 |
|
|
|||||
The feeling of languishing is likely relatable for many workerseven if they dont quite have that exact language for it. And new research shows its not many workers who feel this way. Its most. What gets a little confused in people’s minds is that they assume languishing is almost like distress and mental illness, says Oscar Ybarra, business professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. But it’s more like: I’m just kind of stuck. I’m not really engaged. I don’t know where I’m going. Ybarra wanted to capture the malaise that employees often experience in the workplace, which doesnt always rise to the level of mental illness. When he first polled workers in 2024, Ybarra learned that a majority of them identified as languishing at work, rather than flourishing. In a new survey conducted in partnership with YouGov, workers seem to be doing even worse: About 61% of the 2,000 respondents said they were languishing, compared to 57% the year prior. Nearly 18% of them claimed to be languishing severely. The study found that there is little variation along demographic lines, and the experience of languishing tends to be correlated with high rates of burnout. I feel very conflicted about that, Ybarra says of the uptick in languishing. As a researcher, you always want some consistencybut that consistency suggests there’s a lot of people who are just not doing super well at work. Beyond just documenting the phenomenon of languishing at work, Ybarra hopes to offer some potential relief for organizations and employees. The spectrum of languishing to flourishing is a useful framing because it broadens how psychologists tend to think of well being, according to Ybarra. Especially when you apply it to the work settingwhich is something that hasn’t been doneit really provides a lot of targets for potential intervention, he adds. There are certain common elements across workplaces with flourishing employees: Many of them report a high degree of autonomy alongside strong support from colleagues and managers. The study characterizes this as an “empowered squad, and found that 68% of employees in those workplaces were flourishing; a muted squad in which employees have high levels of support, but less autonomy, yielded a lower rate of flourishing employees at 42%. (Ybarra points out, however, that there is such a thing as too much autonomysomeone who works entirely remotely and very independently might actually feel isolated.) On the whole, the surveys findings indicate that work environment seems to inform an employees experience more than demographic background. Companies that boast a strong sense of ethics and hold people accountable for their behavior also had a higher share of flourishing employees. But there are steps individual employees can take to thrive more at work, even if their workplace lacks structural support. Flourishing workers rely on a number of strategies for emotional regulation, which Ybarra describes as the three Rs: reframe, reach out, and reset. Reframing is a common technique in psychotherapy, in which you might try to find the positive in a difficult situation or remind yourself that it wont last. Reaching out can involve connecting with family or friends or even consulting your colleaguesthough Ybarra notes that seeking this kind of support is not the same as venting frustrations, which is a little less healthy. Resetting really depends on what works best for you, whether thats physical exercise or meditation, or something else altogether. What previous research has shown is that the more of these [strategies] you have in your toolkit, the better, Ybarra says. It gives you more things to choose from. As workers are up against a tough job market and growing pressure from their employers to adopt AInot to mention the political unrest in our midstany strategies to protect their peace may come in handy. The conditions can be so overwhelming that you could have the perfect toolkit in your head for thinking differently about things, but its just working against too much, Ybarra says. There will always be stress and difficulties at workbut when we have those supports in place, individuals may be better able to use [them] to some good effect.
Category:
E-Commerce
What many applicants may not realize is that, nowadays, the first hurdle in applying for a job is dealing with AI. Candidates now often must clear an artificial intelligence system that screens their résumés that quietly determines who advances, and whose application is filed away in a drawer or spam folder, never to see the light of day. Now, a new lawsuit filed on Tuesday is the first in the U.S. to accuse an AI hiring company of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Eightfold AI, a venture capital-backed artificial intelligence hiring platform, is being sued by two workers in California for allegedly compiling reports used to screen job applicants without their knowledge, consent, or any opportunity to correct errors. Ive applied to hundreds of jobs, but it feels like an unseen force is stopping me from being fairly considered, said Erin Kistler, one of the plaintiffs, in a press release. Both plaintiffs applied to roles at several companies that use Eightfold AI, including PayPal and Microsoft, according to the complaint. Out of the thousands of jobs she has sought in the past year, only 0.3% of her applications have progressed to a follow-up or interview, Kistler told the New York Times. Its disheartening, and I know Im not alone in feeling this way. Eightfold AIs algorithm trawls career sites, job boards, and résumé databases to create a data set of 1 million job titles, 1 million skills, and the profiles of more than 1 billion people working in every job, profession, industry, and geography, according to their websitemuch of it inaccurate, incomplete, or drawn from unknown third-party sources, the complaint alleges. Using an AI model trained on that data, plaintiffs say, Eightfold AI scores job applications on a scale of one to five, based on their skills, experience, and the hiring managers goals. These AI-generated evaluations function as consumer reports under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California law, the lawsuit alleges. Unlike credit reports (a type of consumer report which the FCRA regulates to ensure accuracy and fairness), applicants are given no feedback on their scores or how the rating was generated, rarely aware that an algorithm evaluated them at all. If the tool is making mistakes, candidates have no ability to correct them. This creates a black box situation where we can see what goes into an AI system, and what comes out. But the reasoning in between remains hidden or incomprehensible to humans or the employers relying on the scoring when considering potential hires. This opacity is troubling at a time when more companies are relying on AI for hiring and candidate screening. A spokesperson for Eightfold AI told Fast Company that this characterization about our products is factually incorrect. Eightfold offers technology that enterprises use to manage their talent processes and engage with candidates. Eightfold does not lurk or scrape personal web history, social media or the like to build secret dossiers. Eightfolds platform operates on data that is submitted by candidates to our customers or provided by our customers. They continued: We use information such as skills, experience and education that applicants choose to submit to our customers and data authorized by our customers under contract. They also pointed to their blueprint to learn more about their specific data practices. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, are not demanding the elimination of AI from hiring. Instead, they are asking for AI companies to be held to the same standards as others. Just because this company is using some fancy-sounding AI technology and is backed by venture capital doesnt put it above the law, David Seligman, Executive Director of Towards Justice, said in the press release. This isnt the wild west. Still, as AI becomes more pervasive in hiring, legal conflicts like this may just become more and more common.
Category:
E-Commerce
If youve received any text messages from California-based healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente, you could be eligible for cash under the terms of a new settlement. The Kaiser Foundation Health Plan agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle a class action suit filed in August 2025. That suit alleged that the healthcare company sent marketing texts to people who had already replied stop to opt out of receiving them. That practice could run afoul of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a law protecting consumers from aggressive telemarketing and robocalls, and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Jonathan Fried, the plaintiff who brought the suit, lived in the Miami, Florida area at the time. Anyone who opted out of marketing texts but received more than one message from Kaiser within a 12-month period between January 21, 2021 and August 20, 2025 is eligible to be part of the settlement class. The settlements final approval hearing was held this week, on January 28. Anyone who meets the criteria and files a valid claim can receive $75 for each marketing text Kaiser sent after it acknowledged their request to opt out. If thats you, you can submit a claim form online or through the mail by February 12, the filing deadline. While this one is pretty cut and dry, its not the only settlement Kaiser Permanente has been involved in lately. In mid-January Kaiser agreed to pay out $46 million to settle allegations that its website and app included tracking code that shared patient health and personal data with third parties. Earlier this month, Kaiser also agreed to pay $556 million in a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice over allegations that it fraudulently billed the government for conditions that patients didnt have. Kaiser provides health insurance and care for 12.6 million people across the country. More than half of our nations Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, and the government expects those who participate in the program to provide truthful and accurate information, Justice Departments Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said of the settlement. The Justice Department accused the health provider of bringing in around $1 billion between 2009 and 2018 by adding on diagnoses to Medicare Advantage patients charts. In a press release issued earlier this month, Kaiser emphasized that the settlement does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing or liability and was chosen to avoid a longer litigation process. Multiple major health plans have faced similar government scrutiny over Medicare Advantage risk adjustment standards and practices, reflecting industrywide challenges in applying these requirements, the healthcare consortium wrote.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||