The Plane Truth About the JetBlue Flight Attendant.

Posted by Dennis J. Merley on August 27, 2010

Blog Pic - Jet BlueSuppose one of your employees decided to stop performing his job tasks, choosing instead to profanely berate your customers over a loudspeaker and then walk off the job in a way that endangered the physical safety of people around him.  If that wasn’t bad enough, what if he came back the next day and asked for his job back?

In a nutshell, that is the story of Steven Slater, the JetBlue flight attendant whose antics seem to have elevated him to the role of folk hero in the media and the blogosphere.  He appears to have tapped a large reserve of anti-employer sentiment while playing out a “take this job and shove it” fantasy that seems to resonate with large numbers of people.

Why do so many people view Slater as some sort of spokesman for the common man (see the ABC News story  entitled Criminal or Folk Hero)?  Why has his rude and public temper tantrum become an anthem for disaffected employees?  The answer may be nothing more than the fact that many people just don’t like their jobs and would rather be doing something else.

Employers need to remember that an employee’s job dissatisfaction may not be rational or justified.  In today’s economy, when so many people should appreciate the efforts that their employers are making to preserve their jobs, workers are still going to feel frustrated, bored, unhappy or various other negative feelings when it comes to their jobs. 

In fact, CNN reported a Conference Board survey showing that 45% of employees were dissatisfied with their job--the lowest level since recordkeeping began 22 years ago.  You might even call this a case of the “JetBlues.”

Right or wrong, employers have to deal with this and the potential fallout that might result   It won’t be good for business if one of your employees (or ex-employees) is vested with folk hero or martyr status over their experiences at your company.  Therefore, even if you know you have a great working environment, expect some dissatisfaction and think of what you can do to minimize it and address it. 

Considerations include:

  • Do employees in monotonous jobs ever get to rotate to different assignments? 
    •  
  • Can the “culture” of the workplace be reshaped or enhanced in some way? 
    •  
  • Is an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) available to help employees find more satisfaction on the job and more success outside of it?

A little prevention may go a long way in smoothing out a bumpy ride for employees.

Election Day in Minnesota: New Employer Obligations

Posted by Grant T. Collins on August 09, 2010

Blog Pic - VotingOn Tuesday, August 10, 2010, Minnesotans will head to the polls to cast their vote in the state's primary.  Minnesota's Election Day Law, Minn. Stat. § 204C.04, which covers all "regularly scheduled" state primary or general election, including Tuesday's primary, was recently amended to give employees the "right to be absent from work for the time necessary to appear at the employee's polling place, cast a ballot, and return to work."

It is important for employers to take a moment to review the new law's requirements and understand your obligations.

Expansion of the "Right to Be Absent from Work"

In 2010, the Minnesota Legislature expanded employees' opportunity to be absent from work without penalty to vote.  Legislators removed the provision that had previously allowed such absences only in the morning of Election Day.

Every employee who is eligible to vote has the right to be absent without penalty or loss of salary or wages.  Under the new law, employees have the right to be absent from work “for the time necessary to appear at the employee’s polling place, cast a ballot, and return to work on the day of that election.”

Employers or "other persons" may not either directly or indirectly refuse or otherwise interfere with an employee’s right to take the time to vote on Election Day.  Violations of the statute are guilty of a misdemeanor.

Answers to Unanswered Questions

Other than prohibiting "penalties" or "wage and salary deductions," the Minnesota Election Day Law provides little guidance to employers.  Employers often ask very specific questions that are simply not addressed by the statute.

  • Can I require an employee to provide advanced notice?

Probably.  While the statute does not directly address this issue, an employee would be hard pressed to argue that providing notice to his employer (at least at the time his or her shift starts) somehow interferes with the employee's right to be absent from work to vote and lack of notice is not a valid basis for taking disciplinary action.

  • Can I limit the amount of time the employee is absent from work?

Yes, although this will be difficult to enforce.  The statute provides that the employee must be given time off for the time necessary to (1) appear at the employee's polling place, (2) cast a ballot, and (3) return to work. It does not provide for time off to stop at McDonalds on the way. It may be difficult, however, to determine whether an employee who seems to be taking a long time to return to work is doing anything other than simply waiting in a long line at the polling place.

It is important to note that the statute makes it clear that the employee should be given sufficient time to vote at the "employee's polling place."  Therefore, employees who travel great distances to get to work must be given enough time to travel to their polling place and back. 

  • Can I require the employee to use accrued vacation or paid time off (PTO) to make up the difference?

Probably not.  While the statute does not address this question, deducting an employee's accrued leave or PTO may be viewed as a prohibited deduction or penalty.

  • Can I coordinate an employee's time off with other employees who request time off to vote?

Probably.  Again, the statute does not address whether an employer may coordinate the employees’ time away to vote in order to minimize disruption or ensure proper staffing, it is likely that an employer can do so as long as the employer gives the employee sufficient time off to (1) appear at the employee's polling place, (2) cast a ballot, and (3) return to work.

Take-away

Minnesota employers must provide employees time off with pay on election day (including state primaries).  The amount of time must be sufficient to (1) appear at the employee's polling place, (2) cast a ballot, and (3) return to work.

Shirley Sherrod and the Rush to Judgment: Could it Happen at Your Organization?

Posted by Alice O'Brien Berquist on August 03, 2010

What would you do if you received an anonymous complaint together with a video--perhaps posted on YouTube--showing your employee doing something very, very wrong. What if the media was camped outside your door wondering what your organization was going to do about it. Knowing that cameras don’t “lie,” and wanting to appear decisive, would you act quickly to terminate the employee.

That is the story of what happened to Shirley Sherrod and President Obama, who got dragged into the mess after Sherrod was terminated for making allegedly racist remarks based on a video from an NAACP speech given last March. The video was released by a notoriously right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart on his  website BigGovernment.com, leading to an immediate and frenzied cry for her termination.  We don’t know whether Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called Human Resources before he made the snap decision.  But if he had, we can only hope that Human Resources would have urged caution and advised that certain cautionary steps should be taken prior to termination, even if the proof appeared irrefutable.

Here’s what the USDA got wrong.

Always, and we mean always, ask the employee who is about to be fired for his or her side of the story. This applies even in circumstances where you can’t think of a reason which would justify the employee’s actions and where there is immense pressure to take immediate action.  Although it doesn’t happen every time, many times there are circumstances which justify the employee’s actions.

In this case, if the Secretary had watched the entire video before firing Sherrod, he would have learned that she was in fact making the point that every farmer needs to be helped, regardless of race.  Sherrod, who was offered another job with the USDA, hasn’t decided whether to accept one. She could decide to file an employment lawsuit--in addition to her defamation suit against Mr. Breitbart--which would have plaintiff attorneys salivating at the chance to represent her.  We hope you wouldn’t make the same mistake.