Now and then one should look beyond California's borders for employment law trendzzzzz. So, according to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, France's health ministry is looking into whether to mandate nap time for workers. With their 35 hour workweek and months of vacation, sick time, etc., the stress of finding things to do in one's spare time apparently causes sleepless nights for French workers. OK, I'm a little jealous. There is no truth to the rumor that San Francisco is considering mandating juice and cookies. Yet.
DGV
WHAT'S NEW IN EMPLOYMENT LAW? Welcome to Shaw Law Group, PC's law blog. We will focus on employment law developments, particularly in California. Nothing in this forum should be construed as legal advice, 'cause it isn't. So, please consult your lawyer or hire us! (We typically represent employers, not employees). Also - this is a public website, so communications are not privileged. Copyright Shaw Law Group, PC © 2017. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Trends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trends. Show all posts
Friday, February 02, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
New Trend Emerging: Anti-"Bullying" Laws
Nobody likes a mean boss. Co-workers naturally do not always like everyone they work with. But a recent San Francisco Chronicle article features the possibility of anti-bullying legislation.
The website "bullybusters.org" contains a growing list of states taking up "model" healthy workplace legislation.
Anti-bullying laws would mean that someone could claim a "hostile environment" without showing a linkage between the conduct and a protected criterion, such as race, sex, disability, religion, etc.
Rhetorical question alert: Think this could increase litigation? Think opportunistic workers will file suits against managers in retaliation for legitimate decision-making?
What does this mean? The case law currently includes many statements by courts to the effect of: "the law does not guarantee a Utopian workplace," that feuds between employees (unrelated to illegal discrimination) are not actionable, and that anti-discrimination laws are not "civility codes." Well, if anti-bully advocates have their way, all these dicta in judicial opinions will become obsolete.
The devil of course is in the details. Everyone understands that an abusive person in the workplace is not conducive to good morale, can result in higher turnover, and can make going to work unpleasant etc. (More rhetorical questions follow). But when does an "intense" manager or employee cross the line and become a "bully' subjecting the employer to financial liability? And who is going to decide this? A jury at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands in legal fees? How will managers be able to manage poor performance, convey negative feedback, and even let off a little steam without the fear of legal liability? And then there's the backlash - Won't it be easier just to fire an at-will employee than let the worker build a "bullying" case?
Workers have arguments now and then. Supervisors are responsible for managing productivity, work performance, attendance, and other unpopular subjects which naturally cause hurt feelings. Should managers be legally required to be nice? Should managers hire people based on whether they are likely to be friendly? Incidentally, should an employee be injured by such conduct, there already is a remedy for physical or psychiatric through the workers' compensation laws.
So, let's hope that the advocates of anti-bullying legislation consider the various issues that anti-bullying legislation will raise, and set a relatively high standard for what is a "bully."
DGV
The website "bullybusters.org" contains a growing list of states taking up "model" healthy workplace legislation.
Anti-bullying laws would mean that someone could claim a "hostile environment" without showing a linkage between the conduct and a protected criterion, such as race, sex, disability, religion, etc.
Rhetorical question alert: Think this could increase litigation? Think opportunistic workers will file suits against managers in retaliation for legitimate decision-making?
What does this mean? The case law currently includes many statements by courts to the effect of: "the law does not guarantee a Utopian workplace," that feuds between employees (unrelated to illegal discrimination) are not actionable, and that anti-discrimination laws are not "civility codes." Well, if anti-bully advocates have their way, all these dicta in judicial opinions will become obsolete.
The devil of course is in the details. Everyone understands that an abusive person in the workplace is not conducive to good morale, can result in higher turnover, and can make going to work unpleasant etc. (More rhetorical questions follow). But when does an "intense" manager or employee cross the line and become a "bully' subjecting the employer to financial liability? And who is going to decide this? A jury at a cost of tens or hundreds of thousands in legal fees? How will managers be able to manage poor performance, convey negative feedback, and even let off a little steam without the fear of legal liability? And then there's the backlash - Won't it be easier just to fire an at-will employee than let the worker build a "bullying" case?
Workers have arguments now and then. Supervisors are responsible for managing productivity, work performance, attendance, and other unpopular subjects which naturally cause hurt feelings. Should managers be legally required to be nice? Should managers hire people based on whether they are likely to be friendly? Incidentally, should an employee be injured by such conduct, there already is a remedy for physical or psychiatric through the workers' compensation laws.
So, let's hope that the advocates of anti-bullying legislation consider the various issues that anti-bullying legislation will raise, and set a relatively high standard for what is a "bully."
DGV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)