Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Building a Better Workplace

Commentary
Barbara Silver, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor
Research Coordinator
Vanessa Armstrong
MS Candidate,
Labor Relations & Human Resources

The Work-Life Movement

The contemporary American workplace is evolving far from its 20th century roots, during which the ideal worker was characterized as someone unfailingly committed and available to his job, and who did not allow personal or family responsibilities to interfere with his job performance. Today, this breadwinner-caretaker model has been replaced, as women and men are now represented equally in the workplace, as dual-earner couples become the norm, and as the workforce ages and becomes more culturally diverse. Research shows that employees are working longer hours than ever before and are increasingly strained as their role demands become more intense and multi-faceted. Implementing flexible work options that allow workers to work effectively but creatively as they juggle myriad responsibilities has become a central feature of the proactive 21st century workplace. The list includes teleworking, paid family leave, child and elder care assistance, part-time options, full-time modified duties, sick banks, shift bidding, phased retirement, compressed work weeks, job sharing, and many others.

There are currently many national initiatives aimed at educating employers and the public about the need to be more caring and responsive to these conditions. For example, both houses of Congress have passed bills aimed at enforcing federal telework (working remotely) mandates, and the current administration's proposed 2011 budget requires a 50% increase in teleworking for federal employees (Lister & Harnish, 2010b). In March 2010, the White House brought national attention to this issue by sponsoring a Conference on Workplace Flexibility, and many federal initiatives are in place and being developed in recognition of the vital importance of these strategies to the modern workplace.

Trends in Academia

Over the past decade, colleges and universities across the country have begun to catch up to the corporate sector in their recognition that our changing demographics and the changing ways we work and study require changes in workplace policies and practices. In order to maintain a competitive edge in recruitment, retention, and engagement, of faculty, staff, and students, higher education is making strides toward providing flexibility options, child and elder care services, paid leave, and other work-life balance options. The College and University Work/Family Association has been a leader in providing work-life information and services specifically to the higher education community.

The World at Work report, Workplace Flexibility: Innovation in Action (2008), notes that the workplace flexibility challenges in higher education differ from other workplace settings in that higher education institutions have to accommodate widely differing positions, including faculty - tenured, on a tenure track, or not on a tenure track – as well as a wide variety of staff positions. Because of the nature of faculty work, they generally have greater control over when and where their work is accomplished, and thus have greater flexibility than many staff positions. When asked what flexibility options were of most value to faculty, the option of having dedicated time to focus on research with no teaching obligations was of high value for associate (65%) and full (73%) women professors (World at Work, 2008). This option was also the most highly valued among faculty in general (55%) as opposed to flex-time and part-time options. Among staff members, the most valued flexible work option (59%) was the flexibility in one's schedule to allow for taking courses. For women staff members in higher education, the most valued flexible work option (63%) was flex time or flexible hours. (World at Work, 2008)

Many educational institutions have begun to implement innovative flexible work options. According to the American Association of University Professors, the "practices reported to have the greatest potential benefit to faculty included stopping of the tenure clock, modified duties, paid maternity leave, paid dependent-care leave, and the existence of units or personnel dedicated to work-family issues" (World at Work, 2008: 13). Another example of a flexible work option is Ohio State University's policy of "providing 100 percent compensation for up to two quarters of faculty professional leave" (2008: 38). After the University of Washington implemented a program called "Parental Teaching Release for Parent/Child Bonding," faculty taking part in the program reported higher satisfaction with the flexibility available. The University of Washington also pays for replacement instruction for faculty members taking leave. Other examples of work-life options at universities include tenure-clock flexibility, making funds available for faculty to hire post-docs when the faculty member is on leave, dissemination of best practices of family friendly accommodations to all system schools in a state, and offering a career database that allows for cost-benefit analysis of the flexible options offered to faculty. (World at Work, 2008).

Benefits of Providing Work-Life Balance Options

The benefits of providing workplace flexibility have by now been well documented and are bi-directional. We know that workplaces that foster flexibility and an atmosphere of trust, respect, and responsiveness to workers' needs are also characterized by several positive outcomes to both employee and organization, including increased organizational citizenship behaviors, worker satisfaction, commitment, productivity, retention and engagement, increased physical and mental health, and reduced absenteeism, stress, and attrition. (Kossek & Hammer, 2008; Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008).

Many companies today are reporting the effectiveness on recruitment offering flexible work arrangements is having (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005). According to the World at Work report (2008), "95 percent of employees in the United States say that availability of flexible work arrangements is a critical factor in taking a job" (2008: 31). As well, employees working in an organization with high flexibility were more likely to remain with their employers than those in organizations with lower levels of flexibility, and reported higher levels of job satisfaction. According to the Sloan Center Age & Generations Study, for all age groups of employees studied, a majority "reported that having access to flexible work options contributes to their overall quality of life 'to a great extent'" (Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & Besen, 2009: 2).

While the effects of workplace flexibility are clear amongst higher wage workers, "flexibility has powerful impacts on lower wage workers in terms of engagement, turnover, and financial results" (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2006:15). When lower wage workers were offered flexible work options, the results included higher retention, higher profits, lower rates of absenteeism, and increased productivity. While different strategies may be required for different categories of employees, creative solutions can be found for everyone.

Barriers to Flexibility

Cost
While the business case for providing a flexible workplace has been convincingly made, many institutions have been slow to recognize this important relationship, or recognize it but are still reluctant to introduce flexibility initiatives. A National Study of Employers survey found that cost was cited as the number one obstacle for implementing flexible work options (46% of respondents). However, research also indicates that administrators agree overwhelmingly that flexible work strategies have a positive effect on helping organizations meet business objectives (Corporate Voices, 2007). An expanding body of research provides solid evidence that the return on investments in flexible work options is high, in terms of productivity, engagement, loyalty, retention, and job satisfaction. It is estimated, for example, that allowing employees to telework, or work remotely (also called workshifting) half time could save employers over $10,000 per employee per year as a result of increased productivity, reduced facility costs, lowered absenteeism, and reduced turnover (Lister & Harnish, 2010b).
In addition, there are many, many creative solutions to provide employees the flexibility they need that require few or no additional resources.

Fear of Abuse
A regularly cited reason for not implementing flexible work options is the fear that employees will take advantage of the flexibility offered. Lister and Harnish (2010a) note that "management styles that were born in the days of sweatshops and typing pools are still pervasive in business today." However, this attitude reflects a traditional top-down, control-oriented management model, one whose values contradict workplace flexibility and a corresponding ethic that includes trust, worker independence, and creative, agile solutions. Regardless of workplace policies, there will always be some abuse by some employees. Using management strategies that cater to this minority, or the "lowest common denominator," does not serve an organization or its employees well. Effective management is a better strategy. Indeed, it is found repeatedly today that employees with more flexibility options are more willing to work harder than is required, are more loyal, and are more committed to their employer (Families & Work Institute, 2002).

Loss of Productivity & Absenteeism
Supervisors sometimes assume that offering flexibility results in employees not working as hard, thus decreasing organizational productivity. In fact, the opposite has been found time and again: flexibility increases productivity. A Center for Work & Family study (2000) found that 87% of employees and 70% of managers reported that flexible work arrangements had a positive or very positive impact on productivity. BestBuy's flexible Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) has netted an average productivity increase of 35% and Dow Chemical estimates a 32.5% productivity increase in its teleworkers (Lister & Harnish, 2010b). It has been found that even with a small amount of flexibility, employees have higher levels of engagement, stronger commitment to their jobs, greater job satisfaction, and lower stress levels (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005). In fact, a study of over 1,300 hourly workers across 5 companies found that employee engagement was 55% higher for those employees who have flexibility options (World at Work, 2009).
Workers in organizations without the flexibility to "presenteeism," has become a far worse culprit in loss of productivity than absenteeism, costing US employers between $150 to $250 billion annually (Schaeffer, 2007). In fact, it is estimated that 78% of employees who call in sick really are not. Instead, they do so because of family needs, personal reasons, or stress.

Concerns About Equity and Employee Resentment
Another reason employers may be reluctant to introduce flexibility initiatives is the difficulty in offering the same accommodations to all employees. Certainly in higher education, many different categories of employees exist who perform their work in different ways and under different parameters. However, "flexibility fit" is the important factor: while what works for one employee might not work for another, alternative solutions can be found that help all employees balance their work and personal lives. Offering an array of options is only valuable if those options fit the needs of employees (Pitt-Catsouphes, Matz-Costa, & Besen, 2009). What is important is that the accommodation process be same, even though the choices offered and outcomes may vary.

If anything, offering flexible work options that fit the needs of different employees serves the goals of equity, rather than the reverse. Women workers, who still shoulder the majority of household and caretaking responsibilities, experience much greater levels of stress, burnout, and slower career trajectories due to these compounded demands. Especially in arenas where they are underrepresented, such as the science and engineering disciplines, women's path up the career ladder is easily sabotaged by unrealistic expectations to do it all (Valian, 1998; Williams, 2000). As well, lower wage workers are much more likely to be restricted in their ability to have some control over their work time, due to the nature of many of their jobs, accompanied by a prevailing attitude among managers about maintaining control over work processes and schedules (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2006).

Lack of Supervisory Support
Maintaining a traditional organizational culture and resistance to change on the part of supervisors and organizations presents perhaps the most challenging obstacle to promoting a flexible workplace. Even where policies may exist, in many workplaces "there is a distinct disconnect between policy and practices, what is known as "the implementation gap". Much has been written concerning implementation barriers (Center for Work and Family, 2008; Hammer, et al, 2007; Mason, et al, 2004; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2004; World at Work, 2008). And, along with managers, employees are also often resistant. Drago and colleagues (Drago, 2007) have written extensively on the "bias avoidance" phenomenon, whereby employees fear negative repercussions from using available leave policies. Indeed, the Families and Work Institute's 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce revealed that fully 39% of employees surveyed perceive the use of flexible work options as having a negative impact on their job advancement (Families and Work Institute, 2002).

While it may be challenging, manager resistance, employee skepticism, and cultural resistance to changing the old industrial work model can be overcome. A better understanding the issues and the strength of the business case for flexibility, supervisory training in best practices, performance-based management strategies, and open, consistent communication between supervisors and employees will go a long way toward overcoming these obstacles.

References

Bond, J.T., Thompson,C., Galinsky, & Prottas, D. (2002). Highlights of the national study of the changing workforce: Executive summary. Families & Work Institute. http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/summary/nscw2002summ.pdf
Center for Work & Family (2000). Measuring the impact of workplace flexbility: Findings from the national work life measurement project. Boston College, Boston, MA: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/research/publications/meta-elements/pdf/BCCWF_Flex_Impact_Final_Report.pdf
Center for Work & Family (2008). Overcoming the implementation gap: How 20 leading companies are making flexibility work. Boston College, Boston, MA: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/meta-elements/pdf/Flex_ExecutiveSummary_for_web.pdf
Corporate Voices for Working Families (2005). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for expansion. Washington, DC. http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/system/files/Business%20Impacts%20of%20Flexibility.pdf
Corporate Voices for Working Families (2006). Workplace flexibility for lower wage workers, Washington, DC. http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/publication-toolkits/workplace-flexibility-lower-wage-workers-october-2006
Corporate Voices for Working Families (2007). Flexible work strategies: Attitudes & experiences - Executive Summary. Washington, DC. http://corporatevoices.org/system/files/flexibleworkstrategiessummary_for%20web.pdf
Drago, Robert (2007). Striking a balance: Work, family, life. Boston, MA: Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.
Hammer, L.B., Kossek, E.E., Zimmerman, K, & Daniels, R. (2007). Clarifying the construct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB): A multilevel perspective. In Perrewe, P.L. & Ganster, D.C (Eds) Exploring the Work and Non-Work Interface. New York: Elsevier, JAI Press.
Kossek, E.E. & Hammer, L.B. (2008). Family supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB) intervention study: Effects oon employee's work, family, safety, & health outcomes. National Work, Family, & Health Network: Center of work-Family Stress, Safety, and Health. http://wjsupport.psy.pdx.edu/
Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2010a). Results based management: The key to unlocking talent, increasing productivity. Telework Research Network: http://img.en25.com/Web/CitrixOnline/Increasing_Productivity%20.pdf
Lister, K., & Harnish, T. (2010b). Workshifting benefits: the bottom line. Telework Research Network: TeleworkResearchNetwork.com
Mason, M.A. and Goulden, Marc (2004) Do babies matter (Part II): Closing the baby gap. Academe, November-December.
Pink, D. (2009). The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin Group.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M. & Matz-Costa, C. (2008). The multi-generational workforce: Workplace flexibility and engagement. Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 215-229.
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Matz-Costa, C., & Besen, E. (2009). Workplace flexibility: Findings from the age & generations study. Issue Brief, The Sloan Center on Aging &Work, 1-21.
Schaefer, P. (2007) The hidden cost of presenteeism: Causes and solutions. Business Knowhow. Attard Communications, Inc. http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/presenteeism.htm
Valian, Virginia (1998) Why so slow: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Williams, Joan (2000) Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004). Fear factor: How safe is it to make time for family. Academe, November-December.
World at Work (2008). Workplace flexibility: Innovation in action. WorldatWork Press. http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=26715&from=book_search_worklife
World at Work (2009). Innovative worrkplace flexibility options for hourly workers. http://www.cvworkingfamilies.org/system/files/CVWFflexreport-FINAL.pdf


Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Nobel Prize in Economics: 2010

Commentary
by Professor Richard McIntyre, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

Diamond, Mortenson and Pissariades were awarded the Nobel prize in Economics this year for “search theory.” This work was part of the increased interest in the costs of information in the 1970s. It was also one of a number of approaches that shifted attention from the demand to the supply side of the labor market at that time. Search theory has applications to housing and public economics but I will confine my comments here to the labor market implications of search theory.

The idea that workers and jobs are heterogeneous and that it takes time and effort to match them is useful for both policy and theory. Sweden’s “active labor market policy” sought to reduce frictional unemployment even before the now classic papers on search theory were published. Perhaps this is why the Swedish Central Bank made this award, although speculation about the reasoning behind these awards is not terribly productive in my opinion.

One interpretation of search is that it explains the persistence of high unemployment rates. In the New York Times article announcing the award Robert Shimer, an economist at the University of Chicago, was quoted as saying that “That’s a big controversy in the U.S. recently. Most of these models suggest that even in a depressed economy, more generous unemployment benefits tend to raise the unemployment rate. Benefits are obviously good for the unemployed, but there are some clear tradeoffs.”

Standard labor market models assume that workers make choices whether to work or not based on their reservation wage and the level of unemployment benefits. But in the current situation, there are so few jobs available that workers are more likely to drop out of the labor market than to be re-employed. Those who have maintained employment are more likely to be involuntarily working part time because of slack demand. So far this is the weakest recovery since World War II. In other words the high rate of unemployment is overwhelmingly due to slack demand rather than longer search periods caused by extended unemployment benefits. Since only about 40 percent of the unemployed generally receive benefits, while there may be anecdotes about people remaining unemployed so as to collect benefits, this is a minor part of the current labor market story.
There is an older view associated with Frances Perkins and other architects of the New Deal in which unemployment and low wages lead to more unemployment. As people lose their jobs and/or wages fell, more people in the family had to seek work, thus increasing the excess supply of workers relative to available jobs. By this logic larger/longer unemployment insurance lowers unemployment by reducing the number of people who have to go job-hunting when employment opportunities are scarce.

Unemployment in Europe has generally been higher than in the US over the last two decades and some economists try to use search theory to explain this. Here is Lawrence Katz of Harvard from the same Times article: “Many European countries put restrictions on the ability of firms to hire and fire. If you make it harder to hire and fire, then you end up with what’s called a sclerotic labor market, with less movement between jobs and more long-term unemployment.”
There is a basic empirical problem here also. European labor markets were much more rigid in the 1960s and 70s than they are today, and yet unemployment rates at that time were significantly lower in Europe than in the United States.

Reactionary attempts to build on this year’s Nobel then are strained at best. The winners of this year’s prize do not draw these kinds of conclusions. Diamond has argued that current labor market problems are primarily due to lack of aggregate demand and that loss of skills by those who have dropped out of the labor market is a bigger problem than the disincentive effects of unemployment compensation. Mortenson has said that credit market and not labor market problems are the real issue that we face.

These divergent conclusions point to both a strength and weakness of orthodox economics. The scientific apparatus of contemporary economics can be used to justify a wide range of policies. But that very range causes people to question the scientific nature of economics itself.  
More important is what search theorists don’t do. As Marx and others have pointed out, it is in the labor process, not the labor exchange that exploitation occurs. And here employers clearly have the upper hand. Further, many labor market and labor process outcomes – employment, remuneration, working conditions, training – reflect what employers choose to do, except perhaps during short-lived moments of full employment. Since the 1970s, in the US at least, the rhetoric of labor economics has been mainly about workers rather than employers, and mostly focused on what workers should do to make their labor time more salable. At best search theory tells us that people are doing something useful while they are unemployed. But for the most part it distracts us from that fact that employers have the upper hand in the labor market and that there is no such thing as democracy inside the firm, where Americans spend most of their waking time.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Labor Arbitration Conference - 2010

Contributions from:
Vanessa Armstrong, MS ‘11
Adeyemi Ogunade, MS ‘11
Sarah Soares, MS ‘12


On October 1,  2010, the SLRC hosted its 11th Annual Labor Arbitration Conference at the Marriott Hotel in Newport, RI. Attendance at this year’s conference was higher than our previous high set last year. There were 157 attendees including SLRC students Vanessa Armstrong, Alexis Lyman, Bill Maccarone, Yemi Ogunade and Sarah Soares

Professor Mark Grossman assembled an excellent group of speakers who addressed a number of important issues in the field of arbitration.

Tough Times Call for Tough Negotiations and Arbitrations
Mark Gursky, Jeffrey W. Kastle & Paul C. Reed
In the wake of the recent economic meltdown the response of employers both, in the private and public sectors of the economy, is to tighten budgets while at the same  time shed recurrent expenditure which in most cases boils down to personnel cuts. Mark Gursky emphasized the ironic condition of public sectors workers where in one breath they are told by top public officers about huge budget constraints leading to salary freezes  and on the other hand witness these officials receive huge compensation packages with benefits running into hundreds of thousands. The economic climate has encouraged employers to increasing use tactics like concession bargaining and judicial authority to overturn contractual obligations agreed upon in the CBA and ultimately impinge upon the fidelity of the arbitration process. It is not unheard of to see employers file chapter 11 and reorganize as a strategy to void CBA and thus avoid costs in terms of increased wage bill. In his recommendations to unions Mr. Gursky opined that unions should not only seek redress in Federal courts of law with more pro-union precedent but also seek to rebuild alliances with the grassroots and develop a political power base to change state legislation in their favor.

Other panelists affirmed the undeniable realities of the depression and proposed mid-term bargaining between union and employers to properly address and seek creative solutions to the new economic verities. Jeffrey Kastle was of the opinion that unions ought to be more open to the idea of mid-term bargaining and making concessions that would in the long term enhance labor relations. With interest-based arbitration used to resolve any niggling concerns that arises between both parties during mid-term bargaining.

Managing and Defending Difficult Employees
Sue Ellen Dunn & Gerard E, O'Neill
Managing and defending difficult employees is a delicate balance for the employer and the union. Sue Ellen Dunn focused on how the employer can mitigate risk, build relationships and make the right decision for all parties involved. When issues with difficult employees arise the focus must first be placed on areas including job performance, attendance and conduct in the workplace, this is the primary fact finding that must be conducted. As the employer you should know the job duties and any special requirements. Open communication with the employee and the union is essential because, depending on the situation, the union can be an ally because avoiding arbitration may be the ultimate goal, the employer may still find itself in arbitration despite best efforts.

There may be an actual valid excuse for misconduct including an employee that is bi-polar or has ADHD. In this case the employer should consider EAP but should not make it mandatory and only use EAP if it is appropriate (more serious cases). If EAP is mandatory the EAP should report back to the employer as to the employees’ progress. When issues may be in the context of the ADA the process should be flexible and interactive. The employee and employer should make reasonable proposals for accommodation to do essential functions of the job keeping in mind to be careful to ensure the law is followed, it should not  be just about the employee wanting to do another job.

When dealing with physicians, ask the physicians what you can do as an employer. Fitness for duty should not be an employee choice, employers should require the evaluation at no cost to the employee,  and the employer should inform the physician the job duties and any problems. The physician will give you an expert independent decision and make recommendations what to do next. 

Gerard E. O’Neill focused on several considerations when dealing with employees who may be slightly unbalanced, the competency, liability, or a threat. He recommended that a union official is always be present and the fact that the employee may need a friend or relative to assist with the process. Difficulties arise when clients don’t tell the truth where he recommended jettison if possible and asking for records before moving forward. In multiple discipline clients and multiple attorney clients it is more difficult to win. Conflicting claims, poor behavior and poor record keeping are all red flags when trying for a win for the client.  

Looking Over Your Shoulder: Surveillance in Employee’s Vehicles, Computers and Other Intimate Places
Susan R. Brown &  Bonnie J. McSpiritt
With the prevalence of employee monitoring in labor management, many issues arise when arbitrating matters of surveillance. The presenters outlined reasons for surveillance, two being routine and suspicion-based surveillance. Routine surveillance, which may be necessary for safety purposes or performance oversight, is conducted in the course of doing business and is applied to everyone in a given category. Routine monitoring can be used in the pursuit of suspicion-based surveillance. The speakers explored many methods of surveillance, including time clocks, human observers, global positioning systems, cell phones, computer monitoring, identification badges, video surveillance, and radio frequency identification.

The presenters made several precautions for employers regarding the use of surveillance. It was suggested that employers ensure their surveillance policies reflect what they aim to accomplish. In writing policy, the language should be tailored to the specific workplace, stating both the types of surveillance that might be conducted, and areas which might be excluded from surveillance. When addressing surveillance in the workplace, an employer should consider whether it is covered by the National Labor Relations Act as well as what state laws say about audio surveillance and privacy. When presenting surveillance evidence before a neutral arbitrator, it is important not to assume that what is seen in the evidence, such as a videotape, is evident to an outsider. Before using such surveillance evidence, evaluate the evidence objectively to determine if there is a viable case for the arbitrator.

Ways to Expedite the Arbitration Hearing and Also Make it Less Expensive
       Matthew M. Bodah & Joan Dolan   
With ever increasing costs of arbitration hearings and the increased amount of time it takes to resolve a grievance it becomes imperative arbitrators seek ways to help check this growing trend. Time and money can be saved by properly administering the pre-hearing phase of an arbitration, scheduling of the actual arbitration and during the course of the actual hearing. Prof. Bodah proposed measures to help expedite arbitration in the pre-hearing phase. He suggested the proper definition of the meaning of a grievance within a contract, with both parties actually negotiating and agreeing on a definition that is neither too broad or narrow. Other suggestions in the pre-hearing phase include ensuring a grievances are written down as soon as possible,ensuring contracts have appropriate time limits for grievances  and proper training for union stewards and HR representatives in proper investigatory procedures prior to arbitration. Here a possible method proposed is the mandatory joint fact finding committee of both union and management that would help in articulation of the issue and agreement on the facts of the case prior to the arbitration hearing which significantly reduces time wasted on arguing facts during hearings.

Other suggestions  include proper appraisal of grievance to ensure scheduling of appropriate time to hear and arbitrate case and thus avoid dragging out the arbitration process due to scheduling constraints with the arbitrator. Efficient scheduling saves time and money. Using the cheapest labor possible for non-essential tasks like transcribing e.t.c , to avoid wasting arbitrators time on mundane tasks and ensure optimal time is spent on making the decision regarding the case. Finally arbitrators could encourage and facilitate voluntary discourse between both parties to help communication, which helps expedite pending issues.

Violence in the Workplace: Dissecting the Termination Case:
Thomas R. Landry & George H. Rinaldi
The session was opened with the OSHA definition of workplace violence as violence or the threat of violence against workers. The panel them surprised the audience with the fact that homicide was the fourth leading cause of workplace deaths. Employers concerns with workplace violence were covered first including concerns with reputation, law suits, control issues, and issues that could roll into Title 7. The union concerns were member to member issues and the fact that zero tolerance does not equal immediate termination. With those concerns in mind the panel reviewed whether or not employer should have a workplace violence policy and if a policy exists to what depth should it cover. A simple policy may not cover enough and leave too much room to interpretation and a strict policy of zero tolerance can lead to issues in enforcing the policy. The panel discussed disciplinary factors and defenses including considerations of the level of violence, who the target is, the location, and any prior disciplinary record. Defenses included self defense, horseplay (threat vs. shop talk), cultural sensitivity, and an ADA disability defense. The union has to make many considerations and balance are their members safe and working through what members should actually be defended. Ultimately it comes down to what type of policy should the employer have, workplace violence (simple vs. complex), a bullying policy or no policy at all.

Context Matters: An Explanation of Perceived Inconsistencies in Disciplinary Cases
Lawrence Katz & Elizabeth Neumeier
The panel of arbitrators addressed a number of perceived inconsistencies in disciplinary cases and posed a number of scenarios to illustrate the importance of context when considering the offense, employment, and discipline. For employees, instances such as off-duty convictions, charges filed and later dropped, publicized arrests, or perceived threats, can greatly influence an employer’s course of action in discipline. This raises the question, should employees be punished for something done outside the workplace? When these issues arise, employers may discharge the employee for two reasons: determination that in light of the findings the employee is no longer suitable for the position or fear that the offense may be repeated on the job, also known as preventative discharge. An employer should question, what is the nexus of the offense to the employment? An employer must also consider the context of the offense and employment: Can the implication of the conviction be overwritten by a good record of employment? While an employer may be inclined to avoid discharge, especially of a good employee, other influences such as past practice or pressure from the public may lead the employer to take action for its own protection.

The panelists concluded with the issue of threats in and outside the workplace. Of great importance is where an employer draws the line in determining if a threat is real. What is the workplace policy on threats? Employers must decide if the threat warrants discipline and education, or the employee should be discharged. Due to this uncertainty and the possibility of misinterpretation, many employers have no-tolerance rules for threats and have prohibited some language altogether in the workplace. It is important for employers to establish clear and consistently enforced policies regarding threats.

Arbitrating in the Public Sector 
Darren F. Corrente & Thomas J. McAndrew
The statutory role of the arbitrator was explored at length in this segment of the conference  especially especially in relating to public sector grievances and the recent rising trend of courts in Rhode Island overturn arbitration decisions. the discourse centered on how to balance the statutory responsibilities of the negotiators expounded by the supreme court in the Trilogy, against the excesses of an arbitrator dispensing his/her own brand of industrial justice.  In light of recent R.I court rulings overturning arbitrations, the panelists opined that arbitrators should stay within the four corners of the CBA in making rulings in cases, especially in public sector cases where decisions have broader implications. Arbitrators should put foreword sound reasons grounded in the contract or past labor relations practices for decisions. Further arbitrators should avoid replacing facts of the case with biases in order to preclude judicial intervention.

On the other hand  the panelist stated that both labor and management advocates in arbitration cases ,irrespective of the outcome of the decision ought to insist upon the fidelity of the arbitration process,as an extension of the CBA, except in egregious cases of misconduct by the arbitrator highlighted in the trilogy. Other issues discussed include the imperative of a nuanced approach to arbitration when dealing with the public sector cases due to sundry civil service laws and municipal ordinances that overlap with the typical private sector scheme thus limiting the scope of arbitration on certain issues in the public sector.Overall the discussion centered on the need to push for new legislative provisions that would help clarify public sector employers bargaining positions and limit the penchant of public sector employers exceeding their authority in agreeing to certain provisions in the CBA. Which in many respects is the root cause of grievances in the public sector.

The Pros and Cons of Private Sector Interest Arbitration Provisions
Jack Callaci & Joseph D. Whelan
In this session the panel spent time imposing the importance of preparation in the arbitration process.  With private sector interest arbitration the parties cease the right to strikes, lockouts and impasse. It is rarely used in the private sector and there are many considerations that must be determined including: selection of an arbitrator, the hearing procedures, the authority of the arbitrators and post hearing issues. The panel stated there should be a template, definitions should be known, comparables should be defined and the whole economic package should be known. Both parties need to consider if the arbitration will put them in a better position, what they are trying to achieve, and the impact of someone else making the decision. The union’s perspective may be how many unions are winning strikes (is it smart to waive the right to strike if unions are winning). The employer’s perspective is that interest arbitration doesn’t create a panic for agreement, there is time to prepare and the prohibition of a strike allows for a better chance of maintaining a positive relationship with the union. For both parties the considerations have to be weighed and decisions need to make with both parties what the best alternative will be.

Classic, Difficult Issues That Arise During Arbitration Hearings and How to Resolve Them
Joseph M. Daly & Michael W. Stutz
The very nature of arbitration proceedings  demand mental acuity to deal with nuanced issues on a case by case basis. Despite this certain issues frequently arise during arbitration hearings and knowledge of the classic solutions to these problems espoused by preeminent arbitrators becomes crucial. The panel discussed some thorny issues that frequently arise in arbitration and classic solutions to these issues. Questions like, what happens when management calls the grant as it’s first witness in a case, what to do when a union steward is called by management and asked to testify about consultation with the grievant, how to handle requests by interested third parties  to attend or participate in arbitration hearings and what to do when the union steward calls company HR manager and asks him/her to testify about internal documents. These as well as other troublesome issues were extensively discussed.

To Arbitrate or Not: Considering the Investigatory Process, Weingarten, Loudermill, last chance agreements, and other settlements.
Jean E. Zeiler & Steven A. Torres
Many issues should be considered when deciding whether to take a case to arbitration. A key component of this process, taking place before the disciplinary hearing, is the investigatory interview. During the investigatory hearing, either party may solicit new information from a charged employee, or verify information already received. If an employee has a reason to believe he may be disciplined during a meeting with an employer, his Weingarten rights allow him to have the union representative available at that time present at the meeting. It is essential to make these Weingarten rights known to the employee, for an employer’s failure to allow the presence of a union representative can result in an arbitrator declining to uphold the discharge. Since the union is faced with the issue of the duty of fair representation, it should have a good faith reason for not taking a case forward after a fair investigation has been completed before it can be free of such DFR violation accusations. The duo offered tips for constructing last chance agreements, noting that these agreements are best if they define the triggering event leading to the last chance agreement. It was also noted that a last chance agreement protects the union from violating the duty of fair representation and the employer from future instances with the employee.

The panelists discussed additional factors which influence the decision for an employer or union to take cases to arbitration or settle.  Each party should consider the cost of taking a case to arbitration, weighing in on the cost of trying the case and the amount which would be owed to the employee outside of liability if the case is lost. Both parties will participate in case valuation, or determining the probability of success of the case based on the merits of the case, including the strength of the evidence and proof. The non-tangible issues of public relations and politics also influence the decision to arbitrate such that either side may not want to arbitrate or appeal. Lastly, once an arbitrator is selected, either party may choose to settle after reviewing the arbitrator’s profile and previous decisions.

Effective Advocacy in the Arbitration Process
William E. O'Gara Jr. & Stephen T. Fanning
The focus of Steve Fanning’s presentation was the need to carefully prepare for any hearing with an eye towards simplifying the case.  Preparation requires that any potential witness be interviewed and an outline on the questions prepared.  The advocate should also spend time to identify what exhibits will be needed.  An overlooked tool according to Mr. Fanning is contacting the opponent before the hearing to see what issue can be stipulated to with an eye towards eliminating unnecessary testimony and evidence.

Mr. O’Gara focused on the need for an advocate to spend time outlining cross examination of likely opposing witnesses before the hearing.  Cross examination is fundamentally different than direct examination.  While direct testimony allows a witness to tell his story, cross examination is designed to develop facts that undermine that story.  To be effective, cross should be concise and geared to developing facts that support one’s theory of the case.
         
A common failure on cross examination is to simply track the direct testimony.  An additional trap is asking open-ended questions that allow the witness to offer self-serving answers.  Advocacy requires at least a basic ability to cross examine a witness.  Echoing the comments of Mr. Fanning, Mr. O’Gara emphasized the need to prepare for the hearing and outline the testimony that one needs to develop on cross examination.

Mark did an outstanding job of organizing the annual event. Next year's conference is scheduled for October 7, 2011 at the Marriott in Newport

Our 24th Annual Labor and Employment Law Conference is scheduled for April, 292011 at URI's W. Alton Jones Campus in West Greenwich, RI.

Click Here to view the 2010 Arbitration Conference brochure

Monday, August 23, 2010

Are You a Misfit?

Commentary
by Professor Tony Wheeler
Associate Professor of Human Resource Management

I completed my Ph.D. in 2003, and I have worked for three universities since that time, with URI hopefully being final employer. A couple of weeks ago I mentioned to my boss that I had recently experienced a strange feeling at work: job satisfaction. Yes, I teach students about job satisfaction, but I had totally forgotten what it felt like.

I have come to the conclusion that until recently I had been a perpetual misfit. Now people can experience fit in many ways. We can have the right knowledge, skills, and abilities to fit our jobs (unsurprisingly called Person-Job Fit), we can have the right predisposition to fit the career in which we have self-selected (called Person-Vocation Fit), we can share the same values that our employer does (called Person-Organization Fit), and we can have our personal resource needs met by the resources supplied by the organization (think compensation, benefits, work schedule, etc.). There are more ways to experience fit, like with teams and supervisors, but I'll stick with the major research areas within the study of fit and won't bore you with my dissertation on how we can assess multiple dimensions of fit. (Fact or fiction: My dissertation sits next to a toilet in my house so visitors can read it or use it for paper?)

When you fit...on whatever dimension of fit you value the most, which can change, life is good. You feel satisfied with your job, committed to your organization, and willing to help out around the office. We also know that when you fit, you will more likely report that you want to continue working with your organization. But what happens when you don't fit? Is it as simple as having decreased job satisfaction and commitment? Do you always leave your job when you are a misfit? What if you can't leave your job?

I have spent considerable time not just being a misfit but studying misfit. What I have found in my research is that misfit does not always lead to turnover. In fact, it's unlikely that misfit directly leads to turnover at all. Why? First, leaving a job, even when you have several job alternatives, is hard. It affects every part of your life. Just ask my wife. Do you think she's liked moving from California to Illinois to Rhode Island, even as each job got progressively better and we moved progressively closer to our families? Second, no one likes to be a misfit and probably spends time trying to correct the source of the misfit. My primary source of misfit with my previous employers almost always came from disagreements over values, and I spent months trying to persuade others that we should focus more on students than ourselves.

I'm likely not alone (am I?). I recently returned from Montreal, Quebec, where I presented a model of misfit to a symposium at the Academy of Management's annual conference (8,000 academics from all over the world in one place...insert jokes here). I described a series of behaviors triggered by someone feeling like they don't have resources to meet the demands of the environment, which might include passive job search at the beginning. More likely, that first feeling of misfit causes someone to try and adapt to the environment, which might mean trying to actually change the parts of your job that are causing the misfit. Maybe you seek training opportunities. Maybe you ask your boss for some new computer software to help perform your job. Maybe you spend more of your time and effort on the parts of your job that you really enjoy. Maybe you ask your boss to work on a new team, or you volunteer for new assignments. If you successfully re-craft your job, you probably feel like you fit. Life is good again. Congratulations!

If not, you likely engage in a series of either passive or active behaviors. You might simply go into denial (Who's a misfit? Not me.). You might want to hide your misfit for fear of being fired and engage in a lot of impression management (No, really boss, that's a great idea...I love it). Or you might become vocal about the source of the misfit in an attempt to change it (Where is that raise that you promised?). You might even engage in some deviant workplace behaviors (Why do you have so many office supplies from your work at home?). You might do all of these things. Each is an attempt to actively deal with your misfit. All the while your misfit causes you to feel increasingly stressed out, which will lead to burnout. Eventually, you will leave the organization, on your terms (Take this job and shove it, Jet Blue-style!) or theirs (You're Fired!). But this likely takes months if not years.

Maybe it takes a perpetual misfit to understand misfit, which really worries me. Now that I feel like I finally fit, will I no longer understand misfit?

Monday, June 21, 2010

Furloughs Theoretically Save Money but Empirically Cost Job Performance

Commentary
by Professor Tony Wheeler
Associate Professor of Human Resource Management

The current government budgetary picture in many states, if not most, and in many localities looks fairly awful. I won't focus on any particular state's budget woes because you can read any newspaper from around the country to get the details. Governments have three broad courses of action to close budget shortfalls: 1) Cut spending, 2) Increase revenues (e.g., taxes), or 3) A combination of choices 1 and 2. National, state, and local politics, obviously, affects the choices that governments will choose. As I discovered while doing research with a colleague, these political pressures even affect the research that nobody academics like myself attempt to conduct.

Especially when you want to understand the impact of furloughs on state employees.

For political reasons I cannot disclose in which state my colleague and I conducted our research, as my colleague, who collected the data, had to agree state anonymity. He also received a phone call from a lawyer in the DOJ of the state where we collected the data telling him to stop data collection and consult a university lawyer (a.k.a., cease and desist). So much for "academic freedom," human subjects approval from a sanctioned institutional review board, and the permission to collect data from 4 agencies within the state government. Luckily, we were allowed to proceed with our study after political pressure was applied from on high.

This little story should tell you about the use of furloughs to help close budget deficits: Politics, not empiricists, make the decisions, and politics and empiricism might be mutually exclusive. Why did this particular state allow us to continue with our research? Because in the midst of a political race, one side wanted to know the results of our study and the other didn't. What could we, nobody academics, possibly find that politicians seeking office would want to highlight in a campaign?

Simply, we found that as a furlough day approaches, employee emotional exhaustion, the key component of burnout, increases while job performance decreases. But it gets worse. The increased exhaustion peaks on the furlough day, remains high for a couple of days, and finally returns to pre-furlough levels a week or so later. All the while, employee job performance decreases until the exhaustion clears.

To further examine what happens during the nearly 3 week period bracketing the furlough (10 days before, 7 after), we also looked at how these exhaustion/performance effects might differ among employees. We measured employee predisposition to ruminate (e.g., constantly think about bad events) and employee positive recovery behaviors (e.g., doing things to get mentally get away from work). Unsurprisingly to us, employees who ruminated more over the impending furlough became more emotionally exhausted and took longer to recover from this exhaustion; consequently, these employees often had the biggest decrease in their job performance. Conversely, employees who reported taking steps to "get away" from work indeed had lower exhaustion, not as large of a decrease in job performance in the run up to the furlough, and faster recovery after the furlough. It's worth noting, however, that even these employees experienced increased exhaustion and decreased performance, too. It just wasn't as bad as those who ruminated.

What do we think happened here? Let's be honest about what a furlough is: a pay cut disguised as a day off. The more someone thought about this, the more upset they became and the less motivated they were to perform their jobs. For those employees who actively sought ways to "get away" from their jobs, the less impact the furlough had on them.

We viewed furloughs as a personal resource drain, and we recommended giving employees choices in this furlough (as some states do but the state we examined did not): Take the pay cut and continue working (after all, deadlines don't take days off and many furloughed employees work from home on their furlough days), choose the day of the furlough akin to a floating holiday, or schedule furloughs around holidays or weekends. Again, some states allow for these choices, but the furlough remains what it remains: a pay cut. And the work doesn't wait.

I excitedly presented these results to my LRS/MBA 573 course on Organizational Staffing, and the discussion quickly devolved into a discussion on the worth(lessness?) of government employees. Aren't government employees depressed anyway? I found this interesting and indicative of the pernicious effects of staffing practices like furloughs. On the one hand, many Americans view government employees as lazy at best and utterly stupid at worst. On the other hand, furloughs achieve exactly the results that confirm these stereotypes. We want better government employees but do things through policy to achieve the exact opposite; yet another example of the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B.

Is there any wonder politicians might be interested in our research?

(In case you're wondering, I did remind the class that I am a government employee who liked my job and wasn't depressed, but I don't think that stopped them from thinking that government employees were lazy and stupid!)

What we could not examine was how our results might link to financial or productivity outcomes at a more macro level. Unfortunately, governments have fixed budgets and metrics like sales or revenue in a for-profit sense are meaningless. We suspect that the decreases in employee performance affect the economic productivity of government organizations, which makes us question how much money furloughs actually save the government. Furloughs might make the short-term bottom line look better but ultimately do long-term productivity damage. This will have to remain a suspicion until we can find a government that tracks productivity and allows us to collect data. Good luck to us.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

“What Happens to ADHD Kids When They Grow Up?” They Go to Work

Commentary
by Professor Tony Wheeler
Associate Professor of Human Resource Management

I’m old enough to remember the days before the phrase ‘ADHD’ (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) became a permanent fixture in the consciousness of Americans. Ritalin anyone? Like many of you, I’ve always wondered what happens to kids diagnosed with this disorder when they leave school. To be honest, I do not know if any of my undergraduate or masters’ students suffer from the disorder, and I always assumed that kids either learned to adapt to it or outgrew it. I do, however, hear stories that student pass Ritalin around the dorms to achieve the same thing that us geezers used NoDoze for, which makes me think that students used it recreationally instead of for its intended purpose.

But I digress. Why am I writing about ADHD on the SLRC blog? It turns out that about 50% of ADHD cases persist into adulthood, with about 4% of the US workforce suffering from the adult version of ADHD. Adult version meaning that it’s ADHD just with the word ‘adult’ in front of it. Persistent inattention? Check. Inability to focus? Check. Poor time management and organizing skills? Check. Tendency to procrastinate? Check. That’s ADHD, and researchers estimate that ADHD in the workplace accounts for an average of 35 lost days of employee performance per ADHD employee, costing an estimated $19.5B in annual employee productivity. And, don’t forget that ADHD is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yes, my technocrat HRM friends, that means reasonable accommodation.


A colleague of mine and I just finished a research project that examined how ADHD impacts employee performance. Primarily, we looked at how ADHD interacted with employee engagement to predict job performance. Work engagement is “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74), and highly engaged employees have abundant emotional, psychological, and physical resources at their disposal to meet the demands of their job. Engagement positively relates to employee job performance and organizational citizenship (extra-role) behaviors. Which brings us to ADHD.

We collected data from 3 samples of full-time employed working adults (several hundred employees working across dozens of occupations and industries), and we found that ADHD is like a broken “resource governor.” That is, when you are engaged in your job and have all of the resources you need to excel at your job, ADHD impedes affected employees from properly allocating their energies to do their jobs as well as they could or should.


We admit it’s a simple finding. But it’s an important finding with simple solutions. First, companies need to know and be aware that ADHD affects a portion of their workforce. Second, employees need to know and be aware, too. There is a social stigma surrounding ADHD, which prevents affected employees from seeking help. This costs employees their dignity and companies their profits. Third, the solutions are simple. Aside from available health insurance to see doctors who can diagnose and treat ADHD, companies can provide simple accommodations to ADHD employees: a quiet and uncluttered workspace, time management seminars or training, and a supportive environment. The relative costs are minimal compared to the substantial benefits.



Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., Bakker, A.B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two simple confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3:.71-92.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Workforce Integration

Commentary
Adeyemi Ogunade
SLRC Graduate Student

On April 29, 2010 the United States Navy announced its recent decision to allow female naval officers serve on submarines. The Secretary of Defense, in February officially notified congress of his intent to change the policy regarding the assignment of women to submarines. Prior to now females were precluded from assignments on missile submarines. Following the repeal of the combat exclusion law in 1994, civil and women’s rights groups within the military have pushed for increased representation in key areas of the navy. Rear Adm. Barry Bruner pointed out that “the percentage of women graduating with technically-based degrees in our country has risen to the point that females now make up 51 percent of the total talent pool of young Americans we can recruit to enter our submarine force in the nuclear-trained officer community.” This makes it necessary to establish policies targeted at not only recruiting and selecting the best female candidates, but also ensuring they are properly integrated into a predominantly male work force.

Wives of male sub sailors have vehemently protested against the new policy, raising concerns over the possibility of sexual infidelity, harassment and favoritism. They aver that the cramped spaces within submarines and lengthy tours of duty that span 90 days at a stretch leave their spouses susceptible to infidelity. These concerns may appear trivial on the surface, but have the propensity to seriously hamper productivity and morale of the entire submarine crew.

The Navy’s response to these concerns has been flippant at best. Commander Kevin Byrne of the USS Alaska is of the opinion that “integrating women on board is nothing new to us. Women have been getting under way on submarines for overnight embarks and qualifications, familiarization, and sea trials embarks for week-long periods. So having women permanently established on board is not a major adjustment to the crew.” Is having a woman aboard a ship over night or for a week long period sufficient to determine the effects of the constant presence of females on submarines? Is offering female only accommodation within subs and mounting female signs on shower heads sufficient to prevent harassment in its nuanced forms? Is the existence of policies like “zero tolerance” policy, “red light, green light rule” sufficient to change ingrained attitudes and perception of male officers and non-commissioned crew men who may display antagonism towards change?

The infamous “Tail hook” scandal of 1991 in which 83 service women were assaulted is a poignant reminder of the magnitude of harm that could arise from hasty decisions and slip-shod planning. Failure to consider the strategic effects of this decision and head off possible behavioral problems with clear policies could have a deleterious effect on morale aboard submarines far removed from terrestrial chain of command. Unprofessional behaviors occasioned by lack of training, will not only destroy trust and confidence among shipmates but also erode unit cohesion and combat readiness. Contrary to prevailing belief, providing technical training for female officers aboard submarines is not enough to ensure integration. It is imperative the Navy brass ensures all male sub sailors, from officers to rank and file are retrained in gender sensitivity and harassment policy to ensure seamless integration. Setting up a training program for all male sub sailors that would propagate appropriate conduct is necessary to ensure integration. It is trite to assert that the absence of women over the years would have lead to an atrophy of social and interpersonal skills necessary to navigate a heterosexual work environment. The paucity of such skills, lack of training in appropriate conduct coupled with the sudden inclusion of women in 2012 would produce a conflagration of legal, ethical and behavioral problems that would seriously hamper national security. Failure to retrain male sub sailor in the appropriate conduct and existing navy harassment policies would only leave room for a repeat of egregious abuse. Dictum sapient sat est.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Symposium on Shared Capitalism and Worker Appropriation

Commentary
by Richard McIntyre, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics

The ongoing economic crisis in the U.S. and world economies has called the governance structures of both financial and non-financial enterprises into question. I organized a symposium at the recent International Labor Process Conference at Rutgers School of Labor Management Relations to bring together two strands of research on employee ownership and economic democracy.

Research on "shared capitalism" covers a variety of forms of worker participation and gains sharing that are already quite common in the US. The new research shows just how common these arrangements are – covering between a third and half the workforce – and effectively addresses longstanding concerns that such arrangements might not be competitive because of collective action problems.

The notion of "worker appropriation" grows out of a critique of socialism as central planning and public ownership of the means of production. Worker appropriation means that labor and not capital is the residual owner of the firm's net product. A case can be made that it is collective and democratic control of the surplus, with or without ownership and whatever the role of markets in society, that would most effectively address concerns about justice in the workplace, in the boardroom, and in the distribution of income.

Building on cases studies and statistical analysis of survey data these research programs tell us quite a bit about the potential economic and political benefits and costs of providing workers both more voice in management, as well as greater dependence on the financial health of their enterprises. They come out of different traditions in political economy and social theory, and while there were no tensions on our panel over this there were such tensions in the conference as a whole, which I will recount at the end.

According to Doug Kruse (Rutgers University) almost half of American private-sector employees participate in employee ownership, profit sharing, gain sharing, and/or broad-based stock options. He refers to these plans that directly tie worker pay or wealth to workplace performance as "shared capitalism." Such plans are often associated with greater employee participation in decision-making and information sharing, and may help increase worker pay, wealth, and quality of work life. More broadly, they have attracted interest for their potential to affect economic performance and societal income and wealth distribution. They can also, however, present serious issues of financial risk for employees, particularly if they substitute for other pay or wealth, and have the potential to worsen workplace relations.

Kruse's presentation was based on the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)'s Shared Capitalism Research Project. For an extensive view of shared capitalism, he put questions on the 2002 and 2006 General Social Surveys, containing representative samples of American workers. For an intensive view he conducted detailed surveys of over 40,000 employees in 14 companies with different combinations of shared capitalism plans, analyzing a wide variety of measures affecting workplace performance (e.g., turnover, loyalty, response to shirkers) and worker outcomes (e.g., pay, supervision, training, job security), with special attention to how shared capitalism may interact with other workplace policies. Shared capitalism is generally linked to positive outcomes for both workers and firms, with more positive outcomes when it is combined with employee involvement, training, job security, and above-market wages, and less positive outcomes when it is combined with close supervision. The results indicate that there may be significant potential for broad expansion of shared capitalism.

Erik Olsen (University of Missouri-Kansas City) discussed his research on the growth of majority employee-owned (MEO) enterprises in the U.S. Overall employee ownership in the U.S. has grown to the point where more than one in six workers currently own some equity in the company for which they work. The number of U.S. workers employed in firms where the employees of that firm own the majority of the equity has also grown rapidly. These enterprises add an additional dimension to shared capitalism because the employees have an enhanced degree of control over of the firm. These MEO firms range from worker cooperatives, which typically combine employee ownership with egalitarian principles and participatory management, to firms that are majority employee-owned but operate in ways that are not substantially different from conventional capitalist enterprises. In the U.S. there are currently several hundred worker cooperatives employing only a few thousand workers, but there are several thousand MEO firms with close to one million employees. Thus majority employee-ownership is no longer an ephemeral or utopian endeavor, but rather has become a viable, and increasingly common, way to organize an enterprise in the U.S.

MEO firms could conceivably support a different kind of industrial policy in the United States, to replace the war of the tax cutting states that only seems to impoverish everyone. It is plausible that MEO firms are less likely to outsource or offshore jobs, but no one has investigated this. Olsen recently received a Beyster Fellowship from Rutgers to conduct the first national survey of majority employee owned firms, so as to answer these and other questions

Daphne Berry (Doctoral candidate, Isenberg School of Management, UMass-Amherst)
and Stu Schneider (Cooperative Home Care Associates) examined the decision-making processes for allocating the net profit earned by one business that utilizes shared-ownership and participatory decision-making practices. Cooperative Home Care Associates (CHCA), currently the nation's largest worker-cooperative by employment, has developed an innovative process for determining the allocation of its annual net profit as: a) retained earnings; b) dividends; c) 401(k) plan contributions; and d) bonuses. While structured as a worker-cooperative, CHCA is actually a hybrid, also embodying some characteristics of a shared-capitalist enterprise. Because the work is dispersed across many sites and also because of the low levels of education of most of CHCA's 1,600 employees, some non-owner involvement is sensible in their opinion. However, worker-owners make final determinations regarding this surplus. Berry is a recent recipient of a Beyster Graduate Fellowship for this work and Schneider was able to give real insight into the practices used by CHCA to help its 1,600 home care workers learn about the company's finances so they can make informed decisions with respect to the annual vote on a proposed allocation of net profit.

Using her case study of Broadway musicians, Cathy Mulder (CUNY) argues that worker or collective "ownership" of the means of production may be sufficient but is not necessary for a democratic workplace. She gave concrete suggestions on how workers through their union might become the residual claimants to the firm's surplus with or without employee ownership.

Taken together these papers suggest the U.S. has a wide range of work organizations and that the possibilities for workplace transformation are much greater than is commonly believed. Worker ownership and cooperative production may be effective answers to the inefficiencies of traditional socialism as well as the inequality and social disintegration associated with market driven neo-liberalism. Whereas the standard political script seems to be a debate between those favoring more and those favoring less government, proponents of shared capitalism and worker appropriation say neither of these is the answer. Worker ownership in particular finds political support on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

Our symposium came at the end of a long second day of conferencing and stood apart from the conference stream on "alternative work organizations" of which I had hoped it would be a part. This was especially unfortunate in that there was real tension in that stream between those interested primarily in worker cooperatives as socialist experiments in countries like Venezuela and Argentina, and those more interested in a variety of ways to increase worker voice in the very different political context of the United States. And while "shared capitalism" and "worker appropriation" share an emphasis on increasing worker voice they differ in their normative goals. Though we were not able to fully explore these tensions in the symposium, I intend to do so in a forthcoming paper in Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal.