STUDY

PLEASE USE THE WRITING ADVANATGE TECHNIQUE

 

Example (Using the Format)

Topic Sentence:
One major factor that influences employee performance is job satisfaction.

Evidence/Support:
According to a 2022 study by the Harvard Business Review, companies with high employee satisfaction saw a 21% increase in productivity compared to those with lower satisfaction levels.

Explanation/Analysis:
This suggests that when employees feel valued and content in their roles, they are more likely to put in extra effort and remain committed to the company’s goals. Job satisfaction boosts motivation and reduces turnover, which directly impacts overall performance.

Concluding Sentence:
Therefore, improving job satisfaction is not just a moral win but a strategic advantage for companies.

18 | Business Journal • August 2017 Business Journal • August 2017 | 19

Legally
Speaking
with
Toni Mulvaney

The
Economist

with
M. Ray Perryman

ECONOMIST | SEE PAGE 19

What if you were enjoying your va-
nilla latte at a Starbucks, catching up
on the latest on your laptop, and all of
a sudden, one of the employees began
a heated dispute with the manager in
which many expletives (f-bombs) were
used in front of customers? Better than
watching the soaps, right?

What do you do when an employ-
ee posts vulgar, offensive and possi-
bly threatening statements on several
union newsletters left in an employee
break room?

And what if an employer, seeking
to maintain a civil, positive work en-
vironment, has a policy requiring its
employees to use courtesy, allowing
no “disrespect to our guests, including
discussing tips, profanity or negative
comments or actions,” nor “insubordi-
nation to a manager or lack of respect
and cooperation with fellow employees
or guests”?

In these cases, wouldn’t you expect
the employer would be well within
rights to fire the foul-mouthed, harass-
ing employees? Especially when their
actions are in violation of company
policy? Well, think again. Employees’
derogatory Facebook and other social
media posts and offensive remarks have

been permitted by the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), while em-
ployers’ civility codes and courtesy rules
have been invalidated.

Under federal law, employees have
the right to engage in “concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection.” It is considered an unfair labor
practice for employers to interfere with,
restrain or coerce employees in the ex-
ercise of these rights. So under recent
NLRB rulings, communication, no
matter how profane or harassing, will
be protected as long as it is somehow
connected to workplace issues such as
wages, tips, breaks, etc.

Applying these rules to the Star-
bucks case above, the NLRB sided
with the terminated employee and
likewise condoned another employee’s
conduct when he cursed at his boss and
told him that if he fired him, he would
regret it.

In the case with the vulgar and offen-
sive written threats, the writer was pro-
tected as he was seeking to encourage
other employees to vote for the union
— despite the fact that his actions vio-
lated the company’s nondiscriminatory
policy and that female employees took
offense and reported the conduct in
written complaints.

In a case filed by a Hooters wait-
ress, the company policy requiring re-
spect was invalidated for being vague
and overly broad. Not being allowed
to discuss tips was a violation of em-
ployee rights, as was the lack of specific
examples or definitions of the words

“insubordination,” “lack of respect” and
“cooperation.”

Critics complain that taken as a
whole, these rulings confer on employ-
ees a degree of insulation from disci-
pline for misconduct that federal law
neither requires nor warrants.

According to researchers and the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), incivility is
often a precursor to workplace harass-
ment — a gateway to hostile work
environment claims. Last year a select
task force was created to study harass-
ment in the workplace and how em-
ployers’ harassment prevention policies
can change for the better. The study,
among other things, emphasized that
the EEOC and the NLRB should
work together to harmonize the rela-
tionship between them, recognizing
that employers often struggle to com-
ply with both federal laws that protect
“concerted activity” and those that pro-
tect equal opportunity. The inconsis-
tency between the EEOC’s guidance
and the NLRB’s decisions makes it dif-
ficult for employers to know what dis-
ruptive employee behavior they must
— or don’t need to — tolerate.

What can an employer do?
Employers should take a look at

their workplace policies and determine
whether they need to be revised to
minimize friction with the NLRB and
still maintain rules that are necessary
for a courteous and lawful workplace:

• Make sure your policy is not “vague

or ambiguous.” Carefully craft rules
using examples of what is or is not al-
lowed.

• Provide definitions of possible am-
biguous terms.

• Frame language in a way that an
employee understands he/she is still
allowed to protest or criticize the em-
ployer on workplace issues.

• Consider adding a “savings clause”
which explicitly states that the rule is
not intended to interfere with the em-
ployee’s protected concerted activity —
and describe explicitly the concerted
activity that is implicated by the rule,
but that is not intended to be prohib-
ited.

The EEOC also proposes that ha-
rassment prevention training be:

• Championed by senior leaders
• Repeated and reinforced regularly
• Provided to employees at every level

and location of the organization
• Provided in all languages common-

ly used by employees
• Tailored to the specific workplace

and workforce
• Conducted by qualified, live, inter-

active trainers, or, if live training is not
feasible, designed to include active en-
gagement by participants

• Routinely evaluated by participants
and revised as needed.

Toni Mulvaney, J.D. is professor of
Business Law at Lamar University.
Frank J. Cavaliere, J.D., Lamar Univer-
sity professor and author of the Web-Wise
Lawyer column in Practical Lawyer is a
regular contributor to this column. n

Tension between EEOC, NLRB over civility in the workplace

A large and growing component of
international trade won’t fit in a tanker,
container, barge or crate. In fact, no
matter how hard you look, it is nearly
impossible to find some of it with your
eyes; much of it is lodged in the cranial
cavities found between millions of pairs
of ears. The United States has long run
a trade surplus in the services category,
meaning that we as a nation export
significantly more services than we im-
port. In addition, the United States is
the world’s leader in international trade
in services, trading substantially more
than any other nation.

Services exports and imports are
provided by and to the United States
in international markets. They may be
supplied across borders (such as a U.S.
company sending a team of American
accountants to do work at a firm in To-
ronto or Tokyo) or consumed abroad
(such as a U.S. company providing
insurance services in Europe). An in-
creasing amount is provided through
cyberspace, as engineers, architects and
yes, even economists, send the fruits of
their labor in impulses through the air
and receive payment invisibly through
the global electronic funds transfer sys-
tem.

Not all services are invisible. Trans-
portation is a prime example of one
that, while not a tangible good, is easy
to experience and visualize. If an Amer-
ican passenger flies on British Airways,
that’s an import, whereas a foreign
passenger on American Airlines is
an export. The Commerce Depart-

ment (through the U.S. Bureau of the
Census and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis) tracks nine categories: main-
tenance and repair; transport; travel
(for all purposes, including education);
insurance services; financial services;
charges for the use of intellectual prop-
erty; telecommunications, computer
and information services; other busi-
ness services; and government goods
and services.

Last year, U.S. exports of services to-
taled more than $752 billion. Of that
amount, nearly $206 billion was travel
services. Hundreds of billions in busi-
ness services were exported, including
$98 billion in financial services. More
than $124 billion in charges for the use
of intellectual property were recorded.

Services imports were nearly $505
billion in 2016, for a surplus of exports
over imports of almost $248 billion.
For comparison, U.S. goods exports in
2016 were nearly $1.5 trillion, while

imports were $2.2 trillion (for a deficit
of almost $753 billion).

Taking a long-term historical look
indicates that services exports have
nearly tripled since 1999 (note that this
data is not adjusted for inflation, which
accounts for a portion of the increase).
Travel services exports have doubled,
and several categories are up by even
larger multiples.

For many people, “exports” or “im-
ports” brings to mind U.S. factories and
the goods they produce or ships loaded
with containers of products from around
the world making their way across the
seas and into U.S. ports. While goods
are a larger slice of the trade pie, services
are a notable (and much more rapidly
growing) component.

Services industries have a notable
stake in trade policy. As I have point-
ed out before, international trade is a
good thing for all involved. In fact, it

Trade you can’t see

• BBJ 01
• BBJ 02-20
• BBJ 21-40

Week 5 Writing Assignment

You are the CEO of a young, growing company. You have long expressed concern to your executive team that the company is unprepared to handle harassment claims. While there haven’t been any claims so far, the recent growth in the size of the company, creates a need for precautions. You have observed heated arguments on the shop floor, in the sales offices, on the showroom floor, and even in the executive offices over all kinds of matters, some not even work related. You have even observed some employees bursting into tears over some of these arguments. You have heard people cursing openly, some of the employees are so crude that they don’t even seem to know that they do it. There have been some complaints by employees who feel that this is unprofessional and hurts the image of the company, damages morale, and could result in harassment claims.

The Director of Human Resources drops by your office to show you a recent article called “Reducing Harassment in the Workplace.” According to the article, at a minimum, the company needs a policy that informs employees about harassment, which can be sexual, racial, religious, national origin, age, or disability, that it is not permitted at work, and that there are a number of people they can contact if they feel victimized. The article goes on to say that is a good start, but it isn’t nearly enough to protect a company. The article says what is needed is a civility code to ensure that everyone treats everyone else, fellow workers, subordinates, superiors, customers, and suppliers, with dignity and respect. One section of the Code says: “Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Everyone is expected to be courteous, polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees. No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the Company.”

The next day you discuss the article with your 4-person executive team. Two of them like the idea, two of them hate it. You tell them to think about it and you’ll discuss it further at your next meeting. The following Monday morning you get to work, and your secretary tells you to check your e-mail. You discover that there is a heated battle going on between numerous employees debating the “proposed” civility code. Some of the comments are favorable, but others are downright uncivil, rude, and profane. Some of the critics complain that it is a violation of free speech and one even calls you a communist. One employee says this is good reason to bring in a union. One of the advocates of the civility code has been called a “p.c. millennial snowflake” and is threatening to bring a harassment claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC.

You call your attorney and tell him what’s happening. Later that day, after doing 2 hours of research, the two of you meet. He tells you that the situation is complicated from a legal standpoint, but there are three key points. One, employees of private companies have no First Amendment free speech rights at work. Two, the EEOC likes the idea of civility codes, since they are charged with eliminating harassment in the workplace. Three, the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB, has taken a very broad view of what is protected “concerted activity by workers for mutual benefit and support,” whether there is a union involved or not. By the way, the lawyer says, the NLRB has gone so far as to prohibit employers from restricting company e-mail use to purely business matters. In other words, he says, you are between a rock and a hard place, and, by the way, here is a bill for $500 for the meeting and research.

As CEO, you must now decide how to handle the situation. Using the Writing Advantage format, write a draft proposal (approx. 2 pages) to your Executive Team addressing the following:

Recognize Assumptions:

· State the problem in the situation, and provide the inductive or deductive (or both) reasoning that leads you to your problem statement

· Discuss any assumptions that you or others in the situation may be making (as much as possible, support your statements with data from the case)

Evaluate Arguments:

· Evaluate the validity and value of each person’s position/stance on the situation

· Discuss any ethical concerns raised in the situation

· Discuss any suspicious or fraudulent claims in the scenario

Draw Conclusions:

· List and discuss pros and cons of possible solutions

· Recommend a solution and course of action.