|
Your source for the latest developments in workplace rights and employment law, "Today's Workplace" is the blog (weblog) written by Paula Brantner, former Program Director of Workplace Fairness. In each entry, Paula focuses on legal and political information relevant to employee rights and fairness issues in the workplace.
|
It used to be that one job was enough. If you worked 40 hours a week, you spent the rest of your time with your family and friends, engaged in your community, and were able to have a balanced life. And if you had to work more than 40 hours, you were either paid handsomely for your level of commitment, or at the very least, expected to be loyal to your employer. But it just doesn't work like that anymore -- more and more people are working extra jobs, not because they want to, but out of necessity. But all that moonlighting has consequences that nobody is really talking about.
A recent news article explores the phenomenon of moonlighting, recognizing that
Moonlighting appears to be back in vogue. But it’s not because people want to expand their job horizons and try new careers. It’s because they need money.(See MSNBC.com article.) According to Department of Labor statistics, the number of people with a full-time job plus a second part-time job increased five percent between 2006 and 2007 alone, which is a considerable jump in one year.
Moonlighting was something that people who wanted to make career changes did, but it was always a little surreptitious. Some employers banned the practice entirely, fearing that their employees would help the competition, miss work more often, or be unable to give their all to their primary employer. And some employees just didn't tell their employers, fearing that their employers would mind, even if it didn't technically violate any bans. Rarely did you have a situation where moonlighting was conducted openly, with the employer's blessing.
But times have changed. Employees often can no longer get by on just one salary, whether it's because, as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, "wages are falling, adjusted for inflation," or there aren't enough good jobs that allow people to support themselves and their families. Forget about mobility or career changes -- people have to hang onto the jobs they have, in order to survive. And if something bad happens, like sickness or divorce, workers find they will never catch up on one paycheck.
So moonlighting is proliferating, whether employers (or employees, for that matter) like it or not. Employees are out late at night tending bar, and away from their kids doing homework in the early evenings. This also has a trickle-down effect, in that some lower-paying entry-level jobs are now taken by over-qualified people as a second job, which makes it more difficult for teenagers and workers with less education and skill to find jobs. People don't take vacations, because they can't get away from both jobs at once, and they can't afford to anyway. They're tired, stretched to the max, and on a treadmill they can't step off.
Wages aren't going to increase right away, as we have some pretty serious economic problems happening right now in this country. This means that moonlighting is a phenomenon we're going to have to get used to. Employers are going to have to be realistic about the needs of their employees, and be flexible enough to permit moonlighting. Child care options must expand to include hours outside the standard work day.
While every employee hopes that the need to work a second job won't last for very long, until we start electing politicians and enacting policies that ensure we have good jobs and a sound economy, significant numbers of moonlighting employees are likely to be around for the long haul.
As discussed in a prior post, the Department of Labor has proposed changes to the FMLA in a last-ditch effort to satisfy business interests before there is a change in administrations, which could, depending on who is elected, stall business-friendly changes for a considerable period of time. Here's a look at some of the specific changes proposed.
Limiting a workers’ ability to use their accrued paid leave to cover their unpaid FMLA leave.
Because FMLA leave is unpaid, many workers who otherwise could not afford to take leave rely on the ability to use their paid leave, such as sick leave, vacation leave, and paid time off (PTO). Being unable to afford to take unpaid leave is the most common reason that workers who qualify for and need FMLA leave do not take it. Some workers are already encountering problems utilizing accumulated leave to maintain their family’s financial stability during a time of need, with employers forcing their employees to jump through all the hoops to qualify for FMLA leave, or attempting to impose notice restrictions not required by the FMLA. Employee advocates oppose changes that would make it even more difficult for employees to use accumulated paid leave while simultaneously qualifying for FMLA leave.
Increasing workers’ requirements for providing notice when they need to take leave.
Under the proposed regulations, workers will have less time to provide notice and will be required to provide their employer more information than previously required when requesting leave. Workers who fail to meet these requirements could have their FMLA leave delayed or denied.
The current notice requirements ensure that employees in a situation where their first priority is their own health or a family member’s health can still benefit from FMLA protection. In some situations, it is simply not realistic to expect an employee to provide notice in advance of their absence. The current requirements reflect this reality, while the proposed changes would cause employees with a legitimate FMLA-qualifying need to be denied leave and even face disciplinary action, due to a failure to comply with the notice requirements.
Changing communications provisions which would allow employers to speak directly to workers’ health care providers and allowing them to do so in some circumstances without a release of confidentiality from the worker.
Employers now must follow a two-step process to clarify information that is part of the workers’ FMLA medical certification. Employers first must obtain the employee’s permission to talk to his or her doctor, then must have a medical professional talk directly with the employee’s doctor. The proposed guidelines would allow an employer to contact an employee’s health care provider directly after obtaining permission from the employee. Permission from the employee is not required if the employer is attempting to verify that the employee actually had the doctor fill out the medical certification.
The proposed change that would allow employers without medical training to directly contact an employee’s health care provider is one that provoked significant outrage among workers. In a number of instances, employers have tried to breach the current requirement that communication occur only between medical providers, or have used impermissible means to try to obtain medical information. The proposed changes would further facilitate direct employer contact without permission.
Workers are also very concerned about the consequences of allowing their employers access to sensitive and confidential medical information. Those with mental illnesses and medical conditions which carry a social stigma and/or raise questions about an employee's ability to do the job fear even more difficulty with their employers and coworkers if this provision is altered. Some employees are already using personal leave, rather than attempting to qualify for FMLA leave, in order to prevent their employers from delving into their medical history.
Requiring more frequent medical visits for workers and/or additional medical certifications from their health care providers.
It is already burdensome in some cases for employees to obtain the required medical certification, especially for employees with chronic, lifelong illnesses where the diagnosis and severity do not significantly change from year to year. Increasing the frequency with which employees must visit their doctors and provide medical certification will only make it more costly and burdensome for employees to comply with the requirements to obtain FMLA leave. Instances where a worker's condition doesn't change from year to year, yet the FMLA-required certifications are rejected, are relatively common, as are instances where additional medical visits are already being required, due to a dispute over the language used in the employee’s medical certification.
We live in an era of skyrocketing medical costs, increased co-pays, and a growing number of employees without health insurance. Making employees visit their doctors twice a year, when such visits may not be medically necessary nor logically required, will make it even harder for employees entitled to FMLA leave to actually use it.
Altering current rules about FMLA leave and employers’ attendance policies to count FMLA leave against perfect attendance awards.
This proposed change would penalize employees for FMLA-related absences which are not any fault of their own, and cost employees money in those workplaces which provide a financial incentive for attendance awards. Some are already reporting conflicts with attendance policies when they use approved FMLA leave. However, those employees whose employers follow current law can rest assured their absences will not be used against them.
The comment period has now ended, as of April 11, with thousands of organizations and individual employees submitting comments. Now the ball is in the Department of Labor's court, with the rights of employees hanging in the balance. Will the scale tip to favor employers' interests? It would hardly be a surprise. However, thus far in this Administration, no significant changes have been successful, so it will be interesting to see whether the internal and external forces which have staved off changes over the last several years will be strong enough to prevail before the November election.
[Please note: some of this post was excerpted from comments I prepared on behalf of Working America that were submitted to the Department of Labor. However, any opinions represented in this blog posting are my own, and do not represent Working America, my current employer.]
After over ten years of intensive lobbying, the FMLA was the first bill signed by the Clinton Administration in 1993. It was hailed as a significant advancement for workers, and has been relied upon by many thousands of workers each year since its enactment. Although the leave permitted by the FMLA is unpaid, which means that many workers who would qualify are not able to take it for financial reasons, having the FMLA in place has protected an untold number of jobs where employers otherwise would have fired workers who prioritize their family over their jobs, or who exhaust the sick leave they have been given.
However, the business community has long resisted what they consider some of the more burdensome aspects of administering FMLA leave. Consistently high on their target list has been what is known as "intermittent leave." The 12 consecutive weeks of leave permitted by the FMLA is in some cases not necessary, and indeed not adequate, to protect workers with chronic illnesses or complicated family care needs.
For example, some workers need a high number of doctors' appointments to monitor their condition, while others have ongoing treatments such as chemotherapy or physical therapy. Aside from the time these appointments take during the work day, they are able to work, and quickly exhausting their leave in 12 weeks would leave them unprotected. Therefore, the FMLA currently permits leave to be taken in smaller increments.
Although workers who need intermittent leave have found that provision incredibly helpful in preventing their leave from being quickly exhausted and in preserving their job status over the long haul, the business community has frequently claimed that this provision is the most ripe for abuse by employees. They claim that workers who use intermittent leave make scheduling difficult, and sometimes use the intermittent leave provision to avoid discipline for unscheduled absences. They also claim that it is difficult and burdensome for payroll administrators to track
accurately.
Another area where employers claim difficulty has been in ascertaining from an employee's doctor the nature of the illness that triggers the leave request, and whether it qualifies as a serious health condition. The law currently limits employers from communicating directly with an employee's doctor, to prevent an invasion of the employee's privacy, and also because employers are not medical professionals, and therefore not competent to make diagnostic conclusions based upon the information provided by the patient's doctor. That has not prevented some employers from trying to get information more directly than the law allows, and from pushing to relax the standard that prohibits direct communication.
Over the last several years, pro-worker advocates have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. It has been rumored for a long time that there would be significant changes to the FMLA that would make it less employee-friendly, and tilt the law more in the employer's direction. However, it has taken a long time for changes to be proposed. In December 2007, the Department of Labor, without actually proposing any changes, solicited comments about how the law was working, and received a wide range of comments from employer and employee groups.
Since the intermittent leave and medical privacy provisions were high on the business community's list, many of the comments focused specifically on those provisions. However, after the comments were received, a final report issued in June 2007 reflected the Labor Department's decision not to propose major changes at that time. Employee advocates had dodged a bullet, but not for long.
On February 11, 2008, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Labor published its intentions to make changes to the FMLA, triggering a 60-day comment period ending April 11. As expected, provisions regarding intermittent leave and communication between doctors and employers were on the list of proposed changes. In my next post, I will cover some of the proposed changes in more detail.
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki involved the issue of what, exactly, a worker claiming discrimination must file in order for the filing to be valid. Prior to bringing a federal discrimination lawsuit, a worker is required to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing a lawsuit in court. This process is called "exhaustion," and is designed to ensure that the employer has notice of the claim, and that the EEOC, which specializes in employment discrimination issues, has an opportunity to resolve the claim before a lawsuit is filed.
Typically, when a complainant (the worker filing the discrimination claim) goes to the EEOC, a standard process is followed. The worker first fills out an intake questionnaire (known as Form 283), which details the actions of the employer that the employee believes to be discriminatory. From that document, EEOC personnel generally prepare a document called a "charge," which serves as the formal document that initiates the discrimination complaint. Once the charge is finalized, it is sent to the employer to give notice of the complaint, and the EEOC will initiate conciliation proceedings to try to resolve the case informally. If those fail, the EEOC will investigate the case, and either determine that there is "probable case" to think that discriminatory actions have occurred, or it will issue what is known as a "right-to-sue" letter, which provides the requisite permission to file a lawsuit in court. (For more information about this process, please see the Workplace Fairness web page on filing claims with government agencies.)
Occasionally, this process breaks down, and the completed intake questionnaire doesn't become an official charge from the EEOC's perspective. Perhaps an EEOC employee drops the ball, or there's miscommunication between the agency and the employee, but for whatever reason, the charge isn't finalized. The confused employee may then file a lawsuit, believing that what he or she filed was adequate. Or there may be no choice but to forge ahead, if the employee has missed the deadline to file a claim, which means that there's no time to correct the problem at the EEOC level.
What happened in the Holowecki case was that Patricia Kennedy, a courier for FedEx, filed an intake questionnaire alleging that FedEx had adopted some policies and practices concerning retirement health benefits that discriminated against older workers. The EEOC never issued a charge in her case, did not notify her employer, and made no attempt to conciliate her case. Ms. Kennedy joined 13 other FedEx employees in filing a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and only filed a formal charge once the lawsuit was filed.
Prior to the Holowecki decision, courts had been split about what constitutes an actual charge. Some courts required that a formal charge be filed, reasoning that only a formal charge could meet the legal requirements for exhaustion. Others said the intake questionnaire could be enough -- if the employee believed it was a charge -- while yet others said that the employee's belief didn't matter if the intake questionnaire had the basic information necessary for a charge. (See ScotusWiki Analysis.) The ultimate question, from a worker's perspective, was whether a worker was out of luck when the EEOC messed up, since most of the time, employees going through the EEOC process don't have attorneys and don't know what process the EEOC is supposed to follow.
The Supreme Court's decision recognized this reality, taking into account that employees without attorneys filing claims with the EEOC should, in essence, be given the benefit of the doubt, if there's any question about whether a formal charge was filed. In the 7-2 decision written by Justice Kennedy, the Court made clear that “[t]he system must be accessible to individuals who have no detailed knowledge of the relevant statutory mechanisms and agency processes.” The Court said it was “consistent with the purposes” of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to allow the initial complaint to be submitted on a form that was “easy to complete,” or even as “an informal document, easy to draft.”
Anything less would have meant that workers would be harshly penalized if the EEOC made a mistake, which would compel more workers to get an attorney to file before the EEOC. Given that many workers (especially those still out of work due to the alleged discrimination) can't afford to hire a lawyer at that stage, those most in need would more often be out of luck.
Thankfully, even a Supreme Court that is hardly known for its compassion towards workers recognized the injustice presented by the case, and made the right decision. Having the spotlight on this issue will also hopefully lead to fewer balls being dropped at the EEOC, since the agency received a tongue-lashing at oral argument from Justice Scalia (who ultimately voted against the workers.) (See Law.com article.) Justice Scalia said to the Solicitor General's representative Toby Heytens as soon as he started to argue, "Mr. Heytens, let me tell you going in that my ... main concern in this case, however the decision comes out, is to do something that will require the EEOC to get its act in order, because this is nonsense." (See Oral Argument Transcript at 47.)
Reaction to the decision was favorable in the mainstream media. The New York Times even issued a supportive editorial, stating, "The decision is noteworthy because it suggests that this court could be pulling back from what has often seemed like a knee-jerk inclination to rule for corporations over workers and consumers," and "It is surprising and welcome to see the court apply any sort of permissive standard...." (See New York Times editorial.) FindLaw's Joanna Grossman remarked, "The opinion is quite significant in that it departs both in tone and substance from recent anti-plaintiff rulings in employment discrimination cases. It is thus a welcome sign of at least a modicum of commitment on the Court's part to enforcing the civil rights laws." (See FindLaw article.)
It's sad when a Supreme Court opinion is noteworthy precisely because it doesn't completely eviscerate a worker's case. But that's the reality that employees and their lawyers routinely face in our courts. So it's nice to win one here and there.
In the first decision to be issued, Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn (capably represented on the plaintiff's side by Dennis Egan, Workplace Fairness board member), both sides could actually declare victory, since the case was sent back to the trial court for resolution.
Ellen Mendelsohn had worked for a Sprint subsidiary from 1989 until November 2002, when she was laid off from in a reduction in force, affecting some 15,000 employees. Mendelson was 51 years old at the time of the layoff, and brought a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Sprint responded by claiming Ms. Mendelsohn's weak performance was responsible. When assembling evidence against Sprint, Mr. Egan sought to call five other former employees as witnesses, all of whom were over 40 and were ready to testify that they, too, had been subjected to discrimination, in an attempt to prove that there was a biased culture against older workers at Sprint. Sprint attorneys objected, saying that the other workers worked for different supervisors, and accordingly were not in the same boat as Mendelsohn.
The District Court (the first, trial-level court) ruled in favor of Sprint, determining that only workers who worked for the same supervisor as Mendelsohn would be allowed to testify, which barred Mendelsohn's proposed witnesses. At trial, without hearing from Mendelsohn's witneses, the jury voted in Sprint's favor, finding that Mendelsohn had not been discriminated against.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the initial ruling in a 2-1 decision that compelled district courts to admit the testimony of other workers who claimed to be the victims of the same type of bias, even if they worked for a different employer or work unit. The court reasoned that excluding this evidence would make it much more difficult to prove discrimination using circumstantial evidence. If an employee was the only victim of a layoff under an individual supervisor, he or she would be out of luck, even if the highest echelons demanded the layoffs of all older workers.
Sprint was unhappy with the decision requiring that the evidence be admitted, and appealed the 10th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court. At the oral argument (which I had the privilege of attending), things did not look good for Ms. Mendelsohn and Mr. Egan. As one analysis of the oral argument pointed out, "Mendlesohn's counsel [had his work] cut out for him given the way the argument seems to be proceeding," and went on to predict a 5-4 decision in Sprint's favor. Mr. Egan was aggressively questioned as to whether admitting this evidence would lead to "mini-trials" over whether the evidence offered about other employees was true, which could, in Justice Breyer's words, "muck up quite a lot of trials." (See Oral Argument Transcript at page 46.)
When the decision was issued on February 27, it was a 9-0 decision in favor of Sprint. How then, you ask, can this be a decision in favor of workers? Bear with me. Remember, the trial court said the evidence from the other workers couldn't be admitted, and the appellate court said it must be admitted? The Supreme Court unanimously said, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, that both lower courts were wrong -- that the evidence didn't have to be admitted, and didn't have to be excluded, but that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
As the analysis cited above said, "plaintiff attorneys may be happy if the case just establishes that there isn’t an absolute bar to this type of evidence..." And that's what happened. As pointed out by plaintiff's counsel Egan, "Sprint and the business community had urged the court to say this evidence is never admissible, and the court said no to that." (See Los Angeles Times article.)
The Court said whether the evidence should be admitted "depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case." Since the District Court judge hadn't explained her ruling in the two-sentence order she issued rejecting the evidence, the case was sent back to her for a more substantive ruling. While it isn't clear whether Ms. Mendelsohn will ultimately prevail, at least now there's a chance for her to demonstrate a connection between the "me too" evidence and her own case. As the New York Times remarked, "Now it is up to the district court to better explain why it ruled as it did originally on the admissibility or non-admissibility of the other workers’ testimony in Ms. Mendelsohn’s case." (See New York Times article.)
Given that at least two of the witnesses had known Ms. Mendelsohn for years (see Kansas City Star article) and the District Court may be very cautious after being overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, there's hope for Ms. Mendelsohn, and for other plaintiffs who want to introduce similar "me too" evidence of a discriminatory culture. There are just some days when just getting a shot at proving your case and not getting thrown out of court is a victory, and this is one of them.
In my next blog post, I'll talk about another worker victory.For those who don't know me, I'm more than a casual panda fan. I volunteer at the National Zoo here in Washington, DC, as an interpreter on the Asia Trail, which means that I talk to Zoo visitors about the exhibit's seven species and engage them in the Zoo's conservation and educational mission (although of course, anything I say here should not be attributed to the Zoo or representative of its opinion on anything.) I also have built a website, Pandapoly: All Pandas. All the Time, which is designed to educate and entertain anyone who cares about giant pandas.
So I was most excited when I learned a few days prior to the game that there would be a Super Bowl ad featuring pandas. (See Animation Magazine article.) I learned that it would run in the third quarter, so made sure I was still watching. (Luckily, this Super Bowl turned out to be an exciting game, and close throughout, so there was no chance of me tuning out before then anyway.)
I'm also a reasonably avid NFL fan -- and a fan of Super Bowl advertising. Those who have followed Workplace Fairness' work for a while may remember the report we issued two years ago prior to the Super Bowl: Third and Long: Will Super Bowl Advertisers Make the Big Play for Workplace Fairness? I wrote the report, and it was one of my favorite projects of my professional career, combining my interest in sports, popular culture, and workplace issues. So reviewing the ads was right down my alley.
Here's the ad:
So what do you think? Is it offensive? funny? memorable?
Enough people were offended by Ling Ling's Chinese accent that SalesGenie was forced to pull the ad shortly after it aired during the Super Bowl. Vin Gupta, head of SalesGenie's parent company, issued an apology, saying,
(See New York Times article.)We never thought anyone would be offended. The pandas are Chinese. They don’t speak German. [I]f I offended anybody, believe me, I apologize.
Just by reading the comments following the Times article, it's clear there's a wide diversity of opinion, between Asians and non-Asians, and between people who thought it was harmless vs. those who thought it was extremely racist. There's obviously no right answer -- everyone brings a different perspective to the discussion, but here are a few thoughts:
- Of course the pandas are going to have a Chinese accent -- all pandas originate in China. As Gupta said, they don't speak German.
- Is the problem that not all the pandas had a Chinese accent? Or that the pandas spoke in accented broken English? Certainly, their accents did not present any communication barrier -- it was possible to understand what they were saying.
- There are a number of people who speak with accents and/or do not speak gramatically perfect English. When I recently went to Spain, a server made fun of my companion's poor Spanish accent and demanded he speak in English. Was that insensitive? Or simply a fact? (He did speak Spanish with the accent of a white male from Virginia.)
- Was Gupta planning to run a controversial ad just to create even more buzz, or did he really think no one would be offended by the ad he personally created? (He is half-Indian, half-Jewish, and says that people often make fun of his accent.)
- How worked up should we get about a commercial? An animated one, to boot? It's not like actual people, even actors, were set up to be treated stereotypically. Or actual people were insulted, like in the Don Imus situation.
It's too bad that it takes a Super Bowl ad to provoke such conversations about race, language, and culture. It's also too bad that there have been so many instances of people having their manner of speaking ridiculed that such a high level of sensitivity has developed around any use of accented English. And it's really too bad the pandas won't be stars for a little while longer.
Hillary Clinton:
Marcia Heroux Pounds uses Hillary Clinton's candidacy as a reason to examine the persistence of stereotypes against women leaders. Women who back Sen. Clinton's candidacy decry what they see as the inherent sexism in which some of the criticisms of her candidacy are rooted. According to Evelyn Murphy, a Clinton backer who is former lieutenant governor in Massachusetts and author of Getting Even: Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men — And What to Do About It:
Biases and stereotypes are there. Here's a woman who is clearly more experienced, more substantive in policies than her opponents, but is now being abandoned by her previous supporters.(See Sun-Sentinel article.) Will having Sen. Clinton elected as president change anything? Yes, says Margaret Heffernan, author of How She Does It:
A woman as president would be 'empowering and inspiring, both for women in the corporate world and their daughters. It changes the game in itself. It means there will be future female candidates. Once you've seen someone in that position, you can see others.'(See Sun-Sentinel article.)
Barack Obama:
Career columnist Penelope Trunk explains (sort of, anyway) how Barack Obama's discussion of generational issues in politics has its corollary in the workplace.
He's very tactful as he disses the boomers. He makes it clear that he's a bridge builder, respectful of the fact that everyone has a place in history. And he is, above all, someone with empathy for diverse backgrounds. These are all the same kinds of skills we need in the workplace today.(See The Hook article.) While the article seems at times a flimsy excuse to either promote Sen. Obama's candidacy or talk about Trunk's own life experiences, certainly whoever is elected as president will set a tone for our national discourse that will undoubtedly spill over into other aspects of life, including the workplace. Whether the generational implications will be as strong as Trunk describes them, either now or if Sen. Obama is elected, is another matter.
John McCain:
While there haven't been too many articles yet linking John McCain to the workplace, there have started to crop up articles questioning Sen. McCain's expertise on economic issues. While the economy seems primed to be a major issue in this election, Sen. McCain said this while campaigning in New Hampshire: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book." (See CBS News article.) Although McCain has now tried to distance himself from that comment, it's not the first time the issue has come up.
In a 2005 Wall Street Journal interview, McCain said, "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." (See Wall Street Journal article.)
If McCain is elected President, I think that education could happen quite quickly, but some might expect more in advance of his election than reading a Greenspan book or two.
Contrast Between the Parties:
The deceptively-named Center for Equal Opportunity already has its president and general counsel, Roger Clegg, issuing doomsday predictions about what's at stake if a Democratic nominee is elected:
Now that the excitement of Super Tuesday has passed, we should remember the kinds of policies and principles at stake. Exhibit A: three pieces of legislation pending in Congress that would dramatically increase the liability of private companies for alleged acts of employment discrimination. The first would resurrect the discredited idea of "comparable worth." The second would add various sexual orientations to the classifications protected from employment discrimination. The third is a plaintiffs' bar wish list, aimed mostly at overturning cases it lost in the Supreme Court.(See Wall Street Journal article.) While these three measures can be considered priorities for Democratic members of Congress, and almost certainly will get more significant consideration from a Democratic president than a Republican one, their passage is by no means certain, even with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress. There is certainly a contrast between the parties, and while both sides hope their favorite measures will receive due consideration if their candidates are elected, it would be surprising if employment issues are at the top of anyone's list, except perhaps for the Supreme Court, which does seem to be accepting an increased number of employment-related cases these days. (See HR Executive Magazine article.)
Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart?
No, Wal-Mart isn't running for president. But you wouldn't know it from this article in the New York Times: Wal-Mart: The New Washington.
The nation’s largest private employer sure sounds like it’s running for president these days.
It’s making sweeping commitments to reduce America’s energy use and improve its health care system. It’s obsessively polling voters, boasting of a higher favorability rating than Congress. It’s even touting an “economic stimulus plan for American shoppers” in the form of steep price cuts made last week. (Four 12-packs of Pepsi? $10.)
That last one may be slightly tongue in cheek — even discount retailers have a sense of humor — but the bigger message is not: after years of running afoul of the United States government on labor and environmental issues, Wal-Mart now aspires to be like the government, bursting through political logjams and offering big-picture solutions to intractable problems.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather vote for any of the candidates than to leave it to Wal-Mart to solve our societal problems -- given how many problems they've caused in the first place. So even though you'd probably prefer to tune out at this point -- keep paying attention to what the candidates are saying, and listen for how they plan to solve workplace issues. Because chances are, you'll be working for the next four years, and the president's views will matter.
