Political Tensions Seen in the Workplace

According to a new CareerBuilder survey, three in 10 employers and 17% of employees have argued with a co-worker over a particular candidate this election season, most often about presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Management is more likely than employees to argue about candidates, with employers in information technology (47%) taking the lead, followed by those in manufacturing (37%).

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Overall, 19% of employers have argued with a co-worker over Donald Trump versus 17% over Hillary Clinton. While both male and female employers say they have debated with a co-worker over Trump most (22% of men, 16% of women), men are nearly twice as likely as women to say they’ve argued with a co-worker over Clinton (21% vs. 11%, respectively).

Among employees, 13% have argued with a co-worker over Donald Trump, and 8% have argued over Hillary Clinton. Male employees (20%) reported a higher incidence of arguing politics at work than female employees (15%). Comparing age groups, younger workers (ages 18 to 24) are the most likely to report engaging in heated political debates at work, at 24%.

Workers are often urged to remain politically correct, but according to most, their workplaces are censoring them too much. Half of workers (50%) and nearly six in 10 employers (59%) believe the workplace has become too politically correct in America, and one-third of employees are afraid to voice certain opinions because they feel they may not be considered politically correct.

More than half of workers describe their workplace (55%) or management (59%) as politically correct.

And although more than one-fifth of workers (22%) say political correctness has made their business stronger, more than one-third (34%) say it has hindered business, making people tiptoe around issues and afraid to speak their minds instead of addressing the issues head on.

The nationwide survey was conducted online within the U.S. by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder among 1,902 managers ages 18 and older (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government) and 3,244 employees ages 18 and older (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government) between May 11 and June 7, 2016.

Participants in Bankrupt Company’s ESOP Can’t Offload Shares

A federal district court found that, although the confirmed reorganization plan for the company was ambiguous as to whether ESOP participants could sell shares, a bankruptcy court was correct in determining they can’t.

Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that participants in the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) of bankrupt Conco, Inc. cannot sell their shares until January 1, 2019.

After filing for bankruptcy, Conco came up with a reorganization plan that was confirmed by the bankruptcy court which stated in part: “On the Effective Date, holders of equity securities in the Debtor shall retain their interests as in existence immediately prior to the Effective Date. Between Confirmation and the Effective Date, the ESOP shall be amended to provide that the Debtor may not contribute money or any other property to the ESOP, nor repurchase any employee-owned equity securities through December 31, 2018, to the extent allowed by applicable law.”

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Several times during and after bankruptcy proceedings, Conco’s competitor, Delfasco, attempted to purchase Conco, but its attempts were rejected. The ESOP participants filed an action in the bankruptcy court saying the confirmed reorganization plan only prohibited Conco from repurchasing ESOP securities, but did not prohibit a third-party from doing so.

McKinley noted that the confirmed plan does not appear to address explicitly the issue of whether the ESOP-owned equity Interests in Conco may be sold or otherwise transferred before January 1, 2019, to a party other than the Conco. But he agreed that the bankruptcy court, under Kentucky law, appropriately considered the circumstances surrounding the reorganization plan, as well as the subject matter of the plan, the objects to be accomplished, and the conduct of the parties, in addition to the plan’s language, when finding all considerations evidenced an intent for the equity Interests not to be sold until after December 31, 2018.

“Since the Confirmed Plan is either ambiguous or silent as to this issue, the Bankruptcy Court was reasonable in its reliance on the evidence expressly or impliedly relied upon in its opinion, and the Court gives significant deference to the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, Appellants have not met ‘the extremely difficult burden of demonstrating on appeal that the bankruptcy court incorrectly interpreted its own prior language or intent,’” McKinley wrote in his opinion.

The court’s opinion is here.

«