The up-and-down economic cycle has many employees still pedaling to work…sick

There are a few inescapable truths these days: 1. Unemployment continues to rise. 2. The flu (particularly H1N1) is on many peoples’ minds. 3. No one, neither employers nor employees, knows what to make of the economic situation. So it makes perfect sense that confusion would be present in the workplace when the question of whether to report to work when sick, or when possibly sick, gets brought up.

Conventional wisdom would suggest the answer to that question is not to come to work sick, but it is just not that simple. The problem is, reports show that unemployment has increased to its highest levels since 1983 (10.2%, according to the BLS), prompting widespread fear of job-loss among employees. While employers—needing staff to come to work—are also saddled with their own fears, as several reports show that the H1N1 virus, and seasonal flu, seems to be sweeping through businesses, schools, families, etc., at a rapid pace, and this could have a very damaging effect on the workplace.

So, when combining all this information, as an employer and employee, you are left in the middle of one big quagmire: With the economy down and people still losing their jobs at break-neck speeds, should employees come to work even when sick?

Certainly, the “stay home versus go to work sick” problem has plagued many offices nationwide as fears associated with the spread of H1N1 continue. In the Baby Boomer generation, and those preceding it, it wasn’t a question of whether you would come to work sick, but rather: Why would you stay home and not come to work sick? In an article in the Chicago Tribune, Tom Gimbel, chief executive of The LaSalle Network, a recruiting and staffing firm, felt that times have changed, saying:

"Since the recession started ... it's been a more heated issue of workers really having to protect their jobs and needing to make sure they're in the office." H1N1 means that "more than ever, employers are saying now, 'If you're sick, don't come in, because it's so contagious.'"

Yet, in times of rising unemployment, can employees really be expected to stay home as the onslaught of sickness begins to creep up on them? According to the 2007 CCH Unscheduled Absence Survey, “34 percent [of employers] foster a culture that discourages employees from coming to work sick.”

Today, that 34 percent is likely higher with fears of H1N1. That fear, coupled with the fact that the cost of presenteeism (when employees come to work in spite of illness) costs employers more annually than the cost of employee absenteeism (2007 SHRM study), seems to make it clear that staying home when sick is the obvious choice. However, in spite of this information, only 34 percent in 2007 said they discourage employees coming to work sick, making it somewhat clear that many employers do not make known their preference that sick employees, or potentially sick employees, stay home.

So, are employers really broadcasting to employees to stay home from work if sick? The simple truth is, with many businesses hurting in today’s economy, the words “stay at home if sick” have probably been uttered less by employers than: our economic problems continue in this bad economy; the company has experienced a continued string of bad financial quarters; layoffs are possible; no bonuses or merit increases this year; and all holiday parties are cancelled.

When things are bad enough that a holiday party has to be cancelled, what employee wants to take that sick day? So, the solution may be communication by both parties, but it starts with the employer, who must recognize the potential threats to workplace productivity and its bottom line from having employees show up to work with flu-like symptoms, and must communicate its policy that sick employees to stay home. In addition, the employer, if need be, should also take a look at its policy of offering paid sick days to employees (see proposed Healthy Families Act bill). Conversely, it then becomes the employee’s responsibility to make use of this policy when sick and stay home, rather then bringing their illness to the workplace.

The problem remains, however, that even with all the knowledge we have about H1N1 and seasonal flu—and the information showing that the cost of coming to work sick is high—the sneezing, coughing, runny-nosed employee is still coming to work, and his or her workmates are still wondering why. The answer seems fairly clear: If you subtract the employees from the equation that do not even get paid sick days off, then you are left with the fear of job-loss for those that have sick days to use, and in today’s economy and its ever-rising unemployment rate, there is simply no pill that can alleviate that fear.

Report notes difference between perception and reality for women leaders in workplace

If so many people believe women are great leaders, why is the number of women leaders so low? Despite being “solidly entrenched” in the workforce, women “have made strikingly little progress in advancing to the boardrooms and the executive suites; in some sectors of the economy, their progress has been stalled for several years,” according to a new report issued today by The White House Project, a New York-based, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.

The report, The White House Project: Benchmarking Women’s Leadership, attempts to “address that contradiction and offer concrete, practical recommendations.” The 132-page report reviews a survey of the “current state of women’s leadership” in ten different fields—academia, business, film and television entertainment, journalism, law, military, nonprofit, politics, religion, and sports. The organization hopes its report will help establish an “understanding of where we are, so that we may know where we need to go.”

2009 has been a great year for women to make news, according to Marie Wilson, president and founder of The White House Project. She points to the enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter bill, the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ announcement that women are on the cusp of overtaking men on payrolls across America as examples. “It seems that in the midst of our economic downturn, and the accompanying state of flux in politics and culture, America has been turning to its women for vision, talent and leadership.” While its good news that Americans are overwhelmingly willing to bring women into leadership roles, Wilson notes that this “comfort level” is “accompanied by the misperception that women are already leading equally alongside their male peers.”

This report, like last month’s The Shriver Report: A Women’s Nation Changes Everything, picks up on the idea of a schism between perception and reality for women in the workplace. Unlike The Shriver Report, which looked at working women in general, The White House Project focused on women and leadership.

The report is divided into sections examining the status of each field and each section features a quote from a prominent woman in that field, including Soledad O’Brien, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sprinkled throughout each section are statistics that are sure to take some readers aback. For instance, under “Business,” the report notes that women have reached the CEO level in only four of the 14 industries covered by the Fortune 500 companies—and even in these four industries, over 95 percent of the CEOs are male. Among Fortune 500 companies in 2009, 3 percent of the CEOs were women. The single exception is the construction industry, where women constitute 9.7 percent of the work force, but 17.6 percent of the corporate officers.

In “Law,” women make up 48 percent of law school graduates and 45 percent of law firm associates but only comprise 18 percent of the general partners and 16 percent of the equity partners in private law firms. “In fact, in the legal sector, the line tracking women’s share of leadership roles follows a straighter downward path as the potential to assume a leadership role rises, than in any other professional sector in this report.”

In the “Nonprofit” sector, women dominate the staffing, comprising nearly 75 percent of the 8.4 million employees in 2005. Despite this, women hold only 45 percent of all CEO positions. That figure falls to 21 percent in organizations with budgets over $25 million.

In addition to the industry examination and analysis, the report suggests implementing six recommendations that have shown to be effective in increasing the progress of women into leadership positions.

The White House Project’s mission is to advance women’s leadership in all communities and sectors—up to the U.S. presidency—by filling the leadership pipeline with a richly diverse, critical mass of women. More information about the organization can be found on its website, http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/.

Survey says: Gender difference can be parlayed into effective company performance

Is ability more important than personality in the workplace? How is conflict dealt with by co-workers? Do employees prefer to work in teams of mostly men or mostly women? These questions were part of a new “Style of the Sexes” survey, commissioned by an independent research agency on behalf of Cisco and Gender IQ, in an attempt to discover how men and women differ in various aspects of their work. While the results indicate that real differences do exist, they posited, organizations that seek to better understand and respect differences in the workplace get the best out of their employees and teams.

Some of their findings:

With regard to the gender makeup of teams, the majority of both men and women (88 per cent) prefer to work in roughly equally mixed teams. However, both men and women preferred working in mostly male teams (21.6 per cent) rather than mainly female teams (8.1 per cent).

Ranking the important aspects of a job, 79 per cent of women indicated that getting training is important, compared with 73 per cent of men, and 75 per cent seeking flexible hours, compared with 69 per cent of the men. The only areas that more men than women find important are chances of promotion and benefits beyond pay. Interestingly, having a role model was least important for both men and women.

How do men and women deal with workplace conflict? According to the survey, women are far more likely to have experienced conflict in the workplace: 55 per cent stated they've faced conflict compared with 46 per cent of men. In a conflict situation, men and women also respond differently: 73 per cent of the men said they would confront the situation face to face, compared with 63 per cent of the women. Women are also more likely to ask for intervention, with 59 per cent likely to talk to their manager and 39 per cent likely to report the situation to HR, compared with 52 per cent and 35 per cent of the men, respectively.

A common perception is that “women have to be better than men to succeed in the workplace.” Forty-five percent of women agreed with this statement while, in contrast, only 26 per cent of the men questioned believe this to be true. The survey also found that more than half of the men (53 per cent) view ability as more important than personality in the workplace, while only 39 per cent of women rate ability in the workplace higher than personality.

So, what are the conclusions of this survey? According to Tracy Carr, CEO, Gender IQ, "the importance of understanding differences is not to say one way is more right than another; it is about widening the acceptable range of leadership styles to create an environment where all men and all women enjoy working together and get better results.”

"While the perception still may be that women have to work harder to succeed,” Carr added, “ the good news is that the study also showed that both men and women prefer to work in mixed teams of equal proportions, so we also instinctively understand the power that both parties bring for team success.”

Dark clouds blotting out Ford's sunshiny forecast

In a classic good news-bad news situation, Ford Motor Company workers overwhelmingly rejected contract changes that would have allowed Ford to cut labor costs in the same week in which the company announced earnings of almost $1 billion in the third quarter of 2009.

Ford sought the deal to bring its labor costs in line with its automotive rivals Chrysler Group and General Motors, both of which won concessions from the union as they headed into bankruptcy protection earlier this year. But Ford's relative comparatively good fortune worked to its disadvantage. Given that Ford avoided bankruptcy, and looking at the projected earnings, the automaker's workers weren't convinced they should make more concessions, essentially saying, "You want sacrifices from us? Show us why."

It's not as though Ford was offering nothing. The company was offering workers a $1,000 bonus if they ratified the contract. But the contract also would have frozen entry-level pay and limited workers' ability to strike.

With UAW President Ron Gettelfinger's previous statement that there wouldn't be another vote if the contract changes failed, the question for Ford now has got to be, where does the company go from here?

Ford could offer a more lucrative incentive bonus package to try to lure in its reluctant workforce. It could diminish the level of concessions that it's asking its workers to make. But the one thing Ford can't do is sit idle. Industry analysts attribute part of the company's earnings to the government's cash-for-clunker program, not something that Ford can rely upon for sustained growth. And should things turn sour for the company, it's highly unlikely that a government bailout would be an option.

One thing seems certain. If the automaker doesn't do something to bring its labor costs in line with its competitors, it's not going to have to worry about how its employees will react to future profit announcements.

Live in California, unemployed, need a discount?

Responding to a very tough economic climate, many California businesses began offering discounts to state employees who had their salaries reduced when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger instituted reduced workweeks back in February of this year.

Several creative offers quickly sprung up: discounted museum admission; ten percent off on “Furlough Fridays” at various restaurants; and discounted resort passes.

Sensing some unfairness toward the private workforce, a San Diego area attorney sent demand letters in July threatening litigation against Sacramento area businesses. These letters claimed that providing discounts to state employees who have suffered reductions in employment is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The attorney demanded statutory and actual damages as well as payment of his attorney fees.

Well, the California legislature responded in kind, passing a bill (S.B. 367) clarifying current law, and establishing that it is not a violation of the Act for a business to provide discounts to groups of people who have suffered a loss or reduction in employment. “Businesses should be able to confer these types of benefits without the fear of provoking litigation,” said Senator Negrete McLeod, the bill’s chief author.

On November 2, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law. An odd law, but one worthy of note.

Will this bill be the first step towards a minimum standard of paid sick leave for employees?

Representative George Miller (D-Cal), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Cal), chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, announced the introduction of emergency temporary legislation November 3, 2009, that would guarantee a maximum of five paid sick days for employees sent home or directed to stay home because their employer believes they have symptoms of a contagious illness, or have been in close contact with an individual who has symptoms of a contagious illness, such as the H1N1 flu virus. The House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing on the legislation, called the Emergency Influenza Containment Act (H.R.3991), the week of November 16. President Obama declared the H1N1 flu a national emergency October 24.

“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn't have to choose between their livelihood, and their coworkers' or customer's health,” said Miller. “This will not only protect employees, but it will save employers money by ensuring that sick employees don't spread infection to co-workers and customers, and will relieve the financial burden on our health system swamped by those suffering from H1N1.”

“To help control the spread of the H1N1 flu virus, workers who are sick should stay at home,” said Woolsey. “This bill will ensure that workers who are directed to stay home by their employers can do so without paying a financial penalty.” It is not clear whether the bill, which has seven cosponsors, is supported by the House leadership or Senate Democrats, according to media reports, but Miller will seek a vote on the bill as soon as possible.

Duration of leave. According to the bill's provisions, the amount of paid sick leave will be calculated based on the employee's regular rate of pay and the number of hours the employee would otherwise be normally scheduled to work. The Secretary of Labor will be tasked with issue guidelines to assist employers in calculating the amount of paid sick leave available to employees under the emergency proposed legislation. After the first workday (or portion thereof) an employee receives paid sick leave under the proposed bill, an employer may require the employee to follow reasonable notice procedures in order to continue receiving the leave.

Among other provisions, the proposed Emergency Influenza Containment Act:

• Guarantees a sick worker up to five paid sick leave days a year if an employer "directs" or "advises" a sick employee to stay home or go home due to a contagious illness. The term "contagious illness" includes influenza-like illnesses such as the novel H1N1 virus.


• Covers both full-time and part-time workers (on a pro-rated basis) in businesses with 15 or more workers. Employers that already provide at least five days' paid sick leave are exempt.


• An employer can end paid sick leave at any time by informing the employee that the employer believes they are well enough to return to work. Employees may continue on unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or other existing sick leave policies.


• Employees who follow their employer's direction to stay home because of contagious illness cannot be fired, disciplined or made subject to retaliation for following directions; employers violating the act would be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act.


• Would take effect 15 days after being signed into law and sunset after two years.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has confirmed that H1N1 influenza is widespread in 48 states, estimating that through July 23, between 1.8 million and 5.7 million cases of pandemic 2009 H1N1 influenza have hit the United States, resulting in 9,000-21,000 hospitalizations. Miller also cited CDC estimates that a sick worker will infect one in ten co-workers. As a result, the CDC and other public health officials have advised employers to be flexible when dealing with sick employees and to develop flexible leave policies that will allow employees to stay home without fear of losing their jobs.

Paid sick leave at the forefront. The H1N1 pandemic has raised the national debate over the necessity of paid sick leave in the United States. As it stands, paid sick leave is available to approximately two-thirds of US workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It is startling to see the leave differential between private and public sector workers. Sixty-one percent of private industry workers receive paid sick leave, yet 89 percent of individuals employed by state and local governments have access to paid sick leave. However, both the private and the public sector have one thing in common, the lowest wage workers are far less likely to receive paid sick leave than the highest paid workers. Just 37 percent in the lowest 25 percent of wage earners receive paid sick leave, while 88 percent of the high wage earners receive paid sick leave.

The District of Columbia, San Francisco and Milwaukee are municipalities that have paid leave programs, but Milwaukee's paid sick leave ordinance was declared unconstitutional. Nationally, the Healthy Families Act (S. 1152/H.R. 2460) would establish a minimum standard of paid sick leave for employees, allowing workers to earn up to seven paid sick days a year. It is currently under consideration in both by the House and Senate.

The Healthy Families Act would allow the paid sick days to be used to care for an employee's own illness or physical or mental condition, to obtain a medical diagnosis, a related treatment, or preventive care, or to care for a family member for any of the above reasons. The provision would also allow employees using the paid sick leave to recover from or seek assistance related to domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault. Workers would accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked in order to earn up to 56 hours or 7 days of paid sick time. Employees would begin to earn paid sick time at the commencement of their employment, but would not be entitled to use the leave until after 60 days. Paid sick leave would carry over from year to year, but may not exceed 56 hours unless the employer permits additional accrual. Employers can require workers to provide documentation supporting any request for leave longer than three consecutive days.

Supreme Court to consider validity of two-member NLRB rulings

The Supreme Court granted cert today in New Process Steel v NLRB to consider whether a two-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board has authority to hear cases and issue orders regarding unfair labor practice charges.

Dozens of Board decisions have been appealed to the federal courts of appeals on the two-member question. Decisions have been split; the current score is 3-1 in favor of Board authority. In New Process Steel, the Seventh Circuit held the plain meaning of the NLRA supported the NLRB’s delegation of authority to a two-member quorum. The First and Second Circuits joined the Seventh Circuit, holding in the Board’s favor, while the District of Columbia Circuit, in Laurel Baye Healthcare v NLRB, ruled the Board did not have statutory authority to act. Additional decisions on the issue are pending in several circuits.

The NLRB has asked the Supreme Court to settle the question. The U.S. Solicitor General filed a petition for cert in Laurel Baye on the Board’s behalf, seeking reversal of the DC Circuit’s holding. The Court instead granted cert in New Process Steel, consolidating Laurel Baye and several other petitions filed on rulings on this issue. The question presented:

“Does the National Labor Relations Board have authority to decide cases with only two sitting members, where 29 U.S.C. § 153(b) provides that `three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board’?”

• Petition for certiorari


• NLRB’s Brief in opposition

The NLRB has been operating with only two members for nearly two years. Rather than cease functioning, Chairman Wilma Liebman, a Democrat, and Member Peter Schaumber, a Republican, have continued to issue decisions in matters on which they can agree. The Board acted on the advice of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which concluded that “if the Board delegated all of its powers to a group of three members, that group could continue to issue decisions and orders as long as a quorum of two members remained.” The Board made such a delegation in December 2007, and since that time Liebman and Schaumber, acting as a quorum, have issued nearly 500 decisions.

A decision from the High Court will bring essential clarification to the issue, the two Board members noted. “We continue to believe that our position is correct, and hope that a decision from the high court will bring some finality to these cases,” said Liebman. Added Schaumber: “It is critical to the agency’s mission that this issue be decided.”

Meanwhile, Liebman is hoping the question will soon cease to matter going forward. Three Board nominees are currently awaiting Senate confirmation. The Senate HELP Committee cleared the nominees last month, approving Democrat Mark Pearce and Republican Brian Hayes in a unanimous voice vote. The more controversial nominee, SEIU associate general counsel Craig Becker, was approved by a 15-8 vote. Liebman said she is “hopeful that they will be confirmed soon and we can resume operations as a five-member Board.” But Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) has placed a hold on Becker’s nomination, delaying a full Senate vote on the slate. That means Liebman and Schaumber will be lonely, overworked, and in legal limbo for a while longer.