AirTalk dives into the implications of a new recommendation from a Latino immigrant activist group: don’t talk to cops. We also talk about the possible issues that arise when bosses use humor in the workplace; what is the ‘incel rebellion’ the Toronto van driver who killed 10 people mentioned?; and more.
Latino immigrant activist group pushes new strategy in California: ‘non-cooperation’ with police
An activist group announced the launch of a statewide campaign Tuesday asking Latinos not to collaborate with local law enforcement.
The move is in response to the stance some cities are taking against the state’s sanctuary laws, which legalizes statewide non-cooperation policies between California law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. Hermandad Mexicana’s campaign, spearheaded by long-time activist and the group’s political advisor Nativo Lopez, says police should not expect cooperation in the form of court appearances, witnesses’ testimony or even crime reporting.
The “non-violent, non-cooperation” campaign is not supported by other immigrant rights organizations.
Guests:
Nativo Lopez, an immigrant-rights advocate and senior political advisor for Hermandad Mexicana, a Santa Ana-based non-profit organization defending immigrants’ rights in California; he tweets
Angelica Salas, executive director of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
Why research suggests bosses who make jokes in the workplace could be encouraging subordinates to break the rules
Most would probably agree that working for a boss who has a sense of humor is preferable to working for one who doesn't.
Laughter can be helpful in making the work day pass more quickly, reducing stress and, studies have shown, even have benefits to a company’s bottom line in some cases. But a research paper published in the Academy of Management Journal looks at how boss humor can also be corrosive in the workplace.
Study authors gathered data from employees who work in China and the U.S. and, using a concept called ‘benign violation theory,’ which posits that humor follows situations that violate social norms, so long as the situation isn’t seen as threatening. Subjects were asked to evaluate their relationship with their manager and how their manager uses humor at work, how acceptable norm violations were in their workplace, and their own work behaviors.
What they found was that while it is true that humor can improve employee productivity and relations between managers and their employees, there was also a link between managers’ propensity for making jokes and employees’ willingness to break the rules or engage in practices like chronic absence or ignoring managers’ instructions. The researchers say this is not a call to end joke-telling at work, but a reminder that the impact of humor in the workplace is not always positive and that managers should be mindful about the kind of jokes they tell and the way they tell them.
What do you think about the findings from this research? Have you seen humor have a negative impact in the workplace? How do you use it in your daily work life with regards to relationships with your immediate supervisor and/or colleagues?
Guest:
Jessica Mesmer, professor of management at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Conservative justices lean toward upholding President Trump’s travel ban
President Donald Trump appears likely to win his travel ban case at the Supreme Court.
The case was argued this morning in front of the High Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both signaled support for the travel policy in arguments Wednesday at the high court. The ban's challengers almost certainly need one of those two justices if the court is to strike down the ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most aggressive questioner of Solicitor General Noel Francisco in his defense of the Trump policy, and the three other liberal justices also raised questions about it.
The justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their full consideration. This morning was the first time they took it up in open court.
The Trump administration is asking the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban.
The Supreme Court is considering whether the president can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality. It is also looking at whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States. A decision is expected by late June.
With files from the Associated Press
Guest:
Greg Stohr, Supreme Court reporter at Bloomberg who was at the oral argument this morning; author of “A Black and White Case: How Affirmative Action Survived Its Greatest Legal Challenge” (Bloomberg Press, 2006); he tweets
Toronto van driver cited ‘incel rebellion’ – here’s the 101 on this misogynist online community
According to reports, just a few minutes before driving his van into a Toronto sidewalk, Alex Minassian wrote a Facebook post praising the Isla Vista mass shooter and paying tribute to the “Incel Rebellion.”
This has turned attention to the “incel” or “involuntary celibates” community, an online group of misogynists who condemn women for not having sex with them, and at their most acute, call for violence and rape of women. They call for the demise of “Chads,” men who are successful with women, and “Stacys,” the women who reject men, as well as what they see as a despotic feminist society that causes their ills.
We get an explainer of this online community – where it came from and its ties to the Toronto van driver.
Guests:
Katie Notopoulos, senior editor for BuzzFeed News, where she writes about tech and internet culture; co-host of the Internet Explorer podcast; she tweets
Grace Lisa Scott, culture editor at Inverse, a digital publication that covers tech, science and digital culture; she tweets
Tracking your facial expressions, reading between the lines: AI in the workplace
Artificial intelligence is already being used in courtrooms, children’s toys and, of course, labs… but it turns out it may be used in your workplace it, too.
Human-resource departments are already using AI in myriad of ways. One tool helps management read between the lines of employee surveys, hoping to interpret what the respondent may have actually meant and provide more accurate feedback to bosses. Another system tracks the frequency of interaction between employees to determine which employees have a closer connection than others in hopes of increasing workflow efficiency. Yet another maps facial expressions during video interviews to track when the job candidate may be lying or nervous.
Though AI can help HR departments improve productivity and quickly sift through employee feedback, using it to make decisions in hiring, firing and compensation can present problems. Because algorithms look for patterns, they can unintentionally fall subject to bias. There’s also a privacy issue – in California, companies do not legally have to notify their employees that they are being tracked using artificial intelligence.
Still, AI is only going to become more prevalent in human resources and the workplace as a whole.
How would you feel if you knew your company was using AI to analyze your employee feedback or track your interaction with your co-workers? And if you work in HR, what are your opinions on using AI? Do the workflow benefits outweigh the possible drawbacks?
Call us at 866-893-5722.
Guests:
Imani Moise, reporter at The Wall Street Journal who has been following the story; she tweets
Garry Mathiason, San Francisco-based attorney with the firm Littler Mendelson P.C., where he represents employers; he co-chairs the firm’s Robotics, AI and Automation Industry Group; he tweets