WIRTW #729: the 'mobile' edition

As cell phones have become ubiquitous among teenagers, their impact on student life is undeniable—and not always positive. Numerous studies have highlighted the risks and dangers of cell phone use by high school students:

📲 Mental Health: Research shows that excessive cell phone use is linked to increased anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances among teens. A study by Common Sense Media found that 50% of teens feel addicted to their phones.

📲 Academic Performance: Studies have found that schools that ban mobile phones see an increase in student test scores, with low-achieving students benefiting the most.

📲 Cyberbullying: According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, 59% of U.S. teens have experienced cyberbullying, much of which occurs via mobile devices.

Given these concerns, it's no surprise that lawmakers are taking action. At least 14 states have enacted laws or regulations restricting cell phone use in schools. These regulations vary from complete bans during school hours to limiting use during specific times like class or exams.

Even though the evidence suggests that curbing cell phone use could lead to safer, healthier, and more academically focused environments for our students, I oppose outright cell phone bans in schools. These bans are a lazy solution to a complex issue.

While I believe that cell phones don't belong in the classroom, I also believe policies that outright bans phones do these kids a grave disservice. These devices are not going anywhere. Once our kids graduate from high school, they will enter college or the workplace with no guardrails on their tech access at all. Instead of taking phones away, we should be giving them the necessary tools to manage their use later in life. Regulate and limit during school hours, instruct on appropriate use, and discipline those kids who break the rules.

Schools should be educating our children on the responsible management of technology. Instead, these prohibitions abdicate that responsibility, kicking the can down the road for universities and employers to handle.

What are your thoughts on cell phone bans in high schools? Is it a step in the right direction, or are there better ways to manage the impact of technology on our youth? Head over to LinkedIn and answer my poll question to weigh in on this important issue.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

The 8th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2024 is … the dirty dog

If you name your business "Bark If You're Dirty," maybe you get the sexual harassment lawsuit you deserve.

The pet store just agreed to pay $340,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit that the agency brought on behalf of class of female employees.

The allegations of repeated sexual harassment are for the dogs.

Meteorologist fired for 'sharing recovery journey publicly' raises issues of disability discrimination

"Thank you for going on this journey with me despite the yucky medical stuff I have going on. I'm happy to announce I am 9 months sober!"

That's what local television meteorologist and personality Hollie Strano wrote on her personal Instagram last month. Eleven days later, her employer, WKYC/Tegna, fired her. (The "yucky medical stuff" she referred to is ovarian cancer.)

"I believe the actions of WKYC and Tegna demonstrate the stigma surrounding addiction that so many in our community experience every day," Strano shared after her termination.

I believe this goes beyond stigma; it looks like disability discrimination.

WIRTW #728: the 'season 3' edition

This week marks a first in the three-year history of The Norah and Dad Show — the podcast I co-host alongside my 18-year-old daughter. It's the first episode we recorded in which we both weren't under the same roof.

I was in the study in our home, and Norah was in a study lounge in her college dorm. 

What started as a nice way for me to bond with my teenage daughter has now transformed into a recorded discussion of me keeping up with everything going in the life of my collegiate daughter. I am stoked that she wants to continue recording these shows, and we plan on doing so every two weeks.

You can listen to this week's episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Overcast, the web, and everywhere else you get your podcasts. And while you're there, hit the subscribe button to make sure you get new episodes delivered to you when they drop every other Tuesday.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

How many chances does an employee get under a "Last Chance Agreement"?

When is a Last Chance Agreement not a "last chance" agreement? When the 6th Circuit reviews it, apparently.

In Moore v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., the 6th Circuit held that an employee's last chance agreement, signed after the employee tested positive for marijuana, did not bar his subsequent discrimination lawsuit when terminated following yet another positive test.

The LCA stated, in relevant part, "Moore releases and forever discharges the Company … from any and all liability of any kind whatsoever, relating to his employment with the Company, arising prior to the date of this Agreement[.]"

The 80/20/30 Rule is official a zero

The Department of Labor's "80/20/30 Rule" for tipped employees is dead.

That Rule broke down the work of tipped employees into 3 different categories of work:

1. Tip-producing — Work that "provides service to customers for which tipped employees receive tips."

2. Directly supporting — Work "performed in preparation of or to otherwise assist tip-producing customer service work." Think rolling silverware, filling saltshakers, or cutting garnishes.

3. Not part of the tipped occupation — Work that is neither tip-producing nor directly supporting, such as cleaning bathrooms.

This is what allyship looks like

"Please know that there is a more than insignificant chance that a lesbian prepared your food last evening. A gay man might have mixed your drinks. A trans woman may have trained your server to give you such great service. A person who identifies with -- get this -- they/them pronouns may have sat you at your table."

That was just a part of the scathing comment the executive of The Original Vinnie's left on a customer's Google review, which used a gay slur to express his displeasure with the perceived sexual orientation of others in the restaurant during a recent visit.

The FTC's noncompete ban is DOA

It was only a matter of time before a federal court blocked the FTC's noncompete rule, which would have banned virtually all noncompete agreements on a federal level. The odds were high it would be a Texas federal court, and also high that it would be a nationwide injunction.

That's exactly what happened yesterday.

Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a nationwide injunction blocking the rule from taking effect a mere 15 days before its effective date.