Have you heard about the woman who is suing her previous employer for wrongful termination because she says they fired her for being too pretty. I've seen her picture and she's no Annette Benning or Catherine Zeta-Jone, so I admit, I may not have all the facts straight, but that's because the situation is so convoluted.
Here's what I know:
She said her managers couldn't keep their minds on their work when she was around.
They said she refused to tone down her provacative dress.
She said "What's wrong with pencil skirts and turtlenecks?" I am not showing cleavage, for crying out loud. (I added that last part)
She said (This is really her quote)"I could have worn a paperbag and it would not have mattered."
I say fire her for being so stuck up. As I said, she's no Catherine Zeta-Jones. But I digress.
There are pictures all over the internet of this woman (Debrahlee Lorenzana) in her regular (she says) business attire, which looks pretty professional to me. Except the photo of her sticking her butt out like Carol Burnett did when dressed up as that dizty secretary charachter, Mrs. Whiggins.
So: was she fired as retaliation for complaining that her bosses couldn't concentrate or for refusing to change her clothes? Is being too pretty a protected category?
At least it is a lawsuit that will be fun to follow. It will have as many layers as a good business suit.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Overheard in a Breakroom Last Week
“I cannot believe that 60% of Americans approve of the Arizona immigration law! It’s unconstitutional.”
“Yeah, well I think it’s about time: the feds aren't doing anything about it.”
“Do you want to pay $1 for an apple?”
“And what about those greedy oil company bastards who sacrificed lives and the environment for a buck?”
Flash back to September 11, 2001 and a break room in an unnamed Home Depot:
“We should send all the Arabs back to where they came from.”
“I hope they round up every ^*#! ‘raghead’ and deport them.”
I was the HR manager in that Home Depot store. Diversity in our store meant that we had one East Indian employee and a few Hispanics: the rest reflected the very Caucasian ethnic makeup of the Conejo Valley. So as employees sat transfixed in the breakroom watching the horrifying TV images that day, all sorts of ethnic slurs could be heard and I didn’t hear one complaint about the coming ethnic profiling. By that afternoon I had planted myself in the break room and as new employees came in I gave them this little talk: “We don't know who did it, keep your prejudices to yourself, let’s just send our positive energy to the rescue workers and survivors.” That tiny redirection of focus made the breakroom and store merely sad, not bigoted, for the rest of the week.
But employers can’t plant themselves in their break rooms all day. Besides, you may agree with what is being said. But guess what, it is not a business issue so it doesn't not belong at work. Nor does a replay of someone’s date the night before, or the latest Sex & the City movie. Race, religion, politics, heck even the weather can be controversial: “We need the rain!” “No, it’s hurting the grapes!”
With elections approaching I am certain other break rooms have had other fiery discussions: this issue comes up at least every four years.
To stop a conversation that is disrespectful or inappropriate in the workplace, one need only say so to the parties doing the talking. Period. Stop it.
But anyone who has raised a child knows that may not be enough. The whole culture of the household needs to support respectful talk about suitable subjects or the lesson will soon be forgotten. Managers need to be told they have the responsibility to enforce the respect rule – whether they want to join in or not. Consistently: they don't get to pick and chose which disrespectful /inappropriate talk they allow to continue and which to shut down.
A good way to defuse an emotional discussion is to step back and turn the conversation on its head: ask yourself or those having the conversation: would I feel the same way if the tables were reversed? How would you feel if California law allowed the questioning of random people to discern if they had broken some other law? If law enforcement could make employers prove they hired only people with the right to work in the United States? Oh wait – that law already exists.
Well, anyway, respect should rule, regardless of the topic.
“Yeah, well I think it’s about time: the feds aren't doing anything about it.”
“Do you want to pay $1 for an apple?”
“And what about those greedy oil company bastards who sacrificed lives and the environment for a buck?”
Flash back to September 11, 2001 and a break room in an unnamed Home Depot:
“We should send all the Arabs back to where they came from.”
“I hope they round up every ^*#! ‘raghead’ and deport them.”
I was the HR manager in that Home Depot store. Diversity in our store meant that we had one East Indian employee and a few Hispanics: the rest reflected the very Caucasian ethnic makeup of the Conejo Valley. So as employees sat transfixed in the breakroom watching the horrifying TV images that day, all sorts of ethnic slurs could be heard and I didn’t hear one complaint about the coming ethnic profiling. By that afternoon I had planted myself in the break room and as new employees came in I gave them this little talk: “We don't know who did it, keep your prejudices to yourself, let’s just send our positive energy to the rescue workers and survivors.” That tiny redirection of focus made the breakroom and store merely sad, not bigoted, for the rest of the week.
But employers can’t plant themselves in their break rooms all day. Besides, you may agree with what is being said. But guess what, it is not a business issue so it doesn't not belong at work. Nor does a replay of someone’s date the night before, or the latest Sex & the City movie. Race, religion, politics, heck even the weather can be controversial: “We need the rain!” “No, it’s hurting the grapes!”
With elections approaching I am certain other break rooms have had other fiery discussions: this issue comes up at least every four years.
To stop a conversation that is disrespectful or inappropriate in the workplace, one need only say so to the parties doing the talking. Period. Stop it.
But anyone who has raised a child knows that may not be enough. The whole culture of the household needs to support respectful talk about suitable subjects or the lesson will soon be forgotten. Managers need to be told they have the responsibility to enforce the respect rule – whether they want to join in or not. Consistently: they don't get to pick and chose which disrespectful /inappropriate talk they allow to continue and which to shut down.
A good way to defuse an emotional discussion is to step back and turn the conversation on its head: ask yourself or those having the conversation: would I feel the same way if the tables were reversed? How would you feel if California law allowed the questioning of random people to discern if they had broken some other law? If law enforcement could make employers prove they hired only people with the right to work in the United States? Oh wait – that law already exists.
Well, anyway, respect should rule, regardless of the topic.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Privacy vs. Business Needs
Random drug testing & other privacy issues in the workplace: finding the balance of privacy and what's best for the business is very difficult and very important. And it mirrors our personal lives, too. Federal wire-tapping without a court order seems to be OK, but not secretly taping your employees to determine who is stealing from the register.
One thing often left out of these arguments is that the delemna affords employers another opportunity to counsel and coach their staff. Or come down hard with discipline and termination. Supervisors and employers are often afraid to discuss with their employees the issues behind behavior.
So the solution may not be in taping or not taping, but in setting clear expectations of what is private and what is company-owned (even behavior). And training your supervisors to have the difficult discussions with their employees as soon as there is a hint of trouble.
For what its worth -- I am not in favor of either wire-tapping or video-taping employees without a court order.
One thing often left out of these arguments is that the delemna affords employers another opportunity to counsel and coach their staff. Or come down hard with discipline and termination. Supervisors and employers are often afraid to discuss with their employees the issues behind behavior.
So the solution may not be in taping or not taping, but in setting clear expectations of what is private and what is company-owned (even behavior). And training your supervisors to have the difficult discussions with their employees as soon as there is a hint of trouble.
For what its worth -- I am not in favor of either wire-tapping or video-taping employees without a court order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)