...

Tell the FCC to support innovation and the Internet by opening up the unused parts of the TV spectrum.

Join a broad coalition of groups in urging key congressional committees to take action to protect travelers' digital privacy rights!

When I go to a restaurant by myself, one of my pet peeves is to be asked, "just one?" like it's a sign of my own personal failure to be there without another guest. A public employee in Oregon can probably relate -- she just had her own version of "just one" shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court. If you've been treated arbitrarily or irrationally, you better find someone else to join you at the table, says the Court.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where harassment and retaliation cases haven't gone away, and there are still some pretty egregious ones there. But a couple of suits filed recently caught my eye in that they involve the actions of the employer's spouse. In both cases, powerful people brought their spouses into their workplace to work with them, but their employees allege their boss wasn't doing enough to curb their spouse's egregious behavior. These cases highlight the worst side of nepotism, where bosses don't hold their spouses to the same standards of behavior to which the rest of their employees would be subjected.

I am thrilled to announce that today, June 2, I return to work with Workplace Fairness as the organization's Executive Director. Workplace Fairness' mission of providing information and education to workers and representing the pro-worker voice in public policy debates is as viable as it has ever been in a workplace environment that is becoming ever more inhospitable to workers. I will be working with the WF Board of Directors to ensure the organization is again able to be a leading voice for workers in this country by continuing our programs, revitalizing our website, and maintaining financial stability.

A recent article in the New York Times caught my eye: Doctors Say 'I'm Sorry' Before 'See You in Court'. It really got me thinking about what would happen to the practice of employment litigation if employers would adopt the same practice. I suspect that it would dramatically cut the instances where employees would sue their employers if more employers could say "we're sorry," when an employee was mistreated. Will this trend take hold with employers the way it's starting to with doctors?

GINA isn't a new Workplace Fairness staff member, but the first piece of federal legislation protecting workers from discrimination that has come along in quite some time. GINA stands for the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees based on genetic tests or genetic information, and also prohibits health insurers from restricting enrollment and premium adjustments for health insurance on the basis of genetic information or genetic services. Don't rush out to get those genetic tests just yet, however, as the employment section of the new law doesn't go into effect for 18 months, in order to give the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission time to implement regulations, and for employers to develop policies consistent with the new law.

It used to be that one job was enough. If you worked 40 hours a week, you spent the rest of your time with your family and friends, engaged in your community, and were able to have a balanced life. And if you had to work more than 40 hours, you were either paid handsomely for your level of commitment, or at the very least, expected to be loyal to your employer. But it just doesn't work like that anymore -- more and more people are working extra jobs, not because they want to, but out of necessity. But all that moonlighting has consequences that nobody is really talking about.

As discussed in a prior post, the Department of Labor has proposed changes to the FMLA in a last-ditch effort to satisfy business interests before there is a change in administrations, which could, depending on who is elected, stall business-friendly changes for a considerable period of time. Here's a look at some of the specific changes proposed.

One of the workplace priorities for the business community during the Bush Administration has been to scale back the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). However, in the waning days of the administration, there still have not been significant changes, which has been a source of frustration to some. There is now a last-ditch effort to move forward some business-friendly changes to the FMLA, while there is still the ability to do so, should a Democratic candidate be elected President in November. As you can imagine, most of the "clarifying" changes attempt to tilt the balance in the employer's direction. Pro-worker groups are mobilizing to stop the worst of the changes from taking effect, by soliciting comments by the end of the comment period on April 11.

In my last blog post, I talked about a win for workers before the U.S. Supreme Court that might not have seemed like one at first blush. But the very next day, workers enjoyed a clear victory in a 7-2 vote by the Court, in the case of Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki. Many commentators have noted that the case seems to represent a departure from other cases from the Roberts Court in its worker-friendly tone, and more relaxed approach to proving discrimination. As mentioned before, workers often have to take their victories however they can get them, but this decision was certainly a welcome switch.

As we've mentioned more than once around here, the Roberts Supreme Court isn't the most friendly to workers, and might even be less friendly than the Rehnquist Court. But every once in a while, the little guy gets some bones tossed his way. (Sorry to mix metaphors and not use gender neutral language in the same sentence.) That's what happened recently in a couple of recent cases, where workers staved off the worst that could have happened from the court.

Now here's a ready-made blog post for me: mix pandas with Super Bowl advertising, and then throw in societal attitudes about racism, which have been examined more than once here at Today's Workplace (and are certainly at the heart of Workplace Fairness's mission). At the intersection of all these things, you have the reaction to SalesGenie.com's Super Bowl ad. Was it racist? Should it have been pulled and/or never made in the first place? I'm not sure I have any answers, but it certainly provides all of us with an opportunity to constantly examine our own attitudes.

It's an election year. If this has escaped your notice, you either 1) don't live in the United States; or 2) must never watch television, read a newspaper, or use the Internet (and since you're reading this, the latter is probably not true.) In the primaries, both major parties and many candidates (even though the field has narrowed considerably recently) have bombarded the public with their messages until anyone but the most extreme political junkie is thoroughly sick of it by now (and it's only February.) So it shouldn't be a surprise that news articles are already circulating that tie the candidates to specific workplace trends and policies.

You may be too busy worrying about workplace issues to have heard of Twitter, but I hope to introduce you to a whole new way of receiving and delivering information -- as well as having fun. With this post, I introduce you to a new Twitter feed focusing on workplace stories, where links and commentary are delivered in bite-size chunks: 140 characters, to be exact. Too busy to follow and read blogs and your favorite news sources online? Twitter can help you digest information more quickly.

Being the wealthiest man in the world means that people hang on your every word and scrutinize every action very closely. That's the price Bill Gates has had to pay for his fame. But could Gates' company, Microsoft, be in the process of trying to subject every employee who uses a computer to the same level of scrutiny? While Bill is making speeches calling for a "kinder capitalism," a Microsoft patent application which recently came to light calls for corporate practices that are anything but kind.

When you think you've suffered from discrimination or harassment at work, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is supposed to be there to protect your rights as a worker. But your experience with the EEOC can be shaped by the very first phone call. Right now, the EEOC is scrambling to cover the phones which receive incoming calls from the public. Will this mean that cases with merit get lost in the shuffle, due to inadequate training and/or inexperienced staffers? Only time will tell, but it could be disastrous.

Jamie Leigh Jones' legal fight against her former employer, KBR, a former Halliburton subsidiary, has attracted a great deal of attention, for the grave nature of her allegations against her employer. Jones says that she was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and then, when she reported the crime, she was placed under guard in a shipping container and threatened if she were to leave Iraq. What most people do not realize is that if Halliburton has its way, Jones will also be violated by the legal system's inability to fully protect her. Halliburton claims that Jones' employment is subject to an arbitration agreement which would prevent her from having her claims heard in a court of law.

It's the time of the year where reporters break out that oft-used story generator: the yearly list. When it's too hard to put together a real story, it's always possible to pull a bunch of unrelated items together, give it a theme, and call it your 2007 list. I can't say I blame them -- I've been known to do the same thing myself. But when CNN decided to publish a story called "Worst Employees of the Year," you can imagine why my blood was boiling.