Workplace Issues

Sheila White, a forklift operator, was sexually harassed by her boss at Burlington Northern railway. She asked his managers to make it stop. They didn't like that she filed a formal complaint because, according to employment law, that meant they were required to actually do something about it. So they suspended her—as if she was the cause of the problem—and then they transferred her to a dirtier job. (Read more about it here: http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003256.php)

It's called "retaliation." Managers strike out at the employee who inconveniences them by asking for help—help which those managers are obligated by law to provide. And it happens all the time. The victim is punished and the guilty manager gets away with being doubly-bad—first harassing the employee and then punishing the employee for telling.

In the past, unless a harassed employee was permanently affected, as in termination or pay reduction, no action could be taken against the nasty employer. But yesterday the Supreme Court declared that this bad-boss behavior is a no-no. Now, employees who suffer retaliation may sue their employer for "materially adverse" actions—actions that would be likely to discourage a reasonable person from filing a discrimination claim.

According to the article, one lawyer, who represents employers in job discrimination cases, said "Companies will have to be much more careful as to how they manage employees who are covered by Title VII." They still don't get it! That's like saying "They're going to have to be sneakier about how they abuse employees so they don't get caught at it and then have to pay damages resulting from law suits."

This ruling is good news for workers, but it's a sad statement for our society that we have to legalize good manners. It's a pretty simple concept: employers need only to be civil. Get it? Civil rights.

You have to wonder whether it rubs off. After 86 years of defending the civil liberties of individuals, the ACLU is beginning to behave more like the organizations against which it defends.

Here's what their mission statement says (excerpted from their Web site at http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html):

"…The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly…"

But here's the ACLU's latest proposal, according to this NYT article:

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement…"

Just three weeks ago, the Supreme Court passed a ruling disallowing individuals, in their capacity as employee, from going public with information about internal corruption (see the June 5 and May 31 blog entries below). You'd expect the ACLU to go bonkers about this; instead, they take on a role similar to a corporation with a big, bad secret to hide and extend the ruling, warning their Board members:

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising…"

When a group insulates itself against criticism and exposure to evidence that contradicts its decisions, disastrous consequences follow. This common, dysfunctional group behavior is clearly explained in a classic book, Groupthink, by Irving Janis--revised in 1982. If you want to understand what's going on at the ACLU (because it doesn't make any sense looking at it in any other way), any academic library is likely to have a copy. Here's a link to it at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395317045/qid=1150827224/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-2067387-3327336?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

They probably think we're all going to want to hurry and send our donations to the ACLU, now. Really.

Disastrous consequences to follow.