Following up Michael’s recent age discrimination and bullying posts: a few clips from George’s archives

Michael recently posted “Those Aging Baby Boomers: Age of Opportunity Or Time to Sue?” and “Bullying: The Next Area of Legislation?”

Going through some recent clips of my own on spurl.net (see this post), I came across a few (somewhat) related items.

Start with the issue raised in the “Baby Boomer” post — whether aging baby boomers are going to have a lot of great job opportunities, given the shrinking number of workers, or whether it is more likely that there will be increasing layoffs targeting older workers, leading to more age discrimination claims.

Here are a couple of articles hyping the coming labor shortage and discussing HR (and community) planning consequences of it:

Ceridian’s Connection newsletter has two items on point:

First, “Attracting the next generation of business leaders to your workforce”

Well-written, as it can be summarized nicely from the first and last paragraphs:

How will you fill your workforce in the coming years? As millions of Baby Boomers are approaching retirement age, companies are looking at ways to attract and retain new workers. Experts have predicted that competition for talent will be fierce in the future as only one new person will enter the workforce for every two employees who retire

– resulting in a significant labor shortage in the United States. . .

There is no doubt that companies and the communities in which they are located will need to be creative in their employee recruitment and retention strategies in the years to come. Members of the Baby Boomer generation bring a wealth of talent and knowledge to their jobs, however, companies will be faced with the reality of losing many of these employees to retirement in the near future. Preparing now for the upcoming projected labor shortage can help your organization stay a step ahead. Read moreSecond, “Succession planning will make critical impact for future business success”

[E]mployee shortages that plagued companies in the late 1990s will look like a minor irritation as the U.S. moves further into the 21st century. Five million workers are expected to retire in the coming years within the U.S. alone.

A few more facts about the aging population include:

* One in every five executives at Fortune 500 companies will be eligible for retirement in the next five to six years.

* Eighty-seven percent of all senior executives and 78 percent of middle managers in the federal government will be eligible for retirement.

* One million college professors and one million teachers will be eligible for retirement. . .

As the U.S. workforce ages, Ceridian believes increased attention must be placed on establishing and maintaining effective HCM [human capital management] and succession planning. HR managers at corporations, government agencies and nonprofits have an important and proactive role to play in helping businesses succeed in the future. Read more

Now, assuming these predictions are correct, and there will be significant labor shortages, how does this impact the age discrimination issue raised in Michael’s post?

Such future shortages do not mean there will not also be substantial layoffs impacting many older workers. The changing economy shrinks at the “micro” level of individual businesses and facilities even as it grows at the “macro” level — nationally and globally. Significant loss of older workers’ employment in particular businesses and industries is not inconsistent with healthy opportunities for such workers in a changing economy.

So the question of who is right, those predicting massive loss of older workers’ employment, or those predicting great employment opportunities for such workers, may pose a false dichotomy. I think they are both right.

There will continue to be substantial numbers of age discrimination lawsuits, even without help from the Supreme Court. But the availability of other employment opportunities will mitigate the damages, reducing backpay liability — because backpay awarded in a discrimination lawsuit is reduced by amounts actually earned, as well as amounts that could have been earned if the plaintiff had made a reasonable effort to find comparable employment.

There may be more court rulings over what kind of employment a laid off older worker is required to seek or accept to mitigate damages. When can a laid off older employee choose a modest retirement lifestyle (e.g., with spouse still working) over less desirable and remunerative, but readily available, new employment, and not face a reduction in any entitlement to back pay for discriminatory termination?

Turning to the second issue, “bullying,” I recently clipped two stories relating to the general topic of workplace intimidation and violence.

In a post entitled “Employee’s Disruptive Behavior,” the Labor Prof Blog links to “Hard-Core Offenders” by Linda Wasmer Andrews in SHRM’s HR Magazine.

The catch line for this piece is: “Egregious employee behavior can lead to expensive lawsuits and crippled employee morale. Here’s how to stop it before it starts.”

Well detailed article by psychologist. From a legal perspective, I have noticed employees often believe any“harassment” is illegal, wheareas in fact it must be tied to sex (gender) or other prohibited discrimination to violate the law. Otherwise, the courts have steered clear of regulating mere “boorish behavior.”

But this article points out that from a management and HR perspective, such behavior, even if perfectly lawful, can have very negative consequences: “Unchecked harassment creates a climate of disrespect — and that’s not a climate conducive to high motivation or a person’s best effort.”

The second piece, from the Wichita Business Journal, is “A matter of security; Human resources managers work to overcome employees’ security concerns” (by David Dinell).

The article cites a study by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), finding that 62 percent of employee respondents in 2003, said “feeling safe in the work environment” was “very important,” as compared to only 46 percent in 2002 — a dramatic jump in a one-year period.

Potential security improvements discussed include: installing swipe cards to limit access to work areas, improving lighting, installing security cameras, hiring of security guards.

One employer’s security force provides escorts to employees’ vehicles on request, saying: “That can be a real confidence-builder for employees. They may be having trouble with a boyfriend or something and are spooked about walking to their car by themselves.”

A forensic psychiatrist is quoted as saying that “there is a direct relationship between productivity and protection. If there is an incident of violence, or even the threat of violence, tardiness increases and production levels go down.”

He points out that some effective preventive measures are quite low-cost. For example, he recommends “No weapons in the building” stickers, which he claims have proven effective in some respects.

Planning for potential workplace violence, such as a hostage situation, is not a high-priced item either. Local police can help draw up such a plan.

Another key preventive measure is the use of criminal background checks.