The Forgotten Side Effect of a Troubled Economy - Lower Employee Morale

We recently read a fascinating article on MSNBC.com about the affect of corporate crises on employee morale. We will not recite the article here but certainly encourage you to read it if you are a business owner or find yourself in the management world with employee oversight and responsibility. The article reminds us of a company's most important asset - its employees. We here at The Coles Firm P.C. have highlighted the importance of employees and employee morale before but it never can be discussed too much.

As the article points out, when companies suffer economic, PR, or other crises, it is often the employees that are hardest hit. Unfortunately employees' troubles often are overlooked in favor of the more salacious media tidbits like crooked executives, insider trading, and coverups. What we often do not think about, though, are the front line employees that lose their jobs because the company must shut down or downsize or cut costs as a result of the crisis.

As the article points out, great companies have strong leaders who will focus on the company's employees and address the employees' concerns and fears directly, openly, and honestly. As a manager, you may not always have the answer an employee wants to hear but that does not mean you stick your head in the sand and avoid the issue. A fearful and uninformed employee is not a productive employee.

The amount of books and information about employee morale is staggering. You may feel there is a secret or a method you must use to have happy employees. That is just not true. There is no magic way to make happy employees. It's very simple. Treat your employees like they are your company's best asset. It does not matter how you do that (whether it be incentives, awards, recognition, an understanding of their issues, or a simple thank you). All that matters is that you do it. You will see your productivity increase and your business thrive.

Wal-Mart Takes a Hit on the Legal Front

If you have followed business news in the past week, you may have noticed some major developments in a class-action lawsuit against the world’s largest employer, Wal-Mart. On Monday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 6-5, allowing a class-action lawsuit go to trial in what may potentially be the largest employment discrimination class-action suit ever. The crux of the lawsuit is whether Wal-Mart discriminates against its female employees by paying them less and limiting their opportunities for advancement. While the lawsuit began in 2001 with allegations from six women who worked in 13 of Wal-Mart’s 3,400 stores, the final class of litigants may well include every woman who has worked at Wal-Mart since 2001 – over 1.5 million women. Now that the appeals court has certified the class, Wal-Mart will likely challenge the decision at the Supreme Court. Let us know your thoughts on the potential impact of the 9th Circuit’s decision. Do you support a class-action lawsuit involving 1.5 million plaintiffs (as the plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued) or do you think plaintiffs should individually pursue claims at the specific Wal-Mart locations that employed them (as Wal-Mart has argued)? Is there a middle ground? We welcome your comments below.

UPDATE: Supreme Court Hears Arguments Regarding Workplace Privacy

At the end of last year we asked whether an employee should have an expectation of privacy regarding emails, text messages, etc. that were received and sent on company-owned equipment (previous post). The majority of reader responses favored the employers' right to monitor employees' communication. Luckily we should have an answer to this question from the Supreme Court in June. According to one report, the Justices appear to side with the employer. However, this same report indicated Chief Justice Roberts criticized the employer's decision to look at the text messages. Until June though, we can continue the right of privacy debate.

Coles Corner Winning Wine: April 2010 (Archive)

Lail Vineyards Blueprint 2008 Sauvignon Blanc - Lail's Blueprint Sauvignon Blanc is not the classic herbaceous Sauvignon Blanc. Don't look for over-the-top grassy notes. It offers an earthy nose that suggest a more intense wine, perhaps reminiscent of a Semillon. On the palette this wine has citrus notes combined with a slight hint of carbonation and still honors the Sauvignon Blanc grape and its traditional flavors.

New State Immigration Laws

If you have watched the news this past couple weeks, you are likely well aware of the new immigration law passed in Arizona. This new law, which many proponents and opponents agree is the strictest immigration law in recent generations, requires immigrants to always carry immigration documents or face criminal prosecution. The purported intent of the new law is to identify and detain illegal aliens. Critics, however, fear the new law leads to racial profiling by the police. According to critics, this new law allows police to question any Hispanic-looking person about their citizenship and status. Arizona's immigration law will not go into effect until August or September. In the mean time, however, expect several attacks on the constitutionality of the law, as well as possible Federal government involvement. We will also need to wait and see if other border-states follow Arizona's lead and pass similar immigration enforcement laws.

While we wait for the courts and the Federal government to weigh in on Arizona's new immigration law, what do you think of the new law? If you disagree with the law, do you have any suggestions to deal with Arizona's ever-increasing issues with illegal aliens?

Coles Corner Winning Wine: March 2010 (Archive)

EOS Estate Winery 2005 Cupa Grandis Petite Sirah - If you are a fan of dark fruit and smooth finishes, the 2005 Cupa Grandis will deliver that and more. As a Petite Sirah, this wine provides an unadulterated version aged in French oak. The rich, deep color hints at the complexity of the wine and we enjoyed the multi-layered and structured approach from EOS Estate Winery.

Age Discrimination Claims Increasing...But Also Harder to Prove

Growing up, most of us were taught to respect our elders. Recent trends, however, show that many people may have forgotten how they were raised. A recent online Newsweek article highlighted not only this disturbing trend but also how much more difficult it is for age discrimination victims to prevail.

According to the article, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recorded a seventeen percent (17%) increase in age-discrimination complaints since the current recession began in 2007. The article points out that as the economy suffers, companies usually lay off older workers (i.e. higher wage earners) first. We've often encountered cases like this in our practice - companies can not continue with their current wage costs and often seek to reduce those costs by terminating their highest wage earners. Most times, these high wage earners are the oldest workers. As the article points out, these claims are the easy claims to identify even when wages are used as a proxy for age.

As the article states, the more difficult age discrimination claims to identify and prove are those claims involving the hiring process. Most times, a rejected hire only learns that she or he has not been hired but neither learns the reason nor the identity of the individual who did get hired.

The Newsweek article also pointed out there are professions where age discrimination can be most common. One such area is in the Information Technology field. A recent article in ComputerWorld discussed how the nature of the information technology field itself pushes out elderly workers. The article attributed this push-out to high wages for older workers, the devaluation of experience and skills in favor of longer hours and higher work production, and the desire for laser-like focus on particular projects uninterrupted by "adult responsibilities" like childcare and families.

To make matters worse, all these age discrimination claims now have a much larger hurdle to overcome. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (we previously discussed that decision here). As a result of that decision, individuals claiming age discrimination now must prove that age was the sole (or "but for") cause of the alleged discrimination. As the Newsweek article points out, this is extremely difficult to prove because so many factors can drive an employer's decision.

So what should we take away from all this? When examining cost-cutting measures, employers should be careful that they do not create an age discrimination claim and workers should strive to stay relevant and productive to avoid becoming a "cost saver." In any event, just as in life, we should strive to respect our elders in the workforce. More often than not, experience and wisdom matter.