• print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size
    text

5 Employment Trends to Watch in 2023

Share this post

As we enter 2023, changing employment trends have emerged that are already impacting countless employees and job seekers.  

Here are 5 specific developments that Allison & Taylor Reference & Background Checking anticipates for 2023:

  1. Given a projected tight labor market, employees are in a strong position vis a vis their compensation, benefits, and workplace accommodations.  Those seeking new employment — particularly those with technical skills — are in high demand and likely to remain so for the near term.  Increased opportunities for college graduates in 2023 are projected as well.
  1. While many employers are fostering a “return-to-the-office” mandate, hybrid and remote work are highly valued by countless employees which will ensure their continued presence in the marketplace.  Also likely: the expanded presence of the four-day workweek, benefitting employers and employees alike with lower burnout, reduced absenteeism, and increased sales.
  1. The modern workforce will continue to trend towards freelancing.  The growth of freelancing in recent years has easily exceeded that of the traditional workforce, with approximately half of all working millennials working in some freelance capacity.  Despite the current efforts of some states – notably California – to regulate the “gig” economy, it is estimated that a majority of the U.S. workforce will freelance by 2027.  
  1. Employers are increasing their levels of employee surveillance.  The number of employees who are monitoring their employees’ activities is growing, a function of ever-increasing numbers of employees working remotely or hybrid (and using their computers for both professional and personal use), a concern with employees leaking sensitive company information, and decreasing corporate costs in monitoring technology.  Employers are also watching their workers to avoid sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuits, in large part due to recent high-profile cases that resulted in the termination of well-known corporate executives.
  1. Workplace Abuse Will Continue As An Ongoing Fact of Life.  Previous surveys by the Workplace Bullying Institute (workplacebullying.org) identified approximately 27% of responders as having current or past direct experience with abusive conduct at work, with bosses constituted the majority of bullies. 

While the degree to which this might be mitigated as the result of remote/hybrid employment has yet to be determined, countless employers offer negative reference commentary regarding their former employees, adversely affecting their future employment prospects.  

Fortunately, third party reference checks conducted with former employers can often reveal information that can be utilized for remedial action, such as Cease & Desist letters, or more aggressive legal action.

This blog was contributed to Workplace Fairness by Heidi Allison-Shane. Republished with permission.


Share this post

Corporate Spies Keep An Eye On Organized Labor

Share this post

Google’s computers are spying on its workers.

Anytime a Google employee uses an online calendar to schedule a meeting involving more than 100 co-workers, management gets an alert—a great way for the anti-union corporation to sniff out union organizing efforts.

Lots of other employers also would like to put union organizing campaigns under surveillance. And they’ll have their chance if the National Labor Relations Board gives corporations a free hand to snoop on employees, as two of the board’s right-wing members, John Ring and Marvin Kaplan, evidently want to do.

Ring and Kaplan want to reconsider the longtime ban on labor spying. It’s a sleazy idea, but typical for these two. They’re part of a three-member Republican cabal that’s taken over the board and issued a string of decisions eviscerating workers’ rights and giving ever more power to corporations.

Because of them, for example, employers can change working conditions in the middle of a contract, fire employees for engaging in what was previously considered protected union activity and misclassify employees as contractors, who aren’t protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Allowing corporations to spy on workers would be one more gift the pair could give to employers that are eager to suppress wages and keep workers from organizing.

Surveillance intimidates employees. It can kill organizing efforts. If corporations get the green light to spy on workers, they’ll have an easier time ferreting out organizing campaigns and bullying employees into dropping them.

Unions fight for higher pay and better working conditions. They give workers a voice in the workplace. So corporations desperately want to keep them out. Some even spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on union-busting law firms and human resources consultants to help them.

Federal law prohibits employers from interfering in workers’ organizing rights. Right now, that means it’s illegal for corporations to surveil union activists or even give the impression that they’re snooping.

But some companies spy anyway and invent all sorts of excuses when they get caught doing it.

Google claims that its meeting alert tool is to control email and calendar spam, not labor organizing. But workers accustomed to the company’s anti-union paranoia don’t buy that for a minute.

The employees discovered the calendar tool by accident, and there’s no way for them to remove it from their computers. Google watches its employees all of the time.

The growth of technology and social media has given employers new ways to spy. Walmart, for example, has been accused of monitoring employee discussions on Reddit.

And the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has accused Boeing of using cameras and wireless monitoring devices to track workers who voted to join the union. The company denied keeping tabs on union supporters. But as the union pointed out, there was no other reason for Boeing to spy on these employees but not others who were doing similar work.

If the NLRB were doing its job, it would be giving workers new protections against high-tech surveillance. Instead, as Ring and Kaplan indicated in a case involving the National Captioning Institute, they want to consider taking what little protection workers already have.

The National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians filed an NLRB complaint because the National Captioning Institute fired union supporters and spied on organizing efforts through an employee Facebook site.

An NLRB panel—consisting of Ring, Kaplan and Democrat Lauren McFerran—ruled Oct. 29 that the institute interfered with workers’ organizing rights. The panel ruled the surveillance illegal and ordered the employees reinstated.

But in a footnote to the ruling, Ring and Kaplan said they’d like to revisit the prohibition on spying in a future case—especially spying conducted so clandestinely that workers don’t find out about it during an organizing campaign.

How, they asked, can spying impede workers’ organizing rights if “not a single employee” is aware of it?

That’s like suggesting that a person spied on in a department store dressing room isn’t violated as long as he or she never finds out about the Peeping Tom.

Besides, in 1941, a federal court took up this question and came down firmly against spying. In that case, a vegetable growers association argued that its surveillance of vegetable packers was permissible because there was no evidence that the workers knew about it. And what they didn’t know, the association insisted, couldn’t hurt them.

The NLRB disagreed. And the court backed the NLRB on appeal, writing that “casual examination of the dictionary discloses that a person may be interfered with, restrained or coerced without knowing it.”

The problem is, neither Ring nor Kaplan has shown respect for past decisions benefiting workers.

In June, overturning a 38-year precedent, Ring, Kaplan and Republican board member William J. Emanuel ruled that employers could bar union staff organizers from cafeterias and other “public spaces” in their workplaces. The ruling will make it more difficult for unions to connect with employees who want to organize.

In case after case, the Republican board members have rolled back worker rights.

In January, they delivered a devastating blow to gig workers by ruling that SuperShuttle drivers are independent contractors, not employees entitled to form a union.

And in July, they ruled that a company may withdraw recognition of a union before bargaining for a new contract if it believes that the union has lost the support of at least 50 percent of its members since the last agreement was signed. The employer doesn’t have to prove the union lost support, just gather evidence that it has. If the employer withdraws recognition of the union and the union subsequently wins a new election to represent workers, the employer faces no penalty.

Allowing companies to snoop on organizing campaigns would be the Republican board’s biggest giveaway to employers yet.

If that happens, all workplace laptops and company-issued cell phones could be programmed to inform on the workers who use them. And oftentimes the workers wouldn’t even know they’re being watched.

The NLRB’s job is to protect workers, not let employers think that it’s OK to engage in underhanded behavior as long as they don’t get caught. Ring, Kaplan and the rest of the board have a responsibility to set higher standards, not help employers climb down into the gutter.

This blog was originally published by AFL-CIO on November 20, 2019. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Tom Conway is international president of the United Steelworkers (USW).


Share this post

Employee Bathroom Surveillance Camera, Although Faulty, Could Be Invasion of Privacy

Share this post

Ross_Runkel_aYou can’t think this up: Bathroom surveillance camera.

Koeppel v. Speirs (Iowa 12/23/2011).

Koeppel sued the employer for invasion of privacy and sexual harassment. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed on the sexual harassment claim and reversed on the invasion of privacy claim. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.

The employer placed a camera in the unisex bathroom. The issue of first impression, proof necessary to establish unreasonable intrusion of the invasion-of-privacy tort, required the court to develop a standard for the jury to apply in determining when electronic devices intrude into privacy.

Nationally, courts are divided on whether installation of surveillance equipment in a private place or whether actual viewing and/or recording triggered the intrusion.

The Iowa Supreme Court determined that a standard involving installation was more consistent with the spirit and purpose of the protection of privacy. Because the parties disputed whether the equipment was capable of exposing Koeppel’s activities in the bathroom, the court stated that evidence the camera was capable of operation and had operated in the past from a different location in the office met the standard.

The court concluded, “[a]n electronic invasion occurs under the intrusion on solitude or seclusion component of the tort of invasion of privacy when the plaintiff establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the electronic device or equipment used by a defendant could have invaded privacy in some way.”

This blog originally appeared in LawMemo: First in Employment Law on December 27, 2011. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Ross Runkel is founder of LawMemo, is Professor of Law Emeritus at Willamette University College of Law. He has spent 35 years specializing in employment law, employment discrimination, labor law, and arbitration.


Share this post

Subscribe For Updates

Sign Up:

* indicates required

Recent Posts

Forbes Best of the Web, Summer 2004
A Forbes "Best of the Web" Blog

Archives

  • Tracking image for JustAnswer widget
  • Find an Employment Lawyer

  • Support Workplace Fairness

 
 

Find an Employment Attorney

The Workplace Fairness Attorney Directory features lawyers from across the United States who primarily represent workers in employment cases. Please note that Workplace Fairness does not operate a lawyer referral service and does not provide legal advice, and that Workplace Fairness is not responsible for any advice that you receive from anyone, attorney or non-attorney, you may contact from this site.