Jump to Navigation

Houston Workplace Blog

The Perfect Margarita

By Carla Cotropia posted in Miscellaneous Thoughts on Wednesday, February 22, 2012

I have few, if any, claims to fame but I must brag that I make a mean margarita. After years of perfecting my craft, I am ready to offer my margarita secrets to the world. I believe a better margarita makes for a better world.

The Margarita---Nectar to the Gods......

drink.JPG

The first margarita rule is to never, I repeat, never go anywhere near a bottle of Rose's Lime Juice. Rose's Lime Juice, even one tiny drop, will ruin a margarita.

The second margarita rule is to never, ever consider using sweet and sour mix. I can barely write those words without a shudder. No Sweet and Sour!!!

A true margarita is very simple. It is one third tequila, one third Cointreau Liqueur and one third lime juice. Sometimes it is 2 oz. tequila, 1 oz. Cointreau Liqueur and 1 oz. lime juice. Either version is for the purist. When I was younger I was very strict about this but now I believe that in order to not pass out after one drink, the formula needs to be tweaked.

There are several ways to tweak the basic formula, but first, let's discuss the tequila. You do not need to have an expensive tequila in your margarita. But with that said, you do not want a rot gut one either. One tequila I use often is Sauza Conmemorativo Anjejo. It is reasonable in cost and is a good quality. Anejo means aged and I like the smoky flavor it adds.

Another key point is the Cointreau Liqueur. Triple Sec is often substituted because it is cheaper. But Triple Sec has a harsh taste and I prefer to not use it. I have found a cheaper alternative to Cointreau and it is Citronage. Both Cointreau and Citronage are orange liqueurs. Citronage is cheaper and I think as good.

Now for the third ingredient, which is the lime juice. This is where we are going to tweak. I have several tweaks. I will start with the most difficult and end with the easiest.

The best, and most time consuming to do, is to add fresh squeezed orange juice with your fresh squeezed lime juice. I find adding fresh orange juice knocks down the acidity of the lime juice. I also like to add a little Agave Nectar or cane sugar if you want the margarita sweeter. I don't make my margaritas with the method of one third tequila, one third Citronage and one third lime juice. I put in more juice than I do the tequila. Here is an example. I am going to use cups rather than ounces. No sense not making extras. Mix one and a half cups tequila, one cup Citronage and three and a half cups fresh squeezed orange juice, a few squeezed limes and a squirt of Agave Nectar.

An easier version is to use a prepared bottle mix, with some fresh squeezed oranges to the mix. My favorite prepared bottle mix is "Stirrings Simple Margarita" (www.stirrings.com). It comes in a jar and can be found at World Market and Rice Grocery. I bet Specs has it too since they have everything associated with alcohol. In this version, you still add fresh squeezed orange juice to cut the tartness a little. Orange juice you squeeze yourself (no I am not Martha Stewart) is best, but you can often find fresh squeezed orange juice at Central Market and Rice Grocery. Please do not use frozen orange juice. That ruins the entire concept. You don't need exact measurements, just taste as you go. If you want it stronger add more "Stirrings Simple Margarita" and orange juice.

If you are pressed for time, you can fall back on a very easy third tweak. Take a can of frozen limeade from your local grocery. Dump the contents in a pitcher. Next, fill the can up with tequila and add it to the pitcher. Throw in a little extra tequila, maybe half a can. Continue with a can of Citronage. Then add a can of water to the mix. Maybe two cans of water if you want to soften the impact. Squeeze a couple of limes in and you have the fastest --not the best-- but passable margarita.

If you have any margarita left- overs, just put them in a container and pop into the freezer. Who knows when you will need a handy margarita.

The Margarita---Nectar to the Gods......

 

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

More Thoughts on Mediation - The Zone of Possibility

posted in Mediation on Thursday, February 16, 2012

I have noticed that when cases don't settle at mediation it is because of one of two reasons.

REASON ONE --- EMOTIONS

One reason is emotions. It is rare, but sometimes the parties come to mediation only because it was mandated by the court. The parties just don't want to settle under any circumstances. However, for the most part one of the two reasons that cases don't settle is because of emotions. These are some examples.

1. The plaintiff is emotionally tied to the case and doesn't want to give it up.

2. The plaintiff wants the case to fix everything that has happened in his/her life and wants the defendant to be humiliated in court.

3. The plaintiff's attorney doesn't want to settle because he/she is pissed at the other side and wants a showdown in the courtroom.

4. The defendant can't stand the thought of giving the plaintiff one dime and is emotional about the case.

5. The defendant doesn't see any way he/she can lose.

6. The defendant has already spent a lot in attorney fees and doesn't want to pay any more money.

7. The defendant's attorney doesn't want to settle for personal or financial reasons.

Whee...there are a lot of reasons a mediation can derail. I think these problems can be overcome. This is what a good mediator does. Our job is to help the parties deal with their emotions. The bigger problem to settlement is the second reason cases don't settle and it is the problem of unrealistic views of the value of the case. This applies to both sides. Believe me, I see unrealistic settlement amounts from both plaintiffs and defendants.

REASON TWO--- UNREALISTIC SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS

Nobody has to settle. All lawyers know this. There is no bigger high than winning a trial and no lower low than losing a trial. Trials are a roller coaster of emotions. Lawyers like this type of adrenaline high, but normal people don't. No one, other than lawyers, really likes to go to trial.

So what happens at mediation? Many times the parties have unrealistic views of what the case should settle for at mediation. Let's take plaintiffs first. The attorney

is the advocate (I like to say warrior) for the client. The attorney is looking at getting the most possible money for their client. In addition, the attorneys have to pay their light bills too. So sometimes the amount wanted at mediation to settle is not going to happen. It is too high. When the number is very high, it doesn't put any pressure on the defendants. If you have defendants that don't want to settle (see Reason 1) they are glad when the plaintiff is too high in his/her demand. They didn't want to settle anyway. When the plaintiff doesn't get in the "zone of possibility" no pressure is placed on the defendants. What is the Zone of Possibility? This is my term for a range of settlement amounts that could be possible. It may be higher than the defendant wants or lower than the plaintiff wants, but it is in a Zone of Possibility. Even if the parties get close to a Zone of Possibility, it still puts pressure on the other side. You want to make the other side nervous if they don't settle. In order to do this you have to be in the Zone of Possibility.

I don't like the phrase that a good mediation is one where both sides leave mad. No way. A good mediation is when we get in a Zone of Possibility and the parties settle. One or both sides end up with a number that they hadn't considered, but all in all, they are happy that the case settled.

Let's look at the problem of unrealistic settlement amounts from the point of view of the defendants. Defendants, you have to put enough money on the table to make the plaintiffs nervous about leaving it there. What I see often is the "why do I have to go first" problem. The plaintiffs are in the stratosphere of high demands (and they know it) and the defendants have offered bread crumbs to settle. Both sides know they are off base but no one wants to go first. The plaintiffs say "why should we come down when they have offered bread crumbs," and the defendants say "why should we put serious money down, when the plaintiffs are on the moon with their demand." No one wants to go first. It's hard for the defendants to offer money when the plaintiffs are very high in their demand, but until we get some money on the table, we aren't going to be able to put pressure on the plaintiffs. Once we approach the Zone of Possibility, settlements can happen.

You have to be patient and work with people's emotions. Treating them with respect is also key. No one wants a lecture about why their case is good or bad. What they do want is help getting to the Zone of Possibility.

I would love to help you get there.

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

Evaluations May Be A Problem

posted in Workplace Issues on Wednesday, February 8, 2012

One of my employment workplace pet peeves are evaluations improperly done. The problem all started with the employee manual. Someone, way back when, put a clause in the manual that stated that evaluations would be performed every year in January. This got copied by other companies and pretty soon this clause was in numerous manuals.

So what is wrong with this, you ask? There are two problems. Let me explain.

Problem One

Many times the Company gets busy and no one remembers to do the evaluations or the evaluations are done sporadically, if at all. For example, an employee gets fired. The employee, in his wrongful discharge case, complains that he was never evaluated. He claims he was discriminated against because of his religion. The Company says it was his performance. The Employee counters that he was never evaluated and the manual said he would be. Failing to perform an evaluation isn't against the law, but juries don't like it if your manual requires it and you don't do them.

Problem Two

The Company performs employee evaluations each year. The supervisor knows employee Sally has performance issues, but since he doesn't want to hurt Sally's feelings, he gives her a good evaluation. He may even check the excellent box. As an arbitrator, I see cases where the Company states the employee had performance problems and the employee points out the excellent evaluations she has received. You can see the problem.

Someone came up with the idea that employees should evaluate themselves and some companies do these types of evaluations. I think this is a crazy idea. What employee is going to admit they have faults? I don't see what the self evaluation does except make more work for the supervisor.

You don't have to do written evaluations. Yes, it is true. If you want to do them, make sure your supervisors are trained on how to do motivating evaluations. Most supervisors have no guidance concerning this. This is why one supervisor may be very critical with his employees and another supervisor, in the same company, may be very lenient. This is a problem. Train your supervisors to give constructive criticism without undermining the employee's spirit. Teach them that a false or overrated positive evaluation creates more problems for the Company. Teach them that it is important to be honest in a kind way, without creating a false impression.

An alternative to evaluations is to give written warnings and write-ups when needed. When the employees do a good job, praise them. Most supervisors forget

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

Smells At Work

By Carla Cotropia posted in Workplace Issues on Wednesday, February 1, 2012

When I do discrimination trainings, I always talk about smells at work. Maybe I have a sensitive nose, but smells at work can be a real distraction. Smells include the stinky ones like body odor but they also include the more subjective obnoxious smells such as perfumes, candles and those room deodorants things that squirt out a liquid smell every few minutes or so. I don't know about you but those so called "nice" smells aren't so nice to me.

Our workplace today is getting smaller and smaller, plus we spend more and more time there. Why wouldn't you want to have that environment as nice as possible for everyone. You may love your pine scented with a touch of orange blossom candle, but everyone else may not. I was once on a plane, strapped in my seat, reviewing my notes on discrimination for a speech I was to give later that day. I noticed my seatmate craning his neck to look at what I was reading and he finally inquired about it. When I told him, he wanted to know if he could ask me a question. When I gave him the go ahead, he said his wife was driving him crazy. Every day she came home complaining about work. The problem was the hand lotion her coworker used. She hated the smell of that hand lotion. He wanted to know if that was discrimination. I told him probably not, but that his wife should have asked the coworker to please not wear apply the lotion and if that didn't work to talk to HR. After that incident, I have always included smells in my trainings. It is the little things at work that bug people. Those little things, (just like a splinter in your finger) get bigger and bigger, become infected and may eventually turn into a lawsuit.

The incident on the plane happened long ago, but now smells can become discrimination. One example is the case, Susan McBride v. City of Detroit. McBride was a senior city planner at the City of Detroit. McBride had multiple chemical sensitivities. All was well for McBride at work until a new coworker began plugging in a room deodorizer and wearing a very strong perfume. McBride asked her coworker to stop with the smells. The coworker unplugged the room deodorizer but refused to stop wearing the strong perfume. McBride became sick and ultimately had to take time off from work. McBride saw a doctor for the issue and missed a lot of work. The City of Detroit took the position that allowing McBride to take FMLA leave was an accommodation under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) (This was before the amendments in 2009). McBride wanted a scent policy at the City but the City refused.

In 2008, the Court found that the failure to work with McBride concerning a scent policy was a failure to accommodate under the ADA. McBride received $100,000 and the City instituted a scent policy that allowed mild scents in moderation but prohibited strong or offensive scents that could be a detriment in the workforce.

It is important for HR to be sensitive (no pun indented) to the issues of smells. I recommend that candles and room deodorizers be prohibited at work. Body odor is a subject that should be discussed by HR with the offending participant in a private setting. This is also true for perfumes. There is no constitutional right to wear a strong perfume in the workplace. The subject should be approached sensitively but still addressed. How many of you have been on an elevator, it stops on the floor and a woman gets on. Suddenly the smell of a very strong perfume overpowers the elevator. Gag, you are trapped. Or better yet, you are at a restaurant enjoying your meal and a woman walks by, now the delicious flavors of your meal are blocked by a strong perfume. This nose peeling smell is left even after the offending woman has exited from the scene. To her it is a scent, to others, it is a smell. I thought perfume was suppose to be something that you smell when you hug someone, not when you walk by.

So much for my smell sermon, but at work it really should be a "no smell" zone.

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

When is Weight an Issue at work?

By Carla Cotropia posted in Workplace Issues on Monday, January 30, 2012

As a society today, weight is starting to effect the workforce more and more. Specifically, what happens when an employee gets so large (obese but "large" sounds better) that they can no longer effectively do their job. Are they really not able to do their job or is management just concerned about their medical issues or risks of injury? The Houston Chronicle reported that the EEOC sued BAE Systems, Inc. alleging disability discrimination because employee, Ronald Kratz, was fired because of his weight. Mr. Kratz weighed 600 lbs when he was fired. The article notes that the employee weighed 300 lbs when he was hired. This fact suggests that weight was not a discriminatory issue if they hired him at 300 lbs. What gives the case some appeal is the way he was fired. According to the article, Mr. Kratz recently received a favorable evaluation. (This reinforces my dislike of evaluations but more on that in another blog). Mr. Kratz was called to the office and fired. The reason, he is told, is that he took too much time to walk across the parking lot. OOPS!! Walking across the parking lot to get to work doesn't sound like an essential function of the job. The article goes on to say that the employee has been unable to find work, creating a hardship on his family.

In order to bring a discrimination lawsuit, you must be in a "protected class". A protected class is either gender, sex, disability, pregnancy, age, or veteran status. Until recently weight was not considered a protected class. However, the amendments to the Americans with Disability Act, make it clear that obesity can be considered a disability. So firing someone because they are "large" can be a big legal no no.

What do you do, as an employer, when you have a "large" employee? Weight issues at work are tricky and it really does pay to consider them carefully. If the job is one of safety, weight can become an essential job requirement. For instance, if the employee works in a job that requires a safety harness, the weight requirements of the safety harness must be met. So if the weight limit of the safety harness is 300 lbs and the employee weighs 400, he can't safely wear the safety harness.

In our example, the Company should try to accommodate the employee by looking for a larger harness. But what happens if no such safety harness exists?. The job requires that the employee wear the safety harness in order to safely perform the essential functions of his job. The employee can't perform the essential functions of his job because of his weight.

The accommodation issue is a tricky one, really a legal mine field. In our example, I can imagine the EEOC saying, "There must be other jobs that the "large" employee can do; another job that does not require wearing a safety harness. Transfer the employee to that job." But maybe there isn't a job that the "large" employee can be transferred to, so now what?

Consider this scenario, the job is in a plant where the employee works as an operator but part of the job is to unload trucks when they come into the plant. Being an operator does not require wearing a safety harness, only unloading the truck requires that the harness be worn. The Company could accommodate the "large" employee by deleting the requirement of unloading the trucks from his job duties. But in this scenario, all the employees dislike the requirement of unloading the trucks. None of the operators want to do that part of the job. What happens if the "large" employee no longer has to perform that hated chore. Do the other employees been begin to resent him because of it? Do the other employees complain among themselves that it "isn't fair". Do some complain that they aren't given any consideration when they have back problems, etc.

What happens if the "large" employee is very popular and is liked by all. Consider what happens if the other employees pitch in to cover for the "large" employee. No one minds picking up the slack for him (the dreaded truck unloading job) because why? They LIKE him.

Now consider what happens when another "large" employee can no longer wear the safety harness safely. This "large" employee is not liked. No one wants to cover for him. There is much resentment when he no longer has to perform the dreaded unloading job. Everyone else, starts to slow down when the trucks roll in. The resentment builds and ultimately production slows to a snail pace. Every step of unloading those trucks makes the operators angrier and angrier. You get the picture.

One of human resources' favorite refrains is to "keep it equal". This is because you are not discriminating against anyone when your policies are applied equally to everyone. The only problem is this is the real world and it is often times very hard to "keep it equal". Parents of several children will tell you the same. It is very hard to treat the kids the same because they aren't the same. But in business, it is very important that you do keep it equal. Once you make an exception for the liked or popular employee, you will have to do it for every other employee, including the bad employee. It opens up a Pandora's box of employment problems.

Back to our question of what to do with the "large" employee at work. In the EEOC case above, the BAE Systems, Inc. would have been much better off if they had talked to the employee privately about his weight issues and offered to provide company sponsored Weight Watchers programs or The Biggest Loser contests. These conversations should be conducted privately with the employee and done in a sensitive way. You don't say, "We are concerned that at your present weight you are a walking heart attack and we can't afford our insurance premiums to go up." If the employee works at his desk, and gets to work on time, the amount of time he takes to walk across the parking lot is not an essential function of his job. In the EEOC case, the "large" employee stated that he offered to work less hours and take a pay cut but the BAE Systems, Inc. just fired him instead. It may be that the employee's work performance had deteriorated. If so, counsel him on that and if he doesn't improve, terminate based on that reason, not the speed in which he walks across the parking lot.

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

The Two Worse Sounds

posted in Miscellaneous Thoughts on Tuesday, January 17, 2012

There are two sounds that I never want to hear. I can avoid one, for the most part, by driving carefully but the other is designed by the phone company to drive me crazy. What am I talking about? These two sounds are 1) the sound that metal makes when your car has hit something and
2) the sound the phone makes when you dial a wrong number.

The Crunching Metal Sound.

I bet most of you have heard this sound before. When the crunch of metal occurs, your stomach does an immediate flip flop. Shit! What have I hit? For me, it ranged from backing into a cement post in the parking garage or hitting the side of my garage when I pulled into my former townhome. (No, I was not drinking. Rather it was a narrow garage and I often misjudged it as I swung the car in). The crunching sound of buckling metal makes me feel terrible. This is because I know that tiny little bit of crumbled metal is going to cost me a minimum of $1000 to fix. It doesn't seem right and especially when it happens so frequently. For me, it would go something like this. I would pull into my alley, turn the wheel to the right and attempt to glide the car into my garage. The only problem was that many times I would clip the front left panel as it made contact with the side of the garage. I fixed the dent at first and then I began to notice a pattern. I always hit the garage in the same spot, the front left side next to the headlight and it happened right as I was pulling in. I finally realized that I shouldn't get it fixed since I would just hit it again.

Another problem with the garage is the garage door. I managed to get the car safely into the garage and was feeling good about that. I put the car in park and hit the garage door button. As I sat in the car, the garage door made a terrible whirling/screeching sound. I asked myself, "Now what in the @@@ is wrong with that stupid garage door opener?" What was wrong was that I had not pulled the car all the way into the garage and the door was trying to come down but was hitting the back of my SUV. Good grief. This incident left an unusual dent in the car that looks like two wavy lines snaking down the back of the car.

I think I am a careful driver. I just have a car (OK several cars) that wants to scrape and touch other objects. I remember, as a teenager running into the house excited about something or other, that it never failed that my Mother would always say, first thing, "What do you run into now? How bad is the car damaged?" As much as I resented that first comment in response to my enthusiasm, I really could not blame her for that response. Learning to drive had presented several challenges for me and the biggest one was running into inanimate objects. One of the worse examples of this happened in front of the St. Mary's Catholic Church in Hearne, Texas. Father Fuchs was the priest and he ran a strict, with lots of rules, parish. After many years, he succeeded in getting a new Church. He was very proud of the new church and convinced the City of Hearne to donate the street in front of the Church. I never understood why he wanted the Church to "own" the street in front of the Church, but he did. Even though the street was now a private street owned by the Church, alas, other town people continue to drive on it. Father Fuchs decided to make it clear that this was a "private" street. The Church sat on a city block. At one end of the street in front of the Church, he constructed a short low brick wall in the middle of the street. Cars could pass on either side of the brick wall but it was a narrow squeeze and it sent a message that there really was no reason for Non Church cars to pass through. This same type of low brick wall was placed in the middle of the street at the other end of the block. Now it was clearly marked that the street was "private."

I guess you may know what happened next. I didn't mean to clip that wall when I was driving by and the memory is too painful to describe in detail for you. I do remember that I was so freaked when I hit the brick wall at one end of the street that I traveled on and demolished the brick wall at the other end too. Now the street was truly private since no one could drive on that block. The street was blocked on either end by a big pile of shattered bricks. I think memory loss in these types of situations is a good thing. I could go on and describe how I hit a guy wire and caused a telephone pole to crash down on my car when I was in law school. But again the memory is painful to recall. It is especially difficult to describe since I was driving my brother's car. It was his car that took the crush from the telephone pole. All I did was hit the guy wire, so obviously the pole was defective, termite infested, and ready to fall down at any moment. I told the telephone company that exact thing when they called wanting payment for their crummy pole.

Enough of horrible metal sounds. My other pet peeve concerning noise involves the phone company. There is simply no excuse for that hideous sound the phone makes when you dial a wrong number. It goes something like this. OHH WEEEEEEE WAHHHHHHHHHHH. It is an obnoxious ear splitting sound. Everyone has gotten an earful of that deafening noise. It's 2012 PHONE COMPANY!!! WAKE UP!!.

PHONE COMPANY, you can't tell me you couldn't come up with a sweet pleasant sound that says, "I am so sorry but you have dialed a wrong number." Instead, we get an ear splitting OHH WEEEEEEE WAHHHHHHHHHHH. PHONE COMPANY, are you trying to punish us for dialing a wrong number? Are you still mad about that telephone pole that crashed. Enough already. Get a different "you got a wrong number" sound. I think the PHONE COMPANY also raises the volume on the wrong number screeching OHH WEEEEEEE WAHHHHHHHHHHH sound. PHONE COMPANY, we are not going to always dial the phone numbers correctly. Stop punishing us......

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

I Am Sick of People's Nasty Voice Tones and Why it is so Damaging at Work and at Home

posted in Workplace Issues on Friday, December 23, 2011

I had the TV on last night (just for the noise company) and caught one of the sitcoms talking about voice tone. A women, I think her name was Whitney, was complaining to her friend that her husband used a nasty tone of voice sometimes when he talked to her. She complained to her friend that she wished that she could secretly record him so he would understand what she was talking about when she complained to him about his voice tone. Whitney commented that her husband always denied he used a snarky voice tone and acted like she was crazy. This rang a bell in my head on many different levels. Of course, I have had the same thoughts myself, so that is why I am sure it caught my attention. In the sitcom, Whitney's friend, suggested that they set up a secret video cam so they could catch his voice on tape. After several moments of discussion concerning whether or not it was legal, Whitney decided to do it. This was as long as I lasted with the show. I will add that I would never recommend secretly taping someone at work, but other than affecting your family relationships, I don't think it is illegal to do so at home.

This show reminded me about a very important topic, which is the nasty VOICE TONE.

Many times your voice tone is more important that what you actually say. I have a friend that can tell people the most pointed, many times, most unflattering things about themselves, and they just laugh. Why? Because of the way he says it and the fact that his voice tone is very friendly even loving. Sometimes I have to laugh because if most people told others what he does, they would be slapped or maybe shot. He gets away with it because of how he speaks. He has a very nice voice tone.

I know someone that has a nasty habit of using a very condescending voice tone. Sometimes what he says literally drips with contempt. It is a voice tone that says "Why are you bothering me with something stupid when you know I am very busy." He doesn't say that but he might as well say it. The message is sent loud and clear. Because it is so nasty, people just cringe, and grow it expect it. No one says anything and the bad behavior continues. At some point the offender no longer even knows that it is happening. A spin off result of this bad behavior is that communication is hampered with this individual. Others will refrain from having frank conversations with him because they don't want to risk getting the dreaded VOICE TONE. Candid information is not shared because why would you risk invoking the dreaded VOICE TONE. Most people can beat themselves up without having someone else, with their nasty VOICE TONE, do so.

There are different type of voice tones. One of the worst is the "put down, I'm better than you", voice tone. But the "dripping with sarcasm" voice tone is another killer. Not so bad is the "smart ass" voice tone, which many times is just being playful. I hate the "I was just kidding why are you getting so upset" voice tone. This is the passive aggressive voice tone. An example of this is a snarky put down comment said in a superior "I was just kidding" voice tone. Writing about these voice tones is enough to get me in a bad mood.

I don't want to forget to mention the "up tight" voice tone. This is said in a tight forced out way. The lips may be somewhat compressed as the words come out. You know the person is one breath away from saying something they shouldn't. Another one is the "placate the crazy woman" voice tone. This goes without further comment or I risk getting in a worse mood thinking about this particular voice tone.

Practice this on your friends. Say something tacky, such as "what is with you" in a sweet voice tone and see if anyone cares. But say it in a "dripping with sarcasm" voice tone. What...is....with.....YOU. Be sure and put a condescending spin to the word "YOU". I rest my voice tone case. And it is said, in a very superior, but nice voice tone.

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

Good Things About Getting Older, Which Included Fireflies

posted in Miscellaneous Thoughts on Friday, December 2, 2011

 I know what you are thinking about the title of this blog. "Yeh right, who are you fooling!" It is common to focus on the aches and pains of growing older, the saggy skin, the wrinkles, those bags under our eyes, the dreaded cellulite. Enough!! I like to think of the good things about growing older. One of the good things is that we have had experiences that are impossible to have in today's world.

For example, I remember when you could leave your house unlocked. You always left the keys in the car, even when it wasn't in the garage. Running into the grocery store was no problem. Just leave the keys in the car, even in the ignition. There was no problem and no risk of theft.

My younger friends have no concept of how free we were. At Halloween, as a teenager, it was fun to go to town and hang out with my friends. The town was Hearne, Texas, population approximately 5000. In those days, we thought nothing of walking the streets at night. It was fun and it was what Halloween was about. While roaming the streets at night, we might consider wrapping someone's house (usually a teacher's) in toilet paper. This was not considered recycling.

We did have a form of Recycling. You got soda pop (yes, that was what it was called) in glass bottles. A kid could make some change by returning those bottles to the grocery store.

We had telephone party lines. The youth today have no concept of the joys of a party line. I grew up in the country. The country is not the same as suburbia. The country had no streets except for a farm to market road. There weren't any subdivisions. It was just cotton fields and cows. If you needed anything, you had to drive to the nearest town, the big metropolis of Hearne.

If you lived in the country, you shared a phone line, also known as a party line. This meant if your neighbor Sam was on the phone talking to someone, you could listen in by simply picking up the phone. Not that I ever did that! You knew when someone on your line got a call, because everyone on the party line would hear the phone ring. Each family had a different ring. Our telephone ring was one long ring followed by a short ring. If the phone rang two long rings, you knew it was a call for neighbor Sara. When you are on a party line, you quickly learn diplomatic skills. Teenagers like to talk on the phone for hours! So it was imperative to have the skill set to prevent your neighbors from going ballistic because you had the phone tied up for hours. Little did I know, I would be using my party line skills in my legal practice.

Food used to be different too. It had not been engineered to allegedly be "better." Food tasted better naturally. You could get a tomato at the grocery store that tasted like a tomato. No more. Tomatoes have been engineered to have a longer shelf life. The only problem is they taste like nothing. Who wants to eat nothing?

Watermelons had very thick rinds and would make a pleasant sound when you cracked them open. Plus, they had lots of big black seeds that were perfect for spitting out on your sister. Today's watermelons have thin rinds, no seeds, and guess what.....no flavor.

Fireflies are another good thing about getting older. We remember them. Sometimes we called them lightning bugs. Fireflies are these cool little bugs that flew at night with their bodies emitting a phosphorus light. Those fireflies were magical. The back ends of those lightning bugs lit up the night with a greenish glow. We miss you fireflies.

Kids today don't get dirty like we did. We made mud pies and ran around all day outside. Our parents weren't worried about kidnapping. They just wanted us out of the house and out of the way. Being stuck outside opened up numerous possibilities to get dirty and explore outdoors.

My young friends don't remember that milk used to be delivered to our door. Now they have to go to the store for that. I will concede that the youth has us beat on the computer. Even kids in strollers are more computer savvy than I am, but they haven't seen fireflies.

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment

L.M. SIXEL'S FIVE WORKPLACE RULES

posted in Workplace Issues on Friday, December 2, 2011

L.M. Sixel, the Houston Chronicle columnist, recently wrote an article about what makes a better workplace. She had five simple rules for creating a better workplace. I think her rules are excellent and I would like to comment on them further.

The basis of Sixel's workplace rules is "respect." It sounds simple, but if respect can be maintained, it makes a big difference in the workplace. I will use a law firm as an example to explain. Names will not be listed to protect the innocent and to not embarrass the guilty.

Some lawyers don't respect their staff. If they are in a time crunch and under pressure, they take it out on their secretary. It is said that people take out their troubles on the ones they love the most. I don't know if lawyers love their secretaries the most, but often times they are the closest ones around. My secretary told me one day she always knew when something was going wrong on one of my cases. When I asked her how she knew I was upset, she replied, "Every time, I hear you saying the same thing, over and over and over. You say, Shit, Shit, Shit, Shit."

Oops. Once this was brought to my attention, so I made an effort to curb my potty mouth. Again, it is all about respect. I know a lawyer that waits until the last minute to give his secretary the work assignment. The discovery requests may be due tomorrow, but he waits until 4:45 the day before to give it to her to type. She gently reminds him several days in advance, but it does not change his bad habit. The attorney is not purposefully trying to be inconsiderate, he just isn't thinking about the matter from his secretary's point of view.

When you consider your secretary as part of your team, and not just "your secretary," you take the first step towards respect. Your team will function better if it is treated with respect. Don't take your frustrations out on your secretary.

Another one of Sixel's workplace rules is to keep your employees informed about where they stand. Again, the bottom line is respect. Wouldn't you want to know how you are doing rather than having to guess or hope everything is OK? When you don't keep your employees informed about their performance, it creates a secretary on edge. She or he comes to work not knowing if they are doing a good job or not. Their nervousness translates many times into negative performance. A nervous employee is not operating to their highest level. The nervousness takes away from their performance.

Another bad habit I have noticed in the practice of law is not complimenting your staff when they perform well. I once knew a legal assistant that had recently helped her attorney with a huge case that had numerous documents. I mentioned to her that she must be glad the case was over and what a good job she must have done since they won the case. To my surprise, the legal assistant teared up and commented that her boss never once told her she did a good job. That surprised me at the time, but it doesn't surprise me now. I see this happen often. The boss is quick to point out what is wrong, but never says anything when matters are done well. I assured this legal assistant that her boss thought the world of her and would be lost without her. I told

her that he was very complimentary about her. For some reason he told everyone else how great she was, he just forgot to mention it to her. So remember, Sixel's rule to be kind. Again, it is all a matter of respect.

Sixel's third rule is to encourage innovation. I like to put this rule in effect in my office. For example, I want my secretary to know that she is the expert in her field, not me. I don't care how she gets to the finish line as long as we get to the finish line. I want the document prepared with no errors and in the correct format. I don't need to tell her how to do it. If you give your employees the confidence to know that they are the experts in their job, they are free to come up with new ideas on how to make things better. This brings up a pet peeve many secretaries have with their boss. Don't stand behind them looking over their shoulder as they type. Many times the type A attorney will be so anxious, they will stand behind their secretary and peer over her shoulder to see what she is typing or how fast she is typing. Don't do this.....You wouldn't want someone peering over your shoulder when you are on your computer.

Sixel's fourth rule is to make sure your front-line supervisors are trained. This is a key point. You may be the nicest boss in the world, but if your mid-level supervisors are being a jerk, you have a toxic workplace. I see a lot of employment disputes when I mediate employment cases. Many times when companies need to settle lawsuits, it is because of a rogue supervisor. The corporate officers and owners of the company are great people, but they had an out of control hateful mid line supervisor.

Unfortunately, human nature sometimes causes people with power to let it go to their head. A supervisor should be humble and understand that it is only with respect that true leaders excel. Supervisors can motive the employees in a positive way or they can undermine productivity with their hateful managerial style. Owners of companies should always keep their eyes and ears open. The old adage of "where there is smoke, there is fire" is very true in the workplace. If employees are leaving or complaining about their supervisor, wake up and listen. Good supervisors can be tough, but they should be fair. Bad supervisors tell the employees that they have full backing of management, so the employee better do what they say. They let power go to their head. This creates one of the worst workplace environments and is sure to create a lawsuit.

Sixel's fifth rule is to remember that employees have lives outside of the office. Letting employees have the occasional time off to leave early or come in late can be one of the best presents you can give your employees. Remember it is team effort. You cut them some slack, they will give you back in spades loyalty and support.

So, when you boil this down, you are left with one word, respect. Respect your staff and they will respect you. Thanks Ms. Sixel for pointing out these important employment workplace rules.

Tags: Workplace issues

Comments: Leave a comment

A Mediator's Thoughts on Mediation

posted in Mediation on Wednesday, November 2, 2011

One day in 1999, I got a letter from former Judge Samuel B. Kent, appointing me as a mediator to a case in his court. Shortly after my appointment, the Fifth Circuit slapped Judge Kent's hand (the big spank would come later) and told him he couldn't mandate who would be the mediator on cases filed in his court. So much for Kent appointed mediations, but I was hooked on the process of mediating and wanted to learn more. First stop - Mediation School.

Mediation School teaches mediators that they should not dictate the end result and that the process evolves on its own. You are not to offer advice and whichever way the mediation wind blows, is where the settlement ends.

Unfortunately for the Mediator School, most attorneys do not want this type of mediation. They call this type of mediator a glorified message carrier.

Lawyers tell me that they hate it when a mediator tells them catch phrases like:

1. A good mediation is one where all sides leave mad;

2. Your case is terrible. Your client is no good. Your case is a loser;

3. You might as well pay the other side because the jury is going to hate your client.

Mediators hate it when they hear statements such as:

1. We are here because the Court ordered us to come, but we are not paying one dime;

2. Money is not enough. The other side needs to admit they are horrible and I want you to cut off their right arm;

3. I don't want an opening session. Also, I want you to make sure we don't run into the opposite side on the way to the bathroom.

Ok, I am exaggerating a little, but you get the point. In order to have a successful mediation, the mediator must be able to obtain rapport with the parties. The first step to gaining rapport is respect. Mediators must treat the parties with respect. The next step is getting the emotions out of the way. This is crucial, and is the part that makes or breaks the mediation. When emotions are high, good decisions come to a halt. As a highly emotional person, (thank you Grandma Cotropia), I know what it takes to combat emotions. Luckily this character flaw serves a good purpose when I mediate.

What should attorneys do to make their mediations more productive and successful? If you have certain issues, such as a difficult client, let the mediator know in advance. Even though it may be obvious, a quick heads up is helpful.

Another helpful hint is this: Don't make an opening statement that attacks the opposite side. Your client may enjoy it, but it doesn't help get your case settled. All an attack does is galvanize the other side and hastens the demise of any settlement. Don't bring your trial game face to mediation!

Ditto for PowerPoints. Again, I have never seen a PowerPoint used successfully at mediation. Behind the scenes, the party without a PowerPoint is rolling their eyes at the side with the PowerPoint. PowerPoints are trial based and you are not in trial. Your goal at mediation is not to piss off (legal term) the other side. My goal is to get the emotions out of the room and see if there is a way for the parties to settle. Don't smother that goal by raising your sword and hollering a battle cry.

Don't skip the opening. Many lawyers want to skip the opening. This is a mistake. I insist on an opening even if it is nothing more than sitting down around the table and greeting the other side. There is just something about looking each other in the eye and acting cordial that helps cases settle. This very human exchange creates an atmosphere conducive for settlement.

There is a new concept in mediation called collaborative law. It is being used primarily in family law cases. In a collaborative mediation, all the parties and their attorneys stay in the same room. They never separate into different rooms. I was like most lawyers when I heard this and I thought, "No way!" But after being trained in collaborative law and in family law mediations, I see a need for it. Why? Because in some cases, the parties have to continue to deal with each other. They cannot go their separate ways after a case is concluded, like they do when someone has a car wreck and a personal injury lawsuit. In some cases, such as siblings fighting over Mom's estate, there are good reasons to stay civil while working out a controversy. Nowhere is this more important than in family law cases where children are involved. Collaborative mediators have methods to honor each side and it doesn't include slipping anti-anxiety pills in the party's Diet Cokes. Rather, each side's issues are discussed in a neutral manner. Each side is told they will have equal time to discuss their issues. The Collaborative Mediator keeps it positive so the parties can have a civil and positive outcome.

Tags: None

Comments: Leave a comment