I’ve applied for 70 jobs over the last five months, and honestly, it’s been kind of a nightmare. The hardest part for me has been maintaining my cheerful attitude. In that spirit, here are a few tricks that seem to be helping me land interviews and (just as important) feel like I’m approaching my job safari with style, grace, and finesse, rather than abject desperation.

I think that all homo sapiens can understand how the mere thought of an organization that receives government money through contract mechanisms being tangentially involved in setting up a fake tax shelter for a fake pimp and his fake prostitution ring of fake prostitutes can justifiably lead to lawmakers going absolutely cross-eyed with white-hot, impotent rage. But what happens when a similarly taxpayer-endowed contractor attempts to cover up employee-on-employee gang rape by locking up the victim in a shipping container without food and water and threatening her with reprisals if she report the incident? Somehow, it doesn’t engender the same level of anger!

Credit new Senator Al Franken however, for introducing an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would punish contractors if they “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” You’d think that this would be a no-brainer, actually, but that didn’t stop Jeff Sessions from labeling Franken’s effort a “political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken, of course, pointed out that his amendment would apply broadly, to all contractors, because otherwise, ‘twould be a bill of attainder, right? Right?

Franken’s amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here’s a list of the Senators who showed broad support for Roman Polanski by voting against it:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

ADDENDUM: It’s been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

I guess we must cover up crimes like rape in order to save capitalism.

About the Author: Jason Linkins is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, covering media and politics. He’s based in Washington, DC. Previously, he wrote for HuffPo’s Eat The Press, and has also contributed to DCist and Wonkette.

This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post on September 7, 2009. Reprinted with permission from the author.

Today is World Day for Decent Work, and union members in more than 100 countries are mobilizing to address the global economic and employment crisis and demand fundamental reform of the world economy.

The deepest global recession since the 1930s has led to a jobs crisis with millions of people out of work. The International Labor Organization (ILO) predicts that as many as 50 million more workers could be kicked out of jobs worldwide in the next year and could lead to a dramatic increase in the number of working poor.

Live online coverage of the activities around the world, including videos, photographs and messages from events in every continent, will be broadcast on a special website, www.wddw.org, which will be updated via a 24-hour live feed.

At its recent convention, the AFL-CIO strongly underscored its support for decent work for workers in the United States and around the world by unanimously passing a major resolution, “A Labor Movement Agenda for a Stronger, Cleaner and More Just Global Economy.” The resolution stressed the need for the global labor movement to promote the ILO’s Global Jobs Pact to help coordinate government efforts to respond to the employment crisis.

Following the convention, the newly elected AFL-CIO leadership traveled to meet with working families around the country, leading up to the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. At the G-20, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) General Secretary Guy Ryder, along with other international trade union leaders, met with President Obama. They stressed the elements of the June 2009 ILO “Jobs Pact” and the importance of enacting coordinated policies to create decent and environmentally sustainable work to combat growing unemployment, enact comprehensive and effective regulation of financial markets and promote the inclusion of key international labor standards in all assistance programs of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The economic crisis is far from over and the global stimulus packages will not be enough to keep joblessness from growing at a steady pace, according to a new report by the ITUC. The report, “Jobs—The Path to Recovery,” was released to mark World Day for Decent Work. It shows that only 1.8 percent of financial rescue efforts have been dedicated directly to employment.

The report highlights trade union actions to fight the crisis around the world and explains the steps needed to achieve a decent work-led recovery and build a fairer and more sustainable world economy for future generations.

The G-20 summit, which ended recently in Pittsburgh, made progress in some areas but failed to completely address the overwhelming need to create new jobs now. “The current situation needs mending,” says Ryder:

Trade unions are raising their voices across the continents, to keep up the pressure for fundamental change, for justice and equity.

They face tremendous resistance from those who have profited from the exploitation of others in the past. Trade unions are determined to confront and defeat that resistance, and to ensure that governments everywhere get the message that they must deliver the results that working people demand.

Click here to read the full report, “The Path to Recovery: How Employment is Central to Ending the Global Crisis.”

Nowhere is the need for decent work more obvious than in the sweatshops of Asia, where workers toil long hours for little pay and few, if any, benefits to make apparel and other items for export that they could never afford to buy themselves.

Today, in New Delhi, India, and in cities in the United States, United Kingdom and throughout Europe, workers will launch a campaign for a living wage called the Asia Floor Wage.

In rallies, workshops, meetings with government and business leaders, public lectures by prominent human rights supporters and press conferences, they will promote a new strategy for global economic growth based on protecting workers’ rights and guaranteeing a living wage.

With so many of the world’s garments and other products being manufactured in Asia, corporations have exploited the workers there, forcing them to work long hours with little pay and few benefits. The campaign challenges this race-to-the-bottom by calling for raising the minimum wage in all major garment producing countries.

In the United States, Jobs with Justice is teaming up with the International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF), United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), the Asia Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) and the AFL-CIO for an educational campaign with our members and allies.

To learn more about the Asia Floor Wage campaign, click here.

About the Author James Parks had his first encounter with unions at Gannett’s newspaper in Cincinnati when his colleagues in the newsroom tried to organize a unit of The Newspaper Guild. He saw firsthand how companies pull out all the stops to prevent workers from forming a union. He is a journalist by trade, and worked for newspapers in five different states before joining the AFL-CIO staff in 1990. He has also been a seminary student, drug counselor, community organizer, event planner, adjunct college professor and county bureaucrat. His proudest career moment, though, was when he served, along with other union members and staff, as an official observer for South Africa’s first multiracial elections.

This article originally appeared in the AFL-CIO blog on October 7, 2009. Re-printed with permission by the author.

Crystal Lee Sutton, the real “Norma Rae,” just died after struggling with her insurer to pay for medical coverage. Linda Meric says health care reform responds to Sutton’s death and passing the Employee Free Choice Act will honor her life’s work.

(WOMENSENEWS)–Crystal Lee Sutton, the woman whose life inspired the 1979 film “Norma Rae,” about a brave union organizer, died of cancer on Sept. 11 after struggling in 2008 with her health insurance company.

Her insurer delayed her treatment by two months, initially by denying coverage of her medications, according to an article published last year in North Carolina’s Burlington Times News.

Her untimely passing at age 68 speaks powerfully to the continuing debate over health care reform.

But it is the union movement that claims Sutton as a sheroe.

To honor her legacy, and to pay tribute to other courageous union organizers–famous and less so–we must push for the Employee Free Choice Act, which is pending in Congress.

Introduced in March by California Democratic Rep. George Miller, the act has been referred to the Committee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. It has 227 co-sponsors, but the act must still move from committee discussion to general debate. This makes it critical that members of Congress hear their constituents’ support for the Employee Free Choice Act now.

Return Power to Workers

The act will level the workplace playing field and put the power to choose a union back where it belongs–in the hands of the workers.

Workers, increasing, have faced illegal discipline and even termination for attempting to organize their workplaces. The Employee Free Choice Act provides stronger protections for workers and tougher penalties for employers who engage in such illegal practices. The act will help rebuild the middle class and restore workers’ power to bargain for a better life.

Passing this legislation would truly celebrate the life and work of Crystal Lee Sutton.

As her obituary writers have reminded us in the days since her death, in the early 1970s she was a 33-year-old mother of three, earning $2.65 an hour, folding towels at the J.P. Stevens plant in Roanoke Rapids, N.C., when she began the activism that would ultimately bring her fame. What motivated her? It was the low pay and poor working conditions at the J.P. Stevens plant that moved her to take a leadership role in trying to form a union there.

It was not an easy road.

She was shunned for her activism. “Management and others treated me as if I had leprosy” was the way she once put it in an interview.

After months of trying to organize workers, she made the move that helped create the big scene in the movie: She took a piece of cardboard and wrote the word “union” on it in large letters, got up on her work table and slowly turned it around until co-workers began turning off machines and giving her the victory sign. Quiet fell inside the plant.

The Movement Begins

The police were called to remove Sutton from the plant and she was fired. But the movement had begun.

Eventually, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union that Sutton helped organize represented as many as 3,000 workers at seven plants. And, in 1977, a court sided with Sutton, ordering that she receive back pay and be rehired. She went back to work at J.P. Stevens for two days before she left again to take a new job–union organizer.

All workers–women and men–owe Sutton a debt, and one way to pay it back is to vigorously support the Employee Free Choice Act.

A free choice means that workers would have the option of unionization if a majority of members sign up. The Employee Free Choice Act would also stiffen penalties for employers who fire organizers, shoring up the National Labor Relations Act, a document that hasn’t changed in 75 years.

Just last year, more than 29,000 violations were upheld against employers in this country for harassment and intimidation during union organizing campaigns; in 2007 there were more than 30,000 violations. Workers should not be unjustly fired because they want to be represented by a union. There must be real penalties to deter this kind of behavior by corporations. This is important for all workers, but especially female workers.

Unions Remove Gender Inequities

Liberalizing the rules for forming a union is particularly important for women because unions have proven their capacity to remove one of the most glaring inequities between the genders: unequal pay.

Union membership raises women’s pay by more than 35 percent over that of non-union women.

The benefits of union membership for women in low-wage occupations are even greater, according to a December 2008 report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, based in Washington, D.C.

Among those working in the 15 lowest-paying occupations, union members not only earned more than their non-union counterparts, they were also 26 percentage points more likely to have employer-provided health insurance and 23 percentage points more likely to have a pension plan than those who were not members of a union.

For these women, union benefits make a huge difference in attaining and maintaining economic self-sufficiency.

Take, for instance, paid sick days. More than 60 million workers lack a single paid sick day to care for themselves when ill. Nearly 100 million workers lack paid sick time to care for an ill child.

No one should lose a job because they have to care for themselves or a loved one.

Union representation is one of the strongest predictors of family-friendly workplace policies like paid sick days. This is critically important for low-wage working women.

Sutton knew it, and we know it today.

To honor her memory, write or call your members of Congress. Let them know you want them to support the Employee Free Choice Act.

Let’s stand up for working women.

About the Author: Linda Meric, a nationally-known speaker on family-friendly workplace policy, is executive director of 9to5, National Association of Working Women. A diverse, grassroots, membership-based nonprofit that helps strengthen women’s ability to win economic justice, 9to5 has staffed offices in Milwaukee, Denver, Atlanta, Los Angeles and San Jose. Women’s eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

This article originally appeared in Women’s e-News on September 28, 2009. Reprinted with permission from the author.

This post originally appeared in the AFL-CIO blog on October 5, 2009. Reprinted with permission from the author.

New contracts for 16,000 AT&T core wireline workers, members of CWA and IBEW, and more news from the “Bargaining Digest Weekly.” The AFL-CIO Collective Bargaining Department delivers daily, bargaining-related news and research resources to more than 1,200 subscribers. Union leaders can register for this service through our website, Bargaining@Work.

SETTLEMENTS

CWA, AT&T: Members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) ratified a new three-year contract with AT&T. The pact, covering 7,000 core wireline workers around the country, includes a 9 percent pay increase over the term and maintains quality health care.

IBEW, AT&T: Nearly 9,000 core wireline workers in Illinois and Indiana, members of the Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21, ratified a new three-year agreement with AT&T on Tuesday. Nearly half of AT&T’s 120,000 wireline workers have ratified contracts, while negotiations continue with CWA in the East, Southeast and Southwest regions.

USW, Bridgestone-Firestone: Completing the latest round of rubber tire industry bargaining, United Steelworkers (USW) members at Bridgestone-Firestone ratified a four-year agreement covering 4,500 workers at seven plants. Wages and benefits are protected, including health care for both active and retired workers. Members also ratified new agreements with Goodyear and Michelin.

UNITE HERE, Multiple Casinos: Members of UNITE HERE Local 54 overwhelmingly approved a new two-year contract with four Atlantic City casinos. The agreement with Harrah’s Atlantic City, Bally’s Atlantic City, Caesars Atlantic City and the Showboat Atlantic City provides wage increases for most workers and guarantees benefits will not be cut.

AFSCME, City of New Britain: AFSCME Local 1186 ratified a new contract with the city of New Britain, Conn., last week. The new contract comes just months after a four-year contract was reached, but since then, the city’s budget has suffered with the economic downturn. The new contract includes a six-month wage freeze in exchange for a no-layoff guarantee.

AFM, Grand Rapids Symphony: Members of the Grand Rapids Federation of Musicians (AFM) ratified a new two-year contract with the Grand Rapids Symphony. The 80 musicians will maintain there current pay but agreed to small cuts in benefits to avoid layoffs.

Multiple, Kennecott Utah Copper: Members of four unions have ratified a seven-year contract with Kennecott Utah Copper. The contract, covering 1,280 members of IBEW, Machinists (IAM), Operating Engineers (IUOE) and USW, includes a wage increase of approximately 5 percent each year.

Multiple, State of Rhode Island: Three of four state employee unions in Rhode Island have voted to approve the contract proposed by Gov. Donald Carcieri. SEIU Local 580, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 400 and a health care worker’s arm of the National Education Association (NEA-Ind.) voted for the agreement, which includes 12 furlough days over two years but avoids layoffs. The state’s largest public sector union, AFSCME Council 94, will tally its votes tomorrow.

NEGOTIATIONS

IFPTE, Spirit AeroSystems: The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001, has reached a tentative agreement with Spirit AeroSystems. The contract would cover 783 engineers and includes a 3 percent bonus, annual wage increases and guaranteed compensation for overtime. Union negotiators unanimously recommended members vote in favor of the agreement.

AFSCME, State of Illinois: An Illinois judge issued an injunction last Monday to halt the layoff of 2,600 Illinois state workers, saying it violated the workers’ union contract. AFSCME Council 31 filed the lawsuit to prevent the layoffs of its members, many of whom are corrections officers, arguing that prison layoffs would risk the safety of the remaining corrections workers. The state and union will head to arbitration.

IAM, Daimler Trucks: The IAM is hopeful for a new contract at a Daimler Trucks plant in Oregon, which the company had previously announced would be shut down. The company put on hold plans to transfer work from Portland to Mexico and North Carolina, saying it received a new military contract, but the union says the plans changed because of the large amount the company would have to pay out for pensions if it shut down.

BCTGM, Kellogg Inc.: The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers has reached a tentative three-year agreement with cereal maker Kellogg Inc. The contract would cover 1,450 workers at four plants, represented by Local 3-G in Battle Creek, Mich., Local 50-G in Omaha, Neb., Local 252-G in Memphis, Tenn., and Local 374-G in Lancaster, Penn.

UAW, Deere and Company: UAW has reached a tentative agreement with agricultural equipment maker Deere and Co., covering 9,500 workers and 17,000 retirees. The proposed six-year contract will be voted on by 15 UAW locals.

Multiple, City of L.A.: The Los Angeles City Council approved a plan to offer early retirement to 2,400 city workers. The plan would offer cash bonuses to workers who retired early, in an attempt to save money and avoid possible layoffs. The Coalition of City Unions must vote to ratify the plan before it returns to the city council for final approval.

CNA/NNOC, Temple University Hospital: Nurses at Temple University Hospital postponed a three-day strike, which was to start Friday. The members of the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP-CNA/NNOC) overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Temple University Hospital.

Multiple, Republic Airways Holdings Inc.: Flight attendants and pilots for Midwest Airlines, represented by the Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) and the Air Line Pilots (ALPA) respectively, continue to negotiate over seniority lists with the Teamsters (IBT), which represents crews of Midwest’s new owner, Republic Airways Holdings Inc. Midwest’s legacy crews face layoff by Dec. 1, when the Boeing 717 jets they fly will be grounded.

Disclaimer: This information is being provided for your information only. As it is compiled from published news reports, not from individual unions, we cannot vouch for either its completeness or accuracy; readers who desire further information should directly contact the union involved.

About the Author: Belinda Boyce. Before joining the AFL-CIO Collective Bargaining Department as research analyst, I worked for six years in the AFL-CIO Organizing Department: three years in Voice@Work and three years in the Center for Strategic Research, working on organizing, issue, and political campaigns. I attended Penn State University, where I became a rabid fan of Nittany Lion football, and later graduated from Florida State University College of Law.

Last week, I was watching George Carlin on HBO. I started thinking about his famous list of the seven things you can’t say on television. So this week I’m going to present the Workplace911 variation on Carlin’s list — a list of five taboo words for today’s workplace. 

The first taboo in today’s workplace is the word “felony.” Corporations don’t like prison records. However, ex-offenders don’t need to worry too much, because this will change for two reasons. First, the dramatic increase of executives who visit the big house. If these guys keep getting arrested, every head honcho is going to have a rap sheet, and they have to work somewhere.

OK, Martha Stewart hasn’t gone out and hired a bunch of her former prison bunk mates to work at her company. But she has been speaking out about ex-offenders as potential contributors to society. And over time this will have an impact. That leads to the second reason why some of the sting may come out of the word felony at work. Though there are 44 million Gen-Xers in the workforce, they are greatly outnumbered by the 76 million baby boomers who will start planning for retirement in the next couple of decades. We’ll have to run our economy while millions of workers worry more about weekends and Winnebagos than their work. Something’s got to give, and the modern workforce is going to have to get creative to find new workers. I predict that with more than two million incarcerated in the U.S. and a dwindling supply of workers, ex-offenders will become more common around the office.

The second taboo at work is not a word but an acronym: “TMI” — too much information. This can apply to all manner of information, but of particular note is the often uncomfortable revealing of personal medical situations. People don’t want to hear about your medical challenges, your itchy rash, your surgery or your prostate, etc. Yes, the practice of avoiding running your mouth and disclosing TMI rules at work today.  Find a therapist, a mate or a relative who really cares about the medical details of your life. But don’t share it with your coworkers, because hearing about those things makes them uneasy and can make work an uncomfortable place to be.

The third taboo at work revolves around the word “relationships.” Don’t go there. People don’t want to hear about your marital or relationship problems. Through the years I can’t believe how many people have shared intimate information about their relationships with me. Call me a prude, but I think pillow talk should be reserved for conversations that actually take place over pillows.

The fourth taboo is the word “why.” As in “Why did you…” “Why do we…” Most corporations don’t take kindly to being asked this simple question. Sure, there are bosses who can handle it. I just think that they are rarer than most people think. Sometimes it’s better to just bite your tongue and forge ahead with an assignment, even if you’re not totally sure about the outcome. People who constantly question the worth of a project or a boss’s decision often get tagged as malcontents. So be careful when you drag out the “W” word.

And finally, the fifth taboo — “bravado.” 

Most of us learn at a very early age that we are never to show weakness or vulnerability at work. Bravado is the way; do what you can and fake what you can’t. I personally believe that the lack of vulnerability weakens organizations because it prevents real connection and real interactions between people.

If I had a magic wand I’d hope that we could all do a much better job of being more vulnerable at work. Sure it’s tough, but isn’t it time that we all brought a bit more humanity to our jobs? And what better way is there to do this than being genuine and vulnerable with the people we work with? So stash that bravado and learn to show a softer side — it will humanize you in the eyes of your coworkers and probably encourage them to do the same.

My five taboo words at work — felony, TMI, relationships, why and bravado. I’d love to hear yours.

Bob Rosner is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. For free job and work advice, check out the award-winning workplace911.com. If you have a question for Bob, contact him via bob@workplace911.com.

The firing of 1,800 apparently undocumented workers at American Apparel’s Los Angeles garment factory, forced by a federal investigation, is an example of the Obama administration’s new approach to workplace enforcement, which avoids the Bush administration’s militarized raids.

Unlike other companies targeted for immigration enforcement, American Apparel’s factory boasts positive working conditions and relatively high wages. Workers have health and life insurance, paid English classes and even masseuses on the shop floor, yet the company has still managed to compete with cheap imported clothing and grow very profitable very quickly.

An American Apparel factory in California. (Photo by Humain, via Flickr)

News coverage mentions American Apparel’s “proprietary” production system, so the logistics that let the company treat workers well and still profit in a globalized market may not be widely known. It remains to be seen how the company will survive, given the forced firings and the fact it was already suffering heavily from the recession. (And the fact that the company’s success is probably partly a fashion or social justice fad whose novelty is doomed to fade.)

My initial reaction to yesterday’s news was that a hypocrisy had been exposed, since American Apparel’s very existence is based around its Made in the USA label, and—rightly or wrongly—I associated that label with consumers who are not fans of undocumented immigrant workers.

Then I realized that if American Apparel management guessed their employees were undocumented (they contend they didn’t), publicly embracing the workers as the part of the American workforce they are makes a statement.

Founder and CEO Dov Charney, a Canadian immigrant, has in the past spoken out for sweeping immigration reform, as described in this New York Times story. Apparently the federal investigation, started under the Bush administration, was already underway as Charney launched this ad campaign.

Meanwhile, it is impossible to ignore the fact that while shop floor conditions at American Apparel appear to be very positive, Charney’s one-on-one interactions with his employees, at least female ones, leaves a lot to be desired (as In These Times reported in 2005).

At least three ex-employees have filed sexual harassment suits against Charney, who is known to conduct business in his underwear or even while naked. He describes these habits as creative freedom, which his employees apparently don’t appreciate (see MSNBC’s report here).

Employees told Businessweek, “It was a company built on lechery,” and “I thought it was a male contemporary perspective on feminism, but it turns out to be just a gimmick.”

Many also complain American Apparel’s ads offensively sexualize and objectify young women, especially young immigrant women of color. The company markets the fact that its ads feature employees, but I wonder if they are paid as much as professional models would be.

Ultimately it is ironic that, as one worker quoted by The New York Times points out, the fired workers are likely to end up at actual sweatshops or other under-the-table, exploitative work situations in the U.S.

In other words, while the current federal workplace enforcement policy is more humane and logical than the militarized raids of the past, without comprehensive immigration reform it still comes off as a relatively pointless or purely symbolic gesture.

About the Author: Kari Lydersen, an In These Times contributing editor, is a Chicago-based journalist writing for publications including The Washington Post, the Chicago Reader and The Progressive. Her most recent book is Revolt on Goose Island.

This post originally appeared in Working In These Times on October 1, 2009. Re-printed with permission from the author.

There is no federal statute prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A bill is on the horizon to change that, with a very good chance of passage. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (HR3017/S1584), introduced in various forms since 1974, would prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It has 179 House co-sponsors and 40 Senate co-sponsors, and many more expected to support the bill.

Despite the arguments of opponents, the bill’s text is unremarkable in many ways. Similar to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the current job discrimination law, it also contains language to deal with issues specific to LGBT workers. As in Title VII, it covers employers with 15 or more employees and most government offices. It prohibits discharge, refusal to hire, and other discrimination based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” as well as discrimination based on association with gay people.

The terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are clearly defined, despite the concerns of opponents. “Sexual orientation” is defined in the bill as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.” It’s specifically used in distinction to the more ambiguous term “sexual preference.” Opponents argue it could protect pedophiles, base on the false idea that pedophilia is a “sexual preference.” Since the term “sexual preference” is not used, and the term “sexual orientation” is very clearly defined, that argument is incorrect. Unfortunately, this been used as a fear-mongering tactic.

The term “gender identity” is defined as “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” This refers to the social, psychological and behavior stereotypes of our sex at birth. It protects workers from discrimination or harassment based on conformity with stereotypes of gender. For example, if someone born male expresses their gender in a manner stereotypically considered feminine, whether it be in mannerisms, appearance or, on the extreme end, identification with the opposite sex as a transsexual, they are protected from dismissal or harassment because of this. In other words, gender is removed as a job performance criterion.

Some are concerned that allowing transsexuals to have jobs will cause a burden on employers by requiring them to build separate shower and dressing facilities for transsexuals. However, the Act does not require employers to permit access to shared shower or dressing facilities where nudity is unavoidable. It specifically disavows the idea that construction of additional facilities are required.

Both terms, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” have been used in many state and local laws since 1975, and are considered by legal experts to be well-understood in the legal context at this point.

Concerns about a “gay quota,” and a flood of lawsuits are equally unfounded. The Act explicitly bans any preferential treatment or quotas. The government may not require collection of statistics on sexual orientation or gender identity. “Disparate impact” lawsuits, often seen in the Title VII context, are not permitted under ENDA. Such claims are based on the allegation that employer actions have indirectly resulted in a reduced number of LGBT employees. Only the direct harm of “disparate treatment” lawsuits would be permitted.

Religious freedom is also addressed in the bill. The Act does not apply to organizations exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of Title VII. In his testimony at the Congressional hearing on September 23, 2009, Acting EEOC Stuart Ishimura stated his belief that this would exempt such religious organizations not only from penalties for discrimination on the basis of religion, as in Title VII, but also from all penalties under ENDA for any discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Act does not apply to members of the Armed Forces, and does not change special rights for veterans. It explicitly states that it will not invalidate other federal, state or local laws.

A hearing was held before the Committee on Labor and Education on September 23, at which many illustrious witnesses testified to the widespread extent of serious harm the current situation has caused for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees. The bill is expected to be voted on in the House in the next few weeks, where it is expected to pass. It will then go to the Senate, and a vote is expected there before year-end. President Obama has vowed to sign the bill.

About the Author: Dr. Jillian T. Weiss is Associate Professor of Law and Society at Ramapo College of New Jersey, and has consulted with many organizations on issues of transgender workplace diversity, including Boeing, Harvard and New York City.  She may be reached at jweiss@ramapo.edu