Slamming Tennis Prize Money and other EEO Matters

I admit it. I'm ambivalent. In the wake of a history-making men's final of the Australian Open the debate over prize money predictably reared its head again yesterday in the media. The breakdown in the Herald Sun of how much the women's and men's winner won for each minute on court was absurd when you consider that each respectively was paid for outcomes, not face time. As a change consultant and psychologist, I charge my time. I don't ask for bonuses for exceptional outcomes because that success is contingent upon so many variables.

It's not Victoria Azarenka's fault she outplayed a former No. 1 to such a degree she won in two sets and to love in the second. Was I disappointed it finished early? No! I couldn’t stand the noise coming from Shriekarova. But for those who paid a lot to attend the match, you'd have to ask them if they got their money's worth. Isn't it about quality, not quantity, you say?

This is where I'm ambivalent. The International Labour organisation signed a convention in 1951 about equal pay for work of equal value. If there is a legitimate argument for women in tennis receiving less prize money (disgracefully women in Australia earn approx. 86 cents in the dollar to every man for the same job) it should only be because they play the best of three sets, not five. It would not be just or legal to pay women less at work because they can't lift as much as a male factory worker. But for elite athletes, there should not be any question about stamina and the ability to go five sets. How well they fare on the day becomes a factor and adds to the theatre of the game as it did for Nadal and Djotkovic who were both near collapse at various stages of the match.

The fact is the women don't seem to want five sets (and where's the incentive if they get the same $ anyway) and the event promoters and broadcasters don't want it because the reality is women's tennis doesn't rate as well, hence the reason why tickets to the men's final are much more expensive.

I can understand what a vexed issue it is in 2012, how ugly the differential would look on paper. I champion equal rights at work every day. But equal pay for work of equal value is a worthy principle and fundamental to human rights. The requirement to play best of five in a Grand Slam puts men and women on a truly equal footing and gives supreme women athletes the respect they deserve for being able to do the job they're paid to do. I understand the economic connection between ratings, ticket sales and revenue, but ratings should not dictate the prize money (ask Karrie Webb) and if women are already getting the money, let them pull their weight, not for face time as that's unpredictable, but for effort.

When equal prize money was first granted, Serena Williams said it was a victory for women all over the world. I don't think the women in Kazakhstan being paid 65 cents in the male dollar would celebrate Serena's extra half a million, even more so if she spent 48 minutes on court getting it.

Perhaps not coincidentally, I have been doing a lot of EEO training in the past few weeks. In some cases, clients and I did this work one or two years ago and they wanted an organisation-wide refresher. In other cases, they want to promote awareness in the wake of recent events or in anticipation of end of year functions.
Working with one client group this week a participant made a comment about the "inevitability" of poor behaviour at Christmas parties where clients supply alcohol at an open bar. "After all", this participant argued strenuously, "after 5 hours of free booze, how would you expect someone to behave?! But I wouldn't want to create any scandal or anything... so I think we should just confiscate mobile phones and cameras at the door."

I suppose I should have been relieved he was at least thinking about his 'digital reputation' and the company brand, even if not about his role in enhancing or tarnishing it.

If we accept his premise that the company provides the alcohol, so of course we can abuse it, let's take this to the nth degree.

What would follow is, if the company provides a mixed gender workforce, every straight person working there will (eventually) end up sexually harass someone.

If we work in a multicultural workforce, then surely racial harassment will be par for the course.

If we give our people access to the internet, then the boss we don't like or holds us accountable, will undoubtedly be fair game for social media abuses.

And imagine if we were butchers and the company gives us knives, then we're surely gonna cut someone!

Where does employer responsibility end and self- responsibility kick in? And for the employee who cannot find any self-control and can't ever stop at a few drinks, then both the employee and the company have more to concern themselves with than just a Christmas function.

When the Hunt Becomes the Hunted

Many people would have heard about the furore created when the former girlfriend of Geelong footballer Josh Hunt 'flamed' him this week in an email that subsequently went around the country. Notwithstanding my passion for the game itself, the ins and outs of footballer relationships don't interest me all that much. However there are parallels for my clients, and hence for us here. In no particular order:

1) Electing to send an email telling others what she thought of her allegedly cheating boyfriend was reactionary, low on emotional intelligence and should have stayed private. She said in the papers she couldn't believe how quickly the email spread yet she reportedly sent it to around fifty people. You don’t have to be a mathematician to work out the distribution permutations and combinations of that are close to viral proportions.

2) The reactive, immature and vitriolic reaction of Josh Hunt's girlfriend regrettably eclipses any potential unethical wrongdoing of his own; in our world the inappropriate response by any person or company to an antecedent event can cloud the message and camouflage any original wrongdoing.

3) Long after the two protagonists involved have got over each other and moved on their digital reputation will linger.

The negative potential of social media to destroy reputations, to perpetuate foolish and embarrassing events and actions must be considered by employees in relation to events like Christmas parties.

It was bound to happen but I heard for the first time this week a client is toying with the idea of asking staff to leave phones and cameras at the door of their Christmas party event to ensure attendees’ privacy is not invaded at their function.

Probably more practical and more adult is to ensure staff understand their obligations in relation to their misconduct policy and that any function will surely be considered an extension of the work environment. Banning something as ubiquitous as a phone is nigh on impossible, particularly as people can argue it will preclude them from taking any emergency calls. Asking staff to have respect for the privacy of others by not using their phones as cameras and asking the people attending to remember they are 'on parade' and bound by policy seem much more sensible paths to follow as they reflect a shared responsibility by all attending.

The Race that Stops (some of) a Nation

Many of us saw the business survey last week that said Aussies work long hours to the detriment of work-life balance, quality of relationships and health, yet productivity is low. We are a bunch of 'hard- working' (read as 'long working') time wasters. Think of all the meetings we attend that people freely admit produce poor outcomes!

We also blog about deplorable customer service in this country but we'll knock companies prepared to stand up and say "We're paying you to work". Optus has issued strict instructions to NSW staff to watch the Melbourne Cup tomorrow and return to work immediately after. You can call it "un-Australian" but being Australian doesn't have to mean lazy, unresponsive to customers and any excuse will do. Poor productivity costs us billions of dollars a year and in some companies people get paid overtime at a premium for work that could be done during business hours which would keep costs down and profits up.

It's a horse race, not a moon landing and watching the race might surely be enough if we didn't think it was important enough to take the day off and (attempt to) fly down to Melbourne for!

For those companies putting time and money into Melbourne Cup festivities as a morale booster or team builder, all credit to them but hopefully their people realise this is a choice, not a right and that they otherwise really engage when there is work to do.

Employers and Unions- Neither has exclusivity on ethical behaviour

The blogosphere is pulsating with commentary about the Health Services Union and whether or not Federal MP Craig Thomson has or hasn't done anything wrong. Workers have told me today how they feel about big business and the growing divide between those who have billions and those who belong to the poor working class or worse, tragically and unnacceptably, live in abject poverty.

Unions have performed an essential role throughout our labour history. They have had to fight for what should never have had to be fought for. However they don't have a moratorium on ethical practice. They don't always keep the so and so's honest. Sometimes it's the delegates and officials who need keeping honest.

I've worked across several sectors for 20 years. I have seen the whole gamut from the employer trying to create flexibility in the workforce to remain afloat, nimble or competitive  only to be sabotaged by union reps serving their own self interest. I've seen hate campaigns (i.e. vicious bullying) mounted against managers running legitimate change agendas even where this may put long term worker employment in jeopardy (as often those divisions were eventually sold off or closed down). This is holding a line that fails to take into account the big picture.
 
I've seen incompetent and/or unscrupulous managers who commoditise their people and put them under impossible strain. I've also seen delegates on the factory floor threaten and marginalise people happy to do a reasonable day's work for a reasonable day's pay.

 I understand completely the resentment of workers who see executives getting rich off what is perceived to be worker exploitation. However while far too many Australians may really be doing it tough and be understandably envious, it's not a crime to be wealthy. Union members are entitled to be well represented by people sincere about hearing them and advocating for them; not to pursue their own agenda and not to defend the indefensible.

Corruption isn't exclusive to big business. Members have to fight for morality within their own union community or we will see membership decline further. Employers and unions must ethically discharge their duties and be seen to be.   

Different events, same feelings

On the anniversary of 9/11 there have been lots of experts and lay people talking poignantly about the painful and traumatic memory of past events. It is well known in the profession of psychology how hard it is for those who've suffered acute loss around the time of anniversaries and big occasions.

At a time when I am working with many clients on organisational change initiatives from the modest reviews to the full blown enterprise restructures involving the potential for job losses, I am reminded of the power of the baggage we carry and the vivid memory traces which can propel us or paralyse us.

Whilst I am not equating organisational change to the horror of losing loved ones in terrorist events (indeed such comparisons must be perspective tested), there is an undeniable parallel in people who've experienced something traumatic or stressful and how that plays on their minds when they find themselves in situations much later that evoke similar memories of uncertainty, pain and loss.

How can we help? We can listen and empathise. We can gently help them reality test their 'awfulising' and 'catastrophising' and whether this is or isn't serving them. Importantly we can remind them that as difficult as it must have been for them, they got through it last time and we are confident they will again. In therapy this is known as the transfer of optimism. We may also need to be patient and give them a little time; without tolerating chronic underperformance or justifying unacceptable behaviour.

Child sexploitation, maybe. Media misconduct, that's a definite!

I've raised four of them but I've not worked with kids except a short stint teaching Life Skills and I'm still recovering. I was disturbed to read about the Northcote Beauty Pageant and the fascination many children had, not just for the pageant, but for their North American six year old "idol", Eden Wood. Her mother cancelled Eden's appearance two days in a row because she "feared for her daughter's safety". If she really feared for her daughter's safety, she would not be robbing her daughter of her childhood by dressing her up burlesque style,  dolling her up with rouge and false eye lashes, coaching her to sing those innuendo-ed songs whilst slapping her bottom.

But it's not just her mother enabling little Eden who, when asked, said being here was "fun". Why? Because she "got to see the koalas and the kangaroos". She could have done that without the lip gloss and the sequins unless of course her mother could not have afforded to travel here without being on the sexploitational gravy train. Anyone who's done any work in detection deception would not have seen any evidence of fun in the girl's eyes and face. She looked strained and as if she were saying what she'd been told to say by an exploitative mother.

But context is everything. The Darebin Council willing to host the pageant enabled such abuse of childhood innocence. The Aussie parents who travelled there from interstate or country Victoria encouraging their own children to worship Eden and queue for their 15 seconds of fame and a photo opp. are duplicitous. And so were rival television stations, trying to out-gazump each other with the rights to our commoditised and objectified international guest; persuading her to have a photo with two young children who turned out to be the offspring of a Channel Nine journalist; plants from A Current Affair. This was deceptive and desperate too.

The media will say they were simply covering a story and allowing us to make up our own minds. Some parents have tried to rationalise this by saying children of all generations have played dress-ups. But if attention was what feeds Eden and her mother, then that's what they got. And so the Hollywood gravy train rolls on as the innocence of our children gets run over.