Yummy. I think these will do just fine.

3 Killed, 31 Shot in Widespread Rioting
SCORES INJURED, GASSED AS POLICE BATTLE MOBS; CARGO MOVING CONTINUES

Officers Pour Gunfire Into Crowd; Women, Children Periled by Bullets; 2000 National Guardsmen Get Arms

The fight began on May 8th, 1934 when the Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland) and Northwest (Portland, Seattle) longshoremen walked off the job. The strike escalated during the immediate months and reached its pinnacle on Bloody Thursday with strikebreakers being brought in from the outside and longshoremen, led by Harry Bridges, who had nothing left to lose.

After a quiet Fourth of July the employers’ organization, the Industrial Association, tried to open the port even further on Thursday, July 5. As spectators watched from Rincon Hill, the police shot tear gas canisters into the crowd, then followed with a charge by mounted police. Picketers threw the canisters and rocks back at the police, who charged again, sending the picketers into retreat after a third assault. Each side then refortified and took stock.

Hostilities picked up again that afternoon, when a group of strikers surrounded a police car and attempted to tip it over. The police fired shotguns in the air, then fired their revolvers at the crowd. One of the policemen fired a shotgun into the crowd, killing a striking seaman and a strike sympathizer, Nicholas Bordois and Howard Sperry.

Strikers immediately cordoned off the area where two picketers had been shot, laying flowers and wreaths around it. Police arrived to remove the flowers and drive off the picketers minutes later. Once the police left, the strikers returned, replaced the flowers and stood guard over the spot.

As strikers carried wounded picketers into the ILA union hall police fired on the hall and lobbed tear gas canisters at nearby hotels. At this point someone reportedly called the union hall to ask “Are you willing to arbitrate now?”

Under orders from California Governor Frank Merriam, the California National Guard moved in that evening to patrol the waterfront. Similarly, federal soldiers of the United States Army stationed at the Presidio were placed on alert. The picketers pulled back, unwilling to take on armed soldiers in an uneven fight, and trucks and trains began moving without interference. Bridges asked the San Francisco Labor Council to meet that Saturday, July 7, to authorize a general strike. The Alameda County Central Labor Council in Oakland considered the same action. Teamsters in both San Francisco and Oakland voted to strike, over the objections of their leaders, on Sunday, July 8.

Eventually, the strike was called to arbitration and the negotiations continued throughout the oncoming months and eventually led to the creation of the ILWU. From SFGate:

The general strike followed, and then, eventually, a settlement. The unions got most of what they wanted. Within five years, San Francisco had turned into a union town; “a place,” said historian Chris Carlsson, “where even the coffee shops were organized. The coffee was made by a union cook and served by a union waitress.”

For years, the government tried to prove Bridges was a Communist and to have him deported. He was tried four times, finally cleared in 1953.

Back then, as Starr points out, San Francisco was a manufacturing town: Coffee was roasted here, fruit and vegetables were packed in San Francisco, ships were built in the city, San Francisco made steel, door locks, mattresses and metal cans.

It all gradually faded. San Francisco, some said, had turned into a mini Manhattan, but the memory of 1934 stayed alive, with memorials every year.”

As well it should. I realized that as HR, we do our best to avoid the unionization of our employees, but the strike in 1934 led to a number of workplace rights that we and our employees enjoy today.

More information on the memorial of Bloody Thursday and the General Strike of 1934 can be found here.

If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into committees. That’ll do them in. ~Author Unknown

Our age will be known as the age of committees. ~Ernest Benn

A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled. ~Barnett Cocks, attributed

If Columbus had an advisory committee he would probably still be at the dock. ~Arthur Goldberg

A committee is an animal with four back legs. ~John le Carré, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. ~H.L. Mencken

A “Normal” person is the sort of person that might be designed by a committee. You know, “Each person puts in a pretty color and it comes out gray.” ~Alan Sherman

A committee is a thing which takes a week to do what one good man can do in an hour. ~Elbert Hubbard

There are plenty more, each one better than the next.

Hee hee hee. Can you tell I need a vacation?

Boy, he wasn’t kidding. Now there’s a calculator that keeps track of how much those hours cost. Just enter the number of attendees, their average hourly rate and let ‘er roll.

via Laughing Squid

SACRAMENTO – California’s unemployment rate was 11.5 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll jobs declined by 68,900 during the month, according to data released today by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) from two separate surveys.

The U.S. unemployment rate also increased in May, rising to 9.4 percent.

In April, the state’s unemployment rate was a revised 11.1 percent, and in May 2008, the unemployment rate was 6.8 percent. The unemployment rate is derived from a federal survey of 5,500 California households.

Nonfarm jobs in California totaled 14,343,400 in May, a decrease of 68,900 over the month, according to a survey of businesses that is larger and less variable statistically. The survey of 42,000 California businesses measures jobs in the economy. The year-over-year change (May 2008 to May 2009) shows a decrease of 739,500 jobs (down 4.9 percent).

Unfortunately, California is not the only one feeling the pain.

Although the Labor Department reported that 48 states and the District of Columbia saw their unemployment rates rise in May, California’s rate was substantially higher than the national rate of 9.4 percent for the month. Only four states had higher rates: Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina. The West had the highest regional jobless rate in the nation, at 10.1 percent, and it was the highest rate since September 1983, when the nation was emerging from a deep recession.

And, while the UI numbers keep going up, it seems like the number of California claims are going down.

In related data, the EDD reported that there were 839,960 people receiving regular unemployment insurance benefits during the May survey week. This compares with 853,607 last month and 467,563 last year. At the same time, new claims for unemployment insurance were 67,579 in May 2009, compared with 72,718 in April and 47,003 in May of last year.

I’m really not sure how that happened, but it could be that some people have gotten so frustrated that they don’t want to bother. There are a number of very scary stories being told on my post about California going broke. It’s unbelievable what people are having to go through just to get a little money from the state. Yet, [d]ue to decreased demand for Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit assistance on Saturdays, EDD’s UI telephone lines are now open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturdays.” Whatever. I just hope that they took into account how upset people are before they started decreasing hours of assistance.

According to our illustrious Governor, however, things aren’t as bad as they seem:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement that with the massive international economic downturn, it’s natural the state would see historic job losses.

“A full recovery will not happen overnight — it will take time, which only further underscores the need to continue the economic stimulus measures I fought for in the February budget,” said Schwarzenegger. “There is no greater priority right now than to stimulate the economy, create jobs and get California back on the road to prosperity.”

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has proposed laying off another 5,000 state employees, along with billions of dollars in cuts to education and social welfare programs, to address a $24.3 billion deficit for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

So when that happens, UI should go up another point in June.

Wonderful.

According to Santa Clarita AM radio station KHTS, Senator Feinstein will not sign on the dotted line:

A delegation from the Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce, joined by similar groups from around the country, is in Washington to have meetings to express their opposition to the bill. At around 12:00 eastern time this afternoon, the group met with Senator Diane Feinstein.

Feinstein, a major proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, broke national news when she told the local delegation that she is withdrawing her support. Feinstein, a major proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, broke national news when she told the local delegation that she is withdrawing her support. “She will not vote for the bill, and she will not support any modification allowing the process to bypass secret ballots, and she believes that now is not the right time for this type of legislation given the downturn in the economy,” said John Shaffery, a local lawyer and vice president for the SCV Chamber Board of Directors, who was in the meeting.

Well knock me over with a feather here. I was sure that this bill was not going to meet too much opposition from California, particularly with Senator Feinstein, who supported the bill in 2007.

The EFCA would essentially eliminate the employers control over how a union is brought into an organization. Under the current rules, the employer can request a secret ballot on the question of unionization. Should the union be elected in, the National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) would need to certify the union so that it may represent the bargaining unit under collective bargaining. According to Wikipedia, the EFCA would change the current rules:

If enacted, the EFCA would change the currently existing procedure to require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of employees signed cards. The EFCA would take away employers’ present right to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check. The proposed legislation would still require a secret-ballot election when at least 30% of employees petition for an election.

The proposed legislation would also establish stricter penalties for employers who violate provisions of the NLRA when workers seek to form a union, and set in place new mediation and arbitration procedures for disputes.

The EFCA is truly a divisive issue. Businesses hate it, The Heritage Foundation hates it (there’s a surprise…), stars love it. President Obama promises to pass it.

And Human Resources professionals are getting dizzy. Either pass it or don’t but please let us know what’s going on.

Thanks to @breakingnewz for the head’s up.

Our wallet is empty. Our bank is closed. Our credit is dried up.

I know for many of you, these will be the hardest votes you will ever make.

But the people sent us here to lead not only in times of prosperity but also in times of crisis.

We must make these cuts and live within our means, because what is the alternative.

If we don’t act, the state will simply run out of money and go insolvent.

We are not Washington. We cannot print money. We cannot run up trillion-dollar deficits. We can only spend what we have.

So many programs are included in his speech. Money to students, money to non-profits, money to programs are all being cut in a hope to be able to function in a time of crisis. It’s a very scary time here in California.

As it is, unemployment is short by “billions”, though thankfully, those collecting benefits are safe for now.

This latest fiscal crisis won’t immediately affect the 1.1 million Californians now collecting benefits because the state is using an interest-free federal loan to cover their checks…To rebalance the system and pay back the federal loan, lawmakers must raise payroll taxes on employers, reduce benefits for recipients, or both.

In 2009 and 2010, the state expects to pay out $29 billion in benefits. It will collect just $11 billion. Counting the small positive balance that was in the fund at the end of 2008, the result is a $17.8 billion deficit at the end of 2010.

Essentially, UI is paid to the state on a per employee basis. When a company reduces it’s payroll, the tax paid to the state is also reduced, hence the shortfall. One way to try and recoup those losses is to increase payroll taxes, something the Governor proposed in November 2008:

The governor proposed to make employers pay an additional $56 to $417 per worker per year starting in 2010. He also wanted to cut jobless benefits from $1 to $44 per week starting in 2010.

When Schwarzenegger made that proposal, the state expected a $4.9 billion deficit in 2010. The rapid rise in unemployment since then has more than tripled the expected shortfall. Now the Republican governor’s proposal awaits action in a Legislature preoccupied with more pressing budget issues while the governor looks for the political support and the right mix of policies to restore the unemployment fund to solvency.

While I was very upset about the recent decision regarding same sex marriages, California is still my home. I hope we get through this okay.

I can’t believe how ashamed of California I am. My only ray of sunshine, my silver lining is the 2010 ballot, which could possibly give us a chance to reverse Prop 8 and allow marriage for everyone.

I do, however, have to give props to Justice Carlos Moreno who, in his dissenting opinion stated:

Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their officially recognized and protected family relationship a marriage, still denies them equal treatment

At least one Justice understands the meaning of liberty and justice for all.

In other news, the Governator, in an effort to assuage the current budget crisis, has proposed critical budget cuts to those programs that probably need it the most:

The administration has proposed eliminating CalWORKS, the state’s welfare to work program, which provides more than 500,000 families an average of $526 per month. The state would save $1.3 billion but would forgo $4.2 billion in federal matching funds.

Schwarzenegger also seeks to cut health care coverage for nearly 1 million low-income children under the Healthy Families program, saving roughly $250 million for the year. That could cost the state roughly $500 million in federal money.

He proposed phasing out CalGrant, which provides college aid, and reducing funding for the University of California and California State University systems by $335 million. That would come on top of $415 million in UC and CSU cuts this year, forcing student fee increases.

From what he says, it’s either that or the state will go broke.

“If we don’t make those cuts, I think we will face catastrophic consequences because the state would simply run out of money and get insolvent, which we cannot afford to do.”

Oy, I have a headache.

It seems that the EEOC violated the tenets of the FLSA when they gave their non-exempt employees compensatory time rather than paying overtime.

According to BLR’s “HR Strange But True”:

The case involved nonexempt EEOC investigators, mediators, and paralegals who said they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. The employees argued that the agency violated the FLSA and a collective bargaining agreement by failing to pay them overtime pay.

The agency argued that it had fulfilled its obligation by giving the employees compensatory time. Compensatory time allows employees to take paid time off instead of being paid the overtime premium. Only public-sector employers can offer compensatory time. Federal regulations specifically prohibit federal agencies from requiring that an employee be compensated for overtime work with compensatory time off.

Not good enough, said the arbitrator. And if that wasn’t bad enough, the aforementioned arbitrator also stated that this was not an accidental slip up on the EEOC’s part.

“While agency policies from headquarters surely purported to set forth a framework for proper action under the FLSA, it was equally clear that, in virtually every agency office here represented, express policies were in place that were in derogation of that framework,” the arbitrator wrote. “This action was not inadvertent, and, both by documents and by supervisory instructions, conveyed to employees that an FLSA entitlement to overtime pay, if excess hours qualified for it, would not be available under any circumstance.”

Ouch. But at least the EEOC has vowed to look at its overtime practices and change where necessary.

Good to hear. After all, that’s what all of us would be expected to do. Why should they be any different?

The full text of the arbitrator’s ruling can be found here.

From SFGate:

Hospitals, insurance companies, drug makers and doctors planned to tell Obama on Monday they’ll voluntarily slow their rate increases in coming years in a move that government economists say would create breathing room to help provide health insurance to an estimated 50 million Americans who now go without it…A reduction of 1.5 percentage points a year in the rate of increase in costs may not sound like much, but administration officials said it amounts to slowing the current 7 percent annual increase in costs by about one-fifth. That’s significant when health care spending keeps running far ahead of inflation year after year.

They estimated, for instance, that five years from now, such private cost curbs could save a family of four an average of $2,500 a year in health care costs.

Additonally, although large companies won’t see much of a difference, smaller companies and the self-employed would have another option.

[They] would be able to get coverage through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool. Called an “exchange,” the pool would offer stable rates and predictable benefits. Plans in the exchange wouldn’t be able to deny coverage to those who are sick and would have to follow other new consumer protection rules.”

The companies involved are the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Service Employees International Union, the California Hospital Association and the Greater New York Hospital Association.

Now before we fall over ourselves in gratitude for this incredibly altruistic and generous act, we should keep in mind what the true motivation is:

The industry groups are trying to get on the administration bandwagon for expanded coverage now in the hope they can steer Congress away from legislation that would restrict their profitability in future years.

Insurers, for example, want to avoid the creation of a government health plan that would directly compete with them to enroll middle-class workers and their families. Drug makers worry that in the future, new medications might have to pass a cost-benefit test before they can win approval. And hospitals and doctors are concerned the government could dictate what they get paid to care for any patient, not only the elderly and the poor.

Obama has courted industry and provider groups, inviting their representatives to the White House. There’s a sense among some of the groups that now may be the best time to act before public opinion, fueled by anger over costs, turns against them.

Well, duh.

I remember that book sitting on my mother’s nightstand, dog eared and battered from it having been read a number of times. Women all over the world read it a number of times. I read it a number of times.

The New York Times so eloquently remembers Ms. French:

With steely views about the treatment of woman and a gift for expressing them on the printed page, Ms. French transformed herself from an academic who quietly bristled at the expectations of married women in the post-World War II era to a leading, if controversial, opinionmaker on gender issues who decried the patriarchal society she saw around her. “My goal in life is to change the entire social and economic structure of Western civilization, to make it a feminist world,” she once declared.

And I truly believe she somewhat succeeded. At least in changing minds along with the status quo.

When I was growing up, my mother would tell me that I could do anything, that no one could tell me I couldn’t do something just because I was a girl, something that she was often told in her youth. My mother was one of the strongest women I have ever known. She encouraged her daughter to stand up for herself and to make herself heard. To believe in herself.

I truly hope I did my mother proud in that respect. And Marilyn French for that matter.

Farewell Marilyn. Rest in Peace.

And Mommy, thank you. I miss you very much.

Wrong. BLR reported on the AAUW State by State Gender Pay Gap which noted the best and the worst equity pay in the US. The results really surprised me. The survey compares college educated men and women over the age of 25 years old, working full-time.

Which states fared the best in terms of the earnings gap? Here are the top 10 states, followed by their earnings gap percentage (figures rounded off):

1) Vermont 87%
2) Hawaii 83%
3) Delaware 80%
4) New York 78%
5) Montana 77%
6) Wyoming 77%
7) New Mexico 77%
8) Wisconsin 76%
9) Oregon 76%
10) Nevada 75%

Which states fared the worst? Here are the bottom 10 states in terms of the earnings gap:

42) Utah 69%
43) Michigan 68%
44) Arkansas 68%
45) Iowa 68%
46) New Hampshire 68%
47) Oklahoma 67%
48) Virginia 67%
49) Mississippi 67%
50) West Virginia 67%
51) Louisiana 65%

It’s unbelievable to me that in this day and age, women are still, at best, making 87 cents to a man’s dollar and the fact that the national average shows that women make 71% of what men make really leaves me both angered and puzzled. How could this be? Women are running companies, managing large groups, breaking the glass ceilings and de-gluing sticky floors.

Yet (and believe me I am no fan of this woman) when Sarah Palin made a bid for Vice President, much of the criticism was based on the fact that she was not staying home taking care of her infant who had special needs. Oh, and Hilary evidently rode on Bill’s coattails to get to where she is. Why should we expect equal pay when the same stereotypes keep getting thrown at us?

April 28, 2009 was National Pay Equity Day. I wish I was paying more attention and wrote about this subject on that day. Oh well, better late than never.

And then there’s the Paycheck Fairness Act, which, according to the Women’s National Law Center is defined as:

The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced in both the House (H.R. 12) and the Senate (S. 182) and passed by the House on Jan. 9, 2009, would update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963. The Act would deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the EPA and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. The bill also allows women to receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and national origin.

Not surprisingly, the Heritage Foundation has a very pragmatic description of the PFA:

What Is the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA)?

• Under the current Equal Pay Act, once employees have provided prima facie evidence of sex discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show that the difference in wages results from “any factor other than sex.”
• The PFA eliminates the “any factor other than sex” defense and replaces it with a “bona fide factor other than sex” defense. Employers can only use this “bona fide factor” defense if they demonstrate that business necessity demands it.
• Such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
• The PFA makes employers liable for unlimited punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages in cases of sex discrimination.
• The PFA makes it easier to bring class action lawsuits in such cases.

All of the HR organizations decry the passage of the PFA and as an HR professional, I certainly can see why. Yet I also find it very difficult as a woman to oppose it, particularly in light of very disappointing data above. Therein, I guess, lies the rub.

Oh, in case you were curious – California came in just after Nevada at 75%.

Evidently bossnapping is an old practice that’s been called back from the dead. From The Guardian:

The tactic, which became popular during the tumultuous days of 1968, is an extreme yet common measure used sporadically by unhappy French workers. Reserved for when other more orthodox forms of protest are going nowhere, bossnapping is the final card played by a workforce at the end of its tether.

Incidents are primarily taking place in France, though there are scattered incidents in Belgium as well. Interior Minister Sarkozy has condemned the actions of the workers and has vowed to put them to a stop:

“What is this story about going and holding people hostage?” he asked. “We are in a state of laws, there is a law that applies, I will ensure it is respected.”

Yet, despite his condemnation, there was another incident where workers destroyed the very factory they were trying to save from permanent shut down.

Most of the acts have been non-violent. But on Tuesday, workers from a factory run by German auto parts maker Continental AG exploded in anger after a court north of Paris refused to forbid the company from shutting down the site next year.

They smashed windows at the factory in Clairoix and at a regional administrative office in nearby Compiegne, pulling up lamps and crushing desks and cabinets…Continental’s case has drawn nationwide attention. Citing the steep drop in demand in the automobile sector, Continental announced in March plans to shutter the factory in Clairoix, north of Paris, which employs 1,120.

On Wednesday, factory management suspended production because of the damage wrought by protesters. Workers agreed to hold government-mediated talks with management April 29 over conditions of the factory’s closure.

To be honest, I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of this around here.

Photo by Scott Beale

Yahoo representatives declined to comment on a New York Times report citing unnamed sources and a “confidential” plan to lay off Yahoo workers on or before Tuesday. The layoffs would be the first since Carol Bartz took over as CEO in January.

Yet, despite the lack of comment on Yahoo’s behalf, there are a number of predictions and/or assumptions being made as to why these cuts are being made. From Business Week:

Still, the cuts, which Yahoo had hinted last December might be necessary, would be a clear sign not only of [New CEO Carol] Bartz’s influence, which included a recent management shakeup, but of Yahoo’s continuing struggles. For the past two years or so, it has been losing more and more ground the search ad giant Google. That led to Microsoft launching a hostile bid for Yahoo early last year, which distracted management and accelerated the departure of more top executives and engineering talent—some to Microsoft.”

There are even more rumors of services being cut

Will Microsoft once again jump in to save the day? Tune in again Tuesday and we’ll see what the first quarter earnings really have to say.

First off, this week is the week of the dreaded I-9 revision barring any further Federal guidelines. From SHRM:

Unless there is a last-minute change by the Obama administration, employers will be required to use a revised version of the employment eligibility form known as the I-9 form effective April 3, 2009.

According to an interim rule published in December 2008 by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), employers were supposed to begin using the revised verification form on Feb. 2, 2009. However, when President Obama took office, the White House issued a directive to all federal agencies asking them to review regulations introduced by the Bush administration that had not taken effect before Jan. 20, 2009.

USCIS officials stated that the 60-day delay should provide adequate time to complete a full review of the new form and employment verification requirements.

Per my earlier blog post, you can find the revised I-9 form here.

What else? Oh yeah, here’s one for the conundrum books. It turns out that union members are boycotting their own union.

Dozens of employees of the Service Employees International Union picketed their own union Friday over its decision to lay off about 75 workers.

The staffers marched outside SEIU headquarters in Washington as they yelled into bullhorns, passed out flyers and chanted, “Justice for all, not just some.”

“This union is supposed to be at the forefront of the progressive movement, but it can’t seem to follow its own ideology,” said Malcolm Harris, president of the Union of Union Representatives, which represents 210 SEIU organizers and field staff around the country.

The UUR has filed unfair labor practice charges and age and race discrimination claims against SEIU. Harris called SEIU leaders “hypocrites” for calling out corporations that shed workers, yet moving to lay off their own employees.

On on the California front, Assembly Bill 53, a bill that would freeze the salaries for two years of those state workers making over $150,000 per year, has cleared its first hurdle. From the Sacramento Bee:

Assembly Bill 53 would impose a two-year ban on salary increases for about 785 state employees – primarily managers or executives – who make more than $150,000 annually.

The bill, sparked by projections of a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, passed the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee without a dissenting vote Wednesday.

If signed into law, AB 53 would take effect next January for high wage earners in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of state government, including California State University and members of state boards or commissions.The bill would not apply to state legislators themselves, or to constitutional officers, because pay for those elected officials is set by an independent commission. But the measure would affect any of their aides paid $150,000 or more.AB 53 also excludes employees of the University of California, which has constitutional autonomy, and any state workers covered by labor contracts – thus, most of the state’s rank-and-file workers.

I’m sure there’s much, much, much more and I promise that I will be catching up over the next few days. Really. In the meanwhile, check out the SF Appeal. You may see a familiar name in the upcoming weeks.

Evidently, The CEO of Exigen has been accused of the following, “Damages for Sexual Harassment – Quid Pro Quo Harassment, Sexual Harassment – Hostile Work Environment, Sexual Battery, Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Failure to Prevent Sexual Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation, Retaliation, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, Wrongful Termination on the Basis of Sex in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and finally, Demand for a Jury Trial.

The Complaint can be found here. It explains everything better than I could.

I don’t want to get into too much explanation here, as it is only one side of the story. However, if any one of the above accusations is true, then Exigen and its CEO are completely fucked.

And rightfully so.

Essentially, prior to Penthouse ownership, Friend Finder had been a by-the-book, under wraps type of company. While the product itself was sexually motivated, the workplace was not. One person described it as being “NASA-like”. Once ownership hands changed and Penthouse took over, the workplace became anything but by-the-book. They started by firing their HR Executive:

Natalie Cedeno, the company’s former HR director, says that company executives retaliated against her for pointing out violations of labor laws. She was a top executive at the Internet side of the business, deeply involved in its operations for eight years, before FriendFinder fired her without cause in January, she says. She claims the company then tried to withhold the two years of pay she was owed under her contract unless she agreed to stay silent about FriendFinder’s misdeeds — a move her lawyer characterizes as “extortion.” Cedeno plans to file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing next month.

Okay, definitely not a smart move to fire HR, but not immediately earth shattering to the company (though if I were Natalie, I’d be really pissed). The worst was yet to come:

When management announced that the venerable porn magazine’s stable of nude models would be stopping by the office to serve ice cream, one female employee objected, as Cedeno tells the story. When they arrived, one of the scantily clad Pets made a beeline for the dissenter. “They came into her office and placed her breasts on her head in an attempt to humiliate her, and they had someone ready to take pictures,” Cedeno says. The employee quit soon after the incident.

Whether or not the product of the workplace is sexual in nature, every employee should be treated with dignity and respect at all times. Somehow, a pair of someone else’s boobs landing upon one’s head doesn’t seem to fit the aforementioned description.

Oh, and there’s more:

Cedeno says new management was unresponsive to her concerns. When she pointed out violations of overtime law, the company’s VP of operations emailed her, “This garbage stops now.” (He meant her complaints, not the violations.) She says she was then ordered to lie and blame pay discrepancies on the company’s outside payroll vendor. She refused.

She also says that in January 2008, Rob Brackett, president of the company’s Internet group, told her that CEO Marc Bell had complained to him in December — the first day he came to visit Penthouse’s new acquisition — that the women in FriendFinder’s technology department were “ugly” and that Cedeno should get rid of them and replace them with more attractive workers to keep the male employees happy. Brackett pressed Cedeno, asking her how she was going to satisfy Bell. She refused the request.

It just boggles my mind that a company still feels that they can get away with such crap, attributing it to “shenanigans” and “naughty behavior”. I’m sure that Penthouse doesn’t care. Their coffers are as big as the breasts in any one of their magazines. Yet one would think that someone there would have a conscience.

Oh yeah, they did, but she was fired.

From The Chicago Tribune:

The company, which supplies office products to such retailers as Office Depot Inc., told its U.S. employees Monday that it would impose a 47 percent pay cut for six weeks, beginning Feb. 23.
After that, some of the pay reduction will be reinstated, with employees seeing their paychecks trimmed by 20 percent at least through the end of June.

“It’s an alternative to permanent reductions in force,” company spokesman Rich Nelson said. “It allows people to stay employed, but we realize it imposes some hardships as well…

For Acco, which trimmed its global workforce by 500 positions through layoffs and attrition last year, the draconian pay cut is “a matter of making sure we meet our plan for the first quarter of 2009,” said Nelson.

To ease the pain, Acco executives told employees it would provide short-term financial assistance to employees put in the “most extreme circumstances” by allowing them to borrow from future earnings. The salary cut will affect about 2,000 U.S. employees, including 750 who work in the Chicago area, the chief executive among them..”

It’s a double edged sword. Yes, employees get to keep their jobs but at what cost?

Losing close to 50% of one’s pay can put an employee in fairly dire straits, even if loans are available. As long as the terms for repayment are fair and take the employee into account, then it may be a short term solution for those in serious trouble. But if the company enforces strict deadlines and/or repayment schedules, then it may just be prolonging the agony. Unfortunately, I do know more about this situation than I feel comfortable sharing. Let’s just say that I think the latter will be more true than the former.

Is it really better for employees to keep their jobs under these circumstances? Wouldn’t it perhaps be better to “get the misery out the door?” per Truman Bewley, Yale Economics Professor? Will people quit and collect unemployment? Will they suck it up and see it through? Will they take the advice of others?

I don’t know the answer here. Though I’ve been on just about every side of the employment equation, I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve been asked to work for half my wages. Nor have I ever asked this of any employee.

Yet, this pay cut situation is becoming more and more common. Again, from the Chicago Tribune:

In December, FedEx Corp. said it would cut the salaries of 36,000 workers by 5 percent. Last month, Advanced Micro Devices Inc. said salary cuts of varying percentages would be made throughout the company. And last week, General Motors Corp. said it would cut U.S. salaried workers’ paychecks by up to 10 percent.

A Watson Wyatt survey of 117 companies across a broad range of industries in December found that 19 percent planned to institute salary freezes during the next 12 months.

When that same question was asked in October, it was 12 percent. Salary reductions were planned by 6 percent of companies surveyed in December, as opposed to 4 percent in the October survey.

Bremen believes the salary-cut trend is on the rise and will be considered more quickly during the next downturn.

I can’t even bear to think about “the next downturn”. This turn is down enough.