Posts Tagged ‘Workplace Issues’

Google Steps to the Plate, Now What?

Posted by

Yesterday, Google joined Cisco, Kimpton Hotels and the Gates Foundation in increasing pay to gays and lesbians to make up for the approximately $1,000 difference gay couples pay in domestic partnership taxes in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts.

So… what does this mean? Is this the case study we share with our employers to do the same or to our oppressors to validate our “marriages?” Do we just hang this up on our wall of accomplishments and hope that others follow suit? Just what does it mean that Google has returned one of the best results to its employees?

It means that talented gay and lesbian individuals power one of the most common household names, that the keywords you typed into the Google search bar has been routed to find your #1 response by someone who could be queer. Google is outing itself as a company with approximately 700 gay and lesbian employees and validating their equal rights as citizens of this country. It raises the profile of gays and lesbian in the workforce.

What can these companies do to keep the momentum?

They should continue to promote their policy by seeking opportunities so speak with gay and lesbian media (and general media as well) on the important decision to vouch for progress for the gay and lesbian community. This will create additional loyalty and showcase them as thought-leaders in diversity issues.

They can keep the momentum by encouraging partners and vendors to do the same. Yes, this sounds a bit like advocacy work – which is far off each company’s agenda in terms of gay and lesbian issues – but I am willing to bet each of these company’s LGBT employee groups would be willing to start this conversation.

What would you advise? What would you like to see? All comments are welcome!

| July 2nd, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · · · · · · ·

Transgender Win: American Eagle Updates Corporate Policy

Posted by

Thanks to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Make the Road New York, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting equity and opportunity for all New Yorkers, retail chain American Eagle has committed to changing its corporate guidelines and employee handbook to include transgender-friendly policies.

The retailer had an anti-LGBT policy on personal appearance for employees, requiring staff to wear gender-specific clothing. While this may not seem like a huge victory, the popular chain employs more than 2,000 people in more than 60 stores across New York State. That means that not only do current transgender employees are now allowed to wear the clothing that best expresses their gender, but that potential recruits will now not be deterred from working at the popular clothing store for fear of gender discrimination.

In addition to allowing workers to wear what they please, American Eagle has also agreed to train its staff on transgender issues, including which pronouns to use when referring to customers and fellow co-workers.

Although the change originated from a lawsuit that American Eagle decided to settle out of court on, an American Eagle company spokeswoman said “We wholeheartedly believe that transgender individuals should be treated equally.”

According to this New York Daily News article, the resulting settlement is “the first crackdown against a retailer under the section of the state's Human Rights Law that bars employers from discriminating against applicants because of their gender identity.” New York State’s Human Rights Law originally passed in 1945 was the first of its kind in the United States, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex or marital status.”

While this is fantastic for transgender persons in New York State, let’s remember that a number of states still do not have any state-level protection for LGBT employees.

Of course, the Family Research Council (see here) has come out (no pun intended) stating that this violates the rights of American Eagle and its employees by imposing “cross-dressing” policies. Bill O’Reilly also covered the American Eagle announcement (see video below), seemingly comparing transgender people to "ewoks," as well as repeatedly asking the question, “So, if your name is Fred, you can dress like Dolly Parton?”

Now I love me some Dolly Parton (ewoks are another story) but comparisons like these only serve to bolster ongoing misconceptions about transgenders, particularly about what it actually means to be a transgender person.

Transgender is the state of one’s gender identify, self-identifying as a woman, man, neither or both. It doesn’t necessarily imply any specific form of sexual orientation. The term “cross-dresser,” while not exactly defined, is a person that identifies with one sex but who wears the clothing of the opposite sex.

It’s factually incorrect to suggest that all transgender are “cross-dressers” or vice versa, and it perpetrates misleading stereotypes about transgender people. This is why the Out Front Blog continues to stress that language matters and that words have power.

| May 20th, 2010 1 Comment »
Tags: · · ·

Gay? King Says Keep It Quiet

Posted by

This week, Iowa Congressman Steve King was a guest on Washington Watch Weekly, the radio program hosted by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC). George Rekers is one of the FRC’s co-founders…you might be familiar with him.  King offered his thoughts on the upcoming Congressional vote on ENDA, or as the FRC affectionately calls it, “The Cross-Dresser Protection Act.”  King also had some wise words for the LGBT community, stating that if gays weren’t so open about their sexual orientation, they wouldn’t be discriminated against.

A few snippets of the interview, courtesy of a great HuffPo article by Alvin McEwen:

Tony Perkins: Someone could come in dressed one day as a woman or a man, the next day they come in dressed as the opposite sex.

Steve King: I can imagine someone coming in and interviewing one day in man’s clothes and come back the next day and apply for a job in woman’s clothes, and then setting up a lawsuit in a sting operation to harass our religious organizations.

King’s main issue is with people “wearing their sexuality on their sleeve” (Ed. Note –I have yet to see a gay-sleeved shirt). That ultimately leads to “entrapment legalized by ENDA,” violating the individual rights of employers to decide who to hire or fire at their own discretion.

So, clearly the FRC has major problems with ENDA, stating that it grants special rights to homosexuals, while ignoring those of employers. While I could go on for pages about the FRC and ENDA (particularly that the FRC’s assertion that ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate occupations…what exactly is an inappropriate occupation, I wonder?), I’d like to point out two of the FRC’s main issues with ENDA:

  • Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is not disadvantaged.
  • The issue is not job discrimination.

Now I don’t mean to get all Webster’s dictionary on you, but one of the definitions of disadvantaged is “lacking.” Can we honestly say that the LGBT community isn’t lacking the same advantages given to its non-LGBT counterparts? The ability to marry? The ability for a lesbian couple to send their child to the school of their choice

And the issue absolutely IS job discrimination. LGBT individuals should be afforded the same rights given to their straight contemporaries when it comes to employment, namely that they should not be denied a job or fired from one solely based on their sexual orientation.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and subsequent bills) made it illegal to separate school students based on race, was that giving “special” rights to non-whites? What if a teacher didn’t WANT a black student in their classroom? Or how about the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage discrepancies based on sex? What if an employer decided that he/she didn’t want to hire a woman? Based on FRC logic, wouldn’t that fall under “employer hiring discretion?” Yet, I can’t find a darn thing on the FRC website about the Equal Pay Act. Interesting.

While I didn’t mean for this post to focus solely on the FRC and ENDA, I do think that the FRC’s messaging, including King’s comment on being publicly out, continues to further the misconception that sexuality is a preference and that LGBTs are solely identified on the basis of sexual acts or attraction. Fostering the notion that homosexual conduct is harmful to those engaging in it, as well as being associated with negative physical and psychological health, is not only inaccurate – it’s harmful and hateful and strives to keep LGBTs in the proverbial closet.

And because I can’t think of anything better to end this blog with, I shall steal from the ever-wise, previously cited Alvin McEwen, “Closets are for clothes, not people.” 

| May 13th, 2010 1 Comment »
Tags: · · ·

Prank Call

Posted by

Happy Friday! To those who have a long weekend…don't talk to me.

Ealier this week I talked about the importance of inclusion in the workplace. The case I shared was one that was extremely local to Cleveland. On the day that I posted, a story hit on The Advocate about some not so friendly LGBT-chatter coming from a leading mobile provider.

Here's the scoop: Vodaphone, a mobile network, suspended a customer service employee for using the company's official Twitter account to post an "antigay and misogynistic tweet." Specifically, the tweet in question said: "VodafoneUK is fed up of dirty homo's and is going after bea!@#." (Fill in the blank). The company's Twitter account has more than 8,824 followers, hundreds of which complained to the company, resulting in the suspension of the employee.

Now we can all agree that the opinion of one person does not reflect the opinion of the company. However, when that individual is customer-facing, it's hard to remember that distinction. And while the suspension is a good first step, I hope that Vodaphone takes the opportunity to create, or reiterate, a diversity and inclusion training so that all employees understand that they are the front-line representatives of the company and that their opinions certainly can reflect poorly on their employer.

I also hope Vidaphone takes this opportunity to engage directly with the LGBT community by setting up a taskforce internally to embrace LGBT employees, while externally showing fiscal support to important LGBT causes in their service area. It's unfortunate that the "tweet" had such a ripple effect for the company, but moments like these help all focus on how we act, and how we engage, with those we serve.

What do you think about the tweet?

| February 12th, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · ·

Local School takes LGBT stance…sort of

Posted by

John Carroll At Fleishman-Hillard, I recognize that I am fortunate to work at a place where my sexual orientation is not an issue, and in fact, it is embraced (they let me blog about it!). Not all members of the LGBT community have the same luxury, whether that means being out at work or out at school.

Here in Cleveland, we have a slew of great colleges and universities. One in particular is John Carroll University. According to its Web site, John Carroll University earned the #7 ranking among Midwest colleges and universities that grant master’s degrees in the 2009 edition of  U.S. News & World Report’s “America’s Best Colleges.” This is the 20th consecutive year John Carroll has achieved high rankings in this comprehensive source of college and university profiles.

So, it's seemingly a well-respected institution. However, during the past week, the University has received some intense focus from the LGBT community. Like any academic institution, John Carroll has a "Nondiscrimination Policy" in place to prevent explicit discrimination and wrongful termination of employees based on race, gender, but this one does NOT protect for sexual orientation. Which means that technically, if you are a LGBT employee of John Carroll, you aren't necessarily as protected as your colleagues.

In an effort to address the issue, John Carroll proposed issuing a community standards statement that says the following:

It must be recognized that gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people and those questioning their sexual identity constitute one vulnerable population within the University Community. Hence, this University states unequivocally that gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender students, faculty, staff administrators and alumni are welcome members of the University community, as the children of God they are…

That's a big first step for a religious institution, right? Well, there's more to it. Students and faculty are still concerned that the University won't change their official nondiscriminatory policy to also protect the LGBT community. While they will issue the statement above, they won't change the actual policy because is based on state and federal statutes, which do not cover sexual orientation. And, students aren't happy about the university not fully changing their policy– they staged a sit-in on the basketball court at a recent game to protest the university's position.

 

The issue is still under debate, but what's not being discussed are the marketing implications for John Carroll. More and more high school students are coming out, and in doing so, are looking for colleges and universities that provide a safe haven to express their individuality. So, for John Carroll to be willing to issue a statement that essentially says that they are valued members of the community is a good thing. But it's not a full-out policy change. It's almost like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Unless they change the non-discriminatory policy to include the LGBT community, the university will lose faith among important constituencies and students will go to competing institutions that embrace and protect us for who we are.

I think back to when I was reviewing agencies for job opportunities. Fleishman-Hillard actively markets the Out Front practice, which is smart business because it attracts LGBT professionals to the agency (and let's face it…this industry has a lot of us). It got my attention, and I sent it my resume. John Carroll has the same marketing opportunity– change the policy, and use it as a way to reach an entire new audience.

What do you think about the situation at John Carroll? Weigh in.

Have a great week.

| February 8th, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · ·

« Older Entries