Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

18

Research: U.S. employees earn least amount of severance

Filed Under Business, Economy, employment, Law, Retirement | 5 Comments

I use that word “earn” reluctantly because it is the packages deployed that impact what the employee “earns.”

From Right Management:

A new global study by Right Management has found that employees laid off in the United States earn the least amount of severance pay worldwide – no matter what level of employee or amount of tenure with the organization.

…

The global study across 28 countries draws from more than 1,500 responses from human resource professionals and senior managers responsible for making severance decisions in their organization, including 456 from the United States. US-based employees consistently earn less severance per year of service than colleagues around the world. Top executives earned as little as 2.76 weeks of severance per year of service, compared to a worldwide mean of 3.39 weeks per year of service. The disparity increases as the level of employee decreases.

More specifically:

Among other key findings from the study:

  • US employers are more likely (68%) to enforce a cap on severance payments than the rest of the world (56%).
  • Ninety-six percent of separated employees in the US are required to sign a waiver before they can access severance benefits, reflecting the litigious culture of this country.
  • Unlike in other regions, 61% of companies in the US tend to offer severance right away with no minimum tenure required, compared to 42% doing so in the rest of the world.

“Companies in the United States lead the way with regard to the practice of waivers and releases – meant to cut down legal claims against employers by separated employees,” said Matthews. “Countries outside the United States do not require releases as frequently, due at least in part to their cultures not being as litigious and the rights of terminated employees are more defined by statutes and regulations.”

The data were collected between May and September 2008.  I’m guessing that the beginning of 2009 would be a good time to check in again, sadly.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:29 pm December 18th, 2008 in Business, Economy, employment, Law, Retirement | 5 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

18

Rick Warren; update: Obama statement on invocation selection

Filed Under Barack Obama, Democrats, Gender, intolerance, Religion, Sexism, Women | 30 Comments

When I read the announcement that Rick Warren would be giving the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, I couldn’t place the name or the face.  Then I saw the book title, The Purpose-Driven Life and some recognition came to me.  But then, I started to read the writings:

The Nation: What’s the Matter With Rick Warren

RHReality Check: The Real Rick Warren

The Guardian: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

And most disturbing of all, an essay on women’s submission in what Warren calls “Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox,” Pastors.com.

Here are my concerns:

The evangelicals are splitting as it is over the very issues with which Obama and Warren supposedly differ: civil unions for gays and retaining the foundation of Roe v. Wade and choice.  I can’t imagine any other Democrat selecting someone like Warren and while I’m a big believer in not going out of one’s way to piss off people, I don’t see this group as one that can be relied on for support at any level, let alone even saying nice things.

What is the actual value of trying to add people or welcome in people who really are so opposed to so much that is left of center? We will always have these factions in the U.S.  The fact that Warren has lumped Jews in with all the people he thinks are going to hell doesn’t help either.

I’m curious to know who within the Obama camp recommended Warren and how he was selected. Someone else has suggested to me that the quid pro quo has got to be enormous, but I don’t trust that.

Finally, if this is the kind of symbolic selection that the Obama team makes and Obama allows to represent him and his team’s choice, what does it foreshadow?

I know what it is to hold positions that are not consistent with always being on one side of the aisle.  But I confess, I’m not sure just how far I want the person I voted for as president to go with that, especially when we’re talking women’s and individual rights.  While the chant of “Remember McCain” does make me nod my head “yes, I know,” I believe Obama can do a lot better.

We all just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Obama statement on selection of Rick Warren, from The Hill:

President-elect Obama defended his choice of the Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, saying that his swearing-in and the surrounding festivities will see a “wide range of viewpoints represented.”

…

“It’s important for Americans to come together even though we may disagree on certain social issues,” Obama said.

Thepresident-elect asserted that he is and will continue to be a “fierce advocate for equality” for gay and lesbian couples, but he noted that Warren invited Obama to speak at his church knowing that the two men disagree on hot-button social issues.

Obama noted that the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the preacher giving the benediction at his inauguration, holds opposing social views from Warren, adding that there will be “a wide range of views represented” at his inauguration.

“And that’s how it should be because that’s what America is all about,” Obama said.

The piece about Warren’s opposition to women’s rights is getting drowned out by the anger regarding his opposition to gay rights, but the fact remains that Warren opposed both sets of human’s rights.

I continue to believe that there are better choices out there who could show Americans how important it is for us to “come together even though we may disagree on social issues.”  This selection seems to emphasize the “disagree” rather than the “come together.”  Not to mention the hands-off nature of the Obama campaign toward social, wedge issues.

Eh – they’ll be plenty more to read on this as the days arrive. I try to be a big picture person, but this puzzle piece, I believe, belongs to a different image.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:27 am December 18th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Gender, intolerance, Religion, Sexism, Women | 30 Comments 

Print This Post Print This Post

Dec

18

Where the women aren’t: corporate boards behaving badly

Filed Under Business, Ethics, Gender, leadership, Sexism, Women | 2 Comments

I posted this on Facebook on December 12:

Jill is pondering super obnoxious question about the opposite sex, power & money hunger, and sinking industries.

This arrived in my inbox this morning:

Bad Corporate News Finds Few Women on Board
Date: 12/18/08
By Saabira Chaudhuri
WeNews correspondent
The outpouring of bad U.S. corporate news has produced a news gallery of mainly male faces. There’s a matching shortage of women on corporate boards, although Rupert Murdoch did tap opera singer Natalie Bancroft for News Corporation last year.

The obnoxious question I wanted to ask six days ago was: Anyone notice how all the allegations of malfeasance, poor management, general failure to get with it and ethical violations are primarily against wealthy or trying to be wealthy white men in nice suits?

More from the Women’s eNews article:

Women’s presence on the corporate boards of the Fortune 500–an annual ranking by the magazine of the country’s leading companies–inched up in the first four years of this decade.

But over the past three years that progress stagnated, with the composition of women in those influential and high-status posts reaching 14 percent and apparently refusing to budge, according to surveys conducted by Catalyst, the New York nonprofit research organization that focuses on women in business.

“The numbers are very low, but what I think is even more significant is that the increases have become trifling,” says Sheila Wellington, clinical professor of management at New York University’s Stern School of Business, and former president of Catalyst.

Wellington says that, as in the early 1990s, many companies began taking the view that “women’s advancement is a done deal; it’s taken care of.”

She points to the danger of tokenism. Many companies, she says, consider their boards diverse when they appoint a woman or two. For that reason it’s important to continue disseminating hard data about representation.

Wellington, who teaches a class on women in business leadership, also says the low level of women on boards reflects a general defection of women from the corporate work force, leaving far fewer at senior levels.

The tandem issue is: does it make a difference when women run or help run a corporate board? Is their absence from the boards of bad actors enough to say that women won’t or don’t err?

I haven’t done a search on that, though I’m sure that there is some information out there on that question and hopefully I’ll be able to take a few minutes to find some of it.  But what would be even more probing to look at is the myth that women become or take on behaviors and attitudes similar to those of men behaving badly in order to compete, when they are on the field to compete.  I’d like to know more about the women who are on the corporate boards of the men behaving badly boards and understand what if anything they did to encourage or impinge the decisions that led to their companies’ foibles.

Some possible research:

Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: a compendium of case studies, 2008

Women on Corporate Business Boards Make Good Sense: May 2003

And, from a May 2008 white paper by Sharon Allen, Chairman of the Board, Deloitte: The ABCs of Board Room Dynamics – Attiude, Behavior, Candor:

Catalyst Inc. found that Fortune 500 companies with the highest representation of women board members attained greater financial performance, on average, than those with the lowest representation of women board members — and the differences weren’t just significant. They were stunning. Returns were 42 percent higher on sales, 53 percent higher on equity, and 66 percent higher on invested capital.

Furthermore, the average returns at companies with three or more women on their boards were even higher — an additional 30 percent or more on sales and equity and an additional 70 percent on invested capital.

Depending on how you look at the numbers, however, it’s fair to ask if it’s the presence of women on boards that makes successful companies better — or, if it’s the fact that they are good companies to begin with and that’s why they added women to their boards. But with numbers like those discovered by Catalyst, why spend too much time debating which answer is right?

A rich area for research, if only we can get enough women on the boards to make the research statistically significant.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:48 am December 18th, 2008 in Business, Ethics, Gender, leadership, Sexism, Women | 2 Comments 

"));