Work/Life/Law 3.0

Factories in Juarez

2008-04-30T23:03:00.002-04:00

The final presentation got me thinking about this. I have actual been to a factory in Juarez, I went in the summer of 2006. Family friends of ours own a fairly large company and one of their headquarters is down in El Paso. I went down there to golf and they asked me if I wanted to visit their factory in Mexico and with this sparking my interest I said yes. When I visited this factory I could not believe my eyes. Now what I saw was nothing like what was talked about in class today but the siutation was dire.

There were 100's of people sit in dark damp rooms manually counting and recording different items. It was hot and there were very few windows, it was something I never thought I could experience in my life. Obviously I was in state of shock that people would work under theses conditions but something suprised me even more. Our family friends were so proud of their operation, they had only been in Juarez for a couple years and told us they were saving millions of dollars a year in labor. Of course the business person in me thought yes that is a great move but still the situation was not good at all. I asked how they could have people work in these conditions and their respons was go look at other factories and these people live like kings. This is was made me think of my experience in class. The people involved with these factories do not feel like they are doing anything wrong and until there is a legal ramification for what they do nothing will be changed. Like they said in class this issue has not been very public lately but it is a very real problem that needs to be addressed sooner than later.

And Scene!

2008-04-30T20:30:00.001-04:00

And so goes another semester of blogging on the Work/Life/Law Blog.

Have a good summer.

Affirmative Action

2008-04-28T18:41:00.003-04:00

I promise I will stop talking about Minority Programs, but I am really interested and curious to see what everyone thinks about them...especially if you disagree with them.

This sort of leads into my next comment about universities advertising that their campus is diverse. They demonstrate this by placing a group of students each being from a different ethnicity on the cover of their ads. (There was even a joke about this exact topic at Bear's Place: Comedy Caravan a few months ago.) Do you feel it is "bad" for non-diverse universities to advertise similar to that?

Back to IAT

2008-04-28T18:09:00.002-04:00

Looking back at the topics we discussed this semester, Implicit Associations Test (IAT) was the most interesting for me. Actually in my LAMP X333 class this semester, we had a group presentation over the book "Blink." I was hoping to post my Power Point from this presentation to this post to inform everyone of the additional information that our group found. However, I do not think attachments are possible on Blogger. If you know how to do that, please let me know.

Anyway, here are some of our findings:

1. What does the IAT mean? If you test poor, are you a bad person?
Absolutely not. It is important to note that our attitudes on certain topics operate on two levels. First, we have our conscious attitudes. This is what we choose to believe. Second, our attitude on an unconscious. Like a giant computer, our unconscious silently crunches all the data and it forms an opinion. This is what is coming out of the IAT.

2. Does this matter?
It is debated, but according to our L416 class discussions, it matters in interviews if your potential employer has biases that they are not aware of. Everyone has to critical and knowledgeable of social constructs and media influence.

3. What can we do about our unconscious discrimination?
a. We first have to be aware of our bias/prejudices/stereotypes.
b. Is it ethical or moral for an employer to be required to take the test?
c. Our impressions are generated by our experiences and our environment - which means we should change our impressions. It requires that we change our life. This is similar on how to make IU more diverse. Surround yourself with a culture your not familiar with. Put yourself in the minority in counter-bias situations. It is important to change the way you think!

Just to end with, I think it would be fantastic if an individual from another culture or another country took this test...just to see the differences they have. How di

Applying What We've Learned...

2008-04-27T20:19:00.001-04:00

I felt the fruits of my labor come into play the other day when I received a letter in the mail from my soon-to-be employer. It was a summary of my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Luckily, I knew this act fairly well because it was part of my presentation for Surveillance in the US and UK. The FCRA basically promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies. It was pretty cool to be able to know what I was reading and be able to follow it all.

Another case similar to this was when I received my formal offer letter—which included the term “at-will employment”—something I wouldn’t have known about (or even heard of, for that matter!) had it not been for this class. As a result, I feel that we’ve all been lucky to take this class because the content is so practical to all of us. I’ve learned a ton of information about business law and applying it to real-world companies, and for this, I am grateful. I certainly feel like I am well-informed, and thus I can be more confident in the workforce.

Illegal Immigrants: Something Needs To Be Done

2008-04-26T21:04:00.000-04:00

Karlie’s post got me thinking about the issue of Illegal Immigration. Being from Texas, this is an issue I can sympathize with from both sides. While I don’t believe that anyone should just be able to come into our country and set up shop, the truth of the matter is that Illegal immigrants are everywhere. There are so many of them that there is NO way we could ever get them all out, not to mention the ones that continue to pour in every day. On top of that, with such a large percentage of the workforce in our more Southern states being made up of illegal immigrants, if we were able to hypothetically remove all the illegal immigrants one day, the economy down there would probably collapse. Now you will probably all think I’m incredibly callous for saying this, but we need illegal immigrants because they will do the jobs that Americans simply don’t want to do – or at least would require a lot more money for.

The truth is that illegal immigrants have a REAL impact on our economy. Take this except from an article about illegal immigrants in Texas:

“A supporter of a guest worker program, Stayhorn concludes that the absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state.” (http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/12/new_texas_study_says_illegal_i.html)

Now that the illegal workforce has become a force that’s clearly here to stay, I think it’s time we give them at least some rights and protections. I’m constantly hearing anecdotes of poor treatment of illegal immigrants when I go home, and it saddens me to hear the things they are subjected to because they have no rights and protections afforded to them. Also, in clear cases where illegals WOULD have a case to make to the authorities, they remain silent for fear of deportation. I’m reminded of a story that came out of Texas in which a man had a large group of illegal immigrants living out of the back of a U-Haul truck (and by “living”, I mean they were locked inside for long periods at a time). I haven’t been able to track down the story online yet since it’s a few years old, but I’ll post it as soon as I can. Regardless, I think it’s time that illegal immigrants stop being subjected to obvious violations of their rights as humans. I’m not sure what the best solution is to this complex issue, but something needs to be done about it.

G.I.N.A. passed in the Senate

2008-04-26T20:50:00.004-04:00

Hey everyone. Sorry I've been M.I.A. for so long; as I'm sure you all are aware, these last few weeks have been incredibly hectic to say the least. Anyway, as I was picking my roommates up from the bars late Thursday night/early Friday morning, NPR made me aware that the senate finally passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimnation Act! Whoo hoo! Now it is up to the House to take a final vote on it, and then onto President Bush (the House has approved it before, as it is GINA's 3rd time in this Congressional "limbo" where either the House or the Senate has granted approval, and the other has failed to act). This Act virtually mirrors the protection under Title VII discrimination from employers, and prohibits insurers from raising or setting premiums unjustly based on one's genetics. This is great news for people with unfortunate genetic predispositions, and is a great step towards finally putting the Act into effect. Appropriately, April 25th also marks the anniversary of James Watson (an IU alum) and Francis Crick's announcement of DNA's helical structure. Also the 25th also marks the anniversary of the completion of the Human Genome Project: both of these events are landmarks in the history of human genetics. Back in February, I wrote a long post about genetic discrimination and its relevance to our class, and now I just wanted to update everbody on the progress. If you'd like to listen to the NPR broadcast, just follow the link here. Good luck to everyone with finals this week - coffee and optimism is all you need :)

Would an RFID implant really be the worst thing?

2008-04-26T20:44:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I know how horrified we all were at the presentation in class the other day about RFID chips being implanted under the skin to store data. Despite the throwback to 1984 and the fear of a total invasion of privacy, I got to thinking about situations in which this implant might actually be a GOOD thing.

The first instance in which I can imagine the usefulness of such a device would be for the military and other high-security situations. In certain military sectors, access to secure buildings can come from the swipe of a card. While these cards are, obviously, only given to those who are authorized to use them and can’t be easily replicated, but there is no safeguard against them being lost or stolen. One of my friends has one of these cards for his work with the Army. When I asked him what he would do if his access card got stolen, or worse he lost it, he replied: “It would be a disaster. I would almost certainly lose my job.” We all fall victim to crime eventually, and none of us is above a stupid accident every now and again, so wouldn’t we all sleep a little better at night knowing that some guy wouldn’t be able to stumble across a keycard that fell out of someone’s car in the parking lot and gain access to secure areas? I personally would support the implantation of RFID chips for this situation because of the added measure of security that it provides.

The second instance in which an RFID implant would be useful is with medical records. Obtaining a medical history is almost always the first step taken to treat a patient, but sometimes accurate ones simply can’t be obtained in an emergency setting: either because of the patient’s mental state or a lack of identification. When these histories can’t be provided, a patient’s quality of care inherently will go down. However, if a patient’s ACCURATE medical records could be obtained by simply scanning his arm, there would be no delay in care and no sacrifice in quality.
A third argument for RFID implants is simply for the purpose of identification. First, the risk of identity theft would be significantly lower if everyone has a government-issued chip in their arm that verifies their identity. Don’t get me wrong, I know criminals will still find ways around this (black-market for stolen chips and fabricated ones) but it would be SO much harder to obtain one of these than the current methods of identification. Also, this would take a considerable burden off of police departments and medical examiners who no longer have to track down the identities of the deceased. The possibilities for RFIDs being used for identification purposes are endless, and I’m sure we can all imagine many more than the few I have offered.

Now, I’m not saying that we all go out and get ourselves “chipped”. I, for one, am still a little creeped out by the idea. All I’m saying is that maybe this isn’t the worse idea that’s been thrown out there, and I can see a definite potential for some good that might come from it in the future.

Bridging the gap of work/life balance

2008-04-25T14:30:00.004-04:00

I ran across an article today that discussed how bringing children to work helps balance the work/life conflict that many employees face today. The article sparked my attention because in class we never really discussed this "solution". Should bringing a child to work effectively solve the problem?

It is a widely known fact that finding acceptable childcare is a job all by itself. Some companies offer childcare service within the facility. Others may not. However, when the burden is heavily weighed on employees themselves, some employees feel the pressure mount. Not only is the childcare usually expensive, the quality of childcare can become sketchy.

Some companies offer the ability to bring children into the workplace. In this particular article, the woman did not really ask if it was okay to bring her son into work. Since the employer did not offer maternity leave, the woman used her seven weeks of unpaid leave to substitute. Once the seven weeks passed, the woman had to return to work. Bringing her child to work was the only option that would allow her to return. Is this fair? Presuming that the employer does not care if the child comes to work, where are the boundaries? At what age should this policy be terminated?

The overall issue I find with bringing children to work is the effectiveness and fairness of the situation. Can an employee truly focus on work while also taking care of a child? In addition, can other employees? My first instinct would be no. But if an employee, like the one in this article, can balance the two, who can argue against it? Also, does bringing a child to work really help balance both work and home life? I would say no because it actually links the two together. Many employees truly like differentiating work and personal life. I think separating the two is essential to actually finding that work/life balance.

Reference:
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2008/04/22/news/community/6loc03_babyatjob.txt

Illegal Immigrants in the Workforce

2008-04-25T13:34:00.001-04:00

A topic that we might not focus on too much here in the Midwest is that of illegal immigrants, which is a major problem in Western states such as Arizona, and much of Northern California. In the United States, illegal immigrants number about 12 million and make up an estimated 5 percent of the civilian workforce, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Much of the nation is puzzled on how to handle this situation. Do we make it easier for them to get green cards, or just make restrictions even tougher, making their lives so hard that they are forced to move back to their home nation: Many times this is Mexico.

In this class we have discussed a lot on how we should all be treated in our professional careers, and how we are going to make life choices based on goals, families, and other decisions that require a balance of work and life. However, for illegal aliens working in the United States, there is no room for any of these choices to be made. With the Bush Administration tightening restrictions on employers’ responsibilities to make sure their employees are legal, illegal immigrants are living in fear of being deported, not whether or not they will have enough time to make dinner for their families after work. In the article, Illegal Immigrant’s Choice: Work Underground or Leave by Tyche Hendricks in the San Francisco Chronicle, one immigrant worker, and California resident said, “"I know a lot of people who live in constant fear that they'll be deported," he said. "They're all honest people who work very hard, as I did when I came here. After 18 years here I employ three people every day, I have my own business, my own house. I consider that I've been successful. And I know that these people, if you give them the opportunity, they will be successful, too." So I wonder whether these people should be given a chance to continue to work hard and stay in America, where they want to be. What will the impact be in places such as California where so many illegal immigrants are responsible for critical jobs in the environment and beyond?

Leave well enough alone.

2008-04-25T09:55:00.001-04:00

RFID tags have been extremely valuable as a business aspect. They provide a faster, more accurate, and reliable way to track production, shipping, and purchasing than any other technology we have to date. The impact they have made on operational management alone is staggering.

And while I think it is admirable California has put legislation in place banning forced implantations of RFID tags, I don't think there is a judge in the country that would set a precedent making a forced surgery ok. And that is what I really want to talk about.
Is it necessary to put legislation in place before any incidents have occurred? Rather than rushing to place restrictions on every possible scenario we have or can imagine, shouldn't we let the scope of the law and our judges follow the direction of society's values without the executive branch's intervention?

It is a basic question of balance of power, and I just feel like the excess laws that are put in place will begin to restrict our freedoms rather than grant them. A judge that sets a new precedent is a very different scenario than getting a law repealed.

California proves me wrong... thank god

2008-04-25T02:04:00.006-04:00

So I've continued to read about these RFID chips since my group's presentation on Monday. After some more recreational research, it turns out I was wrong about there being no legislation on RFID technology. California seems to have stepped up once again before anyone else. I came across a story that was aired on NPR about RFIDs and a new law in California. Just visit http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17762244 and then click "Listen Now" at the top of the page to listen to the story if you're interested.

A new California law, effective since January 1st of this year, says it is illegal to force someone to have an RFID chip implanted in their body. This is a pretty straight-forward law and it seems to solve a lot of the ethical issues connected with these implantable RFID chips. It was a little upsetting to see I totally missed this before our presentation, however the significance of the law has put a lot more worries to rest.

If other states follow California's example on this matter I think it would put a lot of minds at ease over these sub-dermal RFID chips. Because the implications of implantable chips are probably the scariest, I would not be surprised to see other states, or event he country, passing similar legislation. The implications of RFIDs for other employment uses, such as ID cards and products, are a little more vague and probably more difficult to set legal rules and standards for. In the end, we may avoid the worst-case sci-fi scenarios regarding these chips. However, there is still a whole sea of murky water that we are just stepping into.

Now to start my next Google search: California jobs for soon-to-be graduates

Can a stay-at-home mom ever really get back in the game?

2008-04-25T01:03:00.000-04:00

After our discussion in class about stay at home parents, I was prompted to reflect upon the situation in light of my own family. We (briefly) touched on an article addressing the stigma associated with stay-at-home dads and their attempts to return to the workforce, but is this a stigma faced solely by fathers? Also, what other impediments stand in the way of stay-at-home parents return to working life?

This issue came to the forefront of my mind when I consider my mother’s situation. She was a stay-at-home mom up until high school, then she became the office manager for my father’s solo medical practice (splitting work time between the “home office” and the real office). Now that I’m in college, she’s trying to branch into other things but is finding it increasingly hard to find work because she doesn’t have a real “work history” for the past 20 years. While the work she did for our family business is certainly relevant, she’s finding that potential employers are inherently suspicious that her previous “boss” was her husband.

I feel like that this lack of recent work experience is a very relevant obstacle that faces stay-at-home parents seeking to return to work. When going online to research this topic, I recounted many stories of women experiencing this same problem. One recounted:

“Having resigned from my professional career to begin my new career as a stay at home mother for several years I have found it difficult to get on the right track to land a good job. I was not even that picky and still encountered challenges. The truth is that the longer you are out of work, the harder it is to represent yourself in such a way that you can actually get the interview, much less the job.”

(http://www.awomantoldme.com/women/health/ebd820d4-0b2b-4162-971c-a48ae36bb842/workforce-reentry-for-a.aspx)

I find this interesting because societal expectations have placed a sort of Catch-22 on working mothers. First, there is the expectation (and I don’t want to put out there that this is universally held in any way, but nevertheless it is held by a large segment of the population) that being a stay-at-home mother is positive because it shows she is interested in the well-being of her family. However, when these mothers eventually try to return to the workforce, they are in effect punished for their period of absence. In one case being a stay-at-home mother is idealized, and in another it is frowned upon and can pose detrimental to a future career. Thus, the situation that is created is one in which women are encouraged to leave the workforce and never return. I think this is a sad state of affairs for American mothers, and I hope that someday employers will begin to respect the time women take to devote to their families. Perhaps more women will feel like they have the freedom to stay at home if they so choose if they know their re-entry won’t be such a challenge.

Can you believe what you see?

2008-04-24T15:10:00.002-04:00

The discussion in class of surveillance in the UK reminded me of an incident that happened in London a few years ago. In 2005, a man from Brazil was shot 8 times by police officers in the middle of a crowded tube station as a result of mistaken identity. The officers caught him on surveillance cameras, mistook him for someone else whom they believed to be a terrorist threat, and followed him from his flat to the station. If it was this easy for London police to make such a large mistake using video surveillance, it makes me wonder how full-proof surveillance is within the workplace. Should there be legal protections for employees who feel they are misrepresented by surveillance evidence, such as video?

Here is a link to a story in Guardian newspaper regarding the London shooting.

Signing means...

2008-04-24T03:02:00.003-04:00

In todays presentation, I think it was Aubrey who mentioned that India was the only country that had not signed an agreement against the worst types of child labor, which included slavery. This initially struck me as pretty awful. Well, it still does, however, after thinking about a situation that my good friend experienced in India, I thought a little more in depth about the situation.

So, a good friend of mine, Alex, spent last summer in a fairly conservative part of India on an internship. He lived with a host family who he described as very kind and caring. He told me they always provided more than he needed even though they could not be considered above middle class. They were always concerned about my friends well being and were very accommodating. He said that he never had any complaints about the family... except that a young boy lived with them who was, as my friend described him, essentially a slave. Apparently this young boy lived with the family and had no family of his own. My friend's guess was that he had been bought by the family as a slave. The boy cleaned, cooked and did random household chores. My friend guessed he was maybe 8 or 9 years old.

Alex told me he spoke with the father of the family and asked him about the boy and told him he questioned whether it was ok for them to have the boy working in their home. The father explained that there was nothing wrong with it and that it was very common. Apparently the boy was in a much lower class according to the local society and this was accepted as normal.

So, according to various societies around the world, there are clearly different views on expectations and acceptable actions. That is partly why it is valuable to be doing the research and the presentations we are doing now. However, we all seem to be focusing primarily on actual law and policy and while I think these things tend to reflect the views of different cultures, there is much to learn about what different cultures feel at very basic levels.

While slavery is clearly immoral and wrong in the view of the vast majority of people around the world, there are still some cultures who view it as acceptable. So, how do we go about changing things? Do we change the law first? Do we try and make societal changes first? Do we outlaw certain immoral practices before people realize they are wrong? In the U.S. during the civil rights movement it seems people had to be made aware that segregation and discrimination were wrong before laws were enacted. My final question is, would laws protecting human rights even work if they are enacted before the society itself accepts them?

You all might find it uplifting after this to know that my friend Alex coordinated with another family who understood the unfortunate situation and agreed to take the boy in and care for him. All of this was without the knowledge of the original host family. I found it quite courageous of my friend to take action. Perhaps this is would be a message to the original family they would not have received or been able to understand otherwise.

Child labor or child prostitution?

2008-04-23T23:57:00.002-04:00

Hey all! The presentation on child labor reminded me of a discussion I had in another class. It is not directly related to employment law, but I thought that if any of you were interested in what happens to children in impoverished countries, I would share this info with you.

Aubrey mentioned in his presentation today that often times when children have been removed from factories that are employing child labor, they are returned to the streets, and prostitution is their only way of making money. The link below is a documentary, "Born into Brothels," about a photo journalist who went to Calcutta to research the red light district. However, what she found was the children of prostitutes and how dim their future looked. Inspired to help the children, she taught them how to take photographs, in hopes of liberating them from their circumstance. The documentary is very touching and inspiring. I encourage all of you to watch a few minutes of it because it opens our eyes, as Americans, to some of the struggles of other countries, particulary the reality of child prostitution.

One really interesting thing that the video points out is the difficultly in adopting or taking a child out of Calcutta. It is so difficult that it is much more realistic that a child must figure out a way to make a suitable life in his own country. Does knowing that the children have no escape change our minds on child labor? What about when the only other option is prostitution? I am by no means endorsing child labor, but I just wonder if sometimes, we don't see the whole picture. What do you think?

Seriously, check out the video! It is something else!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2736319599359779313

The UK's DNA Database

2008-04-23T19:18:00.002-04:00

Since a few people seemed interested in the DNA Database during our presentation today, I found this article, which highlights the errors found in the UK's DNA Database. The article says that the DNA contains that of children and individuals who have been arrested. Couldn't this very DNA be misused to implicate someone who is not guilty? In one of my other classes, we discussed how in our culture we view science as truth and system built upon these as truth too, although they are man-made, and as a result subject to error. Someone in the article refers to the DNA database as a joke, as "a system worthy of the Keystone Cops" but it is hardly a joke! While there are advantages to the DNA database such catching criminals who were once arrested by identifying their DNA at a crime scene or having children's DNA to identify a kidnapped person but do these outweigh the potential the system has for misuse?

Are Employers Taking Monitoring and Surveillance Too Far?

2008-04-23T13:34:00.001-04:00

In our presentation concerning employment privacy, more specifically employee monitoring, I touched on how employers have the ability to monitor anywhere in the workplace with the exception of employers in California. I mentioned how I read a case where an employee wanted to make a claim against his employer for installing hidden cameras behind the mirror in the bathroom. Here is a little more information about the case, “Consolidated Freightways ("Consolidated"), the defendant in this action, is a large trucking company.1 It concealed video cameras and audio listening devices behind two-way mirrors in the restrooms at its terminal in Mira Loma, California, ostensibly to detect and prevent drug use by its drivers.” Furthermore, the case states, “Employees at the terminal discovered the surveillance equipment when a mirror fell off the men's restroom wall, exposing a camera with a wire leading out through a hole in the wall behind it. Subsequent investigation revealed a similar hole in the wall behind the mirror in the adjoining women's restroom.” The California law states, “Under California Penal Code § 653n, "[a]ny person who installs or who maintains . . . any two-way mirror permitting observation of any restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, shower, locker room, fitting room, motel room, or hotel room, is guilty of a misdemeanor." Thus, Consolidated's installation of the two-way mirror was a direct violation of California criminal law. Soon after discovery of the camera, truck driver Lloyd Cramer, an employee at the Mira Loma terminal, brought a class action suit in state court alleging invasion of privacy on behalf of all "individuals lawfully on the premises . . . who had a reasonable expectation of privacy while using [Consolidated's] restrooms." Guillermo Alfaro, another Consolidated employee, and 281 others brought a separate suit seeking damages for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. They also sought injunctive relief to end the use of the surveillance devices.”

After reading this short excerpt from the case, I was wondering how you feel about employers across the country, potentially your future employer, installing hidden cameras behind the mirrors in bathrooms, locker rooms, ect? If you recall from the presentation, 75 percent of employers monitor without any individualized cause whatsoever, which means they can or may be watching internal bathroom activity and in my mind, this is not okay. I was hoping to spark any additional comments or opinions on the subject.

If you wish to read the case go to this website [http://epic.org/privacy/workplace/], scroll down to selected cases, and click the first one, it is Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways (PDF), No. 98-55657.

Work/Life Balance

2008-04-23T10:31:00.001-04:00

After our class discussion about work/life balance I was talking to my parents about it. They informed me that Cincinnati passed a law that companies had to stagger when employees arrived and left the office. This was enacted to lessen the amount of traffic employees endured to and from work. Companies not have 7-3, 9-5, and 10-6. This has cut down commute time by a third. While this seems like a very radical way that law can enter the workforce it has seemed to work and make employees happy. I think it is a great idea but it is very limited on what type of cities could utilize it. Besides the mid-sized cities like a Cincinnati or Indianapolis this might not work. Major cities like LA, Chicago, or New York would have too many commuters I think to makes this a feasible option. I wondering what other people thought of the process Cincinnati has in place and if you had any possible alternatives that would be applicable in larger cities?

Don't Worry, Be Happy

2008-04-22T23:33:00.003-04:00

As we enter into the final weeks of the semester, and, for some of us, the final weeks of our tenure at IU, I thought it would be fitting to find an article related to workplace stress. As this article reveals, if you are stressed out right now, you are not alone. According to the American Psychological Assocation, "1/3 of Americans are living with extreme stress, and nearly 1/2 of Americans say their stress has increased over the past five years."

I find it interesting to note that stress is a natural reaction of your body. Essentially, stress releases hormones invoking the body to be turned on to full alert. Historically, the article claims, stress has helped us survive by increasing our own sense of awareness of certain challenges of life, ranging from wild beasts all the way up to technological advances.

I would like to wish everyone the best of luck throughout finals week, and, as this article depicts, you are not alone if you are stressing out!

Work, work, work, work, work…work,work….

2008-04-22T22:34:00.001-04:00

Maybe it’s because I’m feeling particularly old (1.5 weeks away from graduation) but I thought it’d be interesting to talk about an issue we haven’t really touched on—retirement. Though it’s much a personal decision, the law does have an influence on how retirement benefits are compensated (social security, & employer contributions) and law has an influence age-discrimination prevention, etc.

With people living longer, not surprisingly, people have to work longer. A recent article in the NYT details how companies are designing programs to tap into the older (traditionally would-be-retired) age group. I imagine this “working till your 90 trend” is only going to get worse unless the government steps up and revamps social security or places an even greater onus on employers to provide benefits.

Personally, with senioritis upon me I can’t wait for a little down time and I can’t imagine how much I’d be aching for a break after 50 years of being employed. It worries me that one day what I have saved will not be sufficient to sustain me throughout the entirety of my retirement. Though I don't have any answers, I do hope the government and employers come to a mutual agreement concerning the importance of retirement and our need to be forward thinking.

Best of luck everyone wherever work, life, and law takes you.

Problems with Vacation

2008-04-22T19:42:00.001-04:00

I found the Tuesday presentation by Buff, Aaron, and Sarah over vacation discrepancies in different countries extremely interesting. I never realized how little vacation time Americans receive in comparison to other countries. I decided to do a little of my own research on the topic and found the following article

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3583357658&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3583357666&cisb=22_T3583357665&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=295551&docNo=6

As the group presented, the article confirms that over half American workers do not take their full vacation time. I personally find this a huge problem considering that Americans already have significantly less vacation time than other countries. More than even increasing the number of vacation days, I think that companies should focus on getting their employees to take all of their allotted days. In a lot of instances, employees do not take vacation time because the company does not look favorably on it and sadly, 27% of managers return from vacations more stressed than ever. With the negative factors that result from taking time off, it is easy to understand why employees do not take their entire time off.

I have recently experienced this issue first hand with my dad and his company. He recently took a position with a different function and they have various big projects that pop up throughout the year. Since he has been with the company a long time, he has a significant amount of vacation. My parents went to Florida a couple weeks ago and we are going to Italy this May. His company was very upset about his trips and gave him a lot of grief about going. When he did go to Florida, he had to take his laptop and phone and call in daily for updates; I hardly call that a vacation. With the increased technology of laptops and Blackberrys, it is easy for employees to stay connected while away. I do not think that this should be encouraged by companies. Employees already work hard while at work and their vacation should be their own time to relax and reenergize. I think that the employee on vacation should ONLY be contacted if there is an emergency at work. Employers need to recognize the importance of the work life balance and not impede on the employees vacation time.

To combat the problems of employees not taking their full vacation time and of employees being bothered with work while on vacation, companies should set vacation policies in place that limit the company from disrupting the employee’s vacation. I think there could even be a law set in place that punishes companies who put pressure on employees to keep working and not take their allotted vacation. I do see the downside of this being that employers would give less days of vacation so their employees cannot take as many. Does anyone else have thoughts on how to resolve these issues???

Where do we draw the line?

2008-04-21T13:11:00.002-04:00

The past few classes have really gotten me thinking about work/life balance. I recently read an article that was giving tips to IT professionals on how to achieve a work/life balance, and it got me thinking about jobs that don't have the boundaries of an office. I have been wondering if the reason why people work so much, and therefore are so successful at a young age, is because there is not definative line of when work is done for the day. The technology industry is particulary subject to being taken advantage of becuase there are no limitations on where and when work can be completed. The article specifically noted that IT employees work at least 50 hours a week, and many are on call 24/7. This, to me, does not suggest a balance. IT, though, is not the only industry with liquid lines of where work ends and life begins. Technology has enabled employees of many industries to be reached and to reach others at any time. Because of this ability, while employers may "say" that they limit hours worked, there is both an expectation from the employer and a sense of obligation from the employee to never stop working. Is this fair?

A recent post about Google's benefits for its employees struck a nerve in me, and has spured my interest on this topic. (Note to the author of the blog: you did not strike a nerve in me, the Google article did! You are great!) The Googleplex has every amenity possible for its employees. A hair salon, gym, gourmet chef, even an in house physician. This is not only a home away from home, but a life away from life. It is in this example that we see a perfect demonstration of work boundaries being erased. It seems that it would be impossible for employees to escape the pressure of work, as well as for employers to have any other expecatation of an employee. Now I realize that Google is a mega corporation, and not all careers are like this, but a standard is being set. A standard is being set that many will not want to live up to.

How far is too far with benefits that erase a life outside of work? How long is too long for hours to be worked simply because technology enables constant communication? Is a standard being set that requires all employees of all professions and industries to erase lines between work and life? I fear that being a work-a-holic will no longer be looked at as bad, but the norm. Where should the line be drawn?

To Be or Not to Be? (A Working vs. Stay-at-Home Parent)

2008-04-20T15:49:00.000-04:00

I was giving some more thought to the discussion we had in class on maintaining a work/life balance. The conversation was really interesting, because everyone seems to have their own unique view of whether or not to work if and when they start a family. I mentioned this in class, but at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think it’s important to realize that we often emulate what our own parents did. If your parents worked during the day and came home and had family time at night, that’s likely what you will want to do with your family (assuming you had a good experience with that). Similarly, if your mom or dad was around during the day to take you to soccer practice, pick you up from piano lessons, and having dinner prepared when you got home, then it isn’t surprising if that’s what you want to do, too. (By the way, this is an interesting link to tips for balancing work and family: http://parenting.ivillage.com/mom/workfamily/0,,nxjr,00.html).

I’m a psychology major, so it’s not surprising that I attempt to relate everything to a psychological theory. I found it particularly interesting when the class started justifying their parents work/life balance. At one point, someone argued that they didn’t think stay-at-home parents represented a very balanced lifestyle. This was a very interesting point, but if I remember correctly, it was made by someone whose parents both worked (?). Either way, it made me think of something called the “Social Desirability Bias,” which is the tendency to present oneself in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. I bring this up because I feel like it came into play in our conversation. It seemed that at times, social desirability was used in justifying individuals’ parents choice to work or stay at home. We all (for the most part) want to defend what our parents did, because we are proud of them.

My mom was a stay-at-home mother. She worked part-time, but for the most part, she dedicated herself to being a mom to my brother and me. I personally loved having her around. Granted, I have an excellent (and very rare, from what I can tell) relationship with both my parents, and unlike most of my friends, I love spending time with my parents. Just as my mom did, I want to stay at home and raise my kids, whenever the time comes. This isn’t to say that I want to give up my entire career and devote my every waking moment to my children, but I do want to be involved in their lives and in actively raising them. And I have no doubt that this propensity to do so comes as a direct result of the way my parents raised me. To me, part of my career IS my family, and I don’t think I’d be happy if I couldn’t be fairly involved.

I suppose what is the most important thing is that there is no “one right answer.” Everyone has their own preferences and desires in how they want to live their lives. For some people, working full time as an investment banker and seeing their family during the weekends only is fine. It works for them. For others, working during the day and seeing family in the evening and weekends is what works best. Either way, I think that each person ultimately discovers what works best for them, and this turns into their work/life balance. We all have different goals and desires, and what works best for me is not going to be best for the next person.

Whistle Blowing (a little late)

2008-04-15T23:18:00.002-04:00

I forgot all about a story that I heard a couple of weeks ago during March Madness. It was about the mens basketball coach at Tennessee, Bruce Pearl. He was a rising star of an assistant coach at the University of Iowa. When in 1989 he blew the whistle on Illinois and their recuiting violations similar to the ones that Kelvin Sampson and IU had. Pearl did all the right things first going to the head coach then the athletic director and finally bringing the accusations to the NCAA.

However, instead of being praised for calling out the school on their violations he was "black-balled" from Division I basketball. He got fired from Iowa and even though he was a worthy assistant coach, he was unable to find a job. No one wanted him. He finally got a job for the University of Southern Indiana a far stretch from Big Ten and Division I basketball. He won the Division II championship in his second year at USI but still only 1 team in division I even bothered to interview him. It was 9 years until he got a serious offer from a school. And now he has coached Tennesses into a national power but was hardly given the chance because he decided to blow the whistle on Illinois and their recuiting tactics.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3299331&sportCat=ncb