Posts categorized under ‘Government & Public Affairs’

Fed may regulate employer access to social media sites

November 24th, 2009 by David Weissman, Director of Public Relations-Arizona

The Genetic Information Non discrimination Act (GINA) went into effect on 11/21 and set the stage for federal policy on the use of social networking sites like Facebook, Linked-in and MySpace in employment decisions. Among other things, GINA prohibits employers from deliberately acquiring genetic information relating to their employees and applicants.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is charged with issuing the implementing regulations that will provide teeth to the GINA Act. While the Act became effective on 11/21, the regulations remain under consideration and could be issued any day. The EEOC has solicited comments on whether an employer violates the Act by viewing an employee’s or applicant’s personal website or social networking site. Some commentators are looking for a bright line rule removing the possibility that employers could stumble across prohibited genetic information like a history of Cancer. The comments are lining up about 50:50 in favor of and against employers being able to view sites like Facebook, MySpace and Linked-in to gather information about employees.

On the employer side, the Small Business Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others, are saying that publically available information contained in social networking sites should be available to employers without running afoul of the law.

Other commentators, including the ACLU and FDIC, advocate that access and use of this information on these sites should be prohibited.

The time for comments has closed and the EEOC is expected to vote any day on the implementation regulations consistent with the 11/21 effective date of the GINA Act. There are a number of possibilities:

• The EEOC could effectively prohibit employers from viewing social networking sites because an employer would not be able to filter the information viewed on a social networking site to ensure the employer only accesses permissible material.
• The EEOC could condone the practice provided the employer does not use the information to make otherwise unlawful employment decisions, such as refusing to hire a candidate on the basis of his or her race.
• The EEOC could add “intent” requirements which would further define when the law has been broken depending on how the information acquired by employers is utilized.

What’s significant here is that this is the first time a federal body, the EEOC, will take a position about employers using social networking sites in employment decisions. So, for employers out there who like to check Facebook, Linked-in and MySpace to read musings or other posts by current or prospective employees to see if there are any red flags, that tool could be eliminated by the EEOC.

If the EEOC does restrict employers’ use of social media in employment decisions, failure to comply with GINA would be enforced by the employee filing a complaint with the EEOC. This is a necessary pre-cursor to the filing of a lawsuit that could result in compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief including back pay or reinstatement in the case of a termination.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Government & Public Affairs, Social Media | 1 comment so far ›

Spreading truth on H1N1 can be a strain

October 21st, 2009 by Randy Snow, EVP/Creative Director & Principal

A couple of weeks ago, I had the following conversation with my youngest son:

Me: Are you going to get the H1N1 vaccine?

Son: No.

Me: Why not? You’re in the high-risk group (he’s 24).

Son: The government rushed the vaccine out too fast. I don’t trust it. I’ll take my chances with the disease.

Me: Oh. OK.

I also had a talk with his older brother, also in the high-risk group. It went about the same way. Then I see a story in our local newspaper about health care workers being the first to receive the vaccine here in Las Vegas and that many of them are resisting. And I’m thinking, “If professional health care workers don’t want to take this vaccine, what does that say about it?”

The screenwriter William Goldman once famously said about executives in the Hollywood film industry, “Nobody knows anything.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the place we’ve arrived as a country regarding the new flu.

“Do I get one shot, or two?” “Is the nasal spray as effective?” “Do I also get the regular flu shot?” “How sick can I get?” “Supposedly, it’s about the same as regular flu; no big deal.” “I read that older people might be immune already. Really?”

And on and on it goes. Many questions. Many rumors. Much speculation. Not a lot of answers. Not a lot of official communication. Of course, if one makes a huge effort to find information, there’s plenty of it out there.

Our Human Resources director sends out a new missive
almost weekly on measures to prevent infection, differentiating H1N1 from regular flu and so on. It’s good information and I’m paying attention. But then I turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, or look around the Web myself and confusion continues to reign supreme.

In our world of mass communication, we try to focus on the One Thing. It’s the unifying idea or position that we want our audience to take away from the communication. Unfortunately, our country’s public health communicators don’t seem to have settled on One Thing regarding H1N1. Instead, there seem to be many things out there. It’s as if this strain of the flu caught them by surprise, and the anarchy of public discussion (and hysteria) has overtaken an orderly official communication. I’m not really sure why. H1N1 didn’t sneak up on us.

I do know that efforts are being made. There is a public campaign in development right now in Nevada. Yet, we also just received an RFP from the state of California to bid on a contract for an H1N1 campaign in our country’s largest state, population-wise. They’re just now sending out the RFP? By the time the bureaucrats in Sacramento actually choose a marketing firm, the campaign will have been presented, revised, revised again, revised a third time, funded and launched, and the History Channel will be airing its first retrospective on the H1N1 Pandemic of ’09.

The irony is, a few years ago we were involved in a number of presentations for campaigns regarding an outbreak of Bird Flu, just in case we had one. We worked on ideas for a federal campaign and one for the Arizona Department of Health Services. Thankfully, those campaigns weren’t needed. But the thinking was done well in advance.

What happened this time? Did we take our eye off the ball? Were we so obsessed with a presidential election and a near breakdown of our economic system that it just didn’t occupy our minds? Are our public health budgets – federally and locally – so strained that there were no resources available to create and run a smart, unified, calm campaign that gave people answers and helped squelch rumors?

I have nothing but respect for the people who work in public health. Lord knows, they have enough on their plates without worrying about advertising, public relations and other campaigns to keep the panic level down regarding the flu. They are doctors and scientists, up to their necks doing the things doctors and scientists do. Thankfully.

But knowledge, and facts, can be a powerful and effective medicine as well. The public can be a very strong ally in preventing needless panic and paranoia if they know the facts. Separating the truth from the rumors can be as effective as separating the sick from the healthy.

Truth is good medicine.

Tags:
Posted in Advertising, Government & Public Affairs | 8 comments so far »

Unhealthy messaging?

October 14th, 2009 by Randy Snow, EVP/Creative Director & Principal

If you think the people and the companies selling you toothpaste, light beer or imported cars are the only ones using slogans, tag lines or catch phrases to burn their brand into your mind and direct your behavior – you haven’t been paying attention to the rising cacophony in the debate over health care reform. The players in this game have used slogans and quick, easily understood phrases to great effect in bringing people to their way of thinking.

I’m not talking about the actual ads you’ve seen from the insurance lobby, the medical lobby, the senior citizens lobby, the trial lawyers lobby and just about any other lobby with a stake in the outcome. That’s advertising, pure and simple. It has polish (well, some of it does) and it comes from a clearly defined point of view. It isn’t fooling any of us.

I’m talking about the true soldiers in this battle – the politicians themselves and, to a lesser extent, the pundits and commentators. Health care reform is an incredibly important issue that also happens to be incredibly complex. So, the big guns on both sides of the issue recognized very early in the game the importance of simplification. The result has been the creation of a sort of rhetorical shorthand wherein both proponents and detractors leave intelligent discussion behind in favor of blatant sloganeering.

Opponents of the Administration’s proposals tell us to fear the specter of “socialized medicine.” That, with the wrong legislation, we will all soon be surrendering to “government control” of our health and health care decisions. We are bombarded with images of “sex clinics” and “death panels” who will send bureaucrats in under cover of darkness to “unplug grandma.”

And don’t think the simplistic slogans are the sole province of conservative Republicans. Democrats make repeated references to wealthier Americans’ “Cadillac plans” and miss almost no opportunity to label the opposition “elitists,” “obstructionists” or the ever-popular “Party of No.”

Call me crazy, but I think that we, the American public, for the most part, can sort out the facts and come to some pretty decent conclusions on our own. Yes, the issue is complicated. But there are legitimate arguments on both sides of virtually every aspect of the debate. Sadly, most of us aren’t hearing them. Instead, we get message points, slogans, stereotypes and broad generalizations. I suspect because the people who are throwing those words at us don’t think we’re smart enough to handle anything more complex. Or maybe they fear that if we’re not fed a daily dose of negative labeling, we’ll actually see that the other side has a point – or at least an argument that should be considered.

Don’t get me wrong. We do this mass communications thing for a living. Simple, direct, easily understood messages are the most potent weapon in our arsenal. Our clients depend on us to develop the right slogans, tag lines and phrases to position their brands. It’s what we do, and I make no apologies for it. But our most effective messages are also rooted in two things – truth and relevance, flavored with a heavy respect for the intelligence of our audience.

If only the people who will ultimately determine the future of health care for generations of Americans would consider approaching their communications in the same way. We could take it. We’d understand it. And I believe we’d all be better off for it.

Posted in Advertising, Government & Public Affairs | No comments yet ›