Early Spring 2008 Issue Number 97

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

Anger Management

Doesn't it seem like everyone is just a little more angry these days? Whether you're driving on the interstate or waiting in line at the grocery store, impatience and anger with others are more common than ever. The workplace is no exception. Minor annoyances can escalate to major problems, resulting in lost productivity, poor teamwork, increased attrition, and even physical violence.

Everyone has the potential to annoy others at work now and then. Among the annoyances most often mentioned by workers are communications problems, personal violations, and work practice issues. Communications problems may include excessive use of and loud talking on cell phones, inappropriate personal use of telephones and the Internet, deliberate withholding of information, and eavesdropping or gossiping. Personal violations take many forms-- doing personal grooming in public areas (fingernail clipping, flossing, etc.), eating others' food without permission, standing too close when talking, not attending to personal hygiene (breath and body odors), and forcing others to listen to conversation that does not interest them. In the work practices category, rudeness or selfishness is often the complaint: people who drink the last cup of coffee without making more, those who spend half an hour in the bathroom when others are waiting, people who complain or swear excessively, those who seem to be looking out only for themselves.

Annoyance can ratchet up to anger when people perceive rude or selfish behavior as directed at them personally. Bullying, intimidation, harassment-- these behaviors can lead to serious outcomes in the workplace. And the bad behavior of a few can have wide implications, far beyond just the target of the abuse. When intimidation or harassment are tolerated in the workplace, no one feels safe, and the leaders of the organization are held accountable, even if they are not directly aware of the situation.

It will never be possible to create a workplace that is completely free of annoyance, but everyone can take positive steps to resolve problems when they are still small. Clear policies about workplace harassment and professional behavior are a good place to start. Training everyone in basic conflict resolution techniques will make it more likely that individuals will address issues when they first occur, rather than letting them fester over time. Leaders must be held accountable for the behavior of those under their supervision-- the "I didn't know" excuse is not acceptable for someone who is working closely with others on a daily basis. Finally, creating and sustaining an organizational culture that is respectful and inclusive at all levels will go a long way toward preventing minor annoyances from escalating into big problems.

Source: Business and Legal Reports, September 12, 2007

The EEOC has ruled that employers who exclude Medicare-eligible retirees from employer based health benefits are not violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA.) This new rule, which went into effect December 26, 2007, applies only to retirees, not to current employees.

Source: www.eeoc.gov

Separate Teams, Unified Responsibility

If a person is harassed at work, and then moves to a different division (or station, or assignment), does this move mean that any further harassment experienced is now a separate incident as far as time limitations go for filing a complaint? Probably not, according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case concerned a woman named Elizabeth Bright, who worked for Hill's Pet Nutrition. Ms. Bright was hired originally to work on the processing team; she later transferred to the stretch-wrap team. During the course of her three year employment with the company, on both teams, Ms. Bright and other women were subjected to unwelcome sexual overtures, the denial of training, open viewing of pornography by men around them, assignment to the dirtiest jobs (called "women's work" by the men they worked with), language that was demeaning and overtly sexual, and direct threats.

Ms. Bright filed a lawsuit against her employer, attempting to bring into evidence all the acts committed by her co-workers over the three year period. The lower court judge, however, excluded everything outside of the 300 day filing limit. As a result, Ms. Bright lost her case, and thus appealed to the circuit court.

At this level, the decision was reversed. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court had erred in not considering the evidence from Ms. Bright's entire tenure with the company. In making this decision, the circuit court cited National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, which specifically allowed for incidents outside of the 300 day limit to be included in the charge if these incidents can be directly linked to the continuing hostile environment that exists within the 300 day limit.

The court wrote: "Employers may not turn a practice that Morgan deems as unitary into two or more distinct practices by calling each subdivision of the workplace a separate "team." Most employers-- and Hill's Pet Nutrition is no exception-- allow plant managers and human relations departments to control working conditions plant-wide. When a single managerial staff or chain of command decides to permit the men in the workplace to make life miserable for the women, that is a single unlawful practice whether or not a particular woman moves from one team to another within the plant."

Source: Elizabeth A. Bright v. Hill's Pet Nutrition and Colgate-Palmolive Company. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 06-3927

 

© Linda F. Willing, 2007