Business
Remote work gave them a reprieve from racism. They don’t want to go back
As LeRon Barton weighed his options, he realized what he had to do.
If he took a pay cut of $5,000, he could have a fully remote tech job that would let him roam the country and give him the flexibility he craved. Or he could keep his salary and stay at his current job — a network engineer position based at a San Francisco hospital that required occasional site visits and kept him tethered to the region.
Patients at the hospital sometimes gave him funny looks when he came to check their room’s Wi-Fi, recalled Barton, who is Black, and staff members questioned his competence. Working remotely during the pandemic showed him a whole different lifestyle: no commute, more time with his family and a break from the onslaught of microaggressions and other racist behavior he’d had to endure.
Barton chose the pay cut.
“You’re totally out of the rigamarole,” said Barton, who is now a writer and technical project manager at a Southern California tech company. “And just the quality of life has improved drastically.”
It’s a sentiment expressed by many Black workers and other people of color who found that remote work lessened the racism they faced on the job.
But it forces workers to make a difficult choice — prioritize your mental health or endure for the sake of your career. Remote job opportunities are shrinking as more companies require that workers come back to the office. And even in hybrid workplaces, remote employees can be at a disadvantage for career advancement since managers sometimes forget about them or assume they are less productive than their in-person peers, a concept called proximity bias.
“Jobs are built on social capital. We could miss out on those happy hour opportunities,” Barton said. But he’s willing to sacrifice the in-office networking. “Honestly,” he said, “I would trade that in for my peace of mind.”
Throughout the pandemic, survey after survey showed what some workers of color have known for years: Workplace politics and discrimination can make the office an undesirable place to be.
In 2021, just 3% of Black white-collar “knowledge workers” wanted to return to full-time in-office work, compared with 21% of white ones, according to research from Future Forum, a project backed by instant messaging firm Slack. The research found that hybrid or remote work arrangements increased Black workers’ feelings of belonging at work and boosted their ability to manage stress.
Part of the push for remote work can be explained by the preferences of millennial and younger workers, who want the freedom to choose where they do their jobs, said LaTonya Wilkins, founder and chief executive of Change Coaches, a leadership development firm focused on workplace culture.
But how supervisors evaluate workers is also a factor.
Career coach Jermaine L. Murray said many of his clients, relatives and friends have expressed their reluctance to return to the office. Clients of all races have told him they prefer remote work, but his Black clients have more frequently emphasized that continuing to work from home allowed them to avoid office politics.
“It almost felt like the distance allowed for a more objective environment,” said Murray, founder of JupiterHR, which provides career development services.
With remote work, the data confirm whether workers are getting their jobs done, and there’s less room for co-workers to take undeserved credit since there are fewer opportunities to socialize on the job, he said. Clients whose companies are switching to hybrid work are looking for other jobs, Murray said. And because of the sluggish economy and cooling labor market, he said, they’re “quiet quitting” their current positions rather than leaving immediately.
Opportunities for remote-only jobs, however, are starting to shrink.
In April, about 11% of U.S. job postings on LinkedIn were for remote work, down from a peak of nearly 21% in March 2022, according to a May report from LinkedIn. Such jobs were in high demand: Nearly half of job applications via the website in April were for fully remote positions, and only one-third were for jobs without remote or hybrid options.
“Professionals that have the opportunity to be in these remote environments and not experience microaggressions at work or not do as much code-switching or all of those things have now said, ‘Oh, that was great for my mental health’ or, ‘It helped me be a little more authentic at work,’” said Andrew McCaskill, a career expert with LinkedIn. “And a lot of employees and workers just don’t want to give that up.”
For one 35-year-old paralegal from the Midwest, remote work is now a must.
“As a Black employee and someone who is neurodivergent, it’s just better for me,” said the paralegal, who asked that their name and gender not be published for fear of harming future employment opportunities. “I’m able to be more productive. I’m able to focus better. I get so much more work done here in my own space where I’m able to be who I am and think.”
Previous jobs often involved being the only Black worker in the office and being judged based on social interactions, the paralegal said.
If the paralegal was quiet and focused only on work, managers said to stop being antisocial and hard to approach. On bubbly or chatty days, the paralegal was admonished for not doing enough work. If the paralegal participated in a passionate conversation around the water cooler, criticism would soon follow: Don’t be so aggressive.
“There’s never really a happy medium,” the paralegal said. With remote work, however, those problems are eliminated, and the paralegal can focus solely on getting the job done.
Management experts argue that remote work opportunities have implications far beyond individual work experiences and affect corporate culture as a whole.
Eliminating remote options can also hurt companies’ ability to recruit a diverse workforce. With remote positions, companies can hire people living in geographic areas that are more diverse than the communities around their headquarters.
“Companies have to recognize that if they really want to meet their commitments to diversity and inclusion, one of the best levers they can pull for that is remote work,” said McCaskill of LinkedIn.
Employers considering a return-to-office mandate should make sure they are giving workers a reason to be in the office, which can make in-person work more purposeful and give fewer opportunities for microaggressions, said Wilkins, the Change Coaches CEO.
In a hybrid situation, managers need to make sure employees working remotely are not left out or inadvertently penalized by proximity bias, she said. Part of that could include creating opportunities for employees to get exposure and recognition for their work even if they are remote and destigmatizing mental health support, management experts said.
As senior director of talent strategy at UC Irvine, Kimberly D. Jones made sure to have candid conversations with employees about their concerns regarding a return to the office. One employee shared experiences with her that predated Jones’ arrival at the department and explained how those situations contributed to their anxiety about being at work.
Jones said she addressed the issue with the employee and the leadership team and now checks in with that employee regularly to make sure they feel comfortable at work. She also makes a point to walk through the work space and greet everyone in the morning, in part to get a sense of the office dynamics and in part to make herself available to any employees who might have concerns.
“You have a responsibility as a leader to create an environment where everyone feels welcome and can be successful,” Jones said.
Women of color especially face difficult situations at work.
Professor Joan C. Williams and her collaborators have built a database of more than 18,000 people as they research the intersection of racial and gender bias in white-collar professions. In almost every dataset she’s seen, women of color report the most bias and the least workplace fairness, she said.
Particularly telling is a survey question that asks respondents whether they have access to career-enhancing work. Nearly 90% of white men say yes; for women of color, that percentage sinks as low as 50%.
“No matter what industry they work, no matter what company … it’s unbelievably consistent,” said Williams, who is a professor at University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, and founding director of the university’s Center for WorkLife Law.
Structural engineer Rapunzel Amador-Lewis has gotten used to being one of very few women, much less women of color, at her workplaces.
She remembers being told by a well-meaning male mentor at her first job that as a female engineer, she’d have to “run 110 yards to score a touchdown.” After men at work sites called her “honey” and assumed she was there to deal with office matters rather than inspect their work, she started bringing along a male co-worker — and although that cut down on harassment, the men sometimes assumed her co-worker was the engineer, not her. Her confidence in her skills and abilities was misinterpreted as arrogance and documented as such in a performance review.
“I have never had a woman engineer to report directly to,” said Amador-Lewis, who immigrated to the San Francisco Bay Area from the Philippines as a child in 1985. “I’ve had peers, one or two peers every now and then, but I’ve never had a mentor, a female mentor, especially not a woman of color mentor.”
Eventually, Amador-Lewis started her own consulting firm and began working from home to better balance her personal and work lives. It took a lot of effort, but she relished being her own boss, she said. She later went back to corporate staff roles at engineering firms but said she left her last job over negotiations to add more remote days to her schedule and resistance to changes she wanted to make to the corporate culture, dynamics and inclusion in the workplace.
Would she ever go back to in-person work? She doesn’t love the idea.
“If I find enlightenment somewhere,” Amador-Lewis said with a laugh. She is currently taking a sabbatical and embarked on a 107-day cruise around the world with her husband while figuring out her next steps.
Maybe she’d accept a hybrid schedule, she said. After all, remote work allows her to take care of the chronic migraines she’s suffered since 2013 and helps her balance her caregiving responsibilities for her husband, who has had seizures. “I would never 100% do in-office again.”
Barton, the technical project manager, is also adamant about the benefit of remote work. Despite the shrinking pool of remote job opportunities and the possibility for remote positions to come with smaller salaries, he knows what’s most important to him.
“What do you value?” he said. “Do you value your sanctity or do you value the dollar?”
Business
Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case
In a lively Supreme Court argument on Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and toxic mushrooms, the justices tried to find the line between misleading statements and outright lies in the case of a Chicago politician convicted of making false statements to bank regulators.
The case concerned Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who is the grandson of one former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of another, Richard M. Daley. He conceded that he had misled the regulators but said his statements fell short of the outright falsehoods he said were required to make them criminal.
The justices peppered the lawyers with colorful questions that tried to tease out the difference between false and misleading statements.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether a motorist pulled over on suspicion of driving while impaired said something false by stating that he had had one cocktail while omitting that he had also drunk four glasses of wine.
Caroline A. Flynn, a lawyer for the federal government, said that a jury could find the statement to be false because “the officer was asking for a complete account of how much the person had had to drink.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about a child who admitted to eating three cookies when she had consumed 10.
Ms. Flynn said context mattered.
“If the mom had said, ‘Did you eat all the cookies,’ or ‘how many cookies did you eat,’ and the child says, ‘I ate three cookies’ when she ate 10, that’s a false statement,” Ms. Flynn said. “But, if the mom says, ‘Did you eat any cookies,’ and the child says three, that’s not an understatement in response to a specific numerical inquiry.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was false to label toxic mushrooms as “a hundred percent natural.” Ms. Flynn did not give a direct response.
The case before the court, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095, started when Mr. Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings between 2011 and 2014. He used the first, for $110,000, to finance a law firm. He used the next loan, for $20,000, to pay a tax bill. He used the third, for $89,000, to repay a debt to another bank.
He made a single payment on the loans, for $390 in 2012. The bank, which did not press him for further payments, went under in 2017.
When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a loan servicer it had hired sought repayment of the loans plus interest, amounting to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson told them he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a narrow sense but incomplete.
After negotiations, Mr. Thompson in 2018 paid back the principal but not the interest. More than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a law making it a crime to give “any false statement or report” to influence the F.D.I.C.
He was convicted and ordered to repay the interest, amounting to about $50,000. He served four months in prison.
Chris C. Gair, a lawyer for Mr. Thompson, said his client’s statements were accurate in context, an assertion that met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the jury had found the statements were false and that a ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor would require a court to rule that no reasonable juror could have come to that conclusion.
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said that issue was not before the court, which had agreed to decide the legal question of whether the federal law, as a general matter, covered misleading statements. Lower courts, they said, could decide whether Mr. Thompson had been properly convicted.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked for an example of a misleading statement that was not false. Mr. Gair, who was presenting his first Supreme Court argument, responded by talking about himself.
“If I go back and change my website and say ‘40 years of litigation experience’ and then in bold caps say ‘Supreme Court advocate,’” he said, “that would be, after today, a true statement. It would be misleading to anybody who was thinking about whether to hire me.”
Justice Alito said such a statement was, at most, mildly misleading. But Justice Kagan was impressed.
“Well, it is, though, the humblest answer I’ve ever heard from the Supreme Court podium,” she said, to laughter. “So good show on that one.”
Business
SEC probes B. Riley loan to founder, deals with franchise group
B. Riley Financial Inc. received more demands for information from federal regulators about its dealings with now-bankrupt Franchise Group as well as a personal loan for Chairman and co-founder Bryant Riley.
The Los Angeles-based investment firm and Riley each received additional subpoenas in November from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and information about Franchise Group, or FRG, the retail company that was once one of its biggest investments before its collapse last year, according to a long-delayed quarterly filing. The agency also wants to know more about Riley’s pledge of B. Riley shares as collateral for a personal loan, the filing shows.
B. Riley previously received SEC subpoenas in July for information about its dealings with ex-FRG chief executive Brian Kahn, part of a long-running probe that has rocked B. Riley and helped push its shares to their lowest in more than a decade. Bryant Riley, who founded the company in 1997 and built it into one of the biggest U.S. investment firms beyond Wall Street, has been forced to sell assets and raise cash to ease creditors’ concerns.
The firm and Riley “are responding to the subpoenas and are fully cooperating with the SEC,” according to the filing. The company said the subpoenas don’t mean the SEC has determined any violations of law have occurred.
Shares in B. Riley jumped more than 25% in New York trading after the company’s overdue quarterly filing gave investors their first formal look at the firm’s performance in more than half a year. The data included a net loss of more than $435 million for the three months ended June 30. The shares through Monday had plunged more than 80% in the past 12 months, trading for less than $4 each.
B. Riley and Kahn — a longstanding client and friend of Riley’s — teamed up in 2023 to take FRG private in a $2.8-billion deal. The transaction soon came under pressure when Kahn was tagged as an unindicted co-conspirator by authorities in the collapse of an unrelated hedge fund called Prophecy Asset Management, which led to a fraud conviction for one of the fund’s executives.
Kahn has said he didn’t do anything wrong, that he wasn’t aware of any fraud at Prophecy and that he was among those who lost money in the collapse. But federal investigations into his role have spilled over into his dealings with B. Riley and its chairman, who have said internal probes found they “had no involvement with, or knowledge of, any alleged misconduct concerning Mr. Kahn or any of his affiliates.”
FRG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, a move that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses for B. Riley. The collapse made Riley “personally sick,” he said at the time.
One of the biggest financial problems to arise from the FRG deal was a loan that B. Riley made to Kahn for about $200 million, which was secured against FRG shares. With that company’s collapse into bankruptcy in November wiping out equity holders, the value of the remaining collateral for this debt has now dwindled to only about $2 million, the filing shows.
Griffin writes for Bloomberg.
Business
Starbucks Reverses Its Open-Door Policy for Bathroom Use and Lounging
Starbucks will require people visiting its coffee shops to buy something in order to stay or to use its bathrooms, the company announced in a letter sent to store managers on Monday.
The new policy, outlined in a Code of Conduct, will be enacted later this month and applies to the company’s cafes, patios and bathrooms.
“Implementing a Coffeehouse Code of Conduct is something most retailers already have and is a practical step that helps us prioritize our paying customers who want to sit and enjoy our cafes or need to use the restroom during their visit,” Jaci Anderson, a Starbucks spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.
Ms. Anderson said that by outlining expectations for customers the company “can create a better environment for everyone.”
The Code of Conduct will be displayed in every store and prohibit behaviors including discrimination, harassment, smoking and panhandling.
People who violate the rules will be asked to leave the store, and employees may call law enforcement, the policy says.
Before implementation of the new policy begins on Jan. 27, store managers will be given 40 hours to prepare stores and workers, according to the company. There will also be training sessions for staff.
This training time will be used to prepare for other new practices, too, including asking customers if they want their drink to stay or to go and offering unlimited free refills of hot or iced coffee to customers who order a drink to stay.
The changes are part of an attempt by the company to prioritize customers and make the stores more inviting, Sara Trilling, the president of Starbucks North America, said in a letter to store managers.
“We know from customers that access to comfortable seating and a clean, safe environment is critical to the Starbucks experience they love,” she wrote. “We’ve also heard from you, our partners, that there is a need to reset expectations for how our spaces should be used, and who uses them.”
The changes come as the company responds to declining sales, falling stock prices and grumbling from activist investors. In August, the company appointed a new chief executive, Brian Niccol.
Mr. Niccol outlined changes the company needed to make in a video in October. “We will simplify our overly complex menu, fix our pricing architecture and ensure that every customer feels Starbucks is worth it every single time they visit,” he said.
The new purchase requirement reverses a policy Starbucks instituted in 2018 that said people could use its cafes and bathrooms even if they had not bought something.
The earlier policy was introduced a month after two Black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting to meet another man for a business meeting.
Officials said that the men had asked to use the bathroom, but that an employee had refused the request because they had not purchased anything. An employee then called the police, and part of the ensuing encounter was recorded on video and viewed by millions of people online, prompting boycotts and protests.
In 2022, Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chief executive at the time, said that the company was reconsidering the open-bathroom policy.
-
Health1 week ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
Technology6 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
Science4 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
Technology1 week ago
Las Vegas police release ChatGPT logs from the suspect in the Cybertruck explosion
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies’ Review: Thai Oscar Entry Is a Disarmingly Sentimental Tear-Jerker
-
Health1 week ago
Michael J. Fox honored with Presidential Medal of Freedom for Parkinson’s research efforts
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Movie Review: Millennials try to buy-in or opt-out of the “American Meltdown”
-
News1 week ago
Photos: Pacific Palisades Wildfire Engulfs Homes in an L.A. Neighborhood