G2 EZ EE THE WASHINGTON POST.SUNDAY, APRIL 3 , 2022
Editor: Suzanne Goldenberg • Art Director: Cece Pascual • Photo Editor: Haley Hamblin • E-mail: [email protected] • T elephone: 2 02-334-9800 • Mail: The Washington Post, Sunday Business, 1301 K St. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20071 • Advertising: Noelle Wainwright, 202-334-7610, [email protected]BUSINESSDilbert Scott Adams
point: “I find nothing really beats
in-person interactions. I was
excited to see your ad describing
your company as a hands-on,
collaborative environment,
because that’s where I do my best
work.” And if the Great
Realignment works as expected,
others who prefer in-person
work will be gravitating to those
same employers, meaning you’ll
be working among people who
are there by choice, not coercion.their homes or local meeting
spots.
Market your preferences as
an asset. Even in industries
where remote work is gaining
ground, some employers are firm
about retaining the traditional
office-default model, and will be
explicit about expressing that
preference in job listings and
interviews. For employers like
these, your preference for in-
person work could be a sellingFaculty at your school could
probably help you brainstorm
some fields and companies
where that would be the case.
Rethink the concept of “work
site.” Y ou might also consider
whether full-time employment at
central headquarters is your only
option for face-to-face
interaction. Working as a
freelance consultant would give
you the flexibility to meet clients
and colleagues where they are, inReassessment. People aren’t just
quitting jobs; they’re moving to
jobs and employers that suit
them better. And you can, too.
Target the fields that need in-
person workers. Assuming your
project management skills are
broadly transferrable, there are
industries where client demand,
security or other occupational
requirements mean jobs have to
be performed in a central
location or conducted offline.Do I have to resign myself to
this?
Karla: If it seems everyone
wants to be a digital nomad, it’s
probably because the people you
see writing about it most on the
Internet (like, er, me) are people
who are comfortable doing
digital work in a virtual
environment. For them (us), the
prospect of a video meeting is
less soul-shriveling than a
commute that lasts longer than
the meeting we’re traveling for.
But for all the pro-remote-
work discourse out there, the
data indicates that the majority
of jobs are still anchored to an
employer’s worksite. And even in
jobs that can be performed
remotely, many workers have
found that going to the office
works better for them.
Some need a change of
scenery and a defined schedule
to cue their brains to enter work
mode. Some may be new hires
still struggling to establish
themselves. Some might not have
a functional office setup at home.
And let’s not forget, “Zoom
fatigue” is a documented
phenomenon.
The point of this whole debate
isn’t to find the One True Work
Model. It’s to consider and
acknowledge that different
models can be equally effective
for different people, and to find
ways for employers to hear and
accommodate what their
employees say they need. What
we’ve been calling the “Great
Resignation” is actually more of
a Great Realignment or GreatReader: Unlike
almost every
person writing
about this subject
on the Internet
these days, it
seems, I hate
working from
home. This has
nothing to do
with monitoring
my co-workers’
behavior. I’m a project manager,
so my job involves talking to
people all day, and I find video
and phone calls mentally and
emotionally draining.
I recently returned to school,
but before that, I worked at a
company where the default
expectation was that everyone
would come to the office five
days a week. If you needed to
work from home occasionally or
even semi-regularly, it was fine
as long as you communicated
this to your team. We had office
locations on the East and West
coasts, as well as a handful of
remote employees in other cities.
Our teams gathered at one of our
office locations four times per
year, which helped us build
camaraderie without feeling like
we were constantly on the road.
Ideally, I would return to an
environment like this after I
graduate. But how do I find it?
My soul shrivels at the thought of
ending up by myself in an office
building on video calls all day,
but I also don’t relish the idea of
working among colleagues who
have been forced back to the
office against their inclination.
I like working in the office — but not by myself taking video calls all day long
Work
Advice
KARLA L.
MILLER
tion. The group’s interim presi-
dent, Joni Madison, said in a
statement that Disney “took a
regrettable stance by choosing to
stay silent” and needed to work
to get the law off the books.
A day later, on March 9, in a
video from a campaign event
sent to Fox News, DeSantis de-
scribed Disney as “woke” and
said there was “zero” chance he
would not sign the bill.
The governor seemed to enjoy
calling out Disney, said Jewett,
the political science professor.
“I think it’s a wider trend in
conservative circles since Presi-
dent Trump came aboard,” he
said. “It’s, stay in your lane.
Corporations can advocate for
lower taxes and business policy.
But that’s it.”
Now, Disney looked like it was
putting economic concerns
ahead of what it claims are its
values, Jewett said.
The pressure from Disney
workers ramped up. An anony-
mous group of employees
launched WhereisChapek.com
and planned a “Disney Do Better
Walkout.” Two broadcasters on
ESPN — owned by the sprawling
entertainment company — of-
fered a brief silent protest during
an NCAA women’s basketball
game. And dozens of workers in
California staged a walkout. In
Orlando, a single protester stood
outside the theme park’s main
entrance.
In a second memo to Disney
workers, Chapek said Disney was
suspending all political dona-
tions in Florida. He said the
company was increasing support
for advocacy groups to fight
similar legislation in other
states. And Chapek admitted, “I
missed the mark in this case but
am an ally you can count on.”
Disney has continued to an-
nounce its regret for not doing
more to stop the bill.
On Monday, the company is-
sued a statement saying HB 1557
“should never have passed and
should never have been signed
into law” and that Disney will
push for it to be repealed.
Eskamani, the state legislator,
said she was skeptical of corpo-
rate promises. After all, Disney
had the chance weeks ago to
potentially stop this from hap-
pening.
“Once that train departs, it
gets out of your hands,” she said.
The lone protester outside
Walt Disney World in Orlando,
Nicholas Luis Maldonado, 27,
said he was hopeful.
He’d worked for Disney for
four years, first in California and
now in Florida at a retail store.
He said he feels like the Disney
brand is part of him. And he’s
been closely following Disney’s
reaction to the bill.
“The company is listening.
The company is hearing us,”
Maldonado said, noting the sup-
port he’s received from others at
Disney, including his manager.
But he worried what Disney
could do about the law now.
“It’s a little too late.”handling LGBTQ issues.
Six years ago, then-Disney
chief executive Iger was credited
with helping persuade Georgia’s
governor to veto a bill that would
have allowed faith-based groups
to refuse services to LGBTQ peo-
ple on the basis of their religious
beliefs.
In the early 1990s, Walt Disney
World started hosting an annual
Gay Day the first Saturday in
June. Supporters wore red.
Thousands of people showed up.
The Southern Baptist Conven-
tion boycotted Disney for nearly
a decade over Gay Day. Evange-
list Pat Robertson once warned a
meteor would strike Orlando.
Some conservative groups, such
as the Florida Family Associa-
tion, have continued to get upset.
While Disney has never offi-
cially endorsed the event, the
company clearly supports it and
hasn’t buckled to demands from
anti-gay activists, said Sean Grif-
fin, a professor of film and media
arts at Southern Methodist Uni-
versity, who wrote a book about
the ties between Disney and
LGBTQ culture.
Disney is always trying to
appeal to both sides without
angering either one, Griffin said.
“It was a successful strategy for
decades.”
That’s harder to do today.
“Everything is so polarized, so
trying to stay in the middle is
really problematic,” Griffin said.
“This strategy of not taking
sides that has done them well
for decades looks increasingly
like it’s not going to work any-
more.”
At the shareholders meeting,
Chapek also announced that Dis-
ney planned to donate $5 million
to LGBTQ groups including the
Human Rights Campaign.
But the Human Rights Cam-
paign — which gave Disney per-
fect scores in its Corporate
Equality Index this year and in
2021 — rejected Disney’s dona-utive, Bob Chapek, addressed it
publicly for the first time on
March 7 — 11 days after the bill
passed in the House.
He sent a memo to Disney
workers — cast members, as
they’re known — noting that he’d
heard from staff disappointed
that the company had not put out
a public statement condemning
the legislation. Chapek wrote
that “corporate statements do
very little to change outcomes or
minds” and “they are often weap-
onized by one side or the other to
further divide and inflame.”
“I do not want anyone to
mistake a lack of a statement for
a lack of support,” he added.
He also noted that the compa-
ny would be “reassessing” its
political donations.
The bill passed in the Senate
one day later by a vote of 22 to 17.
With the bill on its way to the
governor, Chapek spoke out
again at Disney’s annual share-
holder meeting, saying the com-
pany didn’t take a public position
earlier “because we thought we
could be more effective working
behind the scenes, engaging di-
rectly with lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle.”
Chapek told the meeting that
he’d spoken to DeSantis that
morning “to express our disap-
pointment” and concerns about
the bill. It was the only time the
two spoke about the measure,
according to DeSantis’s deputy
press secretary Bryan Griffin.
“The call did not change the
governor’s position, and in fact
the governor encouraged Mr.
Chapek to read the bill,” Griffin
said in a statement, adding that
“such discussions need to be
based on the text of the bill and
not a fabricated narrative.”
Disney’s failure to derail the
bill — or at least get credit for
strongly opposing it — stood out
because the company has a his-
tory of getting its way in the
Florida l egislature and of adeptlybig corporations including Unit-
edHealth and Comcast donated
hundreds of thousands to the
bill’s supporters.
As the bill sped through the
House, state Rep. Carlos Guiller-
mo Smith (D) tried to slow it
down. He told The Washington
Post he knew it was likely to pass
because Republicans hold clear
majorities in the state House and
Senate.
Smith, a Democrat and one of
three openly LGBTQ state law-
makers, said he suggested the
bill ban classroom discussions of
sexual activity, rather than gen-
der identity and sexual orienta-
tion. That would remove the
spotlight from LGBTQ issues.
His amendment failed.
On Feb. 24, the House passed
the bill 69 to 47.
A couple of days later, Smith
called Disney lobbyist Leticia
Adams, according to two people
familiar with the discussion who
spoke on the condition of ano-
nymity to discuss private com-
munications. He left their talk
with the impression that the
company believed the best odds
for stopping the bill rested in the
state Senate. Disney planned to
work with a state senator to
introduce an amendment similar
to Smith’s.
Smith said he was doubtful at
the time about Disney’s tactics.
“They have some clout in the
legislature,” he later said. “They
should use it.”
As the bill headed toward the
state Senate, pressure was build-
ing on Disney.
The company’s LGBTQIA+
business employee resource
groups wrote to Disney execu-
tives asking them to speak out
against the bill.
Protests popped up in Florida.
“Saturday Night Live” lam-
pooned the bill. Social media
complaints rose.
Disney’s legendary former
head Bob Iger publicly bashed
the legislation, tweeting that it
“will put vulnerable, young LG-
BTQ people in jeopardy.”
In the state Senate, Republi-
can Jeff Brandes was one of the
few allies Disney had on that side
of the aisle. He said he felt the bill
was addressing “a hypothetical
problem.” He was open to Dis-
ney’s plan to amend the bill and
talked to three Disney lobbyists
about what to do.
Brandes said he wanted to cut
the phrases “gender identity”
and “sexual orientation” for
more general terms about sexu-
ality. He talked with officials in
the governor’s office. They
wouldn’t back down, he said.
“They wanted those exact
words and nothing else,” Brandes
said.
The governor’s office did not
respond to a request for com-
ment about the conversation.
Brandes’s final amendment
suggested keeping the original
phrases and adding “sexual ac-
tivity.” No go.
As the bill neared the finish
line, Disney’s current chief exec-Disney executives described the
company’s reactions to the bill
on the condition of anonymity
because they were not author-
ized to speak to the media.
The Parental Rights in Educa-
tion bill was introduced in the
Florida l egislature by GOP law-
makers amid a growing nation-
wide debate about gender identi-
ty and schools.
It bans classroom instruction
on sexual orientation or gender
identity from kindergarten
through third grade “in a manner
that is not age appropriate or
developmentally appropriate for
students in accordance with
state standards.” The bill also
requires parents be told when a
child seeks school counseling.
DeSantis’s press secretary, Chris-
tina Pushaw, derisively called it
“the Anti-Grooming Bill.”
It quickly earned the “don’t say
gay” moniker from critics who
say it is a cruel law that will harm
LGBTQ students and staff. Sup-
porters say it’s about preventing
discussions about certain sexual-
ity topics in primary classrooms.
As the bill faced its first vote in
Florida’s House, Disney hadn’t
publicly addressed the bill.
And its lobbyists didn’t talk to
House lawmakers about the
measure, according to state lob-
bying records. Instead, Disney
lobbyists approached House
members on a plan to stop hotels
from renting rooms by the hour
and consumer data privacy regu-
lations, among other bills during
the legislative session, records
show.
Records show Disney also lob-
bied against a House bill that
touched on another culture war
issue: the “Stop WOKE Act.”
Depending on the view, that
bill is an anti-critical race theory
measure targeting corporate di-
versity training or a bill designed
to prevent people from feeling
discomfort over discussions of
systemic racism or racial dis-
crimination. The Republican
sponsor of the bill cited a Disney
diversity program called “Re-
imagine Tomorrow,” according to
the Orlando Sentinel.
But Disney did not lobby on
HB 1557 — the “ don’t say gay” bill,
according to disclosure records.
“My gut reaction was this was
not a priority for them,” Eska-
mani said.
However, Disney did speak
with the governor’s office about
the bill during that time and
planned to focus its lobbying
efforts on the state Senate, ac-
cording to a company executive.
Disney is a major donor in
Florida politics, contributing
$4.8 million to lawmakers in the
2020 campaign cycle, according
to campaign finance records.
Nearly 80 percent of that went to
Republicans — and the Orlando
Sentinel pointed out that Disney
had given money to every spon-
sor and co-sponsor of the bill.
The online newsletter Popular
Information noted that several
DISNEY FROM G1
Disney in damage control over Florida’s new LGBTQ law
PHELAN M. EBENHACK/ASSOCIATED PRESS FOR AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION“Everything is so
polarized, so trying to
stay in the middle is
really problematic.
This strategy of not
taking sides that has
done [Disney] well
for decades looks
increasingly like it’s
not going to work
anymore.”
Sean Griffin, who wrote a book
about the ties between
Disney and LGBTQ cultureAdvocates march at a rally at
Walt Disney Co. in Orlando on
March 3. The protesters were
urging Disney to speak out
against Florida’s bill restricting
LGBTQ discussions in primary
school classrooms.