On this day of thanks, I ask that we think about 150,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan and 50,000 serving in Iraq.  They work everyday.  They risk their lives everyday for us.  Some of us may question the value of the two wars.  Some soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors might agree.  But, they serve all the same.  They perform their duty everyday not for fame, not for reward.  Recognition is important to them, but that is not why they serve.  They perform their duties because they feel a strong duty toward their fellow soldiers and toward us, the folks back home. 

Give thanks that after 235 years, we still have soldiers and service members who still step forward, who still do their duty even when they are not always remembered as closely as we could.  We are fortunate to have the traditions and culture we do.  Many other countries lack that sense of duty.  Iraqi service members go home for about a week every month to take home their pay.  Many do not return to duty.  When they are on duty, many turn away from challenges with a shrug and a barely audible "en sha’ala."  

It is said that part of the reason for the fall of the Roman empire was that after hundreds of years, the Roman citizens lost their willingness to fight for their country.  The army was populated mostly by non-citizens who in the end, would not resist the invaders.  if so, we are a long way from that. 

I served briefly in a drill sergeant unit.  I loved seeing those young, fresh faced soldiers taking on much more than they really understood.  They still volunteer.  They reflect us and what we have made of this wonderful  country.  Let us give thanks. 

Yes, you can be fired for reasons beyond your control.  I tell that to potential clients all the time, but they do not seem to believe me, sometimes.  One man, Sam Salazar, dated a woman for two years before they broke up.  He started caling her so often at work that she was fired.  He then started calling her at her new job sometimes more than a 1,000 times a day.  He would tell whoever answered the phone to tell his former girlfriend that he loved her.  See San Antonio Express News report. 

The woman applied for a protective order from the Bexar County District Attorney’s office in April, but was turned down.  That probably means she asked the DA’s office to seek a protective order for her.  But, the DA’s office did send Mr. Salazar a letter warning him to quit calling the woman or face criminal charges.  

Sam Salazar continued with his calls even at her new job.  So, he has been arrested for telephone harassment by the San Antonio Police department.  

Its hard to believe, I know, but some people do not like lawyers much.  One man has been wearing a pig costume and protesting in front of the state bar headquarters in Austin.  See post.  He says he wants the rules changed so that "arbitration" (apparently meaning mediation) comes before discovery. He says he spent over $200,000 on legal fees in a dispute over a parcel of land worth $4,000.  He complains that he spent $40,000 or so before going to what he calls arbitration, where the case did not settle.  He finally lost his case on appeal.  He stayed in the lawsuit only so he could get his attorney’s fees back (which would have only been possible if he had won or settled). 

Eric A. Anderson has also protested at the Travis County Courthouse.  He will not name his lawyer. 

I used to do collections work.  I would recommend to my client that any amount below $5,000, they should file on their own in Justice of the Peace court.  And, of course, once my attorney’s fees became one-half or more of the amount owed, it was time to consider whether this was a debt worth pursuing.  I would discuss frankly with my  client how bad did they want to sue this person.  Quitting a lawsuit is not easy, sometimes.  We get "worked up" in the middle of a lawsuit.  But, we need to always remember that every lawsuit is essentially a business decision.  Cost benefit analysis must apply. 

Forbes magazine offers us examples of things we should not say at work.  See Forbes article. Topics to avoid include sex, religion and politics, of course.  These are topics that can get folks riled up easily.  A thoughtless comment, seemingly harmless banter can linger.  According to one survey, only one-third of senior managers felt comfortable discussing their political views with colleagues. One lady remembers when she slipped up.  The boss, a senior manager, proudly announced at a meeting that he had voted for the Colonel, referring to Oliver North running for the Senate in Virginia. Without thinking, Alison Risso responded, "I pray to God you mean the one who sells chickens." Ms. Risso did not last long at that job.  

Beware of off-color jokes.  Be very wary of humor based on ethnic or gender stereotypes.  Never, ever discuss or "joke" about committing any sort of violence at work.  Do not discuss in any great detail operations, surgeries, or treatments.  

Don’t say "that’s not my department."  if you are not willing to invest five minutes into an issue for your boss or co-worker, then you have demonstrated your lack if interest in your job. 

Workplace morale requires some light topics. Workplace communication is greased by easy conversations and harmless banter.  I remember the Lieutenant-Colonel who insisted that lower ranking persons stand at parade rest in his office, with no hands in their pockets. He would not allow his staff, officer or non-commissioned officers, to sit in his office when providing important information.  You know that particular Lieutenant-Colonel was often out of the loop on critical developments in our work place.

Or, as the Forbes article explains, one new CEO had trouble getting his employees to follow his directions. When the consultant met with him, he told her up front that he did not care what his employees thought of him, so long as they did what he told them.  The consultant and author ("Shut Up and Say Something") recommends don’t tell employees "just do it" or "you don’t know what you are talking about."  Even in the Army, or perhaps especially in the Army, that does not work. 

 

 If you are going to quit, get ready.  Clear your office of embarrassing computer files, personal papers and anything else you want to keep.  As the ABA Bar Journal advises lawyers, once you resign, your employer may very likely escort you out of the office immediately with nothing more than a promise to send your belongings later.  See Bar Journal report.  The advise is for lawyers, but it applies to any white collar employee.  Many employers now escort departing employees out the front door.  

Do not solicit clients, says the Journal, before departure.  Just as it would be wise for everyone else to not solicit customers before departure.  Beware of any non-compete agreements.  

If the employer has an exit interview, do not nitpick.  Try to address systemic issues.  Try to treat your departure as a business decision, despite the many events that may have lead up to it.  

Accept offers to meet for lunch or coffee from co-workers.  Do not turn these social sessions into gripe sessions.  Whatever the circumstances of your departure, turn it into a positive event. 

Remember former colleagues’ birthdays.  Send them thank you notes for their help with your career. 

The Bar Journal does not mention this, but also, see a lawyer of you think you may have grounds for a lawsuit.  Even a lawsuit, in the end, is a business decision, too. 

SSGT Giunta is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  See news report.  He teared up when he described his receipt of the award.  He said he did not deserve it and that he was only a "mediocre" soldier.  I am sure that he does deserve it.  But, it is true that he did what many soldiers would have done and have done.  

Civilians who have never served do not appreciate the selflessness that serving in the armed forces instills.  We are taught to be a member of a team and to not seek personal recognition.  The few soldiers who do seek personal recognition are often shunned or become the subject of jokes.  "There is no ‘I’ in the word team."  How many times have I heard that during training or in Army schools??   

When I was young, I remember a few World War II vets who shunned the spotlight. Certifiable heroes, they nevertheless avoided recognition.  Now, I understand why.  To seek what we were taught to avoid would undermine everything we fought and bled for. 

For those not familiar, SSGT Giunta’s squad was caught in an L-shaped ambush.  It was well executed and well planned.  Giunta and his squad was pinned down.  Two soldiers were forward of the rest and were exposed in the open, with no cover.  One was wounded badly, SGT Brennan. Brennan and Giunta were close friends.  In the dim light, Giunta could see that two Taliban fighters were dragging Brennan away.  Giunta got up, exposing himself to heavy enemy fire and advanced, tossed a grenade and shooting.  He shot one Taliban and the other retreated.  SSGT Giunta rescued his dying friend and pulled him back to safety.  Brennan died soon after.  But, Brennnan died knowing he was back with his buddies.  SSGT Giunta’s attack broke up the ambush. The Taliban retreated. 

When you serve and especially when you deploy, your military unit becomes your family.  I would have given my life for my buddies readily, as they would have for me.  SSGT Giunta is right that his actions are not all that uncommon.  He is also right that he accepts the award for every soldier, marine, airman and sailor who was ready to do what he did.  He stands for us all in many ways. 

But, SSGT Giunta is also the best of us.  We are not all selfless or as selfless as we should be when we serve.  When many Iraq/Afghanistan vets return home, many come back angry.  Angry at those few instances when some soldier acted for his/her self interest and needlessly added to the ever present risk in a war zone.  

SSGT Giunta reminds us all how it should be.  He is the best of us.  

Iowa passed a law recently requiring employers to give veterans Veterans Day off.  The leave can be unpaid.  See post.  The new law has some exceptions for public safety workers and major disruptions to employers.  But, the idea seems pertinent to today.  

I myself worked for an employer where Veterans Day was not always honored, even when I was fresh from the war.  My former employer would alternate Veterans Day with another holiday.  

An employee went to the EEOC.  She was being sexually harassed in a pretty blatant manner by the owner of a small company somewhere in the USA.  She meets with an investigator who tells her that she has no case, because she has no evidence.  EEOC investigators should not give legal advice, but  it happens sometimes.  They are investigators, after all.  Investigation sometimes involves discussions about evidence.   

The complainant then responds that she has witnesses.  Investigator tells her to call her Human Resources person to make a report.  The employee calls HR from the investigator’s office.  She reports the sexual harassment. 

Within ten minutes, the owner calls the employe, still at the investigator’s office.  She puts him on speaker phone.  The owner says, "I understand you complained about me.  You don’t need to return to the office."  The owner fired the employee over the EEOC’s own phone within ten minutes of her complaint.  The investigator heard it all. 

One might think, great, what great evidence!  The silly owner called and fired the employee for pursuing her rights with the EEOC – right where the EEOC could observe the whole chain of events.

Wrong.  The invstigator still insisted she had no case and refused to allow her to file a claim for discrimination or for retaliation.  He tells the employee she should just go collect her last paycheck and move on with her life.

This is the organization that on its own website says:

"The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s . . .  sex . . . . It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit."

 As I have mentioned before, do not expect much from the EEOC.  Most investigators mean well. They have far too many cases to perform an adequate investigation in any one case.  Of course, this situation goes beyond mere investigation.  The investigator already has all the necessary facts on which to start and conclude an investigation.  I can only conclude that the culture at some EEOC offices is indifferent and blind to the realities of the workplace.  

Is there room for doubt that the employer just retaliated against the woman because she opposed discrimination?  The investigator saw and hard it all.  He already has enough evidence to find in her favor on the issue of retaliation for opposing discrimination. 

The EEOC does have some teeth.  They do file lawsuits on behalf of employees.  But, situations like this one suggest that sometimes they will not see discrimination even if it is in front of their nose……

 

 A colleague tells me about a woman who works at a small manufacturing facility in the Houston area.  The facility employs many Hispanic workers who speak poor English with a heavy accent. The front office folks are Caucasian.  The workers on the floor are mostly Hispanic with a few recent immigrants from Mexico.  

The woman friend needs to speak with the Hispanic workers on occasion.  She was speaking to a worker about a project and encouraging him to speak English and not call for an interpreter.  His accent was difficult, but the woman friend was communicating with him adequately, when a senior female manager walks by and interjects.  "He’s only a Mexican.  Why bother?"  Then the manager continues on her errand without even looking back.  The Hispanic worker cast his eyes downward and lost his willingness to discuss the product at issue. 

Apart from notions of civil rights, how do such interactions promote efficiency?  Did the senior manager’s comment promote or hinder workplace efficiency?

Another time, the company was planning their company Halloween party.  The front office folks were doing the planning discussing the details.  The office workers debated whether to invite the Hispanic floor workers.  The senior female manager, remarked," What?  Invite them and they’ll bring their six kids!"  Yet, this senior female manager has never actually spoken with any of the floor workers.  She knows none of them. 

The senior female manager violates many more rules other than Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  She daily recommends violations of tax rules, accounting procedures and others.  Folks who violate one set of rules often violate other rules, as well.  

 

 It is a little known provision found in the National Labor Relations Act.  An employee has the right to discuss "terms and conditions " of employment with other employees.  An employee can discuss whether they like their supervisor or whether they are paid enough.  Discussions about work issues were seen as the precursor to forming or not forming a union.  So, the National Labor Relations Act, a 1930’s era statute, allows employees such discussions.  I discussed this provision in a prior post. The National Labor Relations Board refers to this as "concerted activity."  They define concerted activity as two or more employees getting together to improve working conditions.  See NLRB webpage.  

So, it was sure to happen sometime.  An ambulance driver and union member in Connecticut   discussed and disparaged her boss on her Facebook page.   The remark drew supportive statements from other employees.  The ambulance service fired her.  Now, the National Labor Relations Board is investigating.  They have issued a press release denouncing terminations for an employee discussing terms and conditions of employment.  See press release.  

Dan Schwartz at Connecticut Employment Blog, who primarily represents employers, has warned employers abut this.  See his blog post.  Even though this partiucular employee is a union member, the provision regarding discussing terms and conditions of employment is not limited to union members.  So, employers, if you have a social media policy, make sure it does not prohibit discussions of "terms and conditions" of employment.