Friday, July 6, 2012

Anti-Bullying Caucus Launching in Congress

Mr. President, as CEO of the federal government, how will you treat your workers?

For Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), creating an Anti-Bullying Caucus in Congress was more personal than political.

"As a Japanese American born at the height of World War II, I was placed in an internment camp before I could walk or talk," Honda wrote in a statement.

"For many years after the war, I endured confrontations and insults from my peers solely because of my appearance."

Honda launched the bipartisan Anti-Bullying Caucus on Thursday, June 28, 2012 in an attempt to "stop bullying -- both offline and online," according to a release from his office. At least 42 other representatives -- including three House Republicans -- have joined the effort to empower bullied "youth, seniors, religious communities and LGBT-identifying individuals," among others.

Honda, who represents a large portion of Silicon Valley, including Cupertino, made sure the caucus mission statement specifically addressed cyberbullying, since online attacks are a "fierce and urgent component of the issue as a whole," d'Annibale said. The focus on cyberbullying earned the caucus the support of social media giant Facebook.

In fact, more than 30 groups, including Change.org, the Human Rights Council and the AARP, have pledged to support the caucus. The Department of Education also teamed up with the caucus to address the issue.

The anti-bullying movement has garnered national attention this year, and President Barack Obama has endorsed two anti-bullying bills, the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Some good comments from members of the Caucus:

Many of the lawmakers who spoke shared their own experiences with bullying. Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., told the story of her nephew committing suicide after being hazed while serving in the military in Afghanistan.

"What ends up on the battlegrounds often begins on playgrounds," she said.

Rep. Laura Richardson, also a California Democrat, said as a child attending a predominantly African-American school, her mixed heritage left her the target of bullies, who asked why she had freckles, why her hair was lighter than theirs, and why her veins glowed green through her skin when the weather turned cold.

Those who see bullying and don't do anything about it should be punished along with the bullies, Richardson said.

Mike Honda's comments were even more emphatic:

"Today the health, safety, competitiveness and moral fiber of America is threatened by an epidemic that affects more than 13 million children each year. These kids are teased, taunted and physically assaulted by their peers -- reflecting racism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism. This bullying epidemic also spreads far beyond classroom walls to strike countless communities from coast to coast in different social environments. Bullying is particularly acute in the elderly community. It is reported that one in 10 elders in America has experienced mistreatment in the past year. It has also been reported that for every case of elder abuse, neglect, exploitation or self-neglect reported to authorities, five more go unreported.

The caucus seeks to engage and empower each constituency involved in the anti-bullying movement, including but not limited to youth, seniors, religious communities and LGBT-identifying individuals. The purpose is to focus the energy and effort of the movement to forge a path forward to stop bullying -- both offline and online."

Updates on elder financial abuse:

Federal regulators launched an investigation into the financial abuse of the elderly, citing a new report that advisors, planners, family members and others were ripping off seniors more than ever.

Americans over 60 lost at least $2.9 billion in 2010 to financial exploitation — ranging from simple home repair scams to complex insurance swindles. That figure was up 12% from 2008, according to a study released by MetLife Mature Market Institute, the National Committee for Prevention of Elder Abuse and Virginia Tech University. The findings mirror an earlier 2009 report entitled "Broken Trust: Elders, Family and Finances".

The 2012 Investor Protection Trust's Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation (EIFFE) survey shows that family members, caregivers and swindlers are the top financial exploiters of older Americans. The top three financial exploitation problems identified by the experts are: (1) “theft or diversion of funds or property by family members” (79 percent); (2) “theft or diversion of funds or property by caregivers” (49 percent); and (3) “financial scams perpetrated by strangers” (47 percent).

President Obama has proclaimed June 15 as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The Elder Justice Roadmap Project Report is a call to action by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services. Tougher oversight by regulators is needed to prevent financial predators from preying on vulnerable elderly victims, said Patricia L. McGinnis, executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, a San Francisco group that often deals with financial abuse.

“The bottom line is: You need to go after the predators. You need to punish them and you need to convict them,” she said. “Put them in jail and make an example of them, but more importantly, get the money back for the victims. Make them whole again.”

As printed on the Today Show on March 5, 2002 on MSNBC.com, "...there are many misconceptions about living trusts, and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) reports since the first of the year, there has been an upsurge of deceptive telemarketing calls, mass mailings and newspaper ads designed to lure consumers into paying a lot of money for something they may not need." If you feel that you were the victim of a living trust scam, contact an estate litigation attorney in your state. If the living trust was sold by a living trust mill, report them to the Department of Consumer Affairs in your county.

Here is some information about the range of issues that must be considered in blended families for solid estate planning. With the increase in 2nd and 3rd marriages, what estate and elder laws are outdated and ineffective? What amendments or new laws are needed to handle situations when step-families over-step? In Switzerland, for example, there are protections against leaving all of the family wealth to the surviving spouse forcing the children to wait until the death of the widow or widower. In such a case, this would breach the “forced heirship rule” as the children would not get their minimum share of the estate. Under Swiss law, adult children must agree to renounce their minimum share of the estate. In addition, although not all of the estate can go to the surviving spouse “in full ownership”, he/she can inherit the “usufruct” on the entire estate. This is similar to a life interest on the estate. He/she cannot sell the assets, but he/she can freely benefit from them (e.g. the family house, the proceeds of the bank portfolio, etc.).

Let's bring some transparency to families, too. Here is some good information about the rights of trust beneficiaries. In order to protect the rights of trust beneficiaries to whatever benefit they are due according to the trust, the law provides beneficiaries with ways to monitor the trust and the trustee. Trust beneficiaries are usually entitled to income from the trust, which can be interest from investments or rents, among other things, and the trustee who is in charge of the trust is responsible for ensuring that assets from the trust are invested well. The rights of trust beneficiaries to monitor the trust and the actions of the trustee allow trust beneficiaries to protect their interests with regard to the trust.

Rights of Trust Beneficiaries in California

1.You have the right to a true, complete and final copy of the trust, any written amendments thereto, and any written instructions that effect distribution of trust assets.

2.You have the right to contest the validity of a questionable trust, and any of its provisions or amendments. (Please note there are statutes of limitations on trust contests.)

3.You have the right to be reasonably informed about the trust and its administration. Upon reasonable request, you are entitled to a report of information about assets, liabilities, receipts and disbursements of the trust, the acts of the trustee, and the particulars relating to the trust that are relevant to your interest.

4.You have the right to an accounting. The accounting must include the trustee’s written statement of receipts, disbursements, the nature and value of assets and liabilities, the trustee’s compensation, the names of the agents hired by the trustee, their relationship to the trustee and their compensation. In California, the trustee has 60 days to provide you with an accounting. After that, you are free to file a "Petition to Compel an Accounting" in the local probate court.

5.You have the right to object to an accounting, and to seek judicial review and approval of any accounting you receive.

6.You have the right to compel a trustee to administer the trust according to its terms, avoid conflicts of interest, avoid self-dealing, and to secure and make trust property productive.

7.You have the right to be treated fairly and impartially by the trustee.

8.If the trustee violates your rights as a beneficiary, you have the right to ask a Judge to suspend the trustee of his/her powers or remove him/her and appoint a successor trustee, or both.

9.If the trustee misappropriates, wrongfully transfers, takes, secrets, or otherwise mismanages or wastes trust assets, you have the right to seek legal remedies against the trustee, personally, and if the trustee is bonded, against the bond company as well.

10.You have the right to receive timely distributions from the trust without signing any documents.

Can we strengthen these rights at the Uniform Trust Code (UTC) and state levels? Can we amend the laws to ensure that tiered reporting is required by trustees for revocable and irrevocable trusts in all states, including revocable living trusts if the value exceeds $2.5M (with reporting requirements becoming more stringent as the value increases); and/or if the trusts are for combined estates for blended families; and/or the trusts are amended after the new legislation goes into effect? The Washington Trust Act has been called the most sweeping piece of probate and trust legislation enacted in Washington State in more than a decade. How can we raise the visibility of the rights of trust beneficiaries across the country? More information can be found here. Public comments due 8/20/2012.

Some changes ahead for California:

Teenagers text about 4000 messages per month. Organizations like Dosomething.org and Crisis Text Line are reaching out to kids where they are: on smartphones. On July 1, 2012, A.B. 9 (Seth's Law) and A.B. 1156 went into effect, making teachers and school administrators legally obligated to do something when a student reports bullying. If they do not comply with these laws, the student is allowed to transfer to a new school district.

Can we enact similar laws for the Federal workplace? Could (mandatory) interim relief supervisors during Equal Opportunity investigations encourage early intervention?

International news: ACTU Call to Get Tougher on Workplace Bullies

The Australian Council of Trade Unions' submission to a parliamentary inquiry into workplace bullying called for tougher penalties, including jail terms for extreme cases, and a greater recognition that employers have a responsibility to provide bullying-free workplaces. The ACTU said research by the Productivity Commission found workplace bullying cost the economy $6 billion to $36 billion a year. The government of South Australia has recently issued a guide for employers entitled "Preventing Workplace Bullying." In addition, the government is offering a $1000 jobs bonus incentive to take on "over 50" workers for at least three months in a bid to counter entrenched discrimination against unemployed older workers. Here is a good white paper on mobbing in the public sector in Australia. Mobbing, or organized harassment, occurs in countries that have equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws and processes like the US. Mobbing is a systemic problem in government because it is not possible to simply fire a worker, so a story against the target must be told over time.

Mobbing is a sophisticated form of bullying where management aligns as a team against the Complainant, with "mobsters" typically numbering in the dozens and one or two "puppet masters" or mobbing ringleaders. Identifying puppet masters can be a challenge, but these are typically Senior Officials at a local or HQ level who make the final approvals.

Fortunately, mobsters make up in carelessness what they lack in humility. To differentiate mobbing from bullying, look for performance reviews that sound alike or are grossly inconsistent with interactions during the work year, a rapid escalation in adverse/retaliatory actions, sudden/unjustified changes in priorities and direction, and gross inconsistencies with prior years' experiences and ratings. The work environment will become extremely hostile in a very short period of time. The goal of the mobsters is to move the targets out of the company or agency as quickly as possible to weaken their ability to file complaints or document charges. Although you may like, trust or prefer certain managers, it is best to include all managers who have firsthand involvement in any mobbing incident from the start, including both first and second level supervisors and functional area managers as required. If you discover that additional managers are involved mid-way through an investigation, it is possible to add them to any new retaliatory adverse actions, up to and including termination or constructive discharge, as long as you notify them of your EEO activity before the adverse action occurs. Because poor performance reviews and disciplinary actions typically include multiple steps designed to remedy the situation, this is not onerous. The ages, race and gender of the mobsters is irrelevant. Discrimination wears many masks.

Adverse/retaliatory actions can include unwarranted disciplines, undeserved/poor performance reviews, work assignments that are illegal with a mismatch to your skills and/or unrealistic work deadlines. Other examples are denial of benefits such as sick leave or vacation time, and denial of travel, training, telework, award nominations, or any of the other discretionary benefits that were granted in prior years.

Mobbing is difficult to document and to stop because of the sheer number of managers who are typically involved and because of the speed at which the retaliatory adverse actions accumulate. The target must move quickly to document the charges and to put the complicated puzzle together in terms of which managers are the puppet masters and which managers are working behind the scenes. Since some managers never interact directly with the target, it is important to question the supervisor in terms of why a request was denied and what managers were involved in the decision. The target's supervisor is the primary responsible manager, but s/he can't continue the harassment over time without support from higher ups and human resources/legal departments.


"Of Pandas and POWADA: Thinking Outside Pandora's Box" a Storify story told by journalists, lawmakers, current, prospective and former employees, and many others about NASA

If you are a long-term employee, mobbing will be easier to document. A distinguished record with many years of stellar reviews and/or a blemish-free record can help to establish your credibility in the face of what is often a growing group of hostile managers. In Canada, public servants have also sounded the alarm about mobbing, and have established an excellent website with resources for victims and families. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety has posted some good examples of bullying. Do not expect loyalty from long-term colleagues. With a mobbing incident, even the good go bad.

Namie and Namie (2000) describe individuals who instigate mobbing as “inadequate, defective, and poorly developed people”. They’re generally angry, unpredictable, critical, jealous, and manipulative (Davenport, Schwartz and Elliot, 1999; Namie and Namie, 2000). The emotionally abusive bullies who engage in mobbing revel in the excitement produced by their animosity. It produces a pleasurable buzz or rush in them. Westhues (2002) refers to this as "the euphoria of collective attack". Competent managers do not bully.

When does a mobster become a monster? Here is some good information about workplace bullying and criminal law. Extreme cases of mobbing have been linked to mass shootings and suicides. I'd like to see "Zero Tolerance" policies and settlements in the courts when the bullying becomes criminal or escalates to "off work" hours, with dismissal for the manager as general practice. Off-duty bullying is the worst kind of damage since the victims no longer feel safe even in their own homes. Einarsen and Mikkelsen classified mobbing as a “more crippling and devastating problem for employees than all other work-related stress put together”. Most of the literature on bullying suggests escalating the issue two levels above the mobsters. However, it is best to have well-documented evidence, witnesses and a formal process in place before doing so.

The largest gap in America's workforce laws today is protection against non-discriminatory bullying. Public outcry is growing to enact new laws to protect employees even if the basis is not discrimination based on age, race, gender or other protected classes. If the bullying is non-discriminatory, unfortunately the best approach at this time is to leave the organization quickly before the bullying creates significant wreckage to your record, although the laws vary in different states. If the bullying is discriminatory, then the employee can file an informal complaint with their local EEO Office as a first step. However, be prepared for what may be a long, uphill battle depending on the level of animosity of the bullies. On the upside, most of the top-rated companies and agencies will settle quickly. It is not worth risking their golden reputations or subjecting themselves to additional liability.

This is another no-no in the workplace: a disabled man claims that he was recently fired for allegedly typing and walking too slowly. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment, unless to do so would cause undue hardship. The unemployment rate for persons with a disability was 15.0 percent in 2011, well above the figure of 8.7 percent for those with no disability. President Obama issued an Executive Order last year that directed executive departments and agencies to develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resources strategies. In spite of this Executive Order and other efforts to eradicate bullying in government, the workplace has become increasingly hostile due primarily to federal, state and local budget cuts. Have you ever faced discrimination in your workplace because of your medical history? Learn more.

The employer is automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor that results in a negative employment action such as termination, failure to promote or hire, and loss of wages. If the supervisor's harassment results in a hostile work environment, the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that: 1) it reasonably tried to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior; and 2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. Bullying and mobbing in any organization is rarely a one time occurrence. Most bullies are “repeat offenders". If they’ve bullied once and gotten away with it, they’ll most likely bully again. Getting away with it is its own reward as is being able to manipulate and control both the target and management.

Retaliation lawsuits can lead to settlements as high as $168 M for a single victim of workplace harassment. With stakes this high, it behooves employers to find new and better approaches to eradicating all forms of workplace bullying, whether or not the basis is discrimination based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or religion. For government departments and agencies, this is really game changing. I can't think of a single mobster worth gambling $168M of our taxpayers' money on, can you? Either way, if you are employed by the federal government and use the Thrift Savings Plan, you can make a withdrawal if your employer terminates you rather than taking action against the harassers, if you choose to sue for wrongful dismissal. Depending on the size of your savings, these funds can help you to live comfortably until your lawsuit settles.

Although punitive damages are not available for government, compensatory, liquidated and other damages are. The amount of damages awarded to the plaintiffs is generally discretionary and based on whether or not it was an "especially malicious and reckless act of discrimination". By its very nature, a mobbing incident is a "willful violation of the law" since it is organized and premeditated harassment. Even if the prior protected activity alleged wrongdoing by a different employer, retaliatory adverse actions are unlawful. For example, it is unlawful for a worker's current employer to retaliate against him for pursuing an EEO charge against a former employer. The plaintiff can often get to a jury (and juries like to be fair) if there is: 1) direct evidence of retaliation (the proverbial smoking gun admission); or 2) evidence that the reason offered by the employer is a lie and a cover up for retaliation; or 3) evidence that others who committed the same infraction, but had not engaged in protected activity, did not suffer the same adverse action, or 4) evidence that the employer advanced inconsistent reasons to justify the adverse employment action.

A recent study on ambient bullying shows that those not directly bullied feel a stronger urge to quit than the targets. For a fraction of the settlement funds, hostile workplaces could be transformed into environments that are conducive to the health and well-being of all employees. Sadly, most victims or witnesses to bullying do not come forward for fear of reprisal or simply because they do not understand the workforce laws or their options for complaining. The "don't see, don't tell" culture in government has led to an escalation of workplace bullying over the last 5 years for some protected groups. In law enforcement agencies, exposing misconduct such as the use of excessive force is sometimes referred to as crossing the "thin blue line". Using social media is a double-edged sword in hostile workplaces, as employees who engage online experience retaliation for whistleblowing and exposing other misconduct via the new tools.

Internal complaint processes are a much better way to solve the problem of workplace bullying than lawsuits and can settle for a maximum of $300K depending on the size of the company or Agency. Unfortunately, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the government agency responsible for implementation of federal discrimination laws, does not cover organizations with fewer than 15 employees in total. The laws in each state may vary. Filing an EEO Complaint is a "protected activity". The employer is required to provide time for the employee to file charges during working hours. The employee can choose the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process or an investigation by a third party investigator. Because there are so many managers involved in a mobbing incident, an investigation is a better approach than ADR for many reasons. However, the complainant can request ADR at any point in the process if the managers appear to be softening their position. As part of the investigation, the employee and the managers named in the complaint must sign sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury. In some investigations, an affidavit rebuttal step is included whereby the employee can rebut the managers' affidavits, since the burden of proof lies with the employee. Any attempts by the employer to impede the investigation or obstruct justice can lead the plaintiffs to move for immediate summary judgement in their favor if the process ends in the courts rather than settling internally. All managers can be recalled to testify at a hearing whether or not they have left the company or agency either voluntarily or involuntarily before the court date.

It is a federal crime to commit perjury and obstruct justice in civil cases, including harassment cases. Violators are subject to a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment for obstruction and up to five years for perjury. The charge of obstruction of justice can also be brought against public officials and their affiliates. Judges, prosecutors, and political aides have been known to face such charges. Judicial officials may be charged for deliberately failing to carry out some duty in the course of legal proceedings. Political aides may find themselves with such charges when a politician is under investigation and they act to prevent the disclosure of accurate information.

Here is some good information about "mixed case" complaints. In the federal government, cases involving termination (or constructive discharge) as the result of discrimination are called "mixed cases" because EEOC usually handles discrimination cases (but not cases involving termination or constructive discharge); and because the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent federal agency that promotes the efficient and effective use of the federal workforce, has jurisdiction over all termination cases with or without discrimination claims. As an alternative, the complainant can opt for civil action after the agency decision is rendered rather than going onto MSPB. Here is some good information about unemployment benefits in discrimination cases. For unemployment claims, the burden of proof is on the employer rather than the employee to prove misconduct as a reason for denial of benefits in termination cases. Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, poor performance as a result of inability or incapacity, isolated instances of ordinary negligence or inadvertance, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not misconduct within the meaning of unemployment insurance code that would disqualify claimant from unemployment benefits. If the terminated employees plan to start a business rather than seeking employment, unemployment will cover the difference until their business is profitable beyond their allotted benefits for up to 26 weeks plus Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and/or state extended benefits. Note that for federal sector discrimination complaints, the plaintiffs' legal firm can be located in Washington D.C. (or anywhere in the U.S.) since federal EEO laws are not linked to individual states. With the onset of "crowdfunding" tools like Kickstarter or Indiegogo, legal fees can now be distributed over many people. If you belong to a professional organization or are a university graduate, they may be willing to help fund your case or sponsor a crowdfunding campaign.

The NO FEAR Act imposes further protections against retaliation by the managers named in the complaint. Interestingly, retaliation and reprisal remain the number one complaint among federal employees, according to a new report from the EEOC. Feds filed 7,553 retaliation/reprisal complaints in fiscal 2011, followed by 5,105 complaints of age-related discrimination and 4,389 of race-related discrimination (black or African American), according to the report. Last year continued a five-year upward trend in both reprisal and age discrimination claims, the report said. Non-sexual harassment was the most frequently raised issue among the 16,974 employment discrimination complaints, occurring in 5,863 instances. As the statistics suggest, mobbing is often used in government to clear the workplace of long-term or aging workers to make way for young professional new hires. Promotion/non-selection was the second most frequently raised issue, with 2,683. Allegations of race discrimination were made in 37.5 percent of all complaints filed in fiscal 2011, the report stated, up slightly from 35.6 percent of all complaints filed the prior fiscal year. For federal employees, it is possible to share the complaint documents with their agency's Congressional oversight committees after the agency decision has been rendered (if it is unfavorable). Although Congress has no power to remedy the situation or to discipline the managers, they can subpoena information relative to the complaint prior to the EEOC or MSPB hearings, and can open an investigation in parallel for any of the issues called out in the complaint.

As the chart above shows, federal agencies in 2009, 2010 and 2011 have lagged behind the private sector when it comes to worker satisfaction with their jobs and organizations. Here is a recent survey of the worst companies to work for in America according to the employees. Here is a ranking of the best places to work in the federal government. Here is a ranking of the agency subcomponents according to the "over 40" employees. Be sure to note the arrows on the right side, which indicate an upward or downward trend from the previous year. As comparison, here are the rankings from the "under 40" employees. To see which subcomponents are favoring the young professionals, compare this ranking to the other two. The US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) received 10,183 retirement claims in March 2013, more than double the number it expected to receive, according to new OPM data. The unexpected March bump follows a torrent of retirements claims in February, when OPM received about 20,000 retirement applications — nearly four times what it expected. OPM also received 22,187 claims in January. Here are the rankings from the Black/African-American feds. The Bureau of Prisons has been flagged as one of the worst offenders for retaliation. My challenge to the agency subcomponents and the companies with the lowest rankings and ratings is to think about how OpenGov and the Anti-Bullying movement can shine some light on the dark places. On January 1, 2011, the oldest Baby Boomers in America turned 65. Every day for the next 17 years, about 10,000 more will cross that threshold. By 2030, when all Baby Boomers will have turned 65, fully 18% of the nation’s population will be at least that age, according to Pew Research Center population projections. Today, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older. Here is a good CBS report on the "Dark Side of Social Media". Kris Stadelman, director of NOVA, a workforce development nonprofit company that surveyed 251 Bay Area human resource executives, said, "Especially in social media, cloud computing and mobile apps, if you're over 40 you're perceived to be over the hill." The EEOC reports nearly 100,000 job bias charges in the private sector in fiscal 2012. Here is a ranking of the best companies to work for by Glassdoor. What can the laggards learn from these leaders? Here is a slideshow from Netflix that Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, called the "most important document to ever come out of Silicon Valley". Low job security, non accrued holiday leave that is not tracked at all and creativity should be the philosophy all technology companies use moving forward according to the cultural manifesto by Netflix.

When an incident of assault, harassment, intimidation, or bullying occurs in a federal workplace, it is usually caused by an employee rather than a customer, criminal, or someone who has a personal relationship with the victim. This is the conclusion of a study on workplace violence in the federal sector released in September 2012 by the U.S. MSPB.

The study, entitled Employee Perceptions of Federal Workplace Violence, recommends that federal managers “foster organizational cultures that do not tolerate violent behavior and that takes reports of such behavior seriously." Employee violence is defined as physical attacks, threats of attack, harassment, intimidation, or bullying in the workplace. Here are some additional resources for workplace violence.

What are some of the other barriers to dignity at work? Drugs and alcohol don't mix well with bullies. Can we enact "drug free" workplace laws and mandatory drug testing for suspected harassers? What are some easy ways to create work environments that facilitate free and open sharing of information across organizational lines, that welcome innovative ideas from everyone everywhere, and that support continuous improvement practices? And what if the workplace had more 70-somethings? Because it will. Давайте избавиться от гулагов!

Public comments on the EEOC's new strategic plan due 9/18/2012. Public comments on the EEOC's Federal Sector Complement Plan (FCP) due 1/28/2013. Disclaimer: The information contained in this post is subject to change. The blogger does not take responsibility for any errors or misrepresentation contained therein.

No comments:

Post a Comment