A Consultant's Chronicles

Child Custody In 2009: Parenthood vs. National Security

In this week's New York Times there was an incredibly controversial & difficult editorial concerning child custody rights & the military. As someone who does domestic mediation, what surprises me the most is my initial gut reaction to the problem.  Summarizing the issue, a military specialist returned from Iraq ready to resume custody of her child but in spite of a prior written custody agreement between the two parents, the child's father [not her husband] fought the mother in court to retain custody by asserting that living with "some stranger" would be too upsetting for the child. A judge ordered that the father be given primary custody while the mother was awarded generous visitation & sleepovers. There is a lot to consider in this case:

• First & foremost, what is in the best interest of the child*
• Setting aside tradition, who in this case would be the better custodial parent
• Is the mother finished with all of her military commitments or does she have to return to her unit [this was not clearly addressed]
• Can we expect to continue to recruit people in the armed forces if as a consequence, they stand to lose custody of their children
• Too frequently in custody battles, children are used as pawns because either  a. the relationship with the parents remains emotionally unresolved even if it has ended, b.it is unclear whether one parent's desire to be primary custodial parent is motivated by the best interest of the child or to reduce the amount of child support that s/he will have to pay [I am aware that this sounds cynical but it is quite common particularly in the case of fathers] 

 In The Best Interest Of The Child 

When I mediate custody disputes, my guiding question is always "what is in the best interest of the child?" I explain this to the parents on "day one" when I am retained & describe this as my personal bias. The parents, I explain, are adults who have made choices about their relationship with each other so I see it as my job to look out for the child's well being. In this case I have to say that while it is difficult to determine without knowing much more about both parents, it does indeed seem that at least for now, the father seems most capable of providing a stable environment for their child. Young children essentially need a loving, stabile environment that has structure & consistency. It is unclear from this short editorial if the mother is now able to provide that kind of environment. Be that as it may, military/social engineering simply cannot rest on the back of any one child. However, I do not want to see service men or women penalized for protecting their country & losing custody of one's child is probably one of the toughest penalties of all. Clearly this is an issue that has to be addressed on a case- by-case basis because while children need consistency, they are also incredibly resilient. It's a very tough call. What do you think?

*Note: in child custody disputes courts are also supposed to be guided by what's in the best interest of the child. 

Defining 'Work' In The Age of Hi-Tech For The Hourly Worker

"Technology giveth & it taketh away." According to an article I read, this seems to be the crux of a controversy brewing between T-Mobile's hourly employees & management but it is one that is definitely relevant to today's workforce at large. The problem at hand is pretty simple: should hourly employees be paid for time spent dealing with customer complaints on their company issued smart phones after hours when they are "off the clock?" T-Mobile's hourly workers think so & they suing the company to be fairly compensated. In a similar complaint, an hourly paid janitor contends that T-Mobile expects him to come & attend to problems when they arise even when he is "off the clock" [& not being paid].

'It Depends On What The Definition of Work Is'

I must confess, I don't understand T-Mobile's position. The court recently ruled that employers must pay hourly workers even for time spent putting on their uniform so how can they not be paid for doing their actual jobs?  Technology helps to blur what used to be clear boundaries when it comes to how/where a job is performed but hourly workers, unlike management have never been expected to work until the job is done. In part, it's why rules like overtime pay exist. Furthermore, this separate pay structure is one of the essential differences between hourly workers & management [& not insignificantly one among many reasons why management is paid more]. This small dispute has the potential to redefine work & how all hourly workers are paid. It may also be something of a Pandora's box for employers. While this is a question best addressed by an attorney specializing in labor law, I wonder if for example, these T-Mobile workers lose their suit & are considered "on the job" when they are "off the clock", will employers be "on the hook" for workman's comp if an accident occurred while they were addressing a company problem? "Just askin' ?" Alternatively, it may necessitate the creation of an entirely different category for some workers; one with a wholly different salary structure & guidelines. In short, this could be a giant headache for HR managers everywhere. What's your view?

Line of the Week 7-5-09

This week's line of the week belongs to the Republicans specifically the women in the form of tie between Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal & Meghan McCain [& daughter of the Senator from AZ] of the Daily Beast. While both lines are in many ways laughable, they are both also tragic in an odd sort of way. The other thing these two lines share is that they both reflect a less than flattering truism about women of all political stripes. Simply put, instead of supporting each other, whether at work or at home, we are always each other's harshest critics. No wonder we don't have a woman in the White House yet. 

About Gov. Sarah Palin's last 11 months & the effect on the GOP leading up to her bombshell resignation, Noonan said:

"...She was out of her depth in a shallow pool..."

Perhaps that's true but ouch!

In an article formed as a memo to Republicans, Meghan McCain was hardly any kinder. As an invested party interested in seeing her cohorts lead the GOP out of the wilderness, she [wisely] begs the Young Republicans not to elect someone with racist leanings as their leader in the form of 38-year old Audra Shay. About the person in question, McCain says:

"...Also, did I mention that she’s 38? And she’s going to be the leader of an organization with the word “young” in the title? Is it so implausible that people in their twenties (or even early thirties) could join the Republican Party--or have we just completely given up on their vote?.."

Memo to Ms. McCain: yup, in the current climate, the 20 & 30 year old vote may just be a tad out of reach. As for the so called "young" Repblicans, I have to admit that this is taking "40 is the new 30" just a little too far!
 

Line of the Week 5-17-09

Unless your head has been buried in the sand you know that even though his term is up, Dick Cheney has been in the news...a lot! Remarking on the former VP's currently low popularity rating, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter got my vote for this week's line of the week. Quoting a GOP source on the Ed Show this week, he said:

"...Dick Cheney's popularity is somewhere between the old drinking age & the new drinking age [putting it at about 20%]..."

Putting this assessment into some kind of context, by comparison President Obama's popularity is almost at the point when people begin collecting their Social Security checks making a benchmark like the legal drinking age little more than a dim memory [or at about 60%]. Maybe we've discovered a new "rule of thumb." Business has the 80/20 rule [aka Pareto Principle] & perhaps in politics we now have the 60/20 rule?

Line of the Week 5-10-09

Commenting on the reviews of Wanda Sykes' performance at the Correspondents Association dinner this past Saturday night, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker reiterated the fact that a couple of one liners from Wanda Sykes about Rush Limbaugh simply failed which seems to be the general consensus [whether you are a Limbaugh fan or not]. However, she also acknowledged something important about attitudes towards this event that can certainly be applied to many different scenarios. She said:

"...There’s nothing un-funnier than Saturday night’s jokes reviewed by the caffeinated light of Monday morning...Which is why we probably shouldn’t quarterback a comedian over coffee when she was performing for a crowd primed on cocktails..."

Too many Monday morning pundits overlooked this one simple fact. Having said that, in this case, even the crowd "primed on cocktails" didn't see the humor in those "over-the-top shots" at Limbaugh. Why? In a more general sense, while it's essential not to under-estimate the importance of context, some things simply reflect poor taste & judgment under any circumstances.

Line of the Week 4-19-09

Discussing the newest revelations about torture, Pulitzer Prize winning author & Newsweek editor Jon Meacham tried to strike a balance by advocating for a reconciliation/ fact-finding committee in order to understand what actually happened. He was not however, in favor of getting bogged down in prosecutions. Referencing the words of historian Arthur Schlesinger he said: 

"...history to a country is like memory to a person; without it we don't know who we are or where we  are going..."

Then again, one could reasonably say that there were times in the last 8 years where those in power acted like an administration without a compass in terms of the future while suffering from intermittent amnesia when it came to the past.

Liddy Speaks: Why AIG Spent Money On 'Women & Grog'

Today Edward Liddy, the current CEO of AIG will be grilled by Congress today although truth be told, they along with the president are [in my view] "a day late & a dollar short" when it comes to their suddenly found outrage over the obscene amount of money spent on bonuses to a company in desperate need of taxpayer largesse.

Money Spent On 'Women & Grog' 

Nonetheless Liddy has written a cogent opinion piece summarizing the problem which apparently began in 1987...1987!!!! That's a span of 3 presidents who potentially could have caught & fixed this before it became a multi-headed monster so there is more than enough blame to spread around to all political parties. The best that can be said is that he [Liddy] didn't structure this insane compensation & is working for just $1 having taken over as CEO in September of 2008. I encourage everyone to take the time & read the piece because it does succeed in tamping down some of the anger because it reveals a real plan. Whether AIG will be able to keep the promises he is implicitly making is another story. However, in describing these insane bonuses, I think legal scholar Jonathan Turley summarized it best in an interview when he said:

"...When you give millions to the 'Pirates of Penzance,' you can hardly be surprised when they spend it on women & grog..!"

Sadly, his comment feels far too close to the truth!

Corporate Tax Cuts & Job Creation: 'Who's Zooming Who'

There is absolutely no shortage of things to write about today but since jobs [or lack thereof] are on the minds of so many, I've decided to write a post about something I just read in Business Week about the drug company Pfizer. Apparently in an attempt to make the best use of their high value employees' time, they have developed a subsidiary company called Pfizer Works where they can outsource specific & mundane chores like number-crunching, creating PowerPoint presentations, etc. The essence of the plan is to outsource specific tasks. It's all done very methodically because employees document via work order each assignment, i.e., what they want, need, and the deadline for the job. Conceptually it actually sounds pretty good. After all, why pay employees who receive large compensation to do what is rote production work. This is the kind of thing that is the small business person's dream. If you are getting the impression that I am setting you up for some kind of "but" in this, you'd be right.

Why Not Reward Companies That Create Jobs Here At Home

Pfizer Works has 2 outlets: one is in Chicago & the other is in India. Excuse me? There are lots of competent unemployed folks here who would love those jobs so why send them to India? I happen to know of 2 small businesses in san Jose that specialize in making elegant PowerPoint presentations.  Why not keep all of Pfizer Works here? Increasingly I have a hard time seeing large corporations get big tax breaks for sending jobs overseas particularly since part of the argument for those cuts is that the companies create jobs. Right now we have a surplus of people who would happily take those jobs. Why should big business be rewarded for creating jobs in another country? Although it's a less extreme version [compared to a comapny like AIG], it strikes me as yet another example of rewarding corporate bad behavior when those very same "carrots" could be used in a more positive way here at home. That my view...   

Line of the week 2-8-09

This week's line of the week goes to Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa) in an editorial he wrote explaining why he voted for the controversial economic stimulus plan. Essentially he felt that his reasoning was best expressed by a quote from President Kennedy, which said:

"...In politics,... nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something..."

This is the essence of compromise at its core; true in politics, business & life. The big problem is too many people want 'everything' & simply can't be happy with 'something.'

Line of the Week 2-1-09

This week's Line of the Week references that huge gorilla on the taxpayer's back otherwise known as the stimulus plan. In it's original inception it was supposed to be the engine to drive our economy back from the living dead. Unfortunately it has morphed into a Democratic "wish list" & fodder for the GOP thus becoming difficult-to-pass legislation. In a discussion column with fellow NY Times pundit David Brooks, Gail Collins observed that given all the problems the administration is having, perhaps the Obama "[presidential] honeymoon" is over. About the current legislative process itself she said:

"...Urging legislators to do the right thing is like trying to housebreak a difficult puppy. You begin the day with great hopes and they always let you down — and don’t even look embarrassed about it..."

So true on both counts!