Why Eating Better Starts With Changing Our Work Habits

What would you say are the defining characteristics of the American eater?

If you look at our obesity rates, they'd suggest we’re mostly overeaters. But beyond that, the question is tougher.

It’s not so much that we lack a U.S. food personality — if anything, we have multiple, conflicting ones. At the same time, more consumers are demanding that their food be “natural,” organic and GMO-free, even as Taco Bell sells record numbers of Doritos Locos tacos. We seem more interested in celebrity chefs, cooking shows and recipe videos than ever before, and yet we’re also spending a record amount of money eating out and ordering in.

To address our nation’s diet-related concerns, it would seem necessary first to better understand what we eat, how we eat it and, of course, why.

In her new book, Devoured: From Chicken Wings to Kale Smoothies — How What We Eat Defines Who We Are, Culinary Institute of America program director and food writer Sophie Egan digs into these questions.

It turns out previous attempts to dissect our dietary schizophrenia have ignored some important pieces. Principal among those, Egan argues, are the ways in which Americans working longer hours than the rest of the industrialized world has impacted both their motivation — and ability — to make healthier food choices daily.

So how do we go about resetting our workplaces, cafeterias and the norms they help instill to a healthier default? The Huffington Post recently spoke with Egan about the challenges ahead and the reasons for hope.

What prompted you to explore this question of how we wound up with the food culture we have today?

I’ve been working in food professionally for a number of years and was thinking about how powerful a mirror food is for who we are at a much deeper level. I was tired of hearing that in the U.S. we’re so diverse and are such a huge country that we don’t have anything we could identify as a national food culture. I felt like, well, what can be said? I dug into that question of who we are as eaters, these core values we have as Americans -- these are things we don’t even see sometimes because they’re so deeply ingrained in how we think.

And that led you to this discussion of how the way we work impacts the way we eat. It almost seems so obvious now that I’m asking you about it, but we don’t really talk about that relationship. Why is that?

It really comes down to a reframing of how we look at the root causes of our eating choices. We typically center those conversations around individual willpower or these character accusations, if you will: That Americans don’t cook because they’re lazy or we just follow whatever we saw on TV. But I would say work is a root cause. In addition to a lack of financial resources [being a factor for many people], another important root cause of some eating behaviors that maybe aren’t as healthy as people would like is lack of time. If we’re working more than we used to, something is falling by the wayside.

What was stunning to me was seeing how technology has really blurred the lines between work and home for many people. This mindset of, well, if you can work, why wouldn’t you? Whether it’s on vacation, in the evenings or on weekends, all of it. So with the increase in the numbers of hours we’re spending working, we’re not focusing on food. We look at food as fuel. You squeeze in a sandwich if you have three minutes in between meetings, or grab a Kind bar when you’re racing to catch the subway in the morning. Eating is a secondary need as opposed to something people used to design their days around.

And this starts in childhood. Kids in K-12 schools usually don’t have enough time to eat, so they’re scarfing down pizza or hot dogs or whatever is being served in their cafeteria in 10 minutes. By the time you’re in college, it’s a grab-and-go, grazing mentality. So you’re trained from an early age to see food as secondary. This is a huge cultural norm that’s very difficult to reverse.

Credit: Seth Perlman/Associated Press

Students at many schools are rushed to eat their lunches quickly. The Culinary Institute of America's Sophie Egan argues this helps instill a mindset that food is principally fuel, rather than something to be savored or celebrated.

I’ve noticed that the “food as fuel” mindset is behind a lot of the marketing of Soylent and similar products. I tried one last year and thought it tasted just as joyless as you would think. Why is this sort of message at the heart of a lot of so-called “foods of the future” today?

Culturally speaking, Soylent is a huge step backward. There’s this sense that we can take food and improve on it, to take what nature gave us and say there’s got to be a better way. A life-hacking approach. A Silicon Valley approach. But [AOL co-founder] Steve Case has this great quote that food is not something disrupting the disrupting you have to do.

Soylent is an extreme, but I would say it represents a larger idea of reducing food to its nutrients. Food is so much more than that. It does nourish us and we need certain things to survive, but I hope that people are starting to realize that flavor and taste and joy are some of the greatest pleasures of life. I think in the U.S., we have a very related discomfort with leisure and with pleasure. It’s sort of unspoken that if you sit around and do nothing, you’re lazy and you’re lesser. I think similarly there’s this sense of taboo around pure enjoyment of taste and of eating food with other people. 

There’s also an element of purity to utilitarian foods like that. In the book, you make a strong case for food — whether it be a particular diet or the practice of going to brunch — as a sort of "secular church." Is that a hypothesis you held going into this, or did it develop along the way?

I started with this question about the contradiction of why we’re willing to spend basically the whole day seeking out brunch when our typical mindset is to go to extreme lengths to minimize the time we spend obtaining, eating and cleaning up after food. So it was more of this question of what is so different about that. Very quickly, my research led me to this discovery about how different our weekday eating habits are from our weekend eating habits. We spend the least amount of time of any major developed country preparing and eating food. We’re hardwired in terms of that idea of efficiency.

But looking back, it’s very clear weekends are about indulgence and treating yourself after a long, hard week. These are also some of the only times we aren’t as scheduled, though many families have soccer games and a million other activities too. 

Your book also discusses how Americans are so used to getting our food exactly the way we want it, and points out how companies are always pushing new flavors and innovations or “stunt foods” like Doritos Locos. How do you balance these trends with ideas that could push us in a healthier direction? The answer can’t be to go back to the “good ol' days,” right?

This is a really tough question. It’s not just that we all should return to the old ways, because there’s clearly some innovation or new ways forward that should be welcomed. But what kinds of pieces from our past do we really want to resurrect?

Everyone talks today about how people are paying more attention to food than ever before, but from a policy standpoint, a number of things are still missing. One is the amount of time in schools for lunch. I think, at a broad level, going forward what I’m hoping for is for us to collectively find ways to focus on food more. And what I mean by that is, if more employers could make the American lunch break the norm in office settings. I’ve heard of a handful of companies where they ring a cowbell and everyone knows to take a break. You can’t expect individual change in the midst of the same larger environment, not only the physical marketing environment, but the cultural environment. I’m calling for cultural change, and it has to come from the top down.

I think the piece most worth resurrecting from the past would be teaching people to cook. You don’t have to call it home economics. But it should be painted as essential life skills. What if, in order to graduate from college you had to demonstrate that you knew how to cook an omelette so that you could feed yourself? If it was considered the same way as learning a language or riding a bike?

We’ve outsourced the preparation of food to the professionals. Are we going to stop eating food that comes in packages? Of course not. But we would be wise to see for what it is the availability of real, whole foods and the power that comes with feeding yourself and preparing food yourself instead of being sort of over-reliant on new solutions.

Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Many "Big Food" brands like Kraft have been altering some of their trademark packaged foods to contain fewer artificial ingredients and flavors in recent years.

Are you optimistic that we're moving in the right direction, toward getting back into the kitchen and eating more “real” food? Or are we too set in our ways at this point?

I am optimistic. I think our appreciation for novelty and innovation is a double-edged sword. We’re eating more foods from around the world than five years ago, which is a silver lining to how much more we’re eating out. But it’s really brought a world of flavors to the masses. It has tremendous potential for healthier eating habits, because some of those other cuisines taste amazing and happen to be good for you without being positioned as good for you. That’s the best way to go.

I’m also optimistic about how much consumer awareness can change Big Food, and we’re seeing that in food companies removing artificial flavors and colorings, or antibiotics. Consumers’ collective demands are really starting to make change happen faster. I think in some ways we’re more empowered than ever before.

It is only with this greater awareness that we can we collectively take more control over our food choices. And with that, we can celebrate the aspects of our food culture that we sometimes overlook, and change those aspects of our food culture that are hurting us so that we can end up with healthier, happier relationships with the food we eat.

---

Joseph Erbentraut covers promising innovations and challenges in the areas of food and water. In addition, Erbentraut explores the evolving ways Americans are identifying and defining themselves. Follow Erbentraut on Twitter at @robojojo. Tips? Email joseph.erbentraut@huffingtonpost.com.

Domino's Accused Of Fraud And 'Systemic Wage Theft' By New York State

The attorney general of New York filed a lawsuit against Domino's on Tuesday, accusing the pizza giant of systematically shorting workers' pay.

Fast-food restaurants are sued all the time for alleged wage theft. What makes this suit different is who's included among the defendants: Domino's itself, as opposed to just the franchisees who run Domino's shops.

"At some point, a company has to take responsibility for its actions and for its workers’ well-being," Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, said in a statement.

The lawsuit claims workers at 10 Domino's shops in New York were underpaid by a total of at least $565,000. Schneiderman said that his office's investigation revealed "intensive involvement by Domino’s headquarters" in the alleged labor violations, and that Domino's should therefore be considered a joint employer alongside the franchisees.

“New York law -- as well as basic human decency -- holds Domino’s responsible for the alleged mistreatment of the workers who make and deliver the company’s pizzas, and it is incumbent upon Domino’s to fix the problems," Schneiderman said.

The fast-food industry is predicated on a franchise system, with the owners of individual outlets -- franchisees -- paying fees to the company in exchange for an established name and business model. The franchisees sign workers' paychecks and are typically considered the employers in this equation. When workplace laws get broken, they're usually the ones on the hook for the violation.

But in this case, New York alleges that Domino's really controls the work inside the pizza shops, and therefore should be held accountable for any violations of the law. The lawsuit claims that Domino's headquarters directed franchisees to discipline certain employees, dictated staffing levels and hours at the shops, and even tried to scuttle a union campaign by workers.

In a statement, Domino's said the lawsuit "disregards the nature of franchising and demeans the role of small business owners." The company said it worked with Schneiderman's office for three years to help franchisees understand and comply with the different wage and hour laws. 

"It’s unfortunate that these steps were not enough, and that the Attorney General now wants the company to take steps that would not only deprive our independent business owners of the opportunity to make their own employment decisions, but could impact the viability of the franchise model, the many opportunities it offers to those looking to start their own businesses, and the millions of jobs those franchised businesses create," the company said.

According to its most recent annual report, Domino's has more than 4,800 franchised locations in the U.S., owned by 841 franchisees who each have an average of six locations. Domino's itself only owns 384 stores.

According to Schneiderman's office, Domino's required franchisees to purchase an online software system called PULSE, and encouraged them to use it for payroll reports. The lawsuit alleges that PULSE routinely miscalculated workers' gross wages, and that these mistakes led to workers being shorted on their paychecks. Domino's headquarters, the suit claims, was aware of the problems, but deemed the miscalculations a "low priority."

The sale of PULSE, Schneiderman contends, amounted to "fraud" perpetrated on the franchisees by Domino's.

Domino's isn't the first fast-food company to be sued alongside some of its franchisees. In 2014, workers in three different states filed lawsuits against McDonald's, saying the company violated minimum wage and overtime laws. As in the Domino's complaint, the plaintiffs in that suit argued that McDonald's steered in-store work policy and was therefore liable for the alleged violations. The cases are pending.

Schneiderman's office has aggressively pursued criminal cases against fast-food operators, and Domino's stores have been in the attorney general's crosshairs in the past. In 2014, a group of Domino's franchisees agreed to pay workers nearly a half-million dollars to settle wage theft claims brought by the attorney general.

This story has been updated with comment from Domino's.

Hillary Clinton Solved A Problem Corporate America Can’t Seem To Fix

A little more than a year ago, when Hillary Clinton officially launched her history-making campaign for the presidency, she did something else unprecedented. She hired Bernard Coleman as the campaign’s chief diversity officer. 

The 36-year-old is responsible for helping Clinton -- the first woman with a real shot at the White House -- build a staff more reflective of the voters she hopes to win over, beyond the usual scrum of white guys who run political campaigns.

Coleman, who says he is the first chief diversity officer ever employed by a presidential campaign, briefly held a similar role at the Democratic National Committee where he was director of human resources for six years.

Clinton desperately needs Coleman, who is also the campaign's head of human resources, to succeed. A diverse staff is key to helping her understand an increasingly diverse electorate, where whites represent a declining percentage of voters. Without votes from people of color, Clinton likely cannot win the presidency -- a lesson she learned in 2008.

“We want to have the most representative staff,” Coleman told The Huffington Post. “We’re always trying to crush it."

And by all accounts they are: Thirty percent of the 700 or so people on the Clinton campaign staff are non-white and 52 percent are women, according to data provided to The Huffington Post by Inclusv, a group that finds diverse candidates for political campaigns, advocacy groups and policymakers and also is pressing for candidates to report their staffs demographic data. (Former Obama campaign staffers founded the group last year.) 

Senior leadership on Clinton's staff is 54 percent women and 34 percent people of color, according to the latest data available, from March 31. The campaign won’t break down those figures any further to show what percent of staff are Hispanic or African-American. And, worryingly, the numbers haven't grown since the last time the campaign reported its diversity data in February. 

Yet it’s fairly clear -- just on the gender stats alone -- that in terms of staffing, this is likely the most diverse serious presidential campaign in U.S. history. (The smaller Bernie Sanders campaign hasn't yet reported its March data to Inclusv. But in February, a report revealed that, though 31 percent of the campaign's staff are people of color, all of its top paid staff are men.)

There is not an official account of the Obama campaign staff's demographics -- nor of any campaign's prior to this year -- but Clinton 2016 is probably out ahead, Alida Garcia, executive director and cofounder of Inclusv, told HuffPost.

"The [Clinton] headquarters in Brooklyn is likely more diverse than the 2012 operation in Chicago," said Garcia, who worked on Obama's 2012 campaign helping turn out the Latino vote. (Garcia also works with FWD.us, the immigration reform group founded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.)

Clinton's achievement is the result of a deliberate strategy spearheaded by the candidate herself, burned by her loss in the Democratic primaries in 2008, when her campaign seemed targeted mainly to white voters. She's of course spurred forward by the rapidly changing demographics of the country.

“Clinton is really hitting diversity and it’s not by accident,” said Erikka Knuti, a political strategist who’s worked on Democratic campaigns and currently is a communications director for the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union. “The fact that she is doing it speaks to who she is and lessons learned,” she told HuffPost.

Clinton campaign

Bernard Coleman is the first chief diversity officer to staff a presidential campaign.

Hiring a chief diversity officer is a tactic straight out of corporate America's playbook. Sixty percent of Fortune 100 companies employ a chief diversity officer, according to a 2012 analysis from executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles.

Clinton's campaign has far surpassed the business world in diversity, though. The country’s biggest businesses still are remarkably homogenous -- particularly at the highest levels. Fewer than 4 percent of the chief executives who run S&P 500 companies are women, and the number has been falling. For African-Americans the numbers are even more grim. According to data cited by Fortune, black men and women make up 4.7 percent of executive team members in the Fortune 100. There have only been 15 black CEOs on the Fortune 500 -- ever.

There’s plenty of evidence that a more diverse company will see a higher stock price and profits. And it's clear that the demographics of the nation -- i.e. consumers -- require a change. But companies have been slow to move, Billy Dexter, a partner at Heidrich & Struggles, told HuffPost.

“If corporate America wanted to do this, they could,” he said. “Some organizations have.”

The companies that have made inroads have approached the need to diversify as a business imperative, not just a moral one. The idea, Dexter said, is to make hiring diverse people as important as hitting profit goals: assign your best people to the task and look at the numbers quarterly. And the CEO must play a key role in driving the strategy.

As diversity has clearly become a political imperative -- particularly for a Democratic candidate -- Clinton has done just that. In November, one-third of eligible voters in the U.S. will be Hispanic, black, Asian or belong to another racial or ethnic minority group, according to a report out from the Pew Research Center earlier this year. Democratic voters are even more diverse: 40 percent of Democrats identify as nonwhite, compared with 11 percent of Republicans, according to Gallup data from 2012. 

Women, of course, are not a minority -- though they seem to get treated as one. We comprise 52 percent of the voting population.

Whites, meanwhile, are a declining interest group. This is well evidenced by the obvious racial panic behind Donald Trump's campaign, and in the data: In 2016, whites are projected to make up 69 percent of eligible voters, down from 78 percent in 2000.  

Clinton learned all of this the hard way. She lost her bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008 in part by running a campaign that seemed to position her as the mainstream (read: white) candidate in contrast to Barack Obama.

In a tactic the New York Times and others decried as “race-baiting,” she downplayed the amount of white support her opponent had. 

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she told USA Today in 2008. “Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” 

Obama's path to the nomination and the presidency came with the help of record black and Hispanic turnout. Now, turning out the African-American and Hispanic vote is recognized as critical to a Democratic victory in 2016.

Given these realities, Coleman's mandate to diversify the campaign comes straight from the top, he said.

“If she didn’t say this is important, then no one would move,” he told HuffPost. “The country is evolving and changing. Having diverse voices helps us message. It helps almost every facet.”  

The pressure to hire diverse staff is “constant,” Coleman said. “We talk about it with senior staff every week.”

Just this week, the Clinton campaign hired Jess McIntosh, vice president of communications for EMILY’s List. She is known for being skilled at bringing in women and diverse voices, Knuti told HuffPost before the hire was announced.

Coleman said a big part of his job is simply helping the campaign find good people -- and not allowing anyone to take “shortcuts” in hiring. Campaign hiring moves at lightning speed and the temptation is to just quickly bring in people you know well. Unfortunately, that's the easiest way reinforce a culture of sameness. It's how tech companies, which have also grown quickly, wind up hiring bro after bro after bro. One guy knows another guy who looks just like him. 

One thing Coleman's learned is if his colleagues take a little more time to think of good candidates, they find they actually know a pretty diverse group. People just need to focus, he said. “You need people to sit down in a room, get off their phones, open a Rolodex and say, 'Who do you know who does this?' You actually know a lot of people. It has to be deliberate.” 

After six years with the DNC, Coleman knows a lot of people. The bonus, he said, is people really want to work for the campaign, so they take his calls -- and help him find good candidates.

Even the private sector wants to help. Coleman mentioned that the “open a Rolodex” strategy came from “a guy at Google,” whom Coleman declined to name, who wanted to help the campaign. Google, notably, has a large diversity team, as well as a chief diversity officer, though it hasn't seen much progress.

It is easier to build a diverse campaign staff than a diverse company staff. Coleman has had the benefit of hiring a team from scratch. An established corporation cannot get rid of all its workers and start all over -- it can only hire so many new people every year. And the sense of urgency in a campaign, which comes with a built-in expiration date, is absent from a company.

Chris McGrath via Getty Images

Clinton seems to have learned a lot from her failed bid in 2008.

As Nov. 8 looms closer and the pace of hiring picks up, the Clinton campaign’s challenge will be to maintain its diversity, Garcia, of Inclusv, told HuffPost. There’s still room for improvement, she said, noting that the most recent data showed the campaign had stalled out in its push to diversify and that the percent of people of color on senior staff fell slightly to 34 percent from 36 percent.

Inclusv wants to make sure those numbers rise as staffing scales up for a national campaign. It has been working with the campaign since last year, helping find candidates.

“Quite honestly, based on our prior experience [with Clinton] we anticipated pushback,” said Garcia. “In reality, what we found was a willing and welcoming partner in Bernard Coleman to build upon an accessible ongoing conversation.” 

The end goal, of course, is a diverse White House. “At the end of the day, a lot of campaign staff ends up in government managing key policy initiatives for elected officials,” Garcia said.

Coleman is aware of this. “Being White House chief diversity officer,” he said. “That would be pretty cool.”

Monsanto Is On A Major Losing Streak

Monsanto's list of problems is growing like a weed.

Now, the world's largest seed company seems vulnerable to a $42 billion takeover bid by its German rival Bayer, maker of the eponymous Aspirin brand. And that's just the latest sign of trouble for Monsanto. 

"It's a relentless string of bad news," Jonas Oxgaard, an analyst at the research firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., told Bloomberg News' Jen Skerritt this week. "It's almost like they forgot to sacrifice a goat to the gods." 

Here are all the things that have gone wrong at Monsanto this year:

• In January, the company laid off a total of 3,600 employees, or about 16 percent of its workforce.

• In February, Swiss competitor Syngenta agreed to the China National Chemical Corp.'s acquisition offer, just months after refusing for a fourth time to sell itself to Monsanto. 

• In March, the maker of RoundUp weed killer slashed its earnings forecast for the year amid economic headwinds from low commodity prices.

• Earlier this month, two of the largest U.S. grain traders refused to buy a new type of Monsanto's genetically modified soybean because European Union regulators have yet to approve it.

• The firm is locked in ongoing disputes over seed royalties in Argentina and India.

• Its stock price has fallen by as much as 31 percent in the past 12 months, according to Bloomberg.

In a statement, Monsanto confirmed on Wednesday that its board of directors planned to review Bayer's offer, the same day Chief Operating Officer Brett Begemann denied talk of a deal as "wild speculation."

"There is no assurance that any transaction will be entered into or consummated, or on what terms," the company said in the statement.

Monsanto spokeswoman Christi Dixon declined to comment to The Huffington Post.

Google Finance

Shares of Monsanto climbed on Thursday after confirmation of Bayer's bid, but have fallen precipitously over the past 12 months. 

The move by Bayer comes amid increasing consolidation in the chemical industry. Dow Chemical and DuPont Co. announced plans in December to merge into a $130 billion giant. By buying Syngenta for $43 billion, the Chinese state-owned ChemChina could become the world's largest supplier of crop-protection products. As the Wall Street Journal's Christopher Alessi noted on Thursday, taking over Monsanto may be Bayer's last chance to bulk up and avoid being sidelined as a "second-tier crop player." 

Founded in 1901 in St. Louis as a producer of chemicals such as Agent Orange, Monsanto was voted the "world’s most evil company" by Natural News readers in 2013. Notoriously litigious, the firm has sued everyone from farmers who save its seeds — the company ferociously defends its patents — to European food regulators who refuse to legalize its products. 

By sheer virtue of its market dominance, Monsanto's genetically modified crops and insecticides play a crucial role in feeding the world's growing population. The firm, used to its reputation as one of the most hated companies in the world, defends itself as a necessary player in the fight to feed 9 billion humans by 2050.

Still, groups such as the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists accuse Monsanto of hampering efforts to make farming more sustainable. 

"They're an aggressive company when it comes to the marketing and the PR and the reassuring everyone constantly that [GMOs] are safe," Patty Lovera, assistant director at the food industry advocacy group Food & Water Watch, told HuffPost by phone. "They're also very aggressive in their business practices when it comes to selling seeds, and they have an enormous amount of control over the building blocks of the food industry." 

North Carolina Startup Offers Tesla Model 3s To All Of Their Employees

Some office perks may include free coffee and bagels, but at one biotech startup company employees get a free Tesla car.

Practichem, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, has announced plans to reward each staffer with a Tesla Model 3, courtesy of their boss.  

The flashy electric sports car, that carries an estimated $35,000 price tag, will be doled out to current and future employees upon its expected 2017 release, the company said Thursday.

“We just announced it to the employees last night as they were leaving and said by the way you're going to be getting a Tesla,” company Press Director Ann Revell told The Huffington Post by phone.

Their reaction was "pretty remarkable,” she said. “They were like, 'Wow, I’ve never driven a car that's younger than 20 years old!'”

Justin Pritchard/AP

Practichem's CEO has said that they chose Tesla because the motor company shares their goal of positively impacting humanity.

The incentive behind the grand giveaway is to attract the best talent out there, Revell said.

“The whole point, one of the many points, was to make sure that they understand the value that they’re bringing to this organization,” she said of Practichem's employees.

Ideally, it'll also provide a little mental boost during their morning commute and get them "inspired when they get to the office," she said.

“I mean it’s not a toaster, right?” she laughed.

Practichem currently employs 10-15 people, Revell said. The company's core mission it to develop biological research tools to “cure humanity’s diseases,” according to the company website. That humanitarian focus is what led them to select Tesla, which designs all-electric vehicles.

“Our vision shares similarities with Tesla Motors; both companies positively impact humanity with real change,” Nick DeMarco, Practichem’s founder and CEO, said in a release. “People driven to solve big issues share core values. Many of our employees have marveled at Tesla’s approach. Their compelling all-electric vehicles drive us to make real change in our field.”

The vehicles, which are advertised as being able to travel 215 miles on a single electric charge, will be provided to employees while they’re working for the company. Reservations have already been made on the vehicles, Revell said.

And it's not too late to add to the orders: Revell is looking to expand the company. “We have 10 positions we need to fill, immediately,” she said.

H/T News Observer

This Big Law Firm Just Stepped Into The 21st Century

The Chicago-based international law firm Winston & Strawn LLP announced Wednesday that it is creating a gender-neutral parental leave policy, as well as a broader policy intended to help lawyers with the often hectic process of taking parental leave and then returning to work.

The policy includes 20 weeks of paid parental leave for associates and of counsel attorneys. It applies to parents of any gender and in any country, and the leave time can be taken in either one or two separate chunks within the first year of a child's life. Parents also aren't required to designate a "primary caregiver."

This is a pretty big deal in the legal industry, even if it falls somewhat short of the policies offered in other professions, according to Vivia Chen, a senior columnist at The American Lawyer. "Law firms are a bit behind other industries, especially the financial and other professional service industries, when it comes to more innovative family measures," she said. 

Many tech firms, including Netflix, Facebook and Spotify, have introduced generous gender-neutral parental leave policies in recent months. Just a few weeks ago, the consulting firm EY announced a 16-week paid leave policy that will start in July. But Winston & Strawn is the first law firm to have a policy this expansive -- or at least the first to announce it publicly.

Getting women back to work after having kids -- and allowing men to take time off as well -- is a way for firms to help women ascend the career ladder. Currently, only 18 percent of equity partners in American law firms are women, even though women account for 47 percent of the country's J.D. degrees.

In addition to the 20 weeks of leave, the firm is also creating a few different ways to ease the transitions of taking leave and returning to work. There will be a "parental leave liaison" to assist people coming back to work, as well as career coaching services and lower billable-hour requirements for people who are just about to take leave or are just coming back to the firm.

"Traditionally for women, if you take a long leave, easing back in can be difficult. You might have hesitation about going back," Chen told The Huffington Post. Having someone act as a sort of coach, encouraging people to come back from leave, just might be the nudge new parents need to get back into the swing of things after having a baby. 

To be clear, Winston & Strawn isn't acting altruistically here: The firm's move is intended to attract and retain high-level attorneys. Practice attorneys, who are low-level attorneys usually brought on for specific projects and who are outside the traditional partner-track framework of the firm, won't get the same 20-week benefit. Neither will the firm's other staff members, such as paralegals and office assistants.

However, it's relatively common for benefits in big law firms to be stratified, according to Chen. Winston & Strawn says its U.S. employees in lower positions will get increased paid leave time and an extra two weeks of paid time off.

Robin Wright Explains Why She Fought For Equal Pay For 'House of Cards'

Claire Underwood certainly would not stand being paid less than a man for the same work -- and neither did her real-life counterpart, Robin Wright.

The actor, who plays the formidable first lady on Netflix's "House of Cards," opened up about demanding higher pay in an interview at The Rockefeller Foundation on Tuesday.

Until recently, Wright was paid less than her co-star Kevin Spacey, who was reportedly making $500,000 per episode on the show. The fourth season of the drama was just released on Netflix in March.

“I was looking at statistics and Claire Underwood’s character was more popular than [Frank’s] for a period of time. So I capitalized on that moment. I was like, ‘You better pay me or I’m going to go public,’” Wright said, flashing her trademark smile. “And they did.”

Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin had asked her about the barriers women face in getting ahead, and Wright mentioned the gender pay gap. In 2015, women still make just 79 cents for every dollar earned by a white man. The gap is worse for women of color.

Their conversation was part of a series called “Insight Dialogues,” discussions with thought leaders and activists hosted in New York. The Huffington Post is a media partner with The Rockefeller Foundation on the series.

The pay gap is so pernicious that women earn less than men in 439 major occupations, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. 

Watch Wright's interview here (she mentions her demands for equal pay around 7:15): 

Wright said that one of the things holding women back is the time out they take to raise children, mentioning that her career took a hit after she had her kids in the '90s -- just as she was gaining fame after starring roles in "The Princess Bride" and "Forrest Gump."

“Because I wasn’t working full time, I wasn’t building my salary bracket. If you don’t build salary bracket with notoriety and presence, then you’re not in the game anymore," Wright said. 

Her kids are apparently doing their part to help her catch up. Last year, Wright's daughter, Dylan Penn, told Marie Claire that it was "crazy" her mother wasn't making the same as her co-star: "They both equally grab the attention of the audience."

Women in Hollywood have been speaking up more about equal pay ever since Patricia Arquette called for equality in her acceptance speech at the Oscars last year. Arquette, who was accepting an award for her role in the film "Boyhood," has since lost out on a couple of roles for taking a stand, she said earlier this year at a dinner in Beverly Hills, California, that The Huffington Post attended.

Still, since she spoke up, others have followed, including Jennifer Lawrence and Gillian Jacobs. 

And judging from the Twittersphere, a lot of women are excited about this turn of events. Many were celebrating Wright's salary win on Tuesday and Wednesday. 

That's what I'm talking about Claire Underwood. https://t.co/6xZwOmwIMQ via @EmilyRPeck @HuffPostBiz pic.twitter.com/FS7UASSkst

— Meagan Phillips (@MeggieClaire) May 18, 2016