BusinessWeek Logo

ACCOMODATE = DISCRIMINATE? (WHAT'S YOUR TAKE?)

Posted by: Liz Ryan on August 20

For twenty years I was a corporate HR VP, and I have the battle scars to prove it. Like clockwork, when I’d push to implement some HR
program or other aimed at attracting or retaining some talent population or other, I’d hear “Discrimination!”

“Discrimination!” they’d cry when we began to hand out infant carseats to new parents - “I don’t have a baby, so why can’t I have a hundred bucks in cash?”

“Discrimination!” I’d hear when we’d try to accomodate new grads and interns by taking them off for baseball outings and other activities meant to signal that working full-time in a corporation can be loads of fun.

"Unfair!" would echo through the hallways when we talked about Life and Work programs, Pre-Natal Yoga, Women's Initiatives or any other benefit or offering that wasn't available to every single employee.

"Business imperative" was my usual reply to the "Unfair!" rallying cry. If I could prove (and it wasn't hard to do) that our female employees weren't rising in their jobs at the same rate as men despite equivalent performance ratings, I'd get my Women's Initiative. If I could demonstrate the absurdly high correlation between buckled-up babies and kids' health outcomes, with the associated savings in medical claims (and wangle a hefty discount on carseats from the local Toys R Us to boot) the infant-carseat program could get out of the starting gate. If we could show that showering love upon new grads and interns reduced turnover for those employee groups, ovepriced hotdogs and chips in a major-league baseball skybox suddenly started looking cheap.

And now we have a new population in need, many believe, of accomodation. It's the group of Baby Boomers who, if corporations don't act, could waltz out the door before the employer is quite ready to see them go - or ready to replace them with a junior person, given the amount of information that's housed in Boomer Bob's cranium and nowhere else.

Some employers are beginning to act to head off a premature Boomer exodus. They're offering flexible work schedules and other incentives to Boomers who might otherwise bolt altogether. Is this
reasonable, discrimination, or both? What's the right answer? How much justification does an employer require, if any, to decide to favor one employee group over another?

Here's an article on the topic of Boomer accomodation

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/

Reader Comments

Michele

August 27, 2008 06:30 PM

It's called being shortsighted when one can't see the value of retaining talent. If business can't get an immediate gratification it is loathe to change thus wasting needless hours of paperwork for initiatives that usually cost very little to implement. Your car seat or flexible work hours are prime examples. I hope that there are programs in place when I'm finally a boomer or whatever that generation will be called. If not I hope there are programs that will afford me plastic surgery credits so that I look younger than the retirees the company wants to push out the door :-)

Judi

August 27, 2008 11:10 AM

I concur with DB - in my experience (and I'm in the recruiting/employment biz) companies are being very shortsighted in wanting to 'unload' their workers over 50 who may or may not be making high salaries. True, they might be able to hire 2 or 3 entry level workers for that same salary, but ultimately they are losing the depth and breadth of business knowledge and acumen that, as Liz says, resides in the brain of Mr. or Ms. Baby Boomer. This is the proverbial 'penny wise, pound foolish' saying played out in real life.

Sharon Bond

August 26, 2008 07:57 PM

Sigh. It's accommodate, not accomodate. This is the third major publication today (Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times) with major grammatical/spelling boo-boos.

As to the Baby Boomers, I'm on the lagging end of the age, and hope to be working for many more years, with or without accommodations!

Sharon

Karen Christenson

August 25, 2008 10:59 PM

It is quite impossible to treat everyone _exactly_ the same. It is not particularly desirable, either. I think it's important to set consistent principles, and try to apply those principles consistently. Just because one person in the office is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, that doesn't mean that everyone gets a few hours off each week or so. Rather than saying that everyone can spend X hours a year on doctor's visits, say that employees should try to schedule their health care appointments so they don't interfere with their work commitments, and that anyone needing regular care should discuss the matter with their manager. It's not "fair" that one person gets to spend so many hours away from the office while everyone else is working away, but it's never "fair" to get cancer, either. I don't think the clockwatchers will insist on being treated exactly the same when it comes to that aspect of things.

The reason to favor any employees over other employees is the same as it always has been: to reward their contributions and to encourage future contributions at the same (or higher) level. Or else everyone would get paid the same, and receive the same wage increases.

DB

August 25, 2008 08:51 PM

I find this article an interesting contrast to my general experience of companies trying to unload the older, more expensive, employees. Maybe it's only applying to the very highest echelon and not the general work population.

Post a comment

 

About

Liz Ryan and David Stillman Our experts on the millennial workplace, Liz Ryan, David Stillman, and Lynne Lancaster explain how to close the generation gap.

RSS Feed: Generational Tension

BW Mall - Sponsored Links