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

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.

Beware the (Health Care Hating) Mob

Reasonable people can and do disagree on the right way to provide quality, affordable health care for all in America.  But I am stunned, absolutely stunned, by the orchestrated mob scenes to shout down and intimidate those who favor a comprehensive health care plan, being launched at town hall meetings hosted by public officials who are seeking public feedback.

As Paul Krugman writes in today’s New York Times, the mobs are supported by well-funded special interest groups that oppose health care reform:

Yes, well-heeled interest groups are helping to organize the town hall mobs. Key organizers include two Astroturf (fake grass-roots) organizations: FreedomWorks, run by the former House majority leader Dick Armey, and a new organization called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights.

The latter group, by the way, is run by Rick Scott, the former head of Columbia/HCA, a for-profit hospital chain. Mr. Scott was forced out of that job amid a fraud investigation; the company eventually pleaded guilty to charges of overbilling state and federal health plans, paying $1.7 billion — yes, that’s “billion” — in fines. You can’t make this stuff up.

This snippet from a strategy memo on how to disrupt and take over a town hall meeting hosted by a member of Congress provides a glimpse of the behind-the-scenes organizing:

You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation. Watch for an opp0rtunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses — call him on it, yell back and have someone else follow-up with a shout-out. Don’t carry on and make a scene – just short intermittent shout outs. The purpose is to make him uneasy early on and set the tone for the hall as clearly informal, and free-wheeling.

In all fairness, our history teaches us that mob actions are not limited to the far right.  In this case, however, what we have is an orchestrated campaign to ensure that health care reform never happens, employing thuggish, bullying tactics that would get many of us disciplined or fired if we used them at work.

As Krugman notes, this is a far cry from a more idyllic America imagined by Norman Rockwell:

There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.

(Italics mine……)

For Krugman’s “The Town Hall Mob”: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html

For the “Town Hall Action Memo” (pdf file): http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf.

Are You a Marathoner or a Sprinter?

Are you a “marathoner” or a “sprinter”?

If, like me, you are not an avid runner, not to worry. This question refers to life and career achievements, not exercise regimens. It was inspired by an article in the alumni magazine of Walden University, a non-traditional, distance learning university that markets itself to adult students:

According to David W. Galenson, professor of economics at the University of Chicago, when it comes to expressing genius, there are “sprinters” and then there are “marathoners.” In his book Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), Galenson describes two types of innovators (or geniuses), that is, those “whose work changes the practices of their successors.”

Those in the first group are what he calls “conceptual innovators,” people who burst onto the scene with an important contribution early in their careers or at a fairly young age—wunderkinds like Picasso, Orson Welles, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sylvia Plath, and Mozart. In the second group are the “experimental innovators” whose “greatest successes are the result of long periods of gradual improvement of their skills and accumulation of expertise.” These are the people who, while they may be successful throughout their careers, generally make their greatest contributions when they’re older.

The occasion of turning 50 this month has caught me in one of those reflective states of mind, which I’m told is a common affliction of this particular birthday. (I’ve also dug out the old polyester leisure suit, bought a Ferrari, and arranged to go bungee jumping. NOT.) But seriously folks, I’ve been thinking a lot about my generation, that group of tail end Baby Boomers who grew up in between the 60s folks and Generation X. (One reader of this blog informed me that we have been labeled “Generation Jones,” a moniker that doesn’t quite work for me!)

In any event, I believe that my generation, at least collectively speaking, is still seeking to find its place in this world. We appear to have more marathoners than sprinters among us, which means that maybe, just maybe, we’re finally poised to make our signature contributions to the world around us. Let’s hope that these contributions will be informed by our own successes as well as mistakes, and those of generations preceding us.

Let’s also hope that there’s plenty of gas left in our tanks to seek out and make those contributions. I’ve realized that hitting 50 leads to some conflicting thoughts: You still feel “young” (whatever the heck that means), but you start thinking about what to do with the years you have left, and you also realize that retirement could beckon in another 15-20 years. (That’s assuming we can afford to retire, a topic for umpteen other posts.)  It leads you to ask those “big picture” questions, such as “What’s the meaning of life?”  (For some fun answers, check out Louise Lewis’s book, No Experts Needed: The Meaning of Life According to You!, at http://www.noexpertsneeded.com/.)

Which leads me to wonder: Will my generation innovate, create, nurture, and build with the many good years we have left?  Or will we simply play out the season and then hang it up?  Our choice, but I think it’s an easy one.  Heaven knows this world needs whatever good stuff we can bring to it.

For “The Continuing Pursuit of Genius”: http://alumnimag.waldenu.edu/24688_24733.htm

Video on the International Labour Organization

Here’s a quick little scrapbook-style video, “The ILO and the Quest for Social Justice,” recognizing the 90th anniversary of the International Labour Organisation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnN1eejMtVk.

The International Labour Organisation is a transnational agency, with representatives from employers, trade unions, and governments, that has been affiliated with the United Nations since 1946.  The ILO has three primary functions: (1) promulgating labor standards dealing with the health and welfare of workers; (2) providing technical assistance to member nations on employment and industrial relations matters; and (3) conducting research and publishing studies on labor and employment issues.  Most UN members, including the United States, belong to the ILO.

The ILO was one of the first transnational bodies to recognize workplace bullying.  In a 2000 report on violence at work, it observed that workplace bullying is behavior that “by itself may be relatively minor but which cumulatively can become a very serious form of violence.”

For the ILO’s website: http://www.ilo.org/global/lang–en/index.htm

NWI’s “Eightfold Path” to a Psychologically Healthy Workplace

[Note: The eight questions posed here are slightly revised from "What's a Psychologically Healthy Workplace?," which appeared in January: http://newworkplace.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/whats-a-psychologically-healthy-workplace/.]

Drawing on relational-cultural theory, organizational justice, and therapeutic jurisprudence, the New Workplace Institute suggests asking these eight questions to determine whether or not a workplace is psychologically healthy, productive, and socially responsible towards its own workers:

1. Is there a sense of zest, “buzz,” and opportunity in the workplace?
2. Do employees feel they are valued and treated with respect and dignity?
3. Is the organizational culture friendly, inclusive, and supportive?
4. Is organizational decision making fair, transparent, and evenhanded?
5. Are diversities of all types welcomed and accepted?
6. Does the organization face tough questions concerning employee relations?
7. Are allegations of mistreatment of employees handled fairly and honestly, even when the alleged wrongdoers are in positions of power?
8. Are compensation and reward systems fair and transparent?

For more about relational-cultural theory and practice, go to the website of the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute at Wellesley College: http://www.wellesley.edu/JBMTI/.  In addition, Christina Robb, This Changes Everything: The Relational Revolution in Psychology (2006) tells the fascinating story behind the development of relational psychological theory.

Faulhaber on Work vs. Family

Thomas Faulhaber, founder and editor of The Business Forum, discusses the conflicts between work responsibilities and family obligations in a nice little essay.  He concludes that emerging businesses may be in a better position to balance these competing, valid priorities:

The emerging company is often better able to accommodate these discordant family and business demands. It can implement and maintain more flexible policies, respond to special situations and family crises with personal sensitivity and compassion, and foster a healthy corporate culture. Public policy continues to promote family formation. The emerging company is positioned to meet these newly-perceived conflicts between the old and the new in innovative and uniquely human ways.

For Faulhaber’s “Job Responsibilities vs. Family Obligations”: http://www.businessforum.com/jobfamily.html

Talking about Workplace Bullying: The Value of Different Perspectives

One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned during the 10 years I’ve been talking and writing about workplace bullying is the importance of incorporating different perspectives.  Academicians sometimes refer to this as being “multidisciplinary,” i.e., reaching out to scholars in other fields of study, but in this context it’s much more than that.

Case in point: Yesterday I participated in a program on workplace bullying sponsored by the Massachusetts Bar Association.  My introductory remarks about workplace bullying and the law were followed by the heart of the program, a short series of hypothetical role-plays in which attendees were asked to consider responses to bullying scenarios from the standpoints of lawyers, HR directors, and other individuals.

Because the program attracted not only employment lawyers, but also an array of HR professionals, union officers, employee assistance counselors, and dispute resolution specialists, the discussion was especially lively, informed, and diverse in viewpoints.  The give and take was spirited but respectful, and people learned from one another.  Boston employment lawyer Dave Wilson skillfully moderated the discussion, with Mary Rowe (MIT ombudsperson), Lydia Cummings (Harvard ombudsperson), and yours truly helping to facilitate the dialogue and adding relevant points of information.

When “attendees” become “participants” and add their experience and expertise, the result can be a powerfully educative event.  That certainly was the case here.  It also gave me some ideas for planning programs for the New Workplace Institute.

Are younger workers facing discrimination?

As the difficult economy pits older workers against younger workers in securing and keeping jobs, age discrimination law appears to be giving the elders the upper hand, even if they cost employers more in pay and benefits.  Dana Mattioli reports in the Wall Street Journal:

Age discrimination in the workplace has long been a concern for the 55-and-older set. In this downturn, however, younger workers may have as much to fear as their more-mature colleagues.

Employees in their 20s and 30s are finding themselves more at risk of a layoff, according to labor lawyers, as employers look to avoid age-discrimination lawsuits by adopting a “last one in, first one out” policy and turn to tenure as a means of conducting layoffs. In some cases, young, childless professionals say they feel they’re being targeted in layoffs, while employees who have families to support are given special consideration.

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers 40 and older from employment discrimination.  Younger workers enjoy no such protections.  It’s my belief that this scenario is one of many that will highlight looming generational conflicts over limited resources in the years and decades to come.

Full Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124270050325833327.html