This post is reprinted from our newsletter "HR Update" which is available by complimentary subscription. Send an e-mail with your name, title and company to info@hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Though the history-making presidential election is, well, history, lessons remain about who voted for Barack Obama — and why.
Hospitality industry employees were a friendly constituency, it turns out. In fact the people who make up a huge portion of our industry — minorities, women, people under 30 — voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Impressive statistics, these: Young voters favored Obama by a margin of 68% to McCain’s 30%. Latinos, 67%. Women, 55%. African-Americans, 96%.
Why the lopsided victory? Exit polls showed that Obama prevailed not merely as a youthful, vigorous alternative to McCain. Instead it was Obama’s message — “hope”, “we can do better”, “McCain is another Bush” — that truly resonated with voters, and even inspired them.
Far from denying that possibility, many can easily recall how inspired they were by a young John F. Kennedy. In his time Franklin Roosevelt so lifted the electorate they asked him back again — and again. More recently, there was the immediate and powerful effect of President Bush’s speech atop the New York City fire truck right after 9/11.
If it’s true that Obama’s message — and not just voter dissatisfaction with President Bush —was the major factor in his victory, we ignore our employees’ passion for the new president at our own peril. On the other hand the specter of misguided legislation emerging in the next Congress — we hear a lot about the Employee Free Choice Act, for example — is a genuine cause for concern.
So, what do we do now? Stage a pre-emptive attack on Congress’s new spending initiatives? Speak with a united voice, saying our industry will not accept new or expanded entitlements or wrong-headed “free choice” legislation? It’s likely we will do a fair amount of that.
How will these attacks on President Obama’s ideas resonate with our employees? A wholesale condemnation of Obama’s thoughts about “change” could backfire, encouraging employees who believe management is tone deaf to look for work elsewhere or, worse, galvanize their co-workers to promote change. Did someone mention the EFCA?
A more moderate, no less determined approach may alienate far fewer employees and even win allies. While keeping an eye on emerging legislative proposals, employers can earn important goodwill by demonstrating to their employees that their desire for change was heard.
But where to begin? Think demographics: for example, what employer policies might we alter to appeal to the more mobile Generation Y? What benefit programs could we amend, without adding costs, to permit part-timers to have some albeit limited health coverage? How soon could we support more community involvement by everyone on the team? Could we sponsor a modest employee scholarship program?
Engaging and energizing a shrunken workforce during an economic decline unprecedented in recent history is a tall order, even for the best of companies. But if we view this challenge from a different perspective — there’s a new president with a huge cheering section, anxiously awaiting its marching orders — we could harness the power of passion, and profit from it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Harassment Training: A Sham?
Way back in the Dark Ages when the concept of sexual harassment debuted in one after another expensive and embarassing lawsuits employers were forced to take more seriously the notion that where sex is concerned, employees can not always be trusted to do the right thing. Brought out of the shadows by diligent and ever more aggressive litigation sexual harassment not only got a name but more importantly, we learned that in many of these cases trusted managers -- alright, even executives -- were named as defendants.
In the wake of years of such cases, well more than a dozen states passed laws either requiring or encouraging employers to provide some form of anti-harassment training. California, ever the leader in employee-related regulations, adopted AB1825 in 2005, requiring employers of 50 or more to provide regularly scheduled training for newly hired supervisors and current management.
While various people have grumbled, and more than a few in our industry have wondered aloud concerning the efficacy of the training, it seems obvious that at least its key admonitions, taught bi-annually as California's law requires, are likely to be remembered, if not universally adhered to. Equally obvious: training that is regularly reinforced has to help reign in harassing conduct.
Did I say it seems obvious? Not so fast, says one California educator. Using a guest editorial in the Los Angeles Times on November 21, 2008 as his platform UC Irvine professor of molecular biology Alexander McPherson laid out his reasons for refusing the university's repeated entreaties to attend the required training. Calling the program "a disgraceful sham" McPherson, a tenured professor, said he found the training "repugnant and offensive" and added that an unnamed "vocal political/cultural interest group" was responsible "as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with."
As the professor's comments echoed on the West Coast, in the Midwest the echo was draped in irony. Nine days before McPherson's editorial was printed a University of Iowa college music professor, Mark Weiger, was found dead in his garage, a victim of an apparent suicide. His death came a week after a former student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by Weiger when he was her professor. In August another University of Iowa professor, Arthur Miller, also took his own life after being charged with accepting sexual favors from students in return for favorable grades. In the wake of the Miller case the university ordered its professors to sit for training -- on how to avoid sexual harassment.
Whatever we take from these eerily similar tragedies Professor McPherson's insistence that mandated sexual harassment training is a "sham" is an opinion he is free to state. And he could well be right; after all, what the training seeks to impart is really all about simple respect, and common sense. Perhaps an employer's policy statement to that effect might suffice at some workplaces.
Yet somehow I can't shake the feeling that Professor McPherson, who says he's received many letters of support for his position, would set a more enduring example if he were to state publicly that despite his objections to the material being taught, he owes it to his students to do as they do: sit in the chair, listen politely, and at least look interested. Following the training, when the inevitable Q&A session arrives, the professor could articulate his views and, just as in his classroom many would be educated simply by being there to hear opposing views.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
In the wake of years of such cases, well more than a dozen states passed laws either requiring or encouraging employers to provide some form of anti-harassment training. California, ever the leader in employee-related regulations, adopted AB1825 in 2005, requiring employers of 50 or more to provide regularly scheduled training for newly hired supervisors and current management.
While various people have grumbled, and more than a few in our industry have wondered aloud concerning the efficacy of the training, it seems obvious that at least its key admonitions, taught bi-annually as California's law requires, are likely to be remembered, if not universally adhered to. Equally obvious: training that is regularly reinforced has to help reign in harassing conduct.
Did I say it seems obvious? Not so fast, says one California educator. Using a guest editorial in the Los Angeles Times on November 21, 2008 as his platform UC Irvine professor of molecular biology Alexander McPherson laid out his reasons for refusing the university's repeated entreaties to attend the required training. Calling the program "a disgraceful sham" McPherson, a tenured professor, said he found the training "repugnant and offensive" and added that an unnamed "vocal political/cultural interest group" was responsible "as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with."
As the professor's comments echoed on the West Coast, in the Midwest the echo was draped in irony. Nine days before McPherson's editorial was printed a University of Iowa college music professor, Mark Weiger, was found dead in his garage, a victim of an apparent suicide. His death came a week after a former student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by Weiger when he was her professor. In August another University of Iowa professor, Arthur Miller, also took his own life after being charged with accepting sexual favors from students in return for favorable grades. In the wake of the Miller case the university ordered its professors to sit for training -- on how to avoid sexual harassment.
Whatever we take from these eerily similar tragedies Professor McPherson's insistence that mandated sexual harassment training is a "sham" is an opinion he is free to state. And he could well be right; after all, what the training seeks to impart is really all about simple respect, and common sense. Perhaps an employer's policy statement to that effect might suffice at some workplaces.
Yet somehow I can't shake the feeling that Professor McPherson, who says he's received many letters of support for his position, would set a more enduring example if he were to state publicly that despite his objections to the material being taught, he owes it to his students to do as they do: sit in the chair, listen politely, and at least look interested. Following the training, when the inevitable Q&A session arrives, the professor could articulate his views and, just as in his classroom many would be educated simply by being there to hear opposing views.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
