Jenny Jang, who moved to the United States from South Korea at the age of six, faced significant challenges navigating her educational and professional environments as a minority. Unable to seek guidance from her parents, Jang turned to mentorship from external sources. Now based in Atlanta and employed at an international elevator company, Jang spearheaded the establishment of business resource groups in North America. These groups, designed to foster diversity and inclusion, provide employees with a platform to connect and share experiences around shared identities or themes. The first group, focused on women employees, attracted 500 members within three years, offering discussions on balancing family and career in a male-dominated industry. Subsequent groups catered to veterans and military families, creating safe spaces for employees to share their experiences. Employee resource groups (ERGs), which originated in corporate America in the 1970s to address racial, gender, and sexual orientation tensions, have since expanded to include other affiliations such as caregiving, mental health, neurodiversity, and generational divides. Critics argue that ERGs may create divisions and provide unfair advantages, prompting some companies to revise their purpose and scope. The future of ERGs faces additional uncertainty due to executive orders aimed at curtailing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Legal guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission emphasizes that ERGs must be open to all employees to avoid unlawful segregation. Proponents highlight the benefits of ERGs, including community building, leadership development, and enhanced employee engagement. Experts recommend starting ERGs by identifying a shared experience, securing senior leadership sponsorship, and demonstrating the group’s impact on employee retention and organizational goals. Despite challenges, ERGs remain vital for underrepresented communities, offering support, connectivity, and advocacy.
标签： North America
北美洲
-
Trump’s reciprocal tariffs will overturn decades of trade policy
President Donald Trump is poised to upend decades of established global trade norms with his anticipated announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2, a date he has dubbed “Liberation Day.” This bold move, aimed at reducing America’s reliance on foreign goods, is expected to create significant disruptions for global businesses and strain relations with both allies and adversaries. Since the 1960s, tariffs have been the product of multilateral negotiations, but Trump’s unilateral approach seeks to redefine this process. Richard Mojica, a trade attorney, warns that this strategy will necessitate widespread adjustments across industries. Trump’s rationale centers on America’s persistent trade deficits, which he attributes to higher tariffs imposed by other countries on U.S. exports. His solution? Raise U.S. tariffs to match those of trading partners. Economists, however, caution that tariffs often burden consumers and may not achieve the desired outcomes. While some, like Christine McDaniel, suggest that reciprocal tariffs could incentivize other nations to lower their tariffs, the broader consensus is that Trump’s approach introduces significant uncertainty into global trade. The White House has yet to clarify key details, such as whether tariffs will be adjusted on a product-by-product basis or averaged across countries. Critics argue that Trump’s grievances overlook the fact that many high foreign tariffs were agreed upon during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations and are not uniquely targeted at the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. economy has outperformed other advanced economies in recent years, raising questions about the urgency of Trump’s trade policies. Beyond tariffs, Trump is also targeting foreign practices like subsidies and value-added taxes (VATs), further complicating the trade landscape. While VATs are applied equally to domestic and imported goods, Trump views them as a trade barrier, a stance most economists dispute. Ultimately, Trump’s tariffs have not significantly narrowed the U.S. trade deficit, which economists attribute to broader macroeconomic factors like low savings rates and high consumer spending. As the global trade environment grows increasingly chaotic, businesses and governments alike are bracing for the ripple effects of Trump’s protectionist agenda.