The Morris Plan

That Job is Not Just Boring -- It's Killing You!

Continuing with my theme of the importance of working for yourself, I now offer evidence that your boring job may well be killing you.

In an article to be published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, Annie Britton and Martin Shipley of University College London will report that job boredom can kill you.

They analyzed questionnaires completed by London civil service employees between 1985 and 1988, with an age range of 35 to 55. The employees were asked if they had felt bored at work during the previous month.  After approximately 25 years had passed, Shipley and Britton looked to see how many of the employees had died by April 2009.

The employees who had responded that they had been very bored were two and a half times more likely to die of a heart problem than those who hadn't reported being bored.

The researchers try to blunt the report a little by saying that the true risk factor might be the lack of exercise and good diet.  In other words, a depressed person might report being bored, and would likely be the sort of person that does not have the energy to exercise.  But to me that just sidesteps the reality.  If the person had a fulfilling job or, far better, their own business, they would likely not be depressed or bored and would be more likely to exercise.

Bottom line:  That boring, life-sucking job is killing you.  February is National Start a Business Month.  Make it happen.

Use the Power of Delegation

I was reading in the paper another one of the hundreds of tales of woe, wherein someone was decrying his inability to find work in this tough economy.  In this particular case, a 41-year-old tool-and-die maker lost his job after working 20 years at the same plant.  His resume has just one work entry and his education consists only of a high school diploma.  His job search efforts have been fruitless, so he has decided to go to a technical college for a two-year mechanical drafting program.

So what does this poor soul have to do with delegation?  I’ll bet if we asked him, he would say that during those 20 years he was barely scraping by.  He certainly could not afford to hire others, he would argue, and had to do every errand around the house himself.  He had no time to go to school.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Whatever was keeping him busy after work, whether it was watching the kids or working on the house, if he had delegated those duties, at least part of the time, he could have freed up enough time to attend school at night, even if just once or twice a week.  Over 20 years, he could have earned about four PhDs if he was so inclined.  Instead of starting his education while unemployed, his toughest decision now would be whether he wants to teach calculus at Cornell or political science at Penn State.  I exaggerate to make the point, but he certainly would be in a position to aim higher than drafting school.

I speak from personal experience.  I earned my college degree while working full time as a police officer and running a business, and continued to work through law school.  One of the attorneys in my office began as a legal secretary, obtained her paralegal certificate, and then attended law school at night for four years, all while working full time and raising a son.  She used the power of delegation to free up her time enough to allow her to attend classes three nights a week.

It’s a major cliche, but one that fails to resonate in the minds of so many.  Our attorney was 37 when she started law school, and when some people felt compelled to point out to her that she would be 41 when she graduated, she would just respond, “How old will I be in four years if I don’t go to law school?”  If only the tool-and-die maker had lived that philosophy. 

As stated in my prior post, you have an hourly rate that should not be squandered.  That hourly rate can be immeasurable if by delegating house work, yard work and occasionally the child care to others, you free yourself to improve your situation.

Never Forget Your “Hourly Rate”

A few years back, a local hamburger chain advertised that it was going to sell a burger, fries and a Coke for the 1950s price of a dollar. People waited in line for hours to get this super deal.

Today, Denny’s was giving away free breakfasts. I took a different route to work in order to drive by a Denny’s and see if people were waiting in line. I was pleasantly surprised to see that there were only about ten people in line, but I later saw on the news that at some locations people were, again, waiting hours to get the meal.

This scenario is emblematic of a larger problem that holds back so many people. Never forget that your time has value. By whatever formula you decide to use – what you think your time should be worth or the actual value based on your current job – assign a value to your time. Then apply that number to your daily activities to determine what they are costing you.

Let’s say you are an employee earning $75,000 a year. With benefits, that’s probably closer to $100,000 a year in terms of your total compensation. Assuming around 2000 hours a year of working hours, your effective hourly rate is $50. If you decide you are worth more than that, all the better, but let’s use $50 per hour for our analysis.

When you sit down tonight to watch two hours of American Idol, know that entertainment experience is costing you $100 ($75 if you Tivo it and fast forward through the commercials). I’m not making a value judgment here; you may well decide that $100 is a fair price to pay for American Idol, but you need to make that informed decision.  Many of the people waiting in line at Denny's were paying a very high price for that "free" meal because they don't place any value on their time.

Now it is true that in my situation the hourly cost is quite literal. If I push myself away from the television and go sit at the computer, I can bill hours that I would otherwise delegate to others. But don’t permit yourself to rationalize that your situation is completely different. If your business is not yet in place, that time can be spent getting it there. If you are committed to being a drone employee, the time can be spent looking for a better job or on continuing education for advancement. 

I’ll make the point once more in anticipation of the naysayers. This is not to say that every hour must be productive. Down time has a value as well. But knowing what your activities are costing you allows you to make an informed decision.

Next time: The power of delegation.

How to keep your Godforsaken, life-sucking job

The stress meter is definitely pegging among the working crowd. Being an employment lawyer, I normally gets dozens of calls per week from people who have been fired, but now I’m getting a lot of calls from people who expect to get fired and want to do something proactive. Most are not familiar with the concept of at-will employment, so they want to know how they can document their stellar work performance, thinking they can later use that as evidence that there was no just cause for termination.

As stated here many times, you can be fired for any reason or no reason, so long as the termination does not violate public policy (although some states like New York don't even have that limitation). In a down economy when terminations are commonplace, it becomes even more difficult to prove wrongful termination because the company can easily show you were fired for economic reasons.

So, instead of looking to litigation to save the day, here are some tips to keep the job you have (at least until you can go to work for yourself).

Get noticed as a valuable employee

Now is not the time to be a wallflower. With a go-go economy you can fly under the radar, but when the higher-ups are deciding who to terminate, you don’t want anyone saying, "how about that guy with the office next to the copy room – what does he even do?"

Provide an alternative to termination

Say you’re a 15 year employee with one of the higher salaries at the company due to your seniority. When it comes time to cut payroll, you are a big target, and the company will not be thinking of what is best for you, but rather will simply be looking at an organizational chart and the dollars and cents. Before the knock on your office door comes, be ready with an alternative to termination. For example, you might offer to take a lesser-paying position, or switch from a salary to commissions. The company might be thrilled to have someone with your experience go from regional manager down to store manager, but assumed that would be beneath you. Even if it is beneath you, it is far better to be working while you look for a better job than to be living on unemployment.

Diversify and have an exit strategy.

Smart people diversify their investments, yet they usually depend on a single source for their income. Your income should never be limited to one source. While in college, I got a part-time job as a radio announcer. I then got a job at a second radio station, and worked as a disk jockey at a night club on weekends. When one of the radio stations changed formats and fired all the announcers, it was no problem because I had two other jobs.

Yes, those were part-time college jobs, but trust me the same approach can be applied to your situation. If you are thinking right now, "I don’t even have time for my primary job, how can I add others?", then you are thinking too narrowly. Your backup job should be ready and waiting, but it does not need to be active. By day, you are a mild mannered CPA, but you buy a hot dog cart and three times a year you work the local fairs with your kids to instill the entrepreneurial spirit in them. When your accounting firm goes out of business, you hit the county fair circuit selling your hotdogs full time until you find another accounting gig. Even now, working as a full-time, muckety-muck attorney, I maintain "second jobs." If all my clients disappeared tomorrow, I could live off my writing income and Internet businesses. Having money in savings to weather a termination is a good idea, but it should not be your fallback plan. That plan just leaves you with no savings.

Discrimination is Good and Permissible (another reason to work for yourself)

I find myself giving this speech to callers about three times a week, so I thought I’d post it here and just direct them to a more detailed explanation.

Here’s the setup. Someone is working at a company and doing a good job. A new person is hired, and for whatever reason, the boss really hits it off with that new person. They go to lunch together every day and socialize after hours. Soon, it becomes apparent that the boss doesn’t hold her new found friend up to the same standards as everyone else.  She is allowed to commit Infractions that would get anyone else written up.  The final straw comes when a promotion becomes available, and the new person is given the position to the exclusion of better qualified employees with more seniority. One of the employees that was passed over for the promotion calls to say, "that’s discrimination!" 

Another common variation on the story arises from an interoffice squable that results in a termination.  Sometimes it will be an actual physical altercation, or it may be the case of two employees pointing their fingers at one another, each claiming the other is responsible for a short cash drawer or falsified documents.  Without investigating who was at fault, the company keeps the favored employee and fires the other.  The terminated employee will call claiming "discrimination" based only on the fact that he or she was treated differently than the other employee (i.e., they were fired while the other employee was not).  I even get calls from people who think nepotism is somehow illegal, as though it is against the law for someone who owns a company to prefer their own children over employees.

All of these examples constitute discrimination, but they are not forms of illegal discrimination.  There is no law or even any good reason that you must be treated like everyone else.  Discrimination can be a good thing.  We all discriminate on a daily basis.  If you are married, you discriminated against the entire world when you chose that one spouse to the exclusion of all others. You discriminate when deciding who will be in your circle of friends, favoring those with similar interests and shying away from the felons. If you are working for a company, then you discriminated against other places you could have worked, and your boss discriminated against all the other candidates when he or she hired you. Professional sports are rampant with discrimination, only hiring those who are the tallest or fastest or strongest.

Bad discrimination arises when the reason for the discrimination is based on an arbitrary and mindless criteria.  We have decided as a society, rightfully so, that it is unfair to deny someone employment on the basis of their race, nationality, religion, gender, etc. These are called "protected classes" because of the history of discrimination they have suffered.  It is unlawful to discriminate against a member of a protected class because they belong to that protected class. (Another point lost on many – you can discriminate against a member of a protected class if the discrimination has nothing to do with their race, nationality, gender, etc.)

So back to our first example. Can the caller sue for discrimination because the boss promoted her friend even though she was less qualified and had less seniority?  That depends on the motivation. If the boss promoted the friend only because she likes her more, that’s fine. But her preference cannot come from a dark, discriminatory place in her soul. If her preference for that person arises from her race, age, gender, etc., then that is wrong. This is how so-called reverse discrimination arises. Say a supervisor is Vietnamese, and hires someone else of that nationality. They may well have an instant bond given their backgrounds and language. When time comes for promotion, with no evil motive she may well give preference to her fellow countrywoman because she seems so personable, not realizing that perception is coming from the fact that they share a nationality. That preference for one nationality over another would constitute impermissible discrimination.

However, in most cases your employer if free to prefer some employees over others, and has no legal duty to give them equal treatment. Your hard work and dedication will not guarantee that you move up through the ranks.

What the Heller are you doing?!

Although I occasionally opine on how to improve your lot as a lowly employee, my primary theme is that you should not be an employee. Working for someone else is a sucker’s bet. Aside from the fact that you put your destiny, either short or long term, in the hands of someone else, what is the sense of making someone else money for your efforts when you can put that money in your own pocket? But I know the employee mind set is firmly ingrained in a large percentage of the drone population, and that knowledge was reinforced this morning by two articles that caught my eye.

The first was a simple chart in Business Week (I sometimes read actual, printed magazines – can you believe it?). It was captioned as the "Layoff League Table" and set forth the largest layoffs over the last few years. Here are a few:

IBM 60,000
Boeing 59,000
Citigroup 53,000
Sears 50,000
Ford 35,000
Kmart 35,000

Look at how these top six layoffs stretch across several industries – technology, aerospace, financial, retail and automotive. Even government and quasi-government jobs were not safe, with the Air Force cutting 40,000 employees and the Postal Service trimming 30,000. I cannot tell you how many Boeing executives have passed through my office, all telling tales of how they expected to be employed forever.

Then I saw an article in a local lawyer rag, written by Adil Haq, who was an associate attorney at a large firm called Heller Ehrman until it imploded. (I already made the Heller pun, so I’m going to pretend not to notice the author’s name.) I mention the author by name because I hope the next time Adil Haq google’s his name he finds this post.

Many large law firms have gone the way of Heller Ehrman. They allow their overhead to grow and grow and leave themselves vulnerable to any downturn in the economy or defection of a profitable practice group. Fresh out of law school I worked as a drone at a law firm called Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to obtain some experience so I could start my own firm. When clients would come to the reception desk to meet with an attorney, they would be handed a catalog and invited to take the walking tour of the art collection while they waited. GD&C later had to eliminate that office because of budget concerns. What a surprise. But I digress.

So Adil Haq writes an interesting article called Heller Confidential about his job search and work experience, and basically concludes that the entire process is kind of a joke because associates end up at their chosen firms "based on a hodge-podge of superficial reasons (e.g., the color of the walls, the friendly nature of some partner during a callback), anecdotal evidence rumors, and useless [insider] information." Having received a pink-slip after just one year of faithful employment, Haq claims to have learned his lesson. He will now place loyalty to self over loyalty to the firm, since the firm let him down.

Welcome to the fold Adil, but you still haven’t learned the complete lesson. You go on in your article to explain that you will now have your eyes open when you get a job at the next law firm.  Adil, what are you thinking?  Your eyes can be open to saucer-size, but that won’t alter the basic reality of working for someone else.  Your next firm may have rock-solid financials, but you still will be subject to the vagaries of the managing partners.  Your next article will be about how you played the game and worked the 70 hour weeks for ten years, but were still passed over for partnership.  You’ll conclude that at the next law firm you will better read the signs to make sure you are on the partnership track. Eventually you will find your way to my office, wanting to sue for age and/or name discrimination.

You are never safe if you work for someone else, whether it is Boeing or Heller Ehrman.  Adil's situation is classic.  He is staring into the abyss of his future life, and opting to step over the edge and live as a drone because he thinks that is the only option.  Now is the time for Adil, and you, to cut the umbilical cord and go work for yourselves.

At-Will Employment (part 5)

Are you convinced yet?  My final war story illustrating why you are never safe if you work for someone else.

The Unwitting Thief

David was a dream employee. A salesman for a manufacturer, his sales always far exceeded projections. His loyalty to the company was manifest – he had worked there for 30 years – even though the company did little to earn such loyalty. For example, the company continually reduced his sales area, knowing that David would somehow find a way to wring more sales out of whatever area was left to him.

One sales technique David had used very successfully was to conduct motivational presentations at the retailers that sold his company’s product. He would work the salespeople at the stores into a selling frenzy, resulting in more sales by them and more orders for him.

One day he gave one of his presentations to the sales force of his major client — a client that represented 80% of his sales. The presentation was a big success, and while the sales people were still applauding, he scooped up all his notes and materials and put them in his briefcase. What he did not know was that he had inadvertently picked up some paperwork belonging to the customer. The documents regarded about $30 in repairs that the retailer had made to some of the products, and for which the retailer was entitled to reimbursement by David’s company.

This "theft" was witnessed by some fresh out of high school, "Third-Assistant-Night-Manager" who decided that the salesman had intentionally taken the documents in order to save his company the $30. No doubt he was sure that if he reported the foul deed, he would get a raise, and thereby be able to afford more pimple cream.

Later that day the salesman discovered the documents in his briefcase, and immediately called the customer to say he was sorry, and that he would bring them right over. It was then he got the shock of his life. He was informed that the customer had already called David’s manager and asked that he be replaced. The customer didn’t feel David could be trusted anymore. More shocking, without any hearing, or even discussing the matter with David, the boss had agreed. The customer was such a major account, that the boss did not dare say no. He had already assigned the account to another salesperson, who coincidentally worked under a much lower commission schedule than David. So, for accidentally picking up some documents, David was stripped of nearly $100,000 per year in income, without any warning, hearing, or even a chance to tell his side of the story.

Obviously, David could sue, right? Well, let’s consider that for a moment. Who would he sue; his employer? Let’s all say it together. The employer did not need a reason to fire him, so it certainly did not need a reason to remove him from an account. And, indeed, even if David could show that due to his longevity with the company, there existed an implied agreement that he could only be "demoted" for cause, arguably the employer had cause. David had taken the customer’s documents, albeit inadvertently, resulting in a very angry customer. If the employer refused to replace him on the account, it ran the risk of losing the account. If you believe the law requires a company to forgo millions of dollars in orders out of loyalty to an employee, you really do have a skewed view.

How about suing the company that insisted he be replaced? Again, he did take the documents, and there is no law that says someone must work with a salesperson they no longer trust, no matter how groundless that distrust may be.

David went attorney shopping, and while several were willing to represent him on an hourly basis, the fact that none would handle the case for a percentage of the judgment properly indicated to David that they were not confident of the result. He eventually opted to go into early semi-retirement, working as a consultant for one-fifth of his prior income. He left the company he had worked thirty years for with nothing – not even a retirement party or gold watch.

My life affirming moment about self-employment came one day during lunch with a friend.  My goal since my freshman year of college had always been to open my own law firm, which I did.  I was having lunch with a friend who at age 43 was a high-ranking mucky-muck at a bank.  He was very depressed, and explained that he had just come from his evaluation, which had not gone well.  He was afraid he would either be demoted or terminated. 

It struck me at that moment what a ridiculous concept it is to work for someone, putting them in a position where they get to decide your worth and future.  Like an errant child, you have to sit and be lectured periodically about the bad things you have done.  Life Tip #1:  Grow up and become master of your own destiny by being your own boss.

At-Will Employment (part 4)

The Freedom to Speak Your Mind

"It’s a hobby. Some people like to play instruments, I like to write." That is how Sharon explained her passion for publishing her blog on the Internet. In the olden days (about five years ago) people were content to write their daily musings in a personal journal, seen by no one except close friends and trespassers. With the advent of the Internet, there has inexplicably come the desire to publish even the most mundane thoughts for all the world to see.

In Sharon’s case, her blog was a daily report of her life, which included what was going on at work. It was not at all mean spirited, but if she felt someone had acted unfairly at the office, she might elect to report that fact in her blog. Even then, however, in order to avoid embarrassing the people she discussed, she never mentioned anyone by name.

It didn’t take too long until word of her blog spread through her workplace, and it took even less time for one of her supervisors to take offense at something Sharon had written. When Sharon showed up for work the next day, she was fired on the spot.

"Now wait a second," you say, "that is a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech." An employer may not need a reason to fire an employee, but the reason cannot violate public policy. Surely this violates her right to free speech, the most fundamental and sacrosanct of all public policies in America. Not only that, but Sharon was fired for something she was doing on her own time. That can’t possibly be legal, right?

We’ll take them in turn. Since Sharon was just speaking her mind, was her termination a violation of her right to free speech? The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Contrary to another popularly held misconception, the right to free speech only protects you from intrusion by the government, not by individuals or companies.  An employer has every right to tell you to shut the hell up. The First Amendment does not prevent a private employer from limiting what you can say.  Sorry Sharon, you can say whatever you want, but your employer doesn't have to put up with it.

How about the fact that Sharon did this on her own time? Can an employer seek to control what an employee does on his or her own time? Most employees will scream, "what I do on my own time is my own business", but that is not true. To use an extreme example to illustrate the point, assume that an employer found out that one of its employees was burglarizing homes on the weekend. Few would argue that the employer is somehow required to keep a burglar on the payroll. (Some will cry "innocent until proven guilty", but again, only the government must treat you as innocent until proven guilty.) It is not in and of itself a violation of public policy to fire someone for what they do on their own time.

The issue of whether an employer can dictate what an employee does on his own time recently made big news when a large company announced that it would terminate any employees that tested positive for tobacco use. In other words, smoke at work, smoke at home, smoke anywhere and you lose your job. The vast majority of water cooler lawyers opined that the courts would shoot this down as a complete infringement of personal privacy and freedom, but they were wrong. Since an employer can fire you for any reason that does not violate public policy, that includes things you do off duty, including smoking, eating fatty foods or listening to Kenny G (which most people would consider just cause in any event).

The only time an employer cannot fire an employee for what he does on his own time is when such a limitation would itself create a violation of public policy. For example, terminating an employee because he voted on his own time is a violation of public policy because that would be an interference with the right to vote. There are also specific statutory protections for what you do on your own time. For instance, if you decide to contact other employees about forming a labor union, that is a protected activity and cannot result in your termination even though the employer may be opposed to formation of a union. However, absent a statute or a public policy, your employer can absolutely fire you for things you do on your own time. If your employer finds it strange that you collect salt and pepper shakers, the axe can fall.

In Sharon’s case, there was no protection for the musings in her blog. Posting negative comments about her employer was not deemed to be such a fundamental right that the termination violated public policy.

I know as people, especially attorneys, read these examples, they will recall a case they once read, or a story they were told, wherein people under similar circumstances did successfully sue for wrongful termination. Usually this is because while the cases sound similar, there was a crucial fact in one case that was not present in the other.

For example, I just told you the story of Sharon, and how she could do nothing about being fired for what she wrote in her blog about a supervisor. Nonetheless, I obtained a sizeable judgment for two women who were fired for what they said about a supervisor. The difference was, in the case of these two women the company was trying to evaluate the supervisor, and told the employees that they would not be fired if they said bad things about her. They said bad things about her, so she fired them. There is an equitable principle called promissory estoppel. It basically holds that if you make a promise to someone, knowing they will rely on that representation, you can be held to that promise. I successfully sued the company on the basis that the employees had relied on the "no termination" promise to their detriment, and had to be compensated. 

Don’t be falsely encouraged by friends and family that are certain someone under the same circumstances recovered a bazillion dollars, unless you can be certain the facts were identical.

At-Will Employment (part 3)

Continuing Life Tip #1, I am explaining why you are never safe if you work for someone else, because under the at-will rule you can be fired on the whim of your employer.  Here is the second of some real-life examples.

Nobody Likes a Snitch

Ron loved music, and could not believe his good fortune when he landed a job at a record company. It was an entry level job, but the "benefits" included meeting some of his favorite musicians, and even occasionally having lunch with them when they would take a break during a recording session.

To promote the company’s music and artists, company employees in charge of promotion could simply sign out a hundred CDs or so and give them away to radio stations and record stores in order to promote new albums. Ron happened to notice that his supervisor was always helping himself to large quantities of CDs, but never seemed to use them for promotions. He soon found out why. It turned out that Ron’s supervisor was making extra money by selling the promotional copies to record stores.

Ron didn’t know what to do. He did not want to report his supervisor, and for all he knew, this might be an unofficial perk. He eventually decided, however, that if this was illegal activity and he failed to report it, he would be viewed as an accomplice. So, without making a big deal of it, he mentioned to his supervisor’s boss what was occurring.

It turned out that this practice was highly improper, and Ron’s supervisor was immediately fired. And after thanking Ron for bringing this matter to the attention of the company, Ron was also fired. It was explained to Ron that while he had done the right thing, he had rendered himself unemployable. With his demonstrated lack of loyalty to his supervisor, no other supervisor would want to work with him. He was told that "nobody likes a snitch."

Ron cried "wrongful termination," and went in search of an attorney. Under the at-will rule, an employer can fire an employee for no reason, but not for a reason that violates public policy. For example, an employer cannot fire someone on the basis of race, because that would violate the public policy against discrimination. Similarly, there is a "whistle-blower" exception that holds that it is against public policy to fire an employee for reporting wrongdoing to a regulatory agency. If employees could be fired, for example, for reporting a safety violation, then employees would be far less likely to report such violations.

So, Ron found an attorney that was willing to pursue his case under the whistle-blower exception to the at-will rule. Years later and after spending a large amount of money on court costs, Ron’s case against the music company failed. Do you need to hear it again? Absent a contract to the contrary, the employer can fire you for any reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. If the employer wants to fire you for ratting on your boss, that is perfectly legal. The court held that Ron’s case did not fall within the whistle-blower exception. The whistle-blower exception is designed to keep employers from retaliating against employees that report illegal conduct. For example, if an aircraft mechanic knows that the company is lying to the FAA about repairs, we as a society want him to feel free to report that fact without fear that he will be terminated as a result.

At one time the courts required that the employee be an actual whistle-blower. In other words, the case would be dismissed unless the employee could show that he was terminated only after he had reported the wrongful conduct to some regulatory agency. That rule has been modified somewhat, and now a case will survive if the employee can show that he was terminated because the company believed the employee was about to report the wrongful conduct. But in Ron’s case, neither rule would provide him relief. The company was not doing anything illegal; the company was the victim. There is no public policy designed to encourage employees to report internal squabbles, so the termination was not a violation of public policy. The court held that Ron was not entitled to any protection for report a theft within the company.

I'll say it again -- you are never safe if you work for someone else.  My philosophy is that you can work for someone else during high school, and I might even let it pass if you work for someone else while attending college (although I'll need an explanation why you haven't started your own business out of your dorm.)  I might even forego taking out loser ads in the paper if you take a job for a year or two after college to get some training for your own business.  But two years out of college, it's time to grow up and go out on your own.

Consider this.  In the old days, company loyalty was rewarded.  You could work at a company until retirement, and leave with a party, gold watch and pension.  Nowadays, when companies are only interested in the bottom line and compassion does not enter into the equation, loyalty works against you.  In most companies, you get a small raise each time you are evaluated, assuming the evaluation is good.  As a natural result, the people that have been there the longest, usually the older employees, are the ones making the most money.  When the economy goes bad, and the company needs to cut the payroll, who has the bigger target on their backs?  Yes, it is perfectly legal to fire the employees with the most senority.  (Another charished belief I sometimes encounter is the urban legend that a company must fire the newest employees first.)  That is why so many 50 and 60-somethings find their way to my office, devistated because they were fired after so many years of loyal service to the company, and replaced by some young person they trained.  They are unable tofind work elsewhere because of their age and salary demands, and end up working as a greeter at Walmart.

Next time:  "The Freedom to Speak Your Mind"

At-Will Employment (part 2)

When we last left Life Tip #1, I was explaining why you are never safe if you work for someone else, because under the at-will rule you can be fired on the whim of your employer.  Here is the first of some real-life examples.

The Case of the Smoking Employee

Maria wanted to stop smoking, but smoking seemed to provide the only release from her hectic life. To anyone that gave her grief about her smoking, she would simply say, "I can smoke or use drugs, and as vices go, I guess I’d rather smoke."

Maria worked in an office building where smoking was not permitted, so she could only smoke on her  breaks and had to leave the building to do so. Most of her fellow smokers would congregate around the back door to smoke their cigarettes, but Maria preferred to sit in her car and listen to music on the car radio during her 15 minute breaks. One day, as she had done dozens of times before, Maria was sitting in her car smoking a cigarette during a proper break. This time, however, the owner of the business happened to look out the window and saw Maria smoking in her car. For some crazy reason, and with no basis for jumping to such an absurd conclusion, the employer decided that Maria was smoking marijuana, and fired her the moment she returned from her break.

A clear case of "wrongful termination," correct? After all, Maria did absolutely nothing wrong, and there was no reason for the employer to fire her. That was what Maria and her attorneys thought, and at the subsequent trial, Maria proved beyond dispute that she had not been smoking marijuana, and therefore should not have been fired. The jury agreed and awarded her almost a year’s worth of wages as damages.  Good for Maria; you go girl!

But that was not the final word. Although the jury found in her favor, the California Court of Appeal reversed the verdict, and she ended up with nothing. Why? Again, you must think in terms of the at-will rule. If an employer can fire you for no reason, then what difference does it make if the employer makes a mistake, or for that matter, simply makes up a reason? People have a real problem with this concept, because their logic is clouded by a concept of fairness. It seems horribly unfair that Maria was terminated for something she didn’t do, but even if that is proven to be the case, the employer can just say, "so sorry we were wrong about that marijuana thing, but now you’re fired because we don’t like the way you wear your sunglasses." The appeal court held that whether Maria was using marijuana or not was of no importance. Maria could be fired at the will of the employer, even if the reasons were based on a misunderstanding.  Maria ended up with nothing, and had to pay all the costs her employer had incurred in going to trial and on appeal.

Next time:  "Nobody Likes a Snitch"