Tag: discrimination

The Truth About Older (50+) Salespeople

Posted on by The Organic Recruiter in Diversity, Employment Retention, Employment Value Proposition, Generational Gap, Hiring, Interviewing, Latest News and Articles, Millennials, Workforce Cuture

Wisdom is the knowledge base that will assist our future leaders.

Imagine if you will a time when you are getting a little bit older, a touch grayer and you start reflecting on what are you going to do when you get too mature for the industry you are in.

I have always had this question, but never bold enough to write about it. I’ve had a lot of opinions on this as the market is getting younger by the minute. People want to put millennials on pedestals and assume they are the next coming of…well whatever. I do not. But what I do say is they are dang smart. We Xers can learn tons from them.

The problem, however, is they lack the experience of hitting a curve ball. This can be taught of course, but won’t happen until they have failed a number of times. Knowledge and wisdom come from experience, not case studies.

I don’t fear getting older. I love it. I don’t fear millennials, I encourage them. 1+1 = power. Let’s embrace learning from one another. By the way, I am not 50+!!!

~The Organic Recruiter

Published on

The Truth About Older (50+) Salespeople

 | Technology Sales Author, Sales Researcher, Founder Heavy Hitter Sales Training, USC Faculty

It is still hard times for salespeople (and sales managers) over 50 today. When companies downsize, they find themselves five times more likely to be let go when compared to their younger counterparts. They also have a more difficult time finding new jobs because younger sales managers have five basic fears about hiring someone older than themselves:

They are Un-coachable. Younger sales managers fear older salespeople are set in their ways and won’t take their directions.

They aren’t Technically Savvy. Younger sales managers fear they haven’t ingrained technology (smartphones, e-mail, and web-based sales force automation) into their daily working routine (nor are they up-to-date on the internet, social media, etc.).

They are “Washed Up.” Younger sales managers fear older reps are burned out from too many years “carrying the bag.”

They Have a Poor Work Ethic.  For a variety of family, personal, or health reasons, younger sales managers question how hard they will work.

They Really Want My Job! Perhaps the biggest fear of a younger manager is that he is hiring someone who may upstage him or her in the eyes of senior management in order to fulfill an ulterior motive of taking over their job.

Given these fears, I would like to offer five factors sales managers should consider when choosing between younger and more senior salespeople.

  1. Do you have to Sell to the C-Level? The C-level Executive sell is based upon establishing credibility and trust. Who do think has an easier time establishing rapport with senior executives; a 26 or 56 year old salesperson?
  2. It’s about relationships (not Rolodexes). Never hire any salesperson solely based on their Rolodex (if you’re under 30 you might have to look this word up) of customer contacts they claim to possess. Hire the salesperson who has a successful track record at penetrating new accounts and proven their ability of turning aloof prospects into close friends.
  3. Wit. Most companies make previous experience in the same industry their main criterion for hiring. Since these salespeople command the industry nomenclature, they are assumed to be qualified candidates. A more important hiring criterion is how candidates respond to pressure. In other words, how quick-witted or fast on their feet are they? What is their ability to learn quickly? Are they able to solve complex problems in real time? In this regard, don’t judge a book by its cover and assume a little gray hair means a lot less grey matter.
  4. Sales is a Mentor-based Profession. Sales organizations are mentor-based environments. Inexperienced salespeople don’t know what they haven’t seen for themselves. Usually, it’s through the “school of hard knocks” that they gain their experience. Unfortunately, this takes time. The entire sales team can benefit from emulating salespeople who have accumulated a reservoir of experience working with customers.
  5. Who Do You Trust!?! Peek into the cockpit as you board your next commercial flight. Chances are you are putting your life in the hands of one of the 70,000 airline pilots that are over 50 years old.

About the Author:  Steve W. Martin is the author of the “Heavy Hitter” series of books for senior salespeople on the human nature of complex sales. The Heavy Hitter corporate sales training program has helped over 100,000 salespeople become top revenue producers. Steve is a frequent contributor to the Harvard Business Review and he teaches at the University of Southern California Marshall Business School MBA program. Visit www.stevewmartin.com to learn more.

Politics in the Workplace: What Must Employers Allow?

Posted on by The Organic Recruiter in Diversity, Hiring, Latest News and Articles, Uncategorized, Workforce Cuture

July 19, 2016 by William B. “Bill” deMeza Jr. | Kenneth A. Jenero

This article was written well before we knew who our president was to be. Now we know and the country is divided. No matter the side you are on, there are 2 absolutes to stay away from in the workplace: Religion and politics.

I can assure you that you are not 100% free of this in your company and it is getting more dangerous by the day to have these discussions. I am quite sure wherever these conversations are having, productivity is also suffering as doing both, arguing religion and politics will not allow you to accomplish your work tasks at 100%.

Asking you if this is happening is irrelevant. Asking you to reinforce a policy is inevitable. If you wish to keep production at full capacity and keep a culture for everyone, these policies and conversations must happen today.

~The Organic Recruiter

HIGHLIGHTS:

As the 2016 election nears, some employers are losing productivity, attention to customer service and worker focus as personnel discuss or advocate their political opinions. However, private employers often can reassert control by recognizing that two commonly held beliefs about “politics in the workplace” are, in fact, misconceptions. Employers who institute carefully crafted and uniformly enforced policies that limit political activities can lower the risk of employee claims while increasing worker productivity. Everyone has experienced both “workplace politics,” in which Type A employees claw their way to the top at the expense of co-workers, and “politics in the workplace,” in which employees discuss candidates for office and political issues of interest.

We now are deep into the 2016 election cycle, which means it’s likely that, given many employees’ intense interest in and support of candidates and issues, some employers are losing productivity, attention to customer service and worker focus as personnel discuss or advocate their opinions. However, private employers often can reassert control by recognizing that two commonly held beliefs about “politics in the workplace” are, in fact, only simple misconceptions.

Misconception 1: Employees Have a Constitutional Right to Talk “Politics” at Work

Wrong.

Employees, as well as many employers, commonly but mistakenly believe that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees “freedom of speech” at work. In fact, the First Amendment applies only to government action and neither limits the rights of private employers to regulate employees’ communications nor provides any constitutional right for those workers to express thoughts or opinions at work. As a result, there is no constitutionally protected right of “free speech” in the offices and factories of private employers. Although employees may be entitled to express their views freely on their own time or on a soapbox in the park, they have no such wide-ranging constitutional rights at work. Absent rights provided by one of the limited exceptions discussed below, there are no legal protections for political activities in the workplace, so private employers generally may refuse to hire, adjust pay/benefits and even discharge “at will” employees because of their political views. In short, “political discrimination” often is not unlawful discrimination.

Many employers do have policies limiting the discussion of political candidates and issues at work because of the risks of unlimited “free speech” in the workplace. For example, although there is no general federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or actions, sometimes seemingly neutral conversations about “politics” can lead to claims of employer discrimination, harassment or retaliation violating federal or state discrimination laws.

Workplace debates about a particular candidate’s fitness for office often include mention of genders, races or religions or their views on hot-button social issues such as abortion, “family values,” immigration and healthcare, which often are polarizing issues on which there are strong and opposing views among employees of different genders, religions, national origins, etc. The potential for heated disagreements – and inflammatory, impulsive, ill-advised comments – is obvious. Unfortunately, such comments sometimes result in claims of discrimination or retaliation in which it is alleged that “my supervisor is biased against [women/non-Christians/Hispanics] as shown by his comments about [healthcare/abortion/immigration policy]” or “the company punished me because I disagreed with my boss about [a social issue implicating gender, nationality, or religion].” Further, public discussion of schoolyard “bullying” seems to have prompted claims of “bullying” harassment by both supervisory and non-supervisory employees who forcefully advocated their political opinions to unreceptive co-workers. It is understandable, therefore, why many employers simply elect to minimize such controversies by prohibiting all “politics” at work.

Two General Exceptions

There are two general exceptions to the principle that private employers may legally implement a “no free speech or political activity in the workplace” policy.

First, laws in some states provide protections for political activities. For example, several states have “free speech,” “political activity” or “off-duty conduct” laws that give employees rights not provided by federal law or the laws of other states. As can be seen, the laws vary widely in scope and content; therefore, employers – particularly multistate employers – must carefully craft their own policies.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) restricts an employer’s right to limit non-supervisory employees’ communications about wages, hours and other terms or conditions of employment. These restrictions may apply not only when the protected communications occur in the workplace during working times but also when they occur outside the workplace during non-working times. In addition, the NLRA restrictions protect non-union employees as well as union-represented employees. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that enforces the NLRA, has long recognized that all non-supervisory employees have the right to engage in concerted communications about such matters as pay, benefits, and workplace safety as long as they do so in a lawful and proper manner. Such communications generally will not lose their NLRA protection unless they are expressed in a manner particularly “opprobrious, disloyal, malicious, or disruptive to workplace discipline.” Unfortunately, there is no bright-line test, and the NLRB has continued to stretch the outer limits of what it believes is “protected.”

As interpreted by the NLRB, employee communications are “concerted” not only when he or she acts with or on the authority of other employees but also when the employee seeks to initiate, induce or prepare for group action or brings truly group complaints to management. This includes a broad range of communications, some of which may be engaged in by lone employees acting with no apparent group involvement. It also is well established that the NLRA protects employee communications and activities “in support of employees of employers other than their own” or which seek to “improve their lot as employees through channels outside the immediate employee-employer relationship.” One such channel is political activity. Therefore, employees’ statements and actions concerning political issues and events may be protected by the NLRA if there is a sufficient connection to the workplace or to employees’ terms and conditions of employment.

Because the NLRA’s protections are limited to political topics with a nexus to specific employment-related issues, employers lawfully may restrict workplace communications and activities that are purely political in nature. This would include, for example, communications generally touting a political party or candidate; displaying or distributing a “Vote for Smith” poster or campaign button; and wearing a T-shirt that seeks support for a proposed law to increase the speed limit. Although those communications and activities clearly are political in nature, they lack the connection to employment-related issues required to bring them within the scope of the NLRA’s protections.

But the line between unprotected “purely political” communications and NLRA-protected communications becomes blurred when the subject matter touches on wages, hours or other terms or conditions of employment. For example, displaying posters or distributing leaflets saying “Vote for Smith – She’ll Raise the Minimum Wage,” or wearing a T-shirt asking co-workers to “Support Workers’ Rights” by voting against a proposed “right-to-work law” likely are protected by the NLRA. Employers who restrict those types of communications risk exposure to a NLRB unfair labor practice charge. Not surprisingly, the NLRB also has extended the NLRA’s protections to “mixed communications” that contain both protected and unprotected political content. As a result, employers have an even greater challenge when deciding which communications are or are not protected under the NLRA.

Misconception 2: Employees Must Always be Allowed to Display and Distribute Political Materials and “Campaign” in the Workplace

Wrong again.

Employers generally have the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory rules prohibiting non-work-related activities in their workplaces, including “purely political” activities. For example, employers may ban employees from displaying or distributing materials that are purely political in nature; soliciting co-workers or customers to support purely political causes; using the employer’s computer and email systems to engage in purely political communications; or wearing buttons, shirts or other items of clothing with purely political messages. Such activities are not protected by the NLRA. In addition, employees who engage in such activities in violation of the employer’s published policies may be lawfully disciplined or discharged.

However, as noted above, political activities with a sufficient connection to employment-related issues may be protected by the NLRA. Therefore, any restrictions on such activities must comply with rules developed by the NLRB for such statutorily protected activities. For example:

An employer cannot lawfully prohibit workplace conversations about protected political subjects, even during working times, unless it similarly prohibits all other non-work-related communications.

If the protected political activity goes beyond simple conversation to actual solicitation of money or other support for a candidate or cause, then it may be prohibited during working times. But it may not be prohibited at all times on the employer’s premises.

If the protected political activity involves distribution of literature, then it may be prohibited during working times and in work areas. But it may not be prohibited on non-working time in non-work areas.

If the employer provides employees with use of its computer and email systems to perform their duties, then it generally cannot prohibit employees from using those systems to engage in protected political activity during non-working times. However, employers still have the right to impose uniformly applied bans on employees’ non-work-related use of other company equipment (such as copiers, printers and office supplies) to engage in political activities, including those protected by the NLRA.

In the absence of significant and demonstrable “special circumstances” – such as unique concerns about safety, patient care, damage to machinery or equipment, or customer service issues – an employer cannot prohibit employees from wearing buttons, T-shirts or other clothing displaying protected political messages.

As a result of the NLRB’s rules, employers lose much of their control over employees’ political communications and activities, both inside and outside the workplace, if they have a sufficient nexus to employment-related issues. Employers may not maintain overly broad rules that reasonably would be interpreted by employees as restricting such communications and activities, and employees may not be disciplined or discharged for engaging in them. We also can expect the current Board to try to find ways to expand the types of political activities that fall within the scope of the NLRA’s protection, i.e., the required nexus may become more and more attenuated.

What Should an Employer Do?

Several “next steps” exist for employers concerned about potentially work-disrupting, productivity-sucking, fury-inducing “politics in the workplace.”

First, prepare and implement a strong “no political activity” policy that has appropriate carve-outs for communications and activities protected by the NLRA or applicable state laws. Such carefully drafted policies not only are permitted but are considered an employer “best practice.” An absolute ban on political communications and activities would be both impractical and unlawful under the NLRA.

Second, employers must ensure that their policies, including those dealing with political activities, comply with the NLRB’s rules regarding permissible restrictions on workplace conversations, solicitation, distribution, use of the employer’s computer and email systems, and messages displayed on buttons, shirts and other items of clothing. Although the NLRA prohibits employers from imposing an absolute ban on all political expression, it permits policies that 1) prohibit purely political communications in the workplace; 2) prohibit employees from soliciting money or support for political candidates or causes during working times; 3) prohibit distribution of materials about those subjects in working areas and during working times; and 4) prohibit any related workplace communications or conduct that disrupt operations or productivity, or are accompanied by violent, unlawful or other extreme behavior. However, given the NLRB’s aggressive, pro-employee activity in this area, employers must be on the alert for new developments requiring modifications of their announced policies.

Third, employers should be prepared to promptly and effectively address violent, substantially disruptive, unlawful and other political communications and activities that fall outside the scope of the NLRA’s protection.

Fourth, employers may wish to discourage supervisors (either formally or informally) from having political discussions with subordinates in order to minimize potential claims of discrimination, harassment or bullying. As noted above, supervisors are not protected by the NLRA. However, any such policy also must be tailored to comply with applicable state law.

Fifth, employers should periodically remind employees – perhaps by redistribution of the relevant policies – that the company insists on respectful treatment of all personnel, does not tolerate discrimination, harassment or retaliation, limits employees’ access to and use of social media, and will investigate employee complaints of mistreatment. Although such reminders will make plain that political communications must comply with existing policies, the reminders must be carefully drafted in light of the NLRB’s views (which expressly recognize that a certain amount of “disrespectful” conduct is permitted by the NLRA).

Finally, employers must enforce “political activity” policies even-handedly. If a violation is suspected or a complaint is made, a careful investigation should be conducted and discipline issued as appropriate. “Even-handed” enforcement means not only consistent enforcement among all employees regardless of political affiliation or opinion but also consistency as to subject matter. This means, for example, enforcing facially lawful “no solicitation” and “no distribution” rules as to both protected political solicitations and distributions as well as other types of workplace solicitations and distributions. Applying the rules only to NLRA-protected activities (e.g., protected political communications, union-organizing activities, etc.) will draw an NLRB unfair labor practice charge.

Conclusion

Employers need not lose control of their workplaces during the run-up to elections. A carefully crafted and uniformly enforced policy that limits political activities and “free speech” will lower the risk of employee claims while increasing worker productivity.

Original Article

When is the Wrong Time to Do the Right Thing?

Posted on by The Organic Recruiter in Diversity, Latest News and Articles, Uncategorized

NEVER! Why must we question when something is right? If you are questioning it, it is probably wrong. People have made many blunders throughout history and sometimes you don’t know until it is too late. Hindsight is always 20/20. The same could be said in business.

I can tell you I am not rich by any means; however, I know a number of people in sales with much larger checkbooks because they took shortcuts or cheated clients on many occasions. I have to sleep every night therefore I choose to make the right decisions. It’s hard enough to sleep at night just being in sales!

Sadly, the unsung hero rarely gets his/her due. Take Peter Norman: during the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City Mr. Norman broke the Australian record for fastest 200M race (which still stands today). Unfortunately for Norman, he came in 2nd and 2 Americans named John Carlos and Tommie Smith won the gold and bronze.

There is an iconic picture taken a few hours after the race the world knows but has often been misconstrued as a nod to Black Power. What better stage than the Olympics for Carlos and Smith to recognize the Human Rights Movement around the globe? The 2 men were never allowed to compete at the highest level again, but what they stood for was greater than that. It was a stance against the unjust wrongs of society at the time.

Carlos forgot his black gloves at Olympic Park and before they went on their way to the podium, Norman suggested they use his gloves on opposite hands to which they did. In a continued effort to respect the cause, Norman found an American who had the Olympic Project for Human Rights pin on him and asked to wear it. This was another profound statement as Apartheid in Australia was still widely felt and Norman did what he thought was right regardless of potential repercussions.

Unfortunately for Norman, Australia was not forgiving one bit. Eventually when his life ended much later at the age of 64, his home country of Australia never appreciated what the man really stood for. At the cost of aiding all human-kind who were unfairly treated throughout history to be treated as equals, Norman died with no money or recognition.

Why am I telling this story, you may be wondering? There are a lot of great salespeople out there who put the client in front of their financial aspirations. Sure, we want to be millionaires, but that shouldn’t come at the risk of doing the wrong thing.

So the next time you get a call from a salesperson, do me a favor and listen to what they have to say and realize there are win-win scenarios, but it might not always be at the advantage of the company we work for.

I promise I am here to help you get to your goals with what I have in hand…and it might not always be what I am selling.

Today San Jose State University dons a likeness of the day with a statue of Carlos and Smith without Norman. Not to eliminate that part of the legacy, rather so you and me and anyone can stand up and represent Norman as Human Rights is everyone’s business and there is never and wrong time to do the right thing.

The Organic Recruiter

For more on Carlos, Smith and Norman

 

May 2016’s Newsletter

Posted on by The Organic Recruiter in Diversity, Employment Retention, Employment Value Proposition, Latest News and Articles

It would be very remiss of me to not dedicate this edition to my favorite musical artist of all time, Prince and the passing of a genius this past month. A man full of controversy throughout the last 4 decades was one who did it his way.  For this there was always speculation of who he was and what he stood for.  One thing for sure, he will be missed for the amazing talent he was and the influence he left.

For this I will use as the platform and theme if you will for this edition around diversity and inclusion as his song Controversy is what it is all about.  The words as they rang out from this song, “am I straight or gay? Am I black or white…” is indeed what we look at in diversity and inclusion on the mere surface.

And in the spirit of Prince, I also suggest reading a book on his biography around the Purple Rain era…or rather the time when everyone new every word to every song.  The book itself is controversial, but always remember he did it his way while overcoming the “conventional way”, the “right way” or even “the way it’s always been done”.

There is no perfect way.  Nor does right come in a color or a gender.  Believe in you.  You may be controversial, but at the end of the day, you get to smile…Let’s go crazy!

Mahalo!

This Month’s articles:

EEOC’S CONTROVERSIAL EEO-1 CHANGE WOULD ROOT OUT PAY DISCRIMINATION

Posted on by The Organic Recruiter in Diversity, Latest News and Articles

by Amanda Shelby | March 20th, 2016

Equality needs to be understood in every way possible.  From getting a fair shake at a job you are highly qualified to getting paid fairly amongst your peers that share the same job classification.   Equal pay for equal job in my opinion.  The only outlier to this is when you are paid a commission.  My belief is when in sales, you give yourself your raise every time you sell something.  But to that extent, not everyone is a sales person, are they? ~The Organic Recruiter

The EEOC’s proposed amendment to the EEO-1 would require employers with 100 or more employees to report pay data in addition to their workforce demographics.

The proposed revision to the EEO-1 would require employers with 100 or more employees to also report aggregate data on employees’ pay range and hours worked beginning with the 2017 EEO-1 report.

The EEOC has proposed using aggregate W-2 data in 12 pay bands for the 10 current EEO-1 job categories. “Employers will simply count and report the number of employees in each pay band. For example, a filer will report on the EEO-1 that it employs 3 African[-]American women as professionals in the highest pay band.” The EEOC believes this method for collecting and reporting pay data not only will be more likely than others to generate reliable data but also will be less burdensome for employers than other possible alternatives.

If this change sounds familiar, it’s because the EEOC’s proposed rule is similar to-and replaces-a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Labor that would have required federal contractors to submit comparable pay information in their annual equal pay reports to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

To “Assist the agency in identifying possible pay discrimination”; and To “Assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.”

Even an individual claim could be costly because it will require the employer to justify not only the employee’s pay but also the pay of all of her comparators.

If you anticipate that your company will be subject to the rule, consider asking your employment law counsel to review your pay practices and evaluate your risk before you’re forced to disclose your employees’ pay data next year.