flight as the economy recovers?  What job opportunities open up will provide part of the answer.  But the other major factor will be whether their workers felt respected and valued even during the tough times.

Full post from Workforce Management: http://workforce.com/wpmu/globalwork/2009/11/23/rueff-truth_on_abusive_employers/

Shorter papers on workplace bullying, dignity at work, and related topics

I’ve posted some of my short papers that have accompanied various presentations to a site called Academia. There’s a lot of repetition among them in terms of content, especially on talks concerning workplace bullying.  However, some readers may find these papers useful.  Here is what I’ve posted so far:

Imagining the Good Workplace: It Starts with Individual Dignity (New Workplace Institute forum, 2007)

Potential Legal Protections and Liabilities for Workplace Bullying (New Workplace Institute publication, 2007)

Multidisciplinary Responses to Workplace Bullying: Systems, Synergy, and Sweat (International Conference on Workplace Bullying, 2008)

Workplace Bullying and Employment Law (Massachusetts Bar Association, 2009; emphasizes Massachusetts law)

Necessary Remedy: Injecting Therapeutic Jurisprudence into American Employment Law (Congress of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health, 2009)

Is There a “Business Case” for Workplace Bullying Legislation? (Work, Stress, and Health Conference, 2009)

The Role of Labor Unions and Collective Bargaining in Combating Workplace Bullying (Work, Stress, and Health Conference, 2009)

For freely downloadable copies of these papers, go to: http://suffolk.academia.edu/DavidYamada/Papers

Why concentrated power at work is bad

For some time I’ve been meaning to share this neat little piece, “The Power Paradox,” by UC-Berkeley psychologist Dacher Keltner, which appeared in the Winter 2007/08 issue of Greater Good magazine.  It’s about the corrupting influence of power, and it explains a lot of what we see at work. For example:

Perhaps more unsettling is the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths. High-power individuals are more likely to interrupt others, to speak out of turn, and to fail to look at others who are speaking. They are also more likely to tease friends and colleagues in hostile, humiliating fashion. Surveys of organizations find that most rude behaviors—shouting, profanities, bald critiques—emanate from the offices and cubicles of individuals in positions of power.

My own research has found that people with power tend to behave like patients who have damaged their brain’s orbitofrontal lobes (the region of the frontal lobes right behind the eye sockets), a condition that seems to cause overly impulsive and insensitive behavior. Thus the experience of power might be thought of as having someone open up your skull and take out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and socially-appropriate behavior.

Many of the magazine’s articles are freely accessible online.  A lot of good material there! 

Link to full article: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/2007winter/keltner.html

From Work, Stress, and Health 2009: New Voices, Old(er) Voices, and Inclusion

Readers, please forgive me for repeated posts about the just concluded Work, Stress, and Health conference in San Juan, but it really was a remarkable learning event for anyone interested in psychologically healthier workplaces.  I will be blogging about more of the presentations in the weeks to come, because the topics and discussions were so compelling.  For now, here are some final thoughts on the gathering:

New Voices

One of the best things about the conference was the presence of many young and new faces, as participants and attendees alike.  For example, in the realm of workplace bullying and incivility, I attended a terrific panel on incivility research.  In addition to presentations and comments from professors Olga Clark (U. Hartford), Kathi Miner-Rubino (Texas A&M), and Julian Barling (Queen’s U., Canada), the panel featured presentations by two doctoral students.

Ben Walsh (U. Connecticut) co-chaired the panel with advisor Vicki Magley.  He also presented a paper they co-authored on how workgroup climate for civility impacts workgroup performance.  Tara Reich (U. Manitoba, Canada) presented a paper co-authored with advisor Sandy Hershcovis that analyzes Web-posted comments to a piece about workplace bullying by Tara Parker-Pope in the New York Times.

Current graduate students doing work on bullying and incivility are jumping in at a great time.  There already is a body of research available to them, which means they don’t have to invent the wheel.  But there are plenty of interesting, compelling questions that need answering, and they can be at the forefront of this work. 

To request the paper on workgroup civility climates, contact Ben Walsh at: benjamin.walsh@uconn.edu.

To request the paper on the New York Times Web comments, contact Tara Reich at: umreich@cc.umanitoba.ca.

And here’s a link to the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/health/25well.html.

Old(er) Voices: A Community of Tumbleweeds

This conference also serves as a periodic reunion of researchers and educators who are interested in workplace bullying and related topics.  We are becoming a community of tumbleweeds, blowing together and apart for these conferences and gatherings, and forging warm associations in the process.  These people are valued members of my professional cohort, and friends to boot.  Individually and collectively, they have taught me a ton over the years we have worked together.

Among the recidivist presenters on workplace bullying were long-time comrades in arms Gary & Ruth Namie (Workplace Bullying Institute), Suzy Fox (Loyola-Chicago), Joel Neuman (SUNY-New Paltz), Kathy Rospenda (U. Illinois-Chicago), and Paula Grubb (NIOSH).  On one panel I was on, we were joined by Sabir Giga (U. Bradford, U.K.), who flew across the pond to deliver an excellent paper on employer costs of bullying.

Kudos to APA, NIOSH, and SOHP

The American Psychological Association, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Society for Occupational Health Psychology are the primary sponsors of the conference, joined by the host institution, which this year was the University of Puerto Rico.  In addition to thanking UPR for being such a warm host, let me extend my appreciation to the sponsoring organizations for assembling such an inclusive gathering.

Although many of the speakers are psychologists of one stripe or another, the conference is welcoming of presentations from folks with backgrounds in labor, management, HR, medicine — and even a few legal types! — from all over the world.  It makes for a wonderful learning environment.

From Work, Stress, and Health 2009: Is there a “business case” for workplace bullying legislation?

During one of today’s sessions at the 2009 Work, Stress, and Health conference, I presented a short paper titled Is There a “Business Case” for Workplace Bullying Legislation?  I offered four basic propositions:

1.  From an employer’s standpoint, there is a strong business case for taking workplace bullying seriously as an employment relations problem.  Mounting evidence indicates that workplace bullying results in reduced productivity and employee loyalty, increased absenteeism and related costs, increased attrition and related costs, and greater risk of employee lawsuits even in the absence of a workplace bullying law.

2.  From an employer’s standpoint, workplace bullying legislation creates undesirable liability exposure.  Enactment of bullying legislation would indeed increase employer costs for defending and preventing lawsuits.

3.  Nevertheless, absent significant liability exposure, few employers take workplace bullying seriously.  Few employers voluntarily provide enforceable protections against bullying to their employees.  In the 2007 Workplace Bullying Institute/Zogby public opinion survey on workplace bullying, respondents reported that when employers were made aware of alleged bullying behaviors, 62 percent either ignored the problem or made it worse.

In addition, recent history is rife with examples of how employers have been complicit in blatant, brazen worker mistreatment in the absence of liability exposure: Racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation for whistle blowing are but a few examples.

4.  Advocates for legal reform must build a civil rights case positing that workplace bullying is a malicious violation of human dignity that denies people a right to earn a living free of psychological abuse.  Workplace bullying threatens mental health, physical health, personal and family relationships, careers, and livelihoods.  No other such common and destructive form of worker mistreatment so escapes the protective reach of modern American employment law.

The Healthy Workplace Bill, model anti-bullying legislation that I authored, provides severely bullied employees with a legal claim for malicious harm. It also provides incentives for employers to act preventively and responsively toward workplace bullying and includes provisions that preclude or discourage frivolous litigation.

To get involved in efforts to enact the Healthy Workplace Bill, go to: http://workplacebullyinglaw.org/.

From Work, Stress, and Health 2009: Steven Greenhouse on Stressors at Work

I’m attending and participating in the 8th Work, Stress, and Health Conference, held this year in San Juan, Puerto Rico.  The conference kicked off today with a keynote address by Steven Greenhouse, New York Times labor and work reporter and author of The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker (2008).

Greenhouse identified a cluster of reasons why the American workplace is becoming more stressed out:

• Wage stagnation;
• Lack of health insurance coverage;
• More hours at work (at least until the meltdown);
• Computers and technology in the workplace;
• Constant demands to increase productivity and profits;
• Downsizing and reduced job security;
• Short-term, performance-based job compensation;
• More self-funding of retirement;
• Globalization of labor markets;
• Increased income inequality;
• Greater use of temporary workers and independent contractors who are not provided with job security or benefits;
• Greater use of vulnerable immigrant workers, especially undocumented workers;
• Reduced enforcement of labor protections, such as wage laws and workplace safety regulations; and,
• Weakening of labor unions.

Although he was running out of time, he also identified a cluster of “big-picture” responses to get us back on track toward less stressed-out workers and workplaces:

• Reduce unemployment;
• Increase enforcement of labor protections;
• Ease the unionization process;
• Provide universal health care coverage;
• Rebuild retirement security measures; and,
• “Revalorize” workers by restoring their importance and dignity.

Whereas many keynote addresses are meant to be uplifting and inspirational, this was sobering and specific, sprinkled with disturbing facts, figures, and stories drawn from his book.  It was a reminder — especially to those of us in the U.S. — of just how much work we have to do to create healthier workplaces.

(My recent law review article, “Human Dignity and American Employment Law,” echoes many of these themes and cites Greenhouse’s book with approval.  For a pdf copy, free of charge: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299176.)

November’s Work, Stress, and Health Conference: A tipping point for workplace bullying research?

One of the best gatherings to learn about the latest research on psychological health in the workplace is the biennial “Work, Stress, and Health” Conference co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Society for Occupational Health Psychology.  It is an international, multidisciplinary conference featuring the work of practitioners and scholars, and it makes for a rich mix of knowledge and exchange.

This year’s conference, “Global Concerns and Approaches,” will be held on Nov. 5-8 in San Juan, and it is hosted and co-sponsored by the University of Puerto Rico.  The early registration deadline is October 10.

Typically, the WSH conference has featured a couple of panels expressly devoted to workplace bullying, but this year’s program features five panels:

Workplace Bullying in Hospital Settings (Symposium)
Workplace Aggression: Bullying and Aggression in the Workplace (Paper Panel Session)
Case Studies in Workplace Bullying (Symposium)
Workplace Bullying: From Research to Activism (Roundtable Discussion)
Workplace Bullying Issues (Paper Panel Session)

In addition, titles of other panels use terms such as workplace incivility, aggression, harassment, violence, and mistreatment, all of which are likely to be of interesting to those examining workplace bullying.

It’s enough to make me wonder if we’re reaching a saturation level!  But for now I’ll gratefully accept the abundance as sign that we’re reaching a good tipping point in terms of the mainstreaming of workplace bullying as an employment relations concern.

Conference website: http://www.apa.org/pi/work/wsh.html

Boston’s Hyatt Hotels: Not Much Hospitality Toward Their Own Workers

On ongoing labor story here in Boston underscores why jobs and employment must remain one of our highest political, economic, and policy priorities.  It involves three Hyatt hotels whose management abruptly terminated some 100 housekeeping workers after having them train replacement workers from a Georgia-based contracting company.  The workers claim they were deceived into thinking they were training vacation fill-ins.

As reported last week in the Boston Globe:

When the housekeepers at the three Hyatt hotels in the Boston area were asked to train some new workers, they said they were told the trainees would be filling in during vacations.

On Aug. 31, staffers learned the full story: None of them would be making the beds and cleaning the showers any longer. All of them were losing their jobs. The trainees, it turns out, were employees of a Georgia company, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, who were replacing them that day.

Labor advocates and elected officials have responded with dismay and outrage, and with good reason.  Hyatt employees with 20 years service were making a modest wage of a little over $13/hour plus benefits, which based on a full-time work week adds up to annual earnings of around $26,000.  Their replacements will earn about $8/hour, which leads to annual earnings of around $17,000.  Hyatt, in effect, has eliminated 100 jobs that pay barely a living wage and replaced them with jobs that pay less than subsistence wages in an expensive metro area like Boston.

In response to the growing firestorm, the Hyatt Corporation said that it is setting up a task force to help the terminated workers find employment and extending their health benefits to the end of the year.  This strikes me as being too little, too late, and a shallow attempt to look better in the public eye.

Contracting has become a common form of replacing full-time employees, and at times, economic necessity may require changes in staffing arrangements.  But one has to wonder about the social responsibility and ethics of a major corporation that deems loyal 20-year employees earning $26,000 “too expensive.”  And if the allegations about deceiving their workers into training their replacements are true, then we can only wonder if they have any decency.

On a broader scale, this disturbing situation raises at least three questions that are front and center when we consider jobs and employment:

1.  How can we create an economy that delivers a living wage for all who work to support themselves and their families?

2.  The Hyatt workers were not unionized.  How can we encourage unionization as one path toward safeguarding America’s workers from this type of sudden, devastating job loss?

3.  How can we ensure a viable safety net of health care benefits, transitional income replacement, and placement assistance for those who have lost their jobs?

[Friday a.m., Sept. 25 update -- I am out of town right now and can provide only a brief update, but this situation is becoming a symbol for workers and the labor movement.  Boston's taxi drivers union has announced a boycott of the city's Hyatt hotels unless they rehire the terminated housekeepers.  As the comment from my brother Jeff indicates, this has led to labor protests in Chicago as well.  The Hyatt Corporation has reiterated its commitment to treating workers fairly and has denied deceiving the housekeepers who lost their jobs.  Here's a link to the Boston Globe's coverage of the story:  http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/09/hyatt_protests.html.]

[Friday p.m., Sept. 25 update -- This story keeps developing.  According to the Boston Globe:

Hyatt Hotels Inc. responded today to public outcry and calls for a boycott of the hotel chain, saying it would offer housekeepers it fired new jobs through an outside staffing agency or retraining programs.

Company officials said the 98 housekeepers -- who were fired last month and replaced by employees of a staffing agency -- would be offered jobs in the Boston area through United Service Companies -- an outsourcing firm -- at other hotels in the city. Hyatt does not plan to rehire them to work at its own hotels, it said.

It's still not a good situation for the workers who lost their jobs.  Although the details are unsettled, it appears they will have no guarantees of continued employment at their current pay rates -- which weren't very high to begin with -- beyond 2010.  This is costing Hyatt money and a ton of bad press, but the workers themselves are still facing uncertainty and disruption in their lives.]

Workplace pioneer: Barack Obama as a modern day Jackie Robinson

I never thought that I would be comparing President Obama to Jackie Robinson, the Hall of Fame baseball player who broke the game’s color line when he joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947.  Throughout that season, and during years that followed, Robinson endured virulent racial taunts from fans, threatening, racist letters, and the cold shoulder from many fellow ballplayers.  He often was a man alone, and it is a mighty testament to his character that he managed to play so well under such pressure.

When Barack Obama was elected President last year, I thought America was largely past the kind of bigotry that confronted Jackie Robinson.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m not one of those who claimed that his election meant that America had become a “post-racial” society.  And I certainly never have believed that we have conquered racial bias.  (After all, I live in Boston, where vestiges of the city’s ugly history on race and exclusion are very much alive and well in our workplaces, communities, and civic life.)

But what has transpired over these past few months has been stunning.  The hatred being directed at this President is unlike anything I’ve seen during my adult life.  And how pathetic it is that opposition to the humanitarian cause of affordable health care for all has become the latest and most prominent vehicle for rallying the haters.  (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, please, please start paying attention to the news.  And I don’t mean FOX News.)

Even as an employment law professor and labor and civil rights advocate, it took me a while to see things this way: Barack Obama is a workplace pioneer.  This is about his experience of work.  This is what he deals with on the job.  Like Jackie Robinson, he has to show up to work every day, while at the same time there are many who dearly hope he will fail because he happens to be black.

This is why so many of us have a stake in the President’s success.  I don’t agree with everything he’s said or done, but especially in view of the extra burdens that have been placed on him, he is doing as well as anyone could do under the circumstances.  I remain delighted that I voted to “hire” this man as our leader, and Election Night 2008 remains one of my happiest moments as a citizen.  Let us hope that our President weathers this storm and succeeds in ways that benefit all of us.

Employment Law as if People Mattered

I’ve posted a pre-publication draft of my forthcoming law review article, “Employment Law as if People Mattered: Bringing Therapeutic Jurisprudence into the Workplace,” which will appear in a symposium issue on therapeutic jurisprudence in the Florida Coastal Law Review.  Here’s the abstract:

During the past 20 years, scholars and practitioners drawn to therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) have produced a substantial body of work, with mental health law, criminal law, family law, and legal education being focal points for examination under a TJ lens.  Employment law, however, has been conspicuously underrepresented in TJ-inspired scholarly and law practice literature.  This essay is built on the premise that employment law scholars and lawyers, as well as the public at large, would benefit by applying a TJ perspective to the law of the workplace, and it suggests some framing concepts drawn from psychology and related disciplines to guide future research, analysis, and practice.  It also applies these ideas to the challenges of representing employees and employers, using workplace bullying as a specific scenario for discussion.

This isn’t for everyone!  It’s a law review article, short as these things go, but still a solid 23 single-spaced pages.  That said, if you’re interested in how employment law theory and practice might incorporate ideas from psychology, here are some core ideas that should be part of that conversation.

Here’s the link to the pdf: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1462406