Workers: Trust Is Lacking

Results from the second annual APCO Worldwide and Gagen McDonald employee engagement study show high rates of confidence among employees, but they sense their companies aren’t committed to them.

The Employee Confidence Index, which measures optimism, and the Employee Connection Index, which measures loyalty, yielded high numbers – 81.4 and 83.5, respectively. But the Employer Connection Index posted a score of just 63.3.

The firms offer three reasons for the gap:

•Degree to which the executive team supports and lives the company values

•Authentic, open and honest communication from the executive team

•Employees receiving consistent information from all the leaders in the company

The firms surveyed 500 full-time workers across the United States who have been with their companies for at least one year and work for companies with at least 100 employees.

This perceived lack of commitment by employers should not come as any surprise.

Many employers during the Great Recession that began in December 2007 and officially ended in June 2009 dumped bodies like a snake shedding its skin.



Millions of loyal and veteran workers found themselves on the outside looking in – and wondering what the hell happened in a blink of an eye.

Some of the layoffs and buyouts across a multitude of industries – everything from publishing to construction – were justified.

Who could argue the logic of a half loaf being better than no loaf if a company’s survival is at stake?

But now there seems to be a nagging sense among many workers – including 14.5 million people who remain unemployed – that some companies took advantage of the national downturn to cut costs by axing employees.

These employers seem to fall into two categories:

•privately owned companies which had grown accustomed to the revenue boom days of the 1990s, when double-digit profits were possible.

•publicly held companies which had cut budgets to the bone before the Great Recession to make the bottom line rosier for shareholders.

I worked for both types of companies in my former newspaper career, and I can say it does make a big difference where you sit when things go wrong.

My former employer, The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., cut its staff by about 40 percent in late 2008 and early 2009.

The state’s biggest daily paper belongs to Advance Publications, the largest family-owned (Newhouse) media company in the United States.

The Ledger’s owners warned the paper would be closed or sold if steep staff cuts were not made.

The family owner offered a severance package of full salary and health care benefits for one year – a generous deal they did not have to strike with staffers.

Contrast that with the Home News Tribune of East Brunswick, N.J., another former newspaper employer of mine.

The corporate owner, Gannett Co. (USA Today), has sliced hundreds of jobs from its New Jersey papers, including the HNT, with little or no severance pay.

Those cuts continue at the HNT and follow a downsizing of the paper’s staff that began in the early 2000s as a way for management to improve its bottom line.

When the Great Recession hit, Gannett had no cushion and its stock fell like a rock.

I enjoyed my 30 years as a print journalist, and I learned a great deal about people, places and life – good and bad.

But perhaps the most valuable lesson I took away is simply this: Trust is earned, not given.

 Ken Cocuzzo

America’s Dirty Secret Revealed

Age discrimination is alive and well in America. Sure, we have laws against it, but this type of bias hides in an employer’s nooks and crannies, and it takes the form of smiling faces and knowing eyes. And it’s not just older workers, those over the age of 50, but lots of younger people, too.

For the older job seeker, it comes down to a simple equation for the employer: Experience means higher salary, bigger health insurance costs, and (this one really gets under a person’s skin) too set in your ways. The hiring authority will tell you that you’re “over qualified,” a polite way of saying the gray hair means get lost.

For the younger worker, the opposite holds true. You have tattoos, piercings and a different hairdo, but those pimples scream inexperience, immaturity, and possible substance abuse. Nice clichés, but they’re the reasons you are “under qualified,” a sneaky way of saying come back when you grow up, or not at all.

If you think these are simplifications of exceptions, not the rule, you might want to check out the story of Jack Gross, whose age discrimination battle has gone to the highest court in the land. What happens in this milestone case could affect all workers for generations to come.

Gross, whose situation is detailed in bylined opinion piece in this month’s issue of AARP Bulletin, offers a cautionary tale for workers who try to do their best in playing by the rules, yet suffer in silence when wronged.

“This all began in January 2003. When my employer, Farm Bureau Financial Group (FBL Financial Services Inc.) in Iowa, merged with the Kansas Farm Bureau, the company apparently wanted to purge claims employees who were over age 50. All the Kansas claims employees over 50 with a certain number of years of employment were offered a buyout, which most accepted. In Iowa, virtually every claims supervisor over 50 was demoted.

“Being 54, I was included in that sweep, despite 13 consecutive years of top performance reviews. The company claimed this was not discrimination but simply a reorganization. In 2005, a federal jury spent a week hearing testimony and seeing the evidence. The jurors agreed with me, and determined that age was a motivating factor in my demotion. Since then, the case has taken on a life of its own, including an appeal to the 8th Circuit Court and a U.S. Supreme Court hearing and decision.

“Since the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967, courts had ruled consistently that the law protected individuals if their age was a factor in any employment decision. But in my case, the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision in 2009) unexpectedly changed course and ruled that age had to be the exclusive reason for my demotion, even though that wasn’t the question before them. They simply hijacked my case and used it as a vehicle to water down the workplace discrimination laws passed by Congress.”

Gross says the key now is for Congress to pass the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (H.R. 3721) because it would provide the same protection for older people as that given to people of color, women, or people of different faiths.

“Many of my friends are also farm or small-town ‘kids’ who feel like they are the forgotten minority,’’ Gross writes. “Many have been forcibly retired or laid off. Some have been looking for work for months, only to find doors closed when they reveal the year they graduated. Others are working as janitors despite good careers and college degrees. They all know that age discrimination is very real and pervasive.”

We at WMB believe Gross is absolutely correct about the widespread nature of the problem – and make no mistake, this issue will boil over as the Baby Boom generation (those born from 1946 to 1964) grows older, living and working, in theory, much longer than previous generations.

Our culture emphasizes the importance of youth, beauty and vitality but looks down on older and elderly people as somehow less valuable, unworthy of employment and, in short, disposable.

Why should you care if you’re younger and don’t make much money? If Congress does not act, you may find yourself one day confronted by the same age discrimination that targeted Jack Gross.

The wheels of reform, generally, turn slowly in America, but age discrimination is one area that should drive bipartisan support. It’s an opportunity, as Gross says, to do something positive on a cause that is bigger than ourselves. Well said.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com. If you like this post, please share it with family, friends and colleagues!