Women for Equal Employment

Palin's "experience": health care in Alaska

proud2Bliberal — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:51:53 EDT

Palin made no mention of health care during her entire speech. She wants to be judged based on her experience, so let's look at it. According to the Kaiser health care system's website, statehealthfacts.org, 17% of Alaskans do not have health insurance. 9% of children do not health insurance. 20% of nonelderly women and 25% of nonelderly men are uninsured. And 61% of the white nonelderly are uninsured. The nonunsured population also includes 72% of families with at least 1 person employed full time.

Sign Petition Employee Late-Employer Shall Not Fire Banner.

Michael Tiffany — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:44:26 EST

Reduce carbon emissions now with telecommuting and flextime

proud2Bliberal — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:45:01 EST

According to the recent reports that have come out of the UN and other scientific bodies, we do not have time to wait for the development and commericalization of new technology. However, there are things we can do now to help the environment.
The main thing we can do immediately is to institute telecommuting and flexible hours. Without any new R&D, our society can reduce the emissions due to people idling in gridlock traffic. Many people could shift their hours to drive after the rush hour. Also, many jobs can be done at home, or can be apportioned so that a person can work at home one or two days per week. This does not cost any money. It will save everyone money on gasoline and highway wear and tear. What is needed is a change in attitudes.

Presidential Candidates on the Employee Free Choice Act Banners.

Michael Tiffany — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:43:45 EST

Presidential candidates on the Employee Free Choice Act.

What does Obama really mean on Social Security?

proud2Bliberal — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:37:19 EST

What did Obama really mean at the Iowa dinner when he spoke of the need to tell the truth about Social Security? Is he really hinting at a more Republican position? The main obstacle to the Social Security fund is age discrimination. When employers lie and say that they have to compete for "talent," rather than hiring American workers over 45 who have excellent skills and qualifications, the Social Security fund becomes depleted. People between 50 and 65 should be in their golden years, earining their highest levels in leadership positions and contributing to the retirement fund. In jobs not requiring physical labor, there are many workers who desire to continue even beyhond the age of 65. There are people going to school in their 50s and desiring to start a new career. However, age discrimination is rampant. Women with Ph.D.s in physics or architecture degrees or M.B.A.s have no choice except substitute teaching. There are many people who want to work and who would prefer to delay taking out Social Security benefits, but they do not have that choice. So I would like to know exactly what Obama has in mind. Is he implying the easy way out, asking people to accept a cut in coverage, or is he willing to fight the battle in favor of American workers and lead a restructuring of the way work is allocated to people? The age of the welfare queen is over. What we have no is a massive number of unemployed people ages 50-65 who could be productive, but instead are waiting out the years until Social Security and Medicare start.

Middle aged women unable to find full time work

proud2Bliberal — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:29:10 EDT

The Oct. 21 Sacramento Bee cited a study by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, author of Off Ramps and On Ramps, which concluded that 93 percent of highly qualified, educated women want to go back to work after raising children. Of these, 75% actually find a job and only 40% return to full time work.
Our society is educating women, but not utilizing their skills. If employment discrimination against women and older workers is not stopped, we will have a generation of women going into old age in poverty in need of social services from the government. The government has two choices: stop discrimination and put women to work in the fields they are educated in or have a massive poverty problem on its hands.

Take Back the Debates and Stop the Circus

proud2Bliberal — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:20:59 EDT

It is time for we the people to take ownership of our party's debates. We have got to get Gravel out of there. Hillary has to put an end to the pink and yellow suits and dress like a professional business person. (Women do not go to work as teachers, nurse practitioners, etc. every day wearing those garish pink and yellow suits, so stop it Hillary! and start presenting a professional image.) We have got to get Kucinich to stop putting down the other candidates. If Biden wants to be taken seriously as a President he has got to stop swaggering and stand up straight like a leader. Richardson needs to memirize his lines. Edwards needs to stop attacking Hillary's jacket on TV. The candidates have to start challenging the CNN announcers and stop letting them control things. The candidates need to stick to the issues and to present themselves with the best decorum. There have to be ground rules that keep some candidates from being excluded. There has to be some basic decorum or we will lose in November. The Democrats are right on the issues. The candidates are failing in the area of presentation. To win the elections, moderate Republicans and independents will have to switch sides and vote Democratic. This means attracting administrative assistants, HR managers, accountants, store owners. That means that the debates have to demonstrate at the very least the demeanor that is expected by the average working person at a school, hospital or company every day. If this doesn't happen, the Democrats will lose in 2008. Giuliani is a disaster in foreign policy but he knows how to present himself.

Edwards Campaign's Retrogressive Position on Sick Time

proud2Bliberal — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:53:50 EDT

Today's e-mail from the Edwards campaign announced one of his initiaives against poverty: seven paid days of sick time! How can that possibly be considered a progressive position? Will employers offering more than that reduce their offers because the publicized John Edwards position is that 7 days is o.k.? If Edwards is elected and institutes 7 days minimum paid sick time, will banks then feel it's o.k. to reduce the amount of sick time they offer to bank tellers? We need a labor agenda that is in touch with reality, and let's ask unions such as the transit workers or the trash collectors in Manhattan what that reality is. I think the Democratic Party needs some labor union advice on employee benefits.

Employees oust bully CEO as candidates flunk on labor

proud2Bliberal — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:03:23 EDT

While all of the candidates are failing to address the issues that face average working people every day, especially those without college degrees, working people are standing up for themselves, even if they don't have a union. Earlier this month I learned that the women and Hispanics of Los Alamos labs in remote Los Alamos, New Mexico, are settling a class action pay inequity dispute. This week, in another company in New Mexico, the employees successfully organized mutiny against a bully CEO. The company had hired a new CEO whose management style consisted of bullying and intimidtion. He had hired a COO who was installing computers to monitor the amount of work output by each person. A new VP of sales came in and he was a sympathetic, people-oriented manager. It all came to a head when the CEO chewed out the sales manager in front of other people. There was a mutiny and the sales VP took over with all people directly reporting to him. Everyday the working people of America are experiencing deteriorating working conditions, such as bullying, computer monitoring of the output of factory workers, data processing, postal and customer service personnel, and psychological tests that generate which people to hire. This is all in addition to a body of labor law that is the result of anti-labor lobbying and that is all stacked against the average working person. I hope that the candidates will start connecting to the concerns of the average person and not follow the laissez faire politicies of Reagan. Not only do people need jobs. People need to be treated as human beings in their jobs.

Bush, Merkel and Republican attacks on women

proud2Bliberal — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:28:05 EDT

Yesterday the BBC website posted a photo of Bush and Merkel. The upper arm of Bush appeared to be either leaning on her breast or very close to her breast. Bush was demonstrably not keeping a professional distance between a man and a woman and between two prime ministers. It was almost as if Bush was encouraging men to fail to recognize and respect women as leaders. This type of attitude was also demonstrated in the vicious attacks on former US Attorney Carol Lam by Gonzales and others who tried to associate her name with "performance" issues. Similarly, the Republicans have taken swipes at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans are encouraing white males to treat highly accomplished women as targets to take potshots at. This attitude filters down into the corporation as manifested in salary discrimination and the glass ceiling.

Signs of Workplace Bullying from Workplace Bullying Institute

proud2Bliberal — Tue, 29 May 2007 10:10:25 EDT

Source: Workplace Bullying Institute 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces

I am forwarding it to this list to show what working Americans are concerned about in our daily lives and to alert people to the need for drastic changes in employment law to protect employees from abuse. Our current system of the Ronald Reagan "laissez faire" workplace is not working.

May 22, 2007
25 Top Workplace Bully Tactics
Workplace bullies use many methods to intimidate their targets. Based on studies of toxic workplaces, the Workplace Bullying Institute has identified 25 of the Top Workplace Bully Tactics employed by workplace bullies.
1. Falsely accused someone of "errors" not actually made (71 percent).
2. Stared, glared, was nonverbally intimidating and was clearly showing hostility (68 percent).
3. Discounted the person's thoughts or feelings ("oh, that's silly") in meetings (64 percent).
4. Used the "silent treatment" to "ice out" and separate from others (64 percent).
5. Exhibited presumably uncontrollable mood swings in front of the group (61 percent).
6. Made up own rules on the fly that even she/he did not follow (61 percent).
7. Disregarded satisfactory or exemplary quality of completed work despite evidence (58 percent).
8. Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for the target (57 percent).
9. Started, or failed to stop, destructive rumors or gossip about the person (56 percent).
10. Encouraged people to turn against the person being tormented (55 percent).
11. Singled out and isolated one person from coworkers, either socially or physically (54 percent).
12. Publicly displayed "gross," undignified, but not illegal, behavior (53 percent).
13. Yelled, screamed, threw tantrums in front of others to humiliate a person (53 percent).
14. Stole credit for work done by others (47 percent).
15. Abused the evaluation process by lying about the person's performance (46 percent).
16. Declared target "insubordinate" for failing to follow arbitrary commands (46 percent).
17. Used confidential information about a person to humiliate privately or publicly (45 percent).
18. Retaliated against the person after a complaint was filed (45 percent).
19. Made verbal put-downs/insults based on gender, race, accent or language, disability (44 percent).
20. Assigned undesirable work as punishment (44 percent).
21. Created unrealistic demands (workload, deadlines, duties) for person singled out (44 percent).
22. Launched a baseless campaign to oust the person; effort not stopped by the employer (43 percent).
23. Encouraged the person to quit or transfer rather than to face more mistreatment (43 percent).
24. Sabotaged the person's contribution to a team goal and reward (41 percent).
25. Ensured failure of person's project by not performing required tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators (40 percent)

Debates: Democrats need to be stronger on jobs

proud2Bliberal — Fri, 04 May 2007 17:43:15 EDT

Iraq is not the only issue in this campaign! We have issues at home too.
I watched the Democratic debate and the Republican debate, and it bothers me a great deal that the candidate who spoke out the most for American workers was a Republican, Mike Huckabee:
"The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who, for 20 and 30 years, have worked to make a company rich, and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else. And the worker not only loses his job, but he loses his pension. That's criminal. It's wrong. And if Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008."
He called jobs "the most important thing" a president needs to work on.
I know that Democratic candidates have spoken on such issues, but this statement was the most up front.
Democrats should not allow the Republicans to take the issue of jobs away from the Democrats. Heather Wilson did it to Patricia Madrid in the Albuquerque Congressional debate, and now Huckabee is doing the same thing. The Democrats need to connect to what is going on with the American work force ages 45 and older. We have to stop the increasing issuance of H1 visasa that displace Americans from our jobs and we have to stop the flow of jobs, such as R&D and manufacturing, out of the US.

The American Worker and Gonzalez' Testimony

proud2Bliberal — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:44:47 EDT

In his April 19 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzalez communicated his view of the specific events of the US Attorney firings. But beneath the surface details there was a subtext, the way in which his comments revealed his view of the workplace and how workers should be managed.

When asked how the removal of a US Attorney would affect the prosecution of ongoing cases, Gonzalez replied that the institution is designed to support change. This indicates a view that work should be designed such that an employer does not depend on any particular person, and that people should be treated as interchangeable parts that can be replaced easily. This view is increasingly common in industry as more and more jobs are defined as temporary positions. One large company built a new office complex in which the idea of an individual office has been abolished. The employees use the tables and chairs on a daily basis, do not store belongings or decorations at work, and keep their work-related papers in a shared file area.

When asked about one of the US Attorneys, Gonzalez stated that â??We had to send someone out to mediate a personnel disputeâ?? and that the US Attorney â??was not in control of the office.â?? This comments implies the view that a manager is responsible for suppressing dissent or employee dissatisfaction and that his job is to keep complaints from rising to higher levels. This is not a picture of a workplace in which employees have access to an appeals process and in which higher level managers are willing to listen to the average workerâ??s concerns.

The US Attorney Cummings was released because the management simply wanted another individual in that job. This is an extreme view of â??at willâ?? employment in which an employer fires a worker just because he wants someone else in the job. The average working person, under this value system, could be fired because a friend of the boss wanted a job or because a younger applicant appeared at the door. The same value system shows through Gonzalezâ?? comment that one of the attorneys was no longer the right person at the right time. In other words, Gonzalez is stating that an employee does not have to be viewed as having job security. The employer can let go of a worker at whim and that oneâ??s job is defined to last only during the right time.

The constant pairing of Carol Lamâ??s name with the word â??performanceâ?? was a portrayal of the way male members of management can subvert the careers of talented professional women, particular those of ethnicity, by means of aspersions. It was as if the male management played an arrogant game with her career.

Gonzalez expressed the cavalier attitude that the process was nowhere as rigorous as it ought to have been. In other words, he doesnâ??t take seriously the idea that employees should be protected by standard personnel procedures.

We should be concerned not only about the surface details concerning the US Attorneys, but also about the management philosophies expressed by Gonzalez and how they seem to validate the most egregious violations of jobs security and respect for working people.

Hold Educ. and Labor Hearings on Women and Jobs

proud2Bliberal — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:52:07 EDT

Now that the Democratic Party holds the majority in the House and can hold hearings, one of the topics requiring investigatioin is the economic status of women. As a working woman, I have written to the House Education and Labor Commitee requesting that it hold hearings on the unemployment and underemployment of women with education. Gender and age discrimination are making it impossible for many older women to work in the fields of their education. This primarily affects science and engineering, but it also affects economics, business and other occupations. The movement by conservatives to eliminate women from non-traditionally female occupations will cause older women to go into old age without having had the opportunity to save. The choice is to put a stop to age and gender discrimination or deal with people not paying what they expected into the Social Security fund, taking benefits at an earlier age and requiring other government-paid social services. Laissez-faire economics with no regulation of hiring is driving older women into poverty. Employers are making false claims that they cannot find qualified employees. They are simply refusing to consider women for responsible positions, particularly older women. This is a public policy issue and the government needs to make it possible for women to have jobs in the areas of their education. A great deal of government money has been spent on financial aid, and now that educations have been paid for, this resource should not be thrown away just because the person with the education is female and over 45. Women have become educated with the expectation of financial independence and the ability to earn a professional salary. Discrimination and the fierce opposition of conservatives have caused this to be denied. 50 percent of women over 50 are unmarried and therefore do not have a support system. Women need to have economic self-sufficiency. Discrimination and the glass ceiling must not be allowed to prevent this.

Stock market drop

proud2Bliberal — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:19:12 EDT

The stock market drop yesterday occurred because of a high incidence of foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market. With 25% of all jobs lasting less than 1 year (source: NY Times Business Section) and with one million people per year affected by extended mass layoff events (Bureau of Labor statistics web site), the loss of the worker's ability to make steady mortgage payments is predictable. So Corporate America is setting itself for its own stock crashes. They fail to offer long term employment with retraining and then suffer when the stock prices decline. Executives are the only ones who come out ahead. They skim the money as salary. It's the shareholders (e.g., people's pension funds, as well as the employees, who lose.

Laundry List Hiring as a Tool for Discrimination

proud2Bliberal — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:54:28 EST

During the past year in the job market, employers have been posting long lists of detailed qualifications. On the surface, it conveys the impression of trying to find the perfect match for the position. But in practice, the employer has the discretion to waive some of the "requirements." Thus laundry list hiring has become a further tool for employers to continue screening out women, African Americans, Hispanics and older workers. It seems that managers at the middle levels will go to any trouble to devise strategies to avoid hiring women, minorities and older workers, particularly in specialized, high tech senior positions, rather than acknowledging the talents, skills and contributions such people bring. Yet, aggressively fighting discrimination does not seem to be on the agenda as a major issue. Too many of our leaders are white and upper class and concerned about getting contributions from management-level people. I do not understand why we insisit on enforcement of the tax laws and the immigration laws, but when it comes to discrimination, people seem to act as if non-discrimination is somehow not a law or less of a law.

Forget the Ivies - Send Your Kid to Therapy

proud2Bliberal — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:59:16 EST

The Christmas Season is the time when many people go to local stores to work at temporary jobs. What a surprise to find that most of the chain stores take the applications on the web and require online psychological tests. The job applicant has to waive permission to see the results, so the prospective employer gets to have psychological information about you that you don't have, and you have no way to challenge whether it is true. The job applicants will be ranked by the computer based on the tests. This will give prevent people - the shy, the very sensitive, those who change their minds often - from ever getting a retail job. So if your test result states that your ideal profession is poet or violinist, forget about that job as a sales manager. Some tests ask the same questions several times - will they evaluate someone as less honest for changing one's mind and answering differently the second or third time? Some tests place feeling in opposition to thinking, so if you are rated as emotional, you can be accussed of not making decisions rationally - the idea that thinking and feeling can support each other somehow doesn't occur.

End Workplace Bullying - U.S. vs. Swedish labor law

proud2Bliberal — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 08:55:57 EDT

Putting an end to workplace bullying is the goal of groups and researchers in England and Sweden, and an entry on this subject has prepared in wikipedia by such groups. Research in Sweden determined that 15% of all suicides were the result of workplace bullying. Swedish law holds employers accountable for allowing bullying to exist in the workplace. But what about American law? Many states in the U.S. have "at will" employment, where an employee can be terminated without any reason at all or for very flimsy reasons. American law, then, actually *supports* workplace bullying by giving lower level managers enormous and disproportionate power with no checks and balances to protect employees. Internal, corporate HR offices only put a rubber stamp on the management decision and even try to undermine the employee's confidence and self worth. This is a political issue at a time in the US where 25% of jobs last less than 1 year and where, each month, 7% of all jobs are eliminated with a similar amount created. The instability of the lives of working people in the US is a political and public policy issue and workplace bullying is a component of it that affects economic stability and the health care. Some advocates in the US have tried to introduce anti-workplace-bullying laws, but one must examine these laws very critically. One proposed law restricts damages to $25,000, i.e. an employer's heyday. Any laws proposed or passed have to have real teeth in them.

The "teamwork" frame and employment discrimination

proud2Bliberal — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:30:26 EDT

The framing competition must be won in the workplace for ordinary people as well in the area of electoral politics.

Corporatations today use a "teamwork" frame to characterize the workplace. The image of the baseball team is brought to mind, with each player having a role and everyone cooperating. On the surface this sounds innocent and benign. But under the surface this framing is used in subtle ways to fight off legitimate claims of discrimination in the workplace.

(1) The ignoring and concealment of a woman's accomplishments and abilities is an important component in workplace discrimination against women. Women will often be assigned to roles that are unequal and below the level of their ability and potential. If they complain about their role, then they conflict with the teamwork frame: the right fielder wants to be the first baseman and a statement is being made about individual needs rather than the needs of the group. This is how the teamwork model, while innocent on the surface, is actually a skillfully constructed means of maintaining the status quo of discrimination and of keeping women from claiming the equality that is rightfully theirs.

(2) Although the corporate workplace professes to operate under the ethos of "teamwork," the reward systems it operates are highly individual. In the forced choice performance review system, managers are forced to place half of their employees in the lower ranking bins. This is institutionalized favoritism. If all work is to be accomplished by the group, with "paired programming" (as described in a recent issue of the Communications of the ACM) operating - work done by two people working together all of the time), then the employee cannot accumulate a discernable track record of accomplishments. Promotions and salary are then based on whatever the manager wishes to say, rather than on an objective record of the employee's accomplishments. Credit for completion of a task goes to whomever the manager wants to credit, not to the person who did the work. Although corporations claim to be operating under capitalism, individualism is being squashed here and communism is what is really operating, dictatorship plus the elimination of individuality.

Those seeking to overcome and redress prejudice and discrimination in the high technology workplace will find the "teamwork" frame to be an elaborately constructed and insidious obstacle rather than a laudable model.

>250,000 affected by mass layoffs 2Q06

proud2Bliberal — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:46:52 EDT

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics online

An extended mass layoff event is defined as the occurrence of 50 or more workers let go by a single employer and filing unemployment claims that lasted more than 30 days.

1213 non-farm events (non-seasonally adjusted) occurred during 2Q06. The number of people filing the unemployment claims was 251,341 in 2Q06. (If this haopens every quarter, than a million people a year are affected by mass layoffs.)

Recall also the statistic from the NY Times that 25% of all jobs last less than 1 year and that every month 7% of all jobs are eliminated and a roughly equal number created.

Isn't it time for more employee-friendly labor law, an end to the philosophy of a completely unregulated economy, and an end to "at will" employment law that makes employees subject to managers bullying employees at whim? Employees are being treated as chess pieces in the top investors' strategies, not as stable members of a community.