One of the biggest elephants in the room is that once hiring starts to pick up again, experts predict there is going to be massive turnover. There are several factors contributing to the turnover including employees who, despite holding on to their jobs during the recession, feeling that they were/are overworked, under paid and under appreciated.
From personal observation, what is striking to me is that many hiring managers, HR Directors and even presidents of companies do not yet seem to feel the urgency to deal with the pending turnover crisis NOW. To believe that your current employees will remain loyal because they kept their jobs is, well it's crazy to think that way because it's not true. You need to be taking immediate steps to put a retention plan in place that will help you hang on to your best employees as well as attract good employees from other companies once the "jumping" begins.
How do you take the first step in putting a solid retention plan in place? Call MITTONMedia at 281-242-4473. Or send me an email at jmitton@mittonmedia.com. We'll do the work. You'll get the credit.
Here is a great "thought-starter" article posted today by Stephen Balzac:
"It’s not enough to say that if you want to keep the best people when the economy improves, you just need to communicate more. It matters what you say and how and when you say it. Communication occurs in the context that you’ve created over time, and how your communications will be received will depend a great deal on that context. If you want to keep your best people, then you need to do your homework. (Or, conversely, if you want to recruit someone else’s key people, find companies that did not do the homework suggested in this article.)
Fortunately, it isn’t terribly difficult to communicate better. It does, however, require recognizing that emotion, not logic, is the driving force, and it requires starting now — not next week, next month, or next year. If you wait until people are leaving, it’s too late.
So how do you highlight someone’s contributions? I offer more, detailed suggestions in the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership, but for now, I suggest the following in brief.
Take the opportunity to praise them in public. Note that this does not mean comparing them to others on the team; that only creates resentment and embarrassment for all concerned. Talk about the importance of the effort they’ve put in, and find small ways of demonstrating your appreciation. It doesn’t have to be fancy, especially in a time of tight budgets. Honest appreciation goes a long way.
The next step in keeping people is to make sure that their contributions are not just recognized, but are also important. Visible contributions that are not valued by the company are not going to be very compelling. Likewise, contributions that someone does not perceive as important will not serve to keep them at the company.
A cousin of mine worked for NASA in the early 1970s. He was part of the team designing the space shuttle. Due to security issues, he and his team had no idea what part of the shuttle they were working on; it was the quintessential “clean room” project, where they would be given instructions and specifications, but no context. When the day of the grand unveiling arrived, he found out that he had been designing the door lock. He walked out of the unveiling and out of NASA.
If you want to keep someone, make sure you frequently highlight how their work fits into the long-term vision of the company. Help them see that their work matters to the team and the company. Build a sense of partnership and status. They’re not a hired mercenary; they’re a trained professional providing valuable services. Again, demonstrate appreciation whenever possible. Find ways to reward people for their efforts, but don’t make the rewards the point of the work.
Make people feel competent and appreciated. No one likes being reminded of embarrassing incidents, of failures, of things that didn’t work out well. On the flip side, practically everyone loves to be reminded of successes. As the old saying goes: nothing succeeds like success. As the lesser-known corollary goes, nothing keeps people at your company from leaving like the feeling that they’re in an environment where they’ll be successful.
Although the corollary lacks the pithy ring of the original saying, it is nonetheless valid. Create an environment where people can see their own competence and measure their own success toward creating something larger than themselves, and you’ve gone a long way toward keeping them at your company. And, of course, providing opportunities for growth also helps build that feeling of competence and further increases the attractiveness of staying. An additional side effect is that the more competent people feel, the more secure they feel. The more secure they feel, the harder it is for someone else to pry them away.
So yes, in the end it really is all about communications, provided that you are communicating the right things.
Think about how you are communicating the following things:
• Your recognition of the contributions of your employees
• Your appreciation for their contributions and the personal sacrifices they are making
• Your own enthusiasm, excitement, and positive vision of the company and its future
• The goals of the company and how each employee fits into bringing those goals to life
• The common ground and ideals that will unify your team
• The information your employees need to work and grow most effectively
• The feedback that will make your employees feel successful
If you can address those seven points, odds are you’ll keep your top people as the economy improves."
________________________________________
Source: December 30, 2009 http://www.ere.net
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Just for Fun: A Test of Your "Morals"
You are driving down the road in your 2-seater sports car on a wild,
stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.
Which one would you choose to offer a ride to knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?
Think before you continue reading...
This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a
job application.
You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you
should save her first.
Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and
this would be the perfect chance to pay him back.
However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS....................
The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming
up with his answer.
He simply answered: 'I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams.'
Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought
limitations.
Never forget to, "Think Outside of the Box."
stormy night, when you pass by a bus stop and see three people waiting for the bus:
1. An old lady who looks as if she is about to die.
2. An old friend who once saved your life.
3. The perfect partner you have been dreaming about.
Which one would you choose to offer a ride to knowing that there could
only be one passenger in your car?
Think before you continue reading...
This is a moral/ethical dilemma that was once actually used as part of a
job application.
You could pick up the old lady, because she is going to die, and thus you
should save her first.
Or you could take the old friend because he once saved your life, and
this would be the perfect chance to pay him back.
However, you may never be able to find your perfect mate again.
YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS....................
The candidate who was hired (out of 200 applicants) had no trouble coming
up with his answer.
He simply answered: 'I would give the car keys to my old friend and let him take the lady to the hospital. I would stay behind and wait for the bus with the partner of my dreams.'
Sometimes, we gain more if we are able to give up our stubborn thought
limitations.
Never forget to, "Think Outside of the Box."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Who Creates Jobs?
Who Creates Jobs?
By John Stossel, December 3, 2009
Today, the White House holds its “Jobs Summit” stunt. It’s typical Washington-think: Assemble interest groups and concoct special tax credits and handouts to the politically connected. What conceit. The political class think that economies revolve around them, that Washington makes things happen, that politicians are the most important players.
Today’s Washington Post [1] suggests that the way to create jobs is public spending by the federal government:
Obama's options are limited, as the administration already has signaled that it is unwilling to make any investments that would add significantly to the nation's ballooning deficit.
At least the Administration talks about the private sector:
"We want to make sure it is not just the public sector doing this in a vacuum," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama. "It's important we engage the private sector as well." Administration officials, however, have excluded major trade associations from the summit... .
Some of those groups privately complain that their job creation ideas, including enactment of stalled free trade deals that they say would boost exports, are opposed by labor unions, which will be heavily represented at the forum.
The White House, which has clashed with some of the business groups over their opposition to health-care reform and other initiatives, says it has met repeatedly with those organizations and wants to hear fresh ideas.
Yes. I am sure those "fresh ideas" will come from the trade unions whom the White House just hasn't heard from much over the past year. At the summit they will also hear from environmental groups “Green for All” and “Coalition for the Green Bank.” I’m sure they’ll have great ideas for job creation.
Will at least some free-market economists get to speak? No. The White House will hear from Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs. "Fresh ideas" won’t be heard from these folks.
They and the political class can’t imagine a decentralized world where good things happen…without them. But in the real world, that’s exactly how good things happen, and how jobs are created.
When government sets simple rules that everyone understands and then gets out of the way, free people create jobs.
Hong Kong demonstrates this. Last century, Hong Kong was third world poor. 50 years ago, its citizens’ average income was under $700 [2] (in today’s dollars) per year. Today, it’s $43,800 [3]. Hong Kong got rich because Hong Kong’s rulers, stuffy British bureaucrats, practiced what I’ll call “benign neglect”: they enforced rule of law—kept people from stealing from each other, or killing each other--- but then sat around and drank tea. They left people alone, and free people, left alone, created prosperity.
America’s founders did the same thing. The Constitution announced that American would be a country of limited government. That provided the simple and understandable rules that allowed America to grow into the richest country ever.
Today’s political class thinks that they can improve on that, but they can’t. Their micromanagement kills jobs. When Washington threatens to drastically change the rules of the game with health care mandates, cap and trade, financial regulation, a second stimulus, and (of course) a "jobs bill", the private sector can't make investments with any confidence. At least the Post quoted one businessman who said Washington should stop fiddling:
Peter Y. Solmssen, interim U.S. chief executive of Siemens Corp., a German conglomerate, said fixed policies would help businesses, large and small. "We both need a certain amount of certainty, which gives us the opportunity and capability to plan."
(Editor's Note: What do you think? Who should create the jobs and how should they be created?)
By John Stossel, December 3, 2009
Today, the White House holds its “Jobs Summit” stunt. It’s typical Washington-think: Assemble interest groups and concoct special tax credits and handouts to the politically connected. What conceit. The political class think that economies revolve around them, that Washington makes things happen, that politicians are the most important players.
Today’s Washington Post [1] suggests that the way to create jobs is public spending by the federal government:
Obama's options are limited, as the administration already has signaled that it is unwilling to make any investments that would add significantly to the nation's ballooning deficit.
At least the Administration talks about the private sector:
"We want to make sure it is not just the public sector doing this in a vacuum," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama. "It's important we engage the private sector as well." Administration officials, however, have excluded major trade associations from the summit... .
Some of those groups privately complain that their job creation ideas, including enactment of stalled free trade deals that they say would boost exports, are opposed by labor unions, which will be heavily represented at the forum.
The White House, which has clashed with some of the business groups over their opposition to health-care reform and other initiatives, says it has met repeatedly with those organizations and wants to hear fresh ideas.
Yes. I am sure those "fresh ideas" will come from the trade unions whom the White House just hasn't heard from much over the past year. At the summit they will also hear from environmental groups “Green for All” and “Coalition for the Green Bank.” I’m sure they’ll have great ideas for job creation.
Will at least some free-market economists get to speak? No. The White House will hear from Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs. "Fresh ideas" won’t be heard from these folks.
They and the political class can’t imagine a decentralized world where good things happen…without them. But in the real world, that’s exactly how good things happen, and how jobs are created.
When government sets simple rules that everyone understands and then gets out of the way, free people create jobs.
Hong Kong demonstrates this. Last century, Hong Kong was third world poor. 50 years ago, its citizens’ average income was under $700 [2] (in today’s dollars) per year. Today, it’s $43,800 [3]. Hong Kong got rich because Hong Kong’s rulers, stuffy British bureaucrats, practiced what I’ll call “benign neglect”: they enforced rule of law—kept people from stealing from each other, or killing each other--- but then sat around and drank tea. They left people alone, and free people, left alone, created prosperity.
America’s founders did the same thing. The Constitution announced that American would be a country of limited government. That provided the simple and understandable rules that allowed America to grow into the richest country ever.
Today’s political class thinks that they can improve on that, but they can’t. Their micromanagement kills jobs. When Washington threatens to drastically change the rules of the game with health care mandates, cap and trade, financial regulation, a second stimulus, and (of course) a "jobs bill", the private sector can't make investments with any confidence. At least the Post quoted one businessman who said Washington should stop fiddling:
Peter Y. Solmssen, interim U.S. chief executive of Siemens Corp., a German conglomerate, said fixed policies would help businesses, large and small. "We both need a certain amount of certainty, which gives us the opportunity and capability to plan."
(Editor's Note: What do you think? Who should create the jobs and how should they be created?)
WH Job Summit
How do you feel about a Job Summit with 130 CEOs, local politicians, and academics? Not one Small Business person in the group, yet Small Businesses create most of the jobs in this country.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
What Job Seekers Can Expect in 2010
By LIZ WOLGEMUTH (U.S. News & World Report)
Posted: November 11, 2009
President Obama summed up the precarious nature of today's economy and job market in a recent interview with ABC's Jake Tapper. "Now that we've rescued the economy and the economy is growing," Obama said, "businesses aren't yet hiring." Indeed, it's strange to see a "rescued" economy in which nearly 16 million unemployed face a paltry 2.5 million openings each month. Employers have not stopped cutting jobs, and the unemployment rate soared to 10.2 percent last month.
With 2010 just around the corner, everyone is crossing their fingers for a better year. Here are a few things you can expect:
Washington will keep trying to create jobs:
The gross domestic product climbed 3.5 percent in the third quarter, while payrolls continued to fall. This is no doubt proof of the rule that employment is a lagging indicator. But some economists see it as particularly lagging at this point. The Conference Board's employment trends index, which takes into account eight labor market indicators, rose in October. It was the second consecutive month of growth. (September's rise had been the first since January 2008.) The index numbers suggest job losses would end by early next year, and "that's a very optimistic statement compared to the consensus at this point," says Gad Levanon, senior economist at the Conference Board.
When the private sector isn't creating jobs, government tends to step in by lowering taxes, creating incentives, or spending to spur hiring. President Obama signed a bill providing another federally funded unemployment extension Friday and said he would likely do more: "My economic team is looking at ideas such as additional investments in our aging roads and bridges, incentives to encourage families and businesses to make buildings more energy-efficient, additional tax cuts for businesses to create jobs, additional steps to increase the flow of credit to small businesses, and an aggressive agenda to promote exports and help American manufacturers sell their products around the world." The White House has stopped short of calling these tools "stimulus." On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told colleagues Tuesday that Senate Democrats would take up a bill aimed at job creation, but did not elaborate on its details, according to the Hill.
The deficit will begin to weigh on Washington's efforts to create jobs:
While the president laid out a lengthy menu of possible job-creation tools, he is receiving no small amount of pressure to begin tackling the deficit. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is the most powerful voice among many pushing Obama in that direction. The president says that he is beginning to look at the fiscal 2011 budget and that he understands the nation's long-term debt is a problem. While unemployment is clearly a nearer-term problem, deficit concerns will weigh on each decision. Countries that buy American debt could begin to demand higher returns. To pay higher yields on debt, the government would be forced to raise interest rates, a situation that could endanger the fledgling recovery.
Unemployment will peak next year:
By and large, economists do not believe the unemployment rate will tick downward in November or December. Instead, they expect a peak sometime next year. Even the Congressional Budget Office is anticipating an average unemployment rate of 10.2 percent in 2010 and about a percentage point lower in 2011.
Unemployment will likely fall by the end of next year—or even toward the middle of next year—but even the most bullish economists do not anticipate major drops in the unemployment rate. Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein of First Trust Advisors are expecting a drop of a full percentage point. The Conference Board's Levanon says he expects the unemployment rate to remain elevated over the next several years.
Productivity will, eventually, help boost employment:
Productivity grew at a 9.5 percent annual rate last quarter. Americans were working hard. Labor productivity is measured by dividing output by hours worked. In the third quarter, output rose by 4 percent while the number of hours worked fell by 5 percent. This can make people nervous, because employers are doing more with less and would seem to have no incentive to increase their payrolls. But productivity numbers during downturns "do all sorts of strange things," says Dean Baker, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. And they can look very good after employers cut payrolls.
A longer purview shows productivity to be a very positive thing for employment. Productivity allows more to be produced with less capital. "The increased productivity of capital raises the supply of other kinds of capital that contributes to a growth in the earnings of workers," says Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago. "In the very short run, productivity improvements are associated with rising unemployment and reduced employment, but in the somewhat longer run it will raise the demand for workers and earnings."
(Editor's Note: Let us hear your opinion. Should we be dependent on the government creating jobs for people or should steps be taken that will allow the private sector to create the jobs?)
Posted: November 11, 2009
President Obama summed up the precarious nature of today's economy and job market in a recent interview with ABC's Jake Tapper. "Now that we've rescued the economy and the economy is growing," Obama said, "businesses aren't yet hiring." Indeed, it's strange to see a "rescued" economy in which nearly 16 million unemployed face a paltry 2.5 million openings each month. Employers have not stopped cutting jobs, and the unemployment rate soared to 10.2 percent last month.
With 2010 just around the corner, everyone is crossing their fingers for a better year. Here are a few things you can expect:
Washington will keep trying to create jobs:
The gross domestic product climbed 3.5 percent in the third quarter, while payrolls continued to fall. This is no doubt proof of the rule that employment is a lagging indicator. But some economists see it as particularly lagging at this point. The Conference Board's employment trends index, which takes into account eight labor market indicators, rose in October. It was the second consecutive month of growth. (September's rise had been the first since January 2008.) The index numbers suggest job losses would end by early next year, and "that's a very optimistic statement compared to the consensus at this point," says Gad Levanon, senior economist at the Conference Board.
When the private sector isn't creating jobs, government tends to step in by lowering taxes, creating incentives, or spending to spur hiring. President Obama signed a bill providing another federally funded unemployment extension Friday and said he would likely do more: "My economic team is looking at ideas such as additional investments in our aging roads and bridges, incentives to encourage families and businesses to make buildings more energy-efficient, additional tax cuts for businesses to create jobs, additional steps to increase the flow of credit to small businesses, and an aggressive agenda to promote exports and help American manufacturers sell their products around the world." The White House has stopped short of calling these tools "stimulus." On Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told colleagues Tuesday that Senate Democrats would take up a bill aimed at job creation, but did not elaborate on its details, according to the Hill.
The deficit will begin to weigh on Washington's efforts to create jobs:
While the president laid out a lengthy menu of possible job-creation tools, he is receiving no small amount of pressure to begin tackling the deficit. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is the most powerful voice among many pushing Obama in that direction. The president says that he is beginning to look at the fiscal 2011 budget and that he understands the nation's long-term debt is a problem. While unemployment is clearly a nearer-term problem, deficit concerns will weigh on each decision. Countries that buy American debt could begin to demand higher returns. To pay higher yields on debt, the government would be forced to raise interest rates, a situation that could endanger the fledgling recovery.
Unemployment will peak next year:
By and large, economists do not believe the unemployment rate will tick downward in November or December. Instead, they expect a peak sometime next year. Even the Congressional Budget Office is anticipating an average unemployment rate of 10.2 percent in 2010 and about a percentage point lower in 2011.
Unemployment will likely fall by the end of next year—or even toward the middle of next year—but even the most bullish economists do not anticipate major drops in the unemployment rate. Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein of First Trust Advisors are expecting a drop of a full percentage point. The Conference Board's Levanon says he expects the unemployment rate to remain elevated over the next several years.
Productivity will, eventually, help boost employment:
Productivity grew at a 9.5 percent annual rate last quarter. Americans were working hard. Labor productivity is measured by dividing output by hours worked. In the third quarter, output rose by 4 percent while the number of hours worked fell by 5 percent. This can make people nervous, because employers are doing more with less and would seem to have no incentive to increase their payrolls. But productivity numbers during downturns "do all sorts of strange things," says Dean Baker, codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. And they can look very good after employers cut payrolls.
A longer purview shows productivity to be a very positive thing for employment. Productivity allows more to be produced with less capital. "The increased productivity of capital raises the supply of other kinds of capital that contributes to a growth in the earnings of workers," says Gary Becker, an economist at the University of Chicago. "In the very short run, productivity improvements are associated with rising unemployment and reduced employment, but in the somewhat longer run it will raise the demand for workers and earnings."
(Editor's Note: Let us hear your opinion. Should we be dependent on the government creating jobs for people or should steps be taken that will allow the private sector to create the jobs?)
Saturday, November 21, 2009
California Was Among States With Record Unemployment
By Courtney Schlisserman, Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) --
California, Delaware, South Carolina and Florida registered record rates of unemployment in October as weakness in the labor market stretches from coast to coast and limits the economic recovery.
Joblessness rose in 29 U.S. states last month compared with 22 in September, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Michigan had the highest jobless rate at 15.1 percent, followed by Nevada at 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.9 percent.
The national rate last month reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, weighing on consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Nov. 17 that joblessness “likely will decline only slowly,” a reason policy makers will keep interest rates near zero to ensure growth is sustained.
“We’ve had a surprisingly sharp jump in the jobless rate,” said Richard DeKaser, president of Woodley Park Research in Washington. “Businesses have truly been doing an extraordinary job of wringing out productivity from the labor force.”
Stocks fell for a third day, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declining 0.3 percent to 1,091.38 at 4:03 p.m. in New York. Dell Inc., the third-largest maker of personal computers, dropped 10 percent after reporting a 54 percent drop in profit.
Declines in 13 States
The unemployment rate fell in 13 states, including Massachusetts, where it declined to 8.9 percent from 9.3 percent; New Hampshire, with a drop to 6.8 percent from 7.2 percent; and West Virginia, which fell to 8.5 percent from 8.9 percent.
The number of states with at least 10 percent unemployment held at 14 last month, the Labor Department’s report showed. The states reporting a record jobless rate were California at 12.5 percent, South Carolina at 12.1 percent, Florida at 11.2 percent and Delaware at 8.7 percent. The District of Columbia also set a high with an 11.9 percent rate.
“Virtually every sector aside from the health-care sector is losing jobs,” said Sean Snaith, University of Central Florida economist in Orlando. “Housing has been central to Florida’s economic story throughout the entire cycle. Unfortunately, it has spread well beyond the sectors directly involved in the housing market.”
President Barack Obama on Nov. 6 signed into law a plan to extend jobless benefits, expand a tax credit for first-time homebuyers and provide tax refunds to money-losing companies. The measure gives jobless people as many as 20 additional weeks of unemployment assistance.
The president has also announced plans to convene a jobs summit at the White House next month.
State Payrolls
Payrolls declined last month in 21 states, today’s report showed. New York showed the biggest drop, with a loss of 15,300. Florida had 8,500 job losses, followed by Georgia with 7,500 and Virginia with 7,100.
“When you apply for a job, because there are so many other people looking for jobs, you have to be the absolute perfect candidate and lucky, or be someone’s brother-in-law, to get a job,” said Mary Kough of Tellico Plains, Tennessee. “In this economy there are very few jobs for which to even apply.”
Kough has been looking for work for four months, applying for as many as 25 positions. She’s been interviewed once. The 47-year-old said she has about 20 years of experience, including jobs as a customer service manager, supervisor and purchasing agent. Tennessee’s unemployment rate held at 10.5 percent in October, the Labor Department’s report showed.
Taking Comfort
“I try not to get discouraged,” Kough said. “I know that you will get a certain percentage of what you apply for, and since there are less jobs to apply for, I know it will just take a little longer. I take comfort in knowing that. I have faith.”
Applied Materials Inc. is among companies still planning to cut jobs. The world’s biggest maker of chip equipment, based in Santa Clara, California, said Nov. 11 it plans to eliminate as many as 1,500 positions within 18 months.
Over the last year, California showed the biggest loss of jobs, with payrolls falling by 687,700 workers, today’s report showed.
Nationally, payrolls fell by 190,000 in October, the Labor Department said Nov. 6. The U.S. has lost 7.3 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007, the most of any downturn since the Great Depression.
Other measures corroborate that while firms are firing fewer workers, it is harder for the unemployed to find work. The number of people getting extended payments jumped in the week ended Oct. 31 even as the number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits held at a 10-month low last week, according to government data released yesterday.
California, Delaware, South Carolina and Florida registered record rates of unemployment in October as weakness in the labor market stretches from coast to coast and limits the economic recovery.
Joblessness rose in 29 U.S. states last month compared with 22 in September, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Michigan had the highest jobless rate at 15.1 percent, followed by Nevada at 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.9 percent.
The national rate last month reached a 26-year high of 10.2 percent, weighing on consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Nov. 17 that joblessness “likely will decline only slowly,” a reason policy makers will keep interest rates near zero to ensure growth is sustained.
“We’ve had a surprisingly sharp jump in the jobless rate,” said Richard DeKaser, president of Woodley Park Research in Washington. “Businesses have truly been doing an extraordinary job of wringing out productivity from the labor force.”
Stocks fell for a third day, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declining 0.3 percent to 1,091.38 at 4:03 p.m. in New York. Dell Inc., the third-largest maker of personal computers, dropped 10 percent after reporting a 54 percent drop in profit.
Declines in 13 States
The unemployment rate fell in 13 states, including Massachusetts, where it declined to 8.9 percent from 9.3 percent; New Hampshire, with a drop to 6.8 percent from 7.2 percent; and West Virginia, which fell to 8.5 percent from 8.9 percent.
The number of states with at least 10 percent unemployment held at 14 last month, the Labor Department’s report showed. The states reporting a record jobless rate were California at 12.5 percent, South Carolina at 12.1 percent, Florida at 11.2 percent and Delaware at 8.7 percent. The District of Columbia also set a high with an 11.9 percent rate.
“Virtually every sector aside from the health-care sector is losing jobs,” said Sean Snaith, University of Central Florida economist in Orlando. “Housing has been central to Florida’s economic story throughout the entire cycle. Unfortunately, it has spread well beyond the sectors directly involved in the housing market.”
President Barack Obama on Nov. 6 signed into law a plan to extend jobless benefits, expand a tax credit for first-time homebuyers and provide tax refunds to money-losing companies. The measure gives jobless people as many as 20 additional weeks of unemployment assistance.
The president has also announced plans to convene a jobs summit at the White House next month.
State Payrolls
Payrolls declined last month in 21 states, today’s report showed. New York showed the biggest drop, with a loss of 15,300. Florida had 8,500 job losses, followed by Georgia with 7,500 and Virginia with 7,100.
“When you apply for a job, because there are so many other people looking for jobs, you have to be the absolute perfect candidate and lucky, or be someone’s brother-in-law, to get a job,” said Mary Kough of Tellico Plains, Tennessee. “In this economy there are very few jobs for which to even apply.”
Kough has been looking for work for four months, applying for as many as 25 positions. She’s been interviewed once. The 47-year-old said she has about 20 years of experience, including jobs as a customer service manager, supervisor and purchasing agent. Tennessee’s unemployment rate held at 10.5 percent in October, the Labor Department’s report showed.
Taking Comfort
“I try not to get discouraged,” Kough said. “I know that you will get a certain percentage of what you apply for, and since there are less jobs to apply for, I know it will just take a little longer. I take comfort in knowing that. I have faith.”
Applied Materials Inc. is among companies still planning to cut jobs. The world’s biggest maker of chip equipment, based in Santa Clara, California, said Nov. 11 it plans to eliminate as many as 1,500 positions within 18 months.
Over the last year, California showed the biggest loss of jobs, with payrolls falling by 687,700 workers, today’s report showed.
Nationally, payrolls fell by 190,000 in October, the Labor Department said Nov. 6. The U.S. has lost 7.3 million jobs since the start of the recession in December 2007, the most of any downturn since the Great Depression.
Other measures corroborate that while firms are firing fewer workers, it is harder for the unemployed to find work. The number of people getting extended payments jumped in the week ended Oct. 31 even as the number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment benefits held at a 10-month low last week, according to government data released yesterday.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
8 Lessons from Real-Life Career Switchers
by Kerry Hannon | Nov 11, 2009 |
When Lisa Eaves decided to make a mid-career switch from working as a tech specialist for Fannie Mae to opening her own acupuncture practice five years ago, it was a risky move, but not a rash one.
During treatment for melanoma several years earlier, Eaves, 51, had become fascinated with Chinese medicine. And she also began realizing that technology work, while financially rewarding, was not something she was passionate about. “I felt it was time to explore other lines of work, and my health scare gave me that push,” Eaves says. So she enrolled in night and weekend classes while she worked and eventually got a Master's degree in acupuncture before starting her practice part-time.
Eaves had time on her side, and ideally, so will you. But if a layoff or a shrinking industry has left you little choice but to find another line of work, there’s still plenty you can do to prepare and make that transition as smooth and successful as possible. According to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey, one-third of American workers are interested in changing careers right now. Here are eight rules for doing it right.
1. Dig Inside for an Honest Appraisal
While it’s obviously crucial to match your next job or career to your interests,that can be easier said than done. You may have been working in the same field for years — or even decades — making it hard to get a good idea of what else you’re suited for.
To help you get started, check out free self-assessment quizzes at Careerpath.com and Monster.com. You can find more detailed personality tests — such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Strong Interest Inventory, and the Work-Personality Index — for a fee at What’s Next.
Beverly Jones, a 53-year-old corporate lawyer and vice president of external affairs and policy at Consolidated Natural Gas, accepted a modest early-retirement package. Her second-act plan was to get involved in landscape design, since gardening was one of her passions.
But she soon found that it didn’t make sense as a career choice. As a hobby, gardening was the perfect antidote to a busy career, but the solitary nature of the work made it a lousy full-time gig. She thrived on social contact. The good news: Jones had another skill — mentoring — that met all her requirements for a rewarding second career.
While remaining loosely associated with a law firm and lobbying for a nonprofit, she studied and obtained a Leadership Coaching Certificate from Georgetown University. She also attended career workshops, hired her own career coach, and read extensively about the field. Roughly six months later, she launched her own coaching/consulting practice in Washington. “In time, I began to find my own voice as a coach and felt confident I was doing what I was meant to do,” Jones says.
2. Get the Skills You Need Before You Leave Your Job
If at all possible, keep your current job while you add the education you need for your new pursuit so that you can reduce your financial burden. Under federal law, employers can offer up to $5,250 a year in tax-free education-assistance benefits for undergraduate or graduate courses. You don’t even need to be working toward a degree. Your employer, however, may require you to receive a minimum grade or to complete a program to be eligible for reimbursement. You may also need to stay employed by your company for a period of time after completing the course of study. And some employers even offer these benefits to laid-off former employees.
When mortgage banker Cliff Stevenson, 55, decided to become a high-school social-studies teacher a few years ago, he took night courses for two years to get a master’s degree in education before he resigned from his firm. Since he had an undergraduate degree in history, all he needed were seven additional courses in education to be certified as a social-studies teacher in Pennsylvania. “I started planning years before I switched careers,” Stevenson says. “My wife and I thought carefully about the financial aspects, and I set a target date that I would leave the mortgage-banking business, which allowed me to go to school and stuff away as much money as I could.” Unplanned bonus: He got out of mortgage banking just before the industry fell off a cliff.
3. Take Advantage of Education Tax Breaks
If you need to ramp up your skills with a degree or additional classwork, the tuition tab can be onerous. Stevenson’s total cost for a master’s degree in education, for instance, was $35,000. Depending on your income, though, you might qualify for various tax credits, such as the lifetime learning credit, worth up to $2,000 each year for an unlimited number of years that can be used for tuition and fees. The credit has an income phaseout for 2009 incomes from $50,000 to $60,000 (single filer) or $100,000 to $120,000 (married filing jointly). These phaseouts are indexed for inflation.
4. Apply for Student Aid
Financial aid isn’t just for undergrads — anyone can get low-cost student loans from the government, even if you’re only attending part-time. Acupuncturist Eaves was able to borrow $10,500 to help with her $26,000 tuition using low-interest Stafford loans, the main federal loan for students. Graduate Stafford loans currently charge a fixed rate of 6.8 percent, compared with about 8 percent for a home-equity loan.
The good news is that the federal aid formulas that determine how much you can borrow don’t take into account your home-equity or retirement accounts. Also, a certain amount of your savings — about $20,000 to over $60,000, depending on your age and marital status — are not calculated into your aid formula. And your student-loan interest may even be tax deductible, depending on your income level. You can get more information on what’s deductible from IRS Publication 970, as well as from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators’ Tax Benefits Guide.
In addition, there are a number of research scholarships and grants available specifically for older students that are offered by different associations and foundations. Check out sites such as FastWeb and FinAid to find what’s available.
5. Consider Moving to Reduce Costs
The reality is that you will probably have to take a salary cut when you move into a new career, so it might make sense to look for work in an area where the cost of living is lower.
Tim Sheerer, 48, moved from an expensive northern New Jersey suburb, where he had commuted to work on Wall Street as an investment banker, to Pittsburgh, when he decided to enter the restaurant business and open an Italian bistro. The cost of living there — about one-third lower — allowed him the cushion to get his restaurant up and running without undue financial pressure.
Of course, that sort of uprooting is a little more complicated if you have a family to consider. For Sheerer, he couldn’t have done it without getting the green light from his wife, Colleen, and four children, who all pitch in at the restaurant.
6. Train While You Work
When Seattle human resources pro Arlene Carter lost her job, a friend told her about an executive fundraising job at a local assisted-living community. The job duties combined fundraising, public relations, and marketing. Carter figured she didn’t have quite the right skills for the job, but she went for the interview anyway. As it turned out, the hiring manager for the nonprofit foundation liked her and offered to shell out a few grand to help her to earn a certificate in fundraising from Indiana University-Purdue University.
It may be hard to believe, but there are some fields, particularly in the health care sector, where there’s a shortage of workers, so employers are willing to help train employees who have the overall skill set and personality to do a job but need to bone up on the nuts and bolts. “The kind of work I did in human resources and what you do in public relations is actually pretty close,” says Carter. “And because it was a hybrid job, it was a little easier to make the stretch.”
Fields such as nursing, eldercare, and home health services are particularly amenable to on-the-job training, says Ellen Freudenheim, author of The Boomers’ Guide to Good Work.
7. Downsize Your Lifestyle
When you’re new to a profession, you usually can’t expect to pull in the big bucks until you ramp up your skills and gain experience. So get a clear handle on your finances, and start to look for places to cut spending. Ask what luxuries you can do without, from dining out to dry cleaning. And set aside a cushion of up to six months of living expenses to ease transition costs, as well as for unexpected emergencies. Before she left Fannie Mae, Eaves, for instance, refinanced her condo to lower her monthly mortgage payment and paid off her car loan.
Arlene Carter had to take a 15 percent pay cut for her new position, but she’s taken it in stride. For starters, she now commutes just one mile to work as opposed to 30 minutes to her ex-employer’s office, which helps her save on gas and wear and tear on her car. She and her husband also found ways to trim monthly expenses by cutting channel options for their cable-TV service and reducing the number of minutes available on their cell phones. They make a habit of opting for home-cooked meals, and her new work environment’s casual dress policy means lower wardrobe bills. “I don’t even notice the pay cut,” Carter says.
8. Get Your Foot in the Door
It’s critical to soak up as much as you can about the businesses that appeal to you before you make the plunge. So do informational interviews with people who work in those fields, apply for internships or fellowships, and consider volunteering or moonlighting to get a sense of what the job entails. A potential employer can get a chance to see what you have to offer, and you get a peek inside to see if the job suits you.
Before Steve Brooks, a veteran TV producer based in Atlanta, opened his boutique winery in Walla Walla, Wash., he worked as an apprentice to top-drawer winemakers in the region, in addition to taking classes. “I made a lot of contacts in the business and connected with winemakers who were willing to mentor me,” Brooks says. “I was a cellar rat for three years, and it was the best education I could imagine.”
(Kerry Hannon is the author of the upcoming book, What’s Next: How to Follow Your Passions to a Fantastic and Fulfilling New Career (Chronicle Books).)
When Lisa Eaves decided to make a mid-career switch from working as a tech specialist for Fannie Mae to opening her own acupuncture practice five years ago, it was a risky move, but not a rash one.
During treatment for melanoma several years earlier, Eaves, 51, had become fascinated with Chinese medicine. And she also began realizing that technology work, while financially rewarding, was not something she was passionate about. “I felt it was time to explore other lines of work, and my health scare gave me that push,” Eaves says. So she enrolled in night and weekend classes while she worked and eventually got a Master's degree in acupuncture before starting her practice part-time.
Eaves had time on her side, and ideally, so will you. But if a layoff or a shrinking industry has left you little choice but to find another line of work, there’s still plenty you can do to prepare and make that transition as smooth and successful as possible. According to a recent CareerBuilder.com survey, one-third of American workers are interested in changing careers right now. Here are eight rules for doing it right.
1. Dig Inside for an Honest Appraisal
While it’s obviously crucial to match your next job or career to your interests,that can be easier said than done. You may have been working in the same field for years — or even decades — making it hard to get a good idea of what else you’re suited for.
To help you get started, check out free self-assessment quizzes at Careerpath.com and Monster.com. You can find more detailed personality tests — such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Strong Interest Inventory, and the Work-Personality Index — for a fee at What’s Next.
Beverly Jones, a 53-year-old corporate lawyer and vice president of external affairs and policy at Consolidated Natural Gas, accepted a modest early-retirement package. Her second-act plan was to get involved in landscape design, since gardening was one of her passions.
But she soon found that it didn’t make sense as a career choice. As a hobby, gardening was the perfect antidote to a busy career, but the solitary nature of the work made it a lousy full-time gig. She thrived on social contact. The good news: Jones had another skill — mentoring — that met all her requirements for a rewarding second career.
While remaining loosely associated with a law firm and lobbying for a nonprofit, she studied and obtained a Leadership Coaching Certificate from Georgetown University. She also attended career workshops, hired her own career coach, and read extensively about the field. Roughly six months later, she launched her own coaching/consulting practice in Washington. “In time, I began to find my own voice as a coach and felt confident I was doing what I was meant to do,” Jones says.
2. Get the Skills You Need Before You Leave Your Job
If at all possible, keep your current job while you add the education you need for your new pursuit so that you can reduce your financial burden. Under federal law, employers can offer up to $5,250 a year in tax-free education-assistance benefits for undergraduate or graduate courses. You don’t even need to be working toward a degree. Your employer, however, may require you to receive a minimum grade or to complete a program to be eligible for reimbursement. You may also need to stay employed by your company for a period of time after completing the course of study. And some employers even offer these benefits to laid-off former employees.
When mortgage banker Cliff Stevenson, 55, decided to become a high-school social-studies teacher a few years ago, he took night courses for two years to get a master’s degree in education before he resigned from his firm. Since he had an undergraduate degree in history, all he needed were seven additional courses in education to be certified as a social-studies teacher in Pennsylvania. “I started planning years before I switched careers,” Stevenson says. “My wife and I thought carefully about the financial aspects, and I set a target date that I would leave the mortgage-banking business, which allowed me to go to school and stuff away as much money as I could.” Unplanned bonus: He got out of mortgage banking just before the industry fell off a cliff.
3. Take Advantage of Education Tax Breaks
If you need to ramp up your skills with a degree or additional classwork, the tuition tab can be onerous. Stevenson’s total cost for a master’s degree in education, for instance, was $35,000. Depending on your income, though, you might qualify for various tax credits, such as the lifetime learning credit, worth up to $2,000 each year for an unlimited number of years that can be used for tuition and fees. The credit has an income phaseout for 2009 incomes from $50,000 to $60,000 (single filer) or $100,000 to $120,000 (married filing jointly). These phaseouts are indexed for inflation.
4. Apply for Student Aid
Financial aid isn’t just for undergrads — anyone can get low-cost student loans from the government, even if you’re only attending part-time. Acupuncturist Eaves was able to borrow $10,500 to help with her $26,000 tuition using low-interest Stafford loans, the main federal loan for students. Graduate Stafford loans currently charge a fixed rate of 6.8 percent, compared with about 8 percent for a home-equity loan.
The good news is that the federal aid formulas that determine how much you can borrow don’t take into account your home-equity or retirement accounts. Also, a certain amount of your savings — about $20,000 to over $60,000, depending on your age and marital status — are not calculated into your aid formula. And your student-loan interest may even be tax deductible, depending on your income level. You can get more information on what’s deductible from IRS Publication 970, as well as from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators’ Tax Benefits Guide.
In addition, there are a number of research scholarships and grants available specifically for older students that are offered by different associations and foundations. Check out sites such as FastWeb and FinAid to find what’s available.
5. Consider Moving to Reduce Costs
The reality is that you will probably have to take a salary cut when you move into a new career, so it might make sense to look for work in an area where the cost of living is lower.
Tim Sheerer, 48, moved from an expensive northern New Jersey suburb, where he had commuted to work on Wall Street as an investment banker, to Pittsburgh, when he decided to enter the restaurant business and open an Italian bistro. The cost of living there — about one-third lower — allowed him the cushion to get his restaurant up and running without undue financial pressure.
Of course, that sort of uprooting is a little more complicated if you have a family to consider. For Sheerer, he couldn’t have done it without getting the green light from his wife, Colleen, and four children, who all pitch in at the restaurant.
6. Train While You Work
When Seattle human resources pro Arlene Carter lost her job, a friend told her about an executive fundraising job at a local assisted-living community. The job duties combined fundraising, public relations, and marketing. Carter figured she didn’t have quite the right skills for the job, but she went for the interview anyway. As it turned out, the hiring manager for the nonprofit foundation liked her and offered to shell out a few grand to help her to earn a certificate in fundraising from Indiana University-Purdue University.
It may be hard to believe, but there are some fields, particularly in the health care sector, where there’s a shortage of workers, so employers are willing to help train employees who have the overall skill set and personality to do a job but need to bone up on the nuts and bolts. “The kind of work I did in human resources and what you do in public relations is actually pretty close,” says Carter. “And because it was a hybrid job, it was a little easier to make the stretch.”
Fields such as nursing, eldercare, and home health services are particularly amenable to on-the-job training, says Ellen Freudenheim, author of The Boomers’ Guide to Good Work.
7. Downsize Your Lifestyle
When you’re new to a profession, you usually can’t expect to pull in the big bucks until you ramp up your skills and gain experience. So get a clear handle on your finances, and start to look for places to cut spending. Ask what luxuries you can do without, from dining out to dry cleaning. And set aside a cushion of up to six months of living expenses to ease transition costs, as well as for unexpected emergencies. Before she left Fannie Mae, Eaves, for instance, refinanced her condo to lower her monthly mortgage payment and paid off her car loan.
Arlene Carter had to take a 15 percent pay cut for her new position, but she’s taken it in stride. For starters, she now commutes just one mile to work as opposed to 30 minutes to her ex-employer’s office, which helps her save on gas and wear and tear on her car. She and her husband also found ways to trim monthly expenses by cutting channel options for their cable-TV service and reducing the number of minutes available on their cell phones. They make a habit of opting for home-cooked meals, and her new work environment’s casual dress policy means lower wardrobe bills. “I don’t even notice the pay cut,” Carter says.
8. Get Your Foot in the Door
It’s critical to soak up as much as you can about the businesses that appeal to you before you make the plunge. So do informational interviews with people who work in those fields, apply for internships or fellowships, and consider volunteering or moonlighting to get a sense of what the job entails. A potential employer can get a chance to see what you have to offer, and you get a peek inside to see if the job suits you.
Before Steve Brooks, a veteran TV producer based in Atlanta, opened his boutique winery in Walla Walla, Wash., he worked as an apprentice to top-drawer winemakers in the region, in addition to taking classes. “I made a lot of contacts in the business and connected with winemakers who were willing to mentor me,” Brooks says. “I was a cellar rat for three years, and it was the best education I could imagine.”
(Kerry Hannon is the author of the upcoming book, What’s Next: How to Follow Your Passions to a Fantastic and Fulfilling New Career (Chronicle Books).)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Are Fellow Employees Getting Ready To "Jump Ship" When Economy Recovers?
Are fellow employees in your company getting ready to jump ship as soon as the economy turns around? How about leaving before the economy turns around?
I had the chance yesterday to speak at a local HR "Lunch & Learn" session. Talked about the coming "Fruitbasket Upset" of employees leaving current employer to go someplace else. Bosses think just because certain employees have kept their jobs during the economic crisis, these same employees will be loyal and stay with the company when things get better.
According to a recent survey by Monster and HCI, those bosses need to do a quick reality check:
“Today’s employers feel that employees are loyal due to the economic times, but the reality is they are not,” said Katherine Jones, HCI Research Fellow. “Because of this, there is a strong likelihood that when the economy turns for the better, employers could find themselves with valued employees jumping ship. This places pressure on them to put retention measures in place now.”
How about you? Is your employer doing any kind of effective workplace retention? How long will you stay?
Post a comment or send an email to jmitton@mittonmedia.com.
- 57% of workers believe employers are exploiting the recession to drive longer hours and lower pay from their workforces;
- Only 26% excuse their employers for conducting layoffs and forcing longer hours .
- 74% believe their employer is using recession for employer’s benefit
- 58% believe employers are less concerned about employee retention, if they were ever even concerned at all
- 50% of workers are more concerned now about top performers leaving than before the recession;
- 53% have a decreased company loyalty
- 79% are more likely to be seeking jobs elsewhere
“Today’s employers feel that employees are loyal due to the economic times, but the reality is they are not,” said Katherine Jones, HCI Research Fellow. “Because of this, there is a strong likelihood that when the economy turns for the better, employers could find themselves with valued employees jumping ship. This places pressure on them to put retention measures in place now.”
How about you? Is your employer doing any kind of effective workplace retention? How long will you stay?
Post a comment or send an email to jmitton@mittonmedia.com.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
"Going Postal": Increased Threat of Workplace Violence
On Friday morning, it was announced that America’s unemployment had unexpectedly climbed to 10.2 percent, the highest it’s been in a quarter-century. The jobless report was released right around the time that a bankrupt, desperate, and unemployed 40-year-old man, Jason Rodriguez, attacked his former employer’s office in Orlando, Florida—one of the worst-hit states in the country.
The Orlando office shooting, which left one dead and five wounded, came close on the heels of the massacre at Fort Hood the day before. The Fort Hood shooting was unusual because rarely has a Muslim “gone postal” in the America workplace. But Judeo-Christian Americans, including Latinos like Jason Rodriguez, have been massacring their co-workers and fellow students in “going postal” shootings for well over two decades now.
In fact, America invented these “going postal” murders, starting with the first post-office massacre in Edmonds, Oklahoma in 1986, which left 14 dead and six wounded. Over the next few years, shootings, rampages and suicides were rampant in the U.S. Postal Service, giving rise to a whole new term for these crimes.
At first, they were dismissed as a Postal Service problem, as if loonies had suddenly been recruited to work there. But the murders and complaints piled up, and by 1989, the co-worker-on-co-worker office massacre had jumped like a virus to the private sector—beginning with the rampage shooting at a printing plant in Louisville, Kentucky, which left nine dead and 12 injured.
Soon, workplace massacres of this sort spread all across the country; the term “disgruntled employee” also entered the lexicon, signifying something akin to “terrorist.” By the mid-1990s, even middle-class all-American schools were experiencing mass killings.
Today, 10 years after Columbine, these episodes come and go with such frequency that most Americans hardly notice; they’ve become cable news wallpaper.
Why did these killing sprees begin cropping up in the mid-1980s? When I studied these murders for my book, Going Postal, I traced the roots to Reagan-era economic policies that changed the postwar relationship between employees and companies, and between the middle class and the super-rich.
Government regulation of business was reduced, unions were decimated, and a radical new brand of capitalism became a kind of state religion. The trouble began in the U.S. Postal Service, a major government entity suddenly subjected to market forces under President Richard Nixon. He signed a law banning strikes, opening up the USPS to private-sector competition, and mandating that it become profitable by 1983. Not coincidentally, 1983 was the year of the first postal employee-on-employee shooting in South Carolina. A once-comfy government job had transformed into the sort of stressful workplace that the rest of America would soon experience, too.
Back in 2005, when the book was first published, it wasn’t easy getting Americans to accept this thesis. Now that the entire Reagan model has crashed and most Americans have woken up to the fact that they’ve been taken for a ride, it seems almost self-evident. Average American wages haven’t grown since 1979, while the super-wealthy have seen their share of income soar to the point where the wealth gap in the U.S. is on a par with Mexico and Turkey. Americans today work more hours with less security, fewer health and pension benefits, and even shorter lunch breaks and sick-day leaves, than they had before the Reagan Revolution stripped those protections away. CEOs earned on average 30 times the wages of their workers in 1978; by this decade, they were earning more than 500 times their workers’ average salaries. They did it, in the words of GE’s “Neutron Jack” Welch, by squeezing “unlimited juice” from their employees (Welch famously downsized more than 100,000 GE employees during his reign, while making himself a billionaire).
As the disparities mounted, so, too, did the frustrations in the work force. And Florida has been the site of some particularly horrific outbursts. In 1993, a fired employee of Fireman’s Fund Insurance burst into the Tampa office building, killing three and wounded two; three years earlier, in the largest mass shooting in state history, a 42-year-old man whose Pontiac was repossessed by GMAC entered their Jacksonville office and killed nine employees, wounded six more, then turned the gun on himself.
And those incidents took place during Florida’s boom years. Today, the state is suffering record unemployment, record foreclosures, and one of the hardest-hit real-estate markets in the nation. To make matters worse, a U.S. attorney labeled Florida “ground zero for mortgage fraud;” recently, 105 people involved in a massive mortgage scam were arrested.
This week, the annual “Happiness Index” was released, and Florida, its citizens plagued by high debt, unemployment above the national average, and the third-highest foreclosure rate in the country, came in dead last among all 50 states.
We don’t yet know the full story of what happened with 40-year-old Jason Rodriguez. But against that backdrop, his tale of financial and personal ruin is depressingly familiar.
When he was arrested at his mother’s a few hours after the shooting, he told reporters why he attacked his ex-employer, Reynolds, Smith & Hills: “They left me to rot.” When reporters asked Rodriguez if “they” meant his former employer, he answered: “No. No. I’m angry.”
RS&H fired Rodriguez in 2007. Two months ago, he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He listed his income as $812.67, with $90,000 in debts, and just $4,675 in assets—$4,000 of which came from his Nissan Xterra SUV, the vehicle he fled in after the shooting (and which is described in the filing as in “poor condition”). He owed about $40,000 to Sallie Mae and Wachovia for loans he took out to earn a master’s degree in business administration from a university in Puerto Rico, which he signed up for right around the time when his wife moved there after divorcing him.
Rodriguez does not appear to have had a violent history or a criminal record. In that regard, he’s like most of the others who have “gone postal.” Instead, he seems to be a man ground down by the kind of dreary, familiar pain that more and more Americans experience as jobs disappear and despair takes hold. Until there is a radical rethinking of the way America treats its workers, there are tragically going to be many more like Jason Rodriguez to come.
.
(Source: Mark Ames, November 7, 2009, TheDailyBeast.com)
The Orlando office shooting, which left one dead and five wounded, came close on the heels of the massacre at Fort Hood the day before. The Fort Hood shooting was unusual because rarely has a Muslim “gone postal” in the America workplace. But Judeo-Christian Americans, including Latinos like Jason Rodriguez, have been massacring their co-workers and fellow students in “going postal” shootings for well over two decades now.
In fact, America invented these “going postal” murders, starting with the first post-office massacre in Edmonds, Oklahoma in 1986, which left 14 dead and six wounded. Over the next few years, shootings, rampages and suicides were rampant in the U.S. Postal Service, giving rise to a whole new term for these crimes.
At first, they were dismissed as a Postal Service problem, as if loonies had suddenly been recruited to work there. But the murders and complaints piled up, and by 1989, the co-worker-on-co-worker office massacre had jumped like a virus to the private sector—beginning with the rampage shooting at a printing plant in Louisville, Kentucky, which left nine dead and 12 injured.
Soon, workplace massacres of this sort spread all across the country; the term “disgruntled employee” also entered the lexicon, signifying something akin to “terrorist.” By the mid-1990s, even middle-class all-American schools were experiencing mass killings.
Today, 10 years after Columbine, these episodes come and go with such frequency that most Americans hardly notice; they’ve become cable news wallpaper.
Why did these killing sprees begin cropping up in the mid-1980s? When I studied these murders for my book, Going Postal, I traced the roots to Reagan-era economic policies that changed the postwar relationship between employees and companies, and between the middle class and the super-rich.
Government regulation of business was reduced, unions were decimated, and a radical new brand of capitalism became a kind of state religion. The trouble began in the U.S. Postal Service, a major government entity suddenly subjected to market forces under President Richard Nixon. He signed a law banning strikes, opening up the USPS to private-sector competition, and mandating that it become profitable by 1983. Not coincidentally, 1983 was the year of the first postal employee-on-employee shooting in South Carolina. A once-comfy government job had transformed into the sort of stressful workplace that the rest of America would soon experience, too.
Back in 2005, when the book was first published, it wasn’t easy getting Americans to accept this thesis. Now that the entire Reagan model has crashed and most Americans have woken up to the fact that they’ve been taken for a ride, it seems almost self-evident. Average American wages haven’t grown since 1979, while the super-wealthy have seen their share of income soar to the point where the wealth gap in the U.S. is on a par with Mexico and Turkey. Americans today work more hours with less security, fewer health and pension benefits, and even shorter lunch breaks and sick-day leaves, than they had before the Reagan Revolution stripped those protections away. CEOs earned on average 30 times the wages of their workers in 1978; by this decade, they were earning more than 500 times their workers’ average salaries. They did it, in the words of GE’s “Neutron Jack” Welch, by squeezing “unlimited juice” from their employees (Welch famously downsized more than 100,000 GE employees during his reign, while making himself a billionaire).
As the disparities mounted, so, too, did the frustrations in the work force. And Florida has been the site of some particularly horrific outbursts. In 1993, a fired employee of Fireman’s Fund Insurance burst into the Tampa office building, killing three and wounded two; three years earlier, in the largest mass shooting in state history, a 42-year-old man whose Pontiac was repossessed by GMAC entered their Jacksonville office and killed nine employees, wounded six more, then turned the gun on himself.
And those incidents took place during Florida’s boom years. Today, the state is suffering record unemployment, record foreclosures, and one of the hardest-hit real-estate markets in the nation. To make matters worse, a U.S. attorney labeled Florida “ground zero for mortgage fraud;” recently, 105 people involved in a massive mortgage scam were arrested.
This week, the annual “Happiness Index” was released, and Florida, its citizens plagued by high debt, unemployment above the national average, and the third-highest foreclosure rate in the country, came in dead last among all 50 states.
We don’t yet know the full story of what happened with 40-year-old Jason Rodriguez. But against that backdrop, his tale of financial and personal ruin is depressingly familiar.
When he was arrested at his mother’s a few hours after the shooting, he told reporters why he attacked his ex-employer, Reynolds, Smith & Hills: “They left me to rot.” When reporters asked Rodriguez if “they” meant his former employer, he answered: “No. No. I’m angry.”
RS&H fired Rodriguez in 2007. Two months ago, he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He listed his income as $812.67, with $90,000 in debts, and just $4,675 in assets—$4,000 of which came from his Nissan Xterra SUV, the vehicle he fled in after the shooting (and which is described in the filing as in “poor condition”). He owed about $40,000 to Sallie Mae and Wachovia for loans he took out to earn a master’s degree in business administration from a university in Puerto Rico, which he signed up for right around the time when his wife moved there after divorcing him.
Rodriguez does not appear to have had a violent history or a criminal record. In that regard, he’s like most of the others who have “gone postal.” Instead, he seems to be a man ground down by the kind of dreary, familiar pain that more and more Americans experience as jobs disappear and despair takes hold. Until there is a radical rethinking of the way America treats its workers, there are tragically going to be many more like Jason Rodriguez to come.
.
(Source: Mark Ames, November 7, 2009, TheDailyBeast.com)
Friday, November 6, 2009
From CNN: Landing a job like getting into Harvard
By Samuel Sherraden, Special to CNN
Editor's note: Samuel Sherraden is a policy analyst for the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that promotes innovative thought across the ideological spectrum.
Washington, D.C. (CNN) -- The 650,000 jobs created or saved by the stimulus package so far make up only a small step toward correcting the gap between the tens of millions of unemployed people and the few openings that those people are fighting over.
Even the administration's goal of creating 3.5 million jobs is far below what the economy really needs. With an official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent, the gap between the number of full-time job openings and the number of people who are unemployed has widened.
Since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, job openings declined from 4.4 million to 2.4 million and the number of officially unemployed persons grew from 7.5 million to 15.7 million, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If the 15.7 million officially unemployed workers were to apply for those 2.4 million jobs, the chance of any one of them finding a job are about 15 percent, or roughly the same odds as being accepted to the University of Pennsylvania.
The official figure only counts workers as unemployed if they have searched for a job within the past four weeks. But, does it make sense to exclude people who have not looked for work in the past month? Probably not, given that statistics show workers are trying harder than ever to find a job and only give up looking after prolonged periods of unemployment.
The average duration of official unemployment -- which, by definition, requires that people be actively searching for a job -- has increased to 26.9 weeks, or just over a half a year.
But after many months of unsuccessful job hunting, some people do give up hope. And after four weeks of not looking for a job, they are dropped from official unemployment. It is primarily for this reason that since May, the official labor force has shrunk by 1.1 million people.
The exclusion of these so-called "discouraged" workers from statistics means that the official number of unemployed severely understates the weakness in the labor market. If you include these workers, the unemployment rate would rise to 13 percent, or 21.3 million.
If these workers were to apply for the 2.4 million jobs available, the odds of securing a job would be 11.2 percent, or roughly the same as getting into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
It gets worse. Another group excluded from the official unemployment report is the growing number of part-time workers who would prefer to have a full-time job. These workers are forced into part-time jobs or are forced to take part-time hours because no full-time work is available.
During the current recession, workers who are "part time for economic reasons" have grown from 4.6 million to 9.3million.
Adding part-time workers to the number of officially unemployed and the discouraged workers, as labor market expert Leo Hindery, Jr., has observed, results in a rise in the real unemployment rate to 19.2 percent, or 30.6 million people.
The odds of any one of these 30 million securing one of the 2.4 million full-time jobs available is 8 percent, the same as the admissions rate of the Ivy League gold standard, Harvard University.
The 3.5 million jobs the stimulus package aims to provide are insufficient. To get the job growth the country needs, the White House should push for sustained infrastructure investment, cutting corporate taxes, and increasing access to credit for small businesses.
We still have thirty million workers in the United States who are unemployed, underemployed or discouraged and they face the same odds of finding a job as a high school senior applying to the world's most elite university.
Editor's note: Samuel Sherraden is a policy analyst for the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that promotes innovative thought across the ideological spectrum.
Washington, D.C. (CNN) -- The 650,000 jobs created or saved by the stimulus package so far make up only a small step toward correcting the gap between the tens of millions of unemployed people and the few openings that those people are fighting over.
Even the administration's goal of creating 3.5 million jobs is far below what the economy really needs. With an official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent, the gap between the number of full-time job openings and the number of people who are unemployed has widened.
Since the beginning of the recession in December 2007, job openings declined from 4.4 million to 2.4 million and the number of officially unemployed persons grew from 7.5 million to 15.7 million, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If the 15.7 million officially unemployed workers were to apply for those 2.4 million jobs, the chance of any one of them finding a job are about 15 percent, or roughly the same odds as being accepted to the University of Pennsylvania.
The official figure only counts workers as unemployed if they have searched for a job within the past four weeks. But, does it make sense to exclude people who have not looked for work in the past month? Probably not, given that statistics show workers are trying harder than ever to find a job and only give up looking after prolonged periods of unemployment.
The average duration of official unemployment -- which, by definition, requires that people be actively searching for a job -- has increased to 26.9 weeks, or just over a half a year.
But after many months of unsuccessful job hunting, some people do give up hope. And after four weeks of not looking for a job, they are dropped from official unemployment. It is primarily for this reason that since May, the official labor force has shrunk by 1.1 million people.
The exclusion of these so-called "discouraged" workers from statistics means that the official number of unemployed severely understates the weakness in the labor market. If you include these workers, the unemployment rate would rise to 13 percent, or 21.3 million.
If these workers were to apply for the 2.4 million jobs available, the odds of securing a job would be 11.2 percent, or roughly the same as getting into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
It gets worse. Another group excluded from the official unemployment report is the growing number of part-time workers who would prefer to have a full-time job. These workers are forced into part-time jobs or are forced to take part-time hours because no full-time work is available.
During the current recession, workers who are "part time for economic reasons" have grown from 4.6 million to 9.3million.
Adding part-time workers to the number of officially unemployed and the discouraged workers, as labor market expert Leo Hindery, Jr., has observed, results in a rise in the real unemployment rate to 19.2 percent, or 30.6 million people.
The odds of any one of these 30 million securing one of the 2.4 million full-time jobs available is 8 percent, the same as the admissions rate of the Ivy League gold standard, Harvard University.
The 3.5 million jobs the stimulus package aims to provide are insufficient. To get the job growth the country needs, the White House should push for sustained infrastructure investment, cutting corporate taxes, and increasing access to credit for small businesses.
We still have thirty million workers in the United States who are unemployed, underemployed or discouraged and they face the same odds of finding a job as a high school senior applying to the world's most elite university.
Watch Your Back Elmo: Layoffs Hit Sesame Street
OK, you know it's time for the politicians to move jobs and the economy to the top of the priority list when things like this start to happen:
"Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit producer of "Sesame Street" and other kids' programs, is cutting about one-fifth of its work force because of the economic downturn.
The crisis on Wall Street is plaguing Sesame Street.
Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit producer of "Sesame Street" and other kids' programs, is cutting about one-fifth of its work force because of the economic downturn.
The New York-based company said Wednesday that it's eliminating 67 of 355 staff positions.
Declaring it is "not immune to the unprecedented challenges of today's economic environment," the company pronounced a need "to operate with fewer resources in order to achieve our strategic priorities."
The statement reiterated the organization's mission "of helping children reach their highest potential here and around the globe."
Best known as the home of such Muppet characters as Big Bird and Elmo, Sesame Workshop was founded in 1968 as Children's Television Workshop, then unveiled the groundbreaking "Sesame Street" as a literacy-building initiative a year later. That show, which remains a worldwide hit, was the first step toward a media empire that encompasses television, books, toys and online programming.
Among the company's early TV efforts is "The Electric Company," which aired during the 1970s and was revived with new episodes on PBS in January.
Sesame Workshop gets revenue from product licensing and the sale of its programs to PBS and syndication. The company is also funded by government agencies, foundations and corporations.
Total revenue was $145 million in 2008, with operating expenses totaling $141 million, according to the company's Web site."
(Source: AP, New York)
"Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit producer of "Sesame Street" and other kids' programs, is cutting about one-fifth of its work force because of the economic downturn.
The crisis on Wall Street is plaguing Sesame Street.
Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit producer of "Sesame Street" and other kids' programs, is cutting about one-fifth of its work force because of the economic downturn.
The New York-based company said Wednesday that it's eliminating 67 of 355 staff positions.
Declaring it is "not immune to the unprecedented challenges of today's economic environment," the company pronounced a need "to operate with fewer resources in order to achieve our strategic priorities."
The statement reiterated the organization's mission "of helping children reach their highest potential here and around the globe."
Best known as the home of such Muppet characters as Big Bird and Elmo, Sesame Workshop was founded in 1968 as Children's Television Workshop, then unveiled the groundbreaking "Sesame Street" as a literacy-building initiative a year later. That show, which remains a worldwide hit, was the first step toward a media empire that encompasses television, books, toys and online programming.
Among the company's early TV efforts is "The Electric Company," which aired during the 1970s and was revived with new episodes on PBS in January.
Sesame Workshop gets revenue from product licensing and the sale of its programs to PBS and syndication. The company is also funded by government agencies, foundations and corporations.
Total revenue was $145 million in 2008, with operating expenses totaling $141 million, according to the company's Web site."
(Source: AP, New York)
Unemployment Tops 10 Percent
By: Victoria McGrane November 6, 2009 08:40 AM EST
Democrats – headed into an historic health care vote this weekend — got smacked in the face with a 10.2 percent unemployment rate in October, the government reported Friday.
The jobless rate is well above the 9.9 percent that economists expected and breaks the psychological barrier of 10 percent, topping double digits for the first time in 26 years. It's the last headline the Obama administration wanted to see going into the House healthcare vote, and White House officials were already heading to the airwaves Friday morning to talk up the economy.
In all, employers shed 190,000 non-farm jobs last month.
The tough numbers arm House Republicans with fresh political ammo against the trillion-dollar House health care bill, which could come to a vote as early as Saturday. The GOP has been relentlessly pushing the narrative that Democrats are obsessed with creating ever-bigger government at the expense of the economy, and Democratic response to the bad employment news was thin on Friday morning while Republicans pounced.
“Democrats Job-Killing Agenda Must Cease,” declared a press release from Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.).
"As unemployment tops 10 percent this holiday season, Republicans have put jobs and the economy first, and are focused on developing real solutions that will put Americans back to work," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said. "Increasing taxes on small business, as Democrats will do to pay for government run health care, is the wrong approach."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele slammed the Obama for pushing a “phony” message on economic recovery that GOP election wins Tuesday prove voters aren’t buying anyway.
“With so many families looking for work, it is time the Obama administration stop spreading their phony ‘saved or created' talking points and start creating the dependable jobs America needs,” Steele said in a statement. “President Obama promised jobs during his campaign for president, and the elections in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday were a clear referendum on his failure to deliver on this promise.”
Democrats are in a defensive crouch on the unemployment figures, and still blame Republicans for blocking critical economic measures.
“These are crocodile tears from politicians who had to be dragged kicking and screaming just to extend unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed,” Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told POLITICO, referring to Senate Republicans’ repeated objections to passing legislation extending jobless benefits. “Only Washington Republicans would argue that the way to create jobs is to allow insurance companies to fix prices and deny insurance to sick people.”
Even though it was higher than expected, the upward trend in unemployment comes as no surprise to economists and administration officials alike. Nonetheless, the increase is an uncomfortable reminder for the Obama administration that they’re facing a long string of bad headlines on the economy, despite other evidence that the economy is shaking off the recession.
Anticipating the numbers heading upward, the White House had scheduled Obama to sign legislation extending jobless benefits Friday – a bill Congress cleared just under the wire Thursday and which would also expand and extend the $8,000 homebuyer tax credit.
The signing ceremony was to be closed to the press, but the president is now expected to appear on camera in late morning.
Obama aides nevertheless were dismayed by the worse-than-expected figure. The White House activated a plan calling for the president’s economic advisers to hit the cable channels at 9:30 a.m. A written presidential statement is also planned.
Congressional Democrats also seemed caught flat-footed, lagging well behind their Republican critics in responding to the exceptionally bad jobs numbers. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the joint economic committee, beat out leadership in both chambers, sending out a statement at 9:14 a.m.
“Today’s unemployment report puts a harsh number on the suffering felt by Americans nationwide. While the economy has shown signs of life in recent weeks – durable goods orders are rising and initial unemployment claims are at their lowest point in nearly a year – the problem of joblessness is still pervasive; and it will not be solved overnight,” she said.
There’s wide consensus that the jobless rate hovers above10 percent before it starts to head back down, and it could remain above that figure well into 2010. Hiring typically lags behind other signs of economic recovery in a recession, and this recession has seen deeper job cuts than previous recessions.
The unemployment figures are also sure to up the pressure on Democrats to take steps to boost job creation – all while being careful not to do anything large enough to earn the label of “stimulus,” which would suggest that the first one they did this year didn’t work.
Mike Allen contributed to this story.
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
Democrats – headed into an historic health care vote this weekend — got smacked in the face with a 10.2 percent unemployment rate in October, the government reported Friday.
The jobless rate is well above the 9.9 percent that economists expected and breaks the psychological barrier of 10 percent, topping double digits for the first time in 26 years. It's the last headline the Obama administration wanted to see going into the House healthcare vote, and White House officials were already heading to the airwaves Friday morning to talk up the economy.
In all, employers shed 190,000 non-farm jobs last month.
The tough numbers arm House Republicans with fresh political ammo against the trillion-dollar House health care bill, which could come to a vote as early as Saturday. The GOP has been relentlessly pushing the narrative that Democrats are obsessed with creating ever-bigger government at the expense of the economy, and Democratic response to the bad employment news was thin on Friday morning while Republicans pounced.
“Democrats Job-Killing Agenda Must Cease,” declared a press release from Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.).
"As unemployment tops 10 percent this holiday season, Republicans have put jobs and the economy first, and are focused on developing real solutions that will put Americans back to work," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said. "Increasing taxes on small business, as Democrats will do to pay for government run health care, is the wrong approach."
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele slammed the Obama for pushing a “phony” message on economic recovery that GOP election wins Tuesday prove voters aren’t buying anyway.
“With so many families looking for work, it is time the Obama administration stop spreading their phony ‘saved or created' talking points and start creating the dependable jobs America needs,” Steele said in a statement. “President Obama promised jobs during his campaign for president, and the elections in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday were a clear referendum on his failure to deliver on this promise.”
Democrats are in a defensive crouch on the unemployment figures, and still blame Republicans for blocking critical economic measures.
“These are crocodile tears from politicians who had to be dragged kicking and screaming just to extend unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed,” Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told POLITICO, referring to Senate Republicans’ repeated objections to passing legislation extending jobless benefits. “Only Washington Republicans would argue that the way to create jobs is to allow insurance companies to fix prices and deny insurance to sick people.”
Even though it was higher than expected, the upward trend in unemployment comes as no surprise to economists and administration officials alike. Nonetheless, the increase is an uncomfortable reminder for the Obama administration that they’re facing a long string of bad headlines on the economy, despite other evidence that the economy is shaking off the recession.
Anticipating the numbers heading upward, the White House had scheduled Obama to sign legislation extending jobless benefits Friday – a bill Congress cleared just under the wire Thursday and which would also expand and extend the $8,000 homebuyer tax credit.
The signing ceremony was to be closed to the press, but the president is now expected to appear on camera in late morning.
Obama aides nevertheless were dismayed by the worse-than-expected figure. The White House activated a plan calling for the president’s economic advisers to hit the cable channels at 9:30 a.m. A written presidential statement is also planned.
Congressional Democrats also seemed caught flat-footed, lagging well behind their Republican critics in responding to the exceptionally bad jobs numbers. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the joint economic committee, beat out leadership in both chambers, sending out a statement at 9:14 a.m.
“Today’s unemployment report puts a harsh number on the suffering felt by Americans nationwide. While the economy has shown signs of life in recent weeks – durable goods orders are rising and initial unemployment claims are at their lowest point in nearly a year – the problem of joblessness is still pervasive; and it will not be solved overnight,” she said.
There’s wide consensus that the jobless rate hovers above10 percent before it starts to head back down, and it could remain above that figure well into 2010. Hiring typically lags behind other signs of economic recovery in a recession, and this recession has seen deeper job cuts than previous recessions.
The unemployment figures are also sure to up the pressure on Democrats to take steps to boost job creation – all while being careful not to do anything large enough to earn the label of “stimulus,” which would suggest that the first one they did this year didn’t work.
Mike Allen contributed to this story.
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
Thursday, November 5, 2009
140 Google Interview Questions
Lewis Lin, an Interview Coach in the Seattle area, recently posted these 140 Google Interview Questions on his blog at http://blog.seattleinterviewcoach.com/2009/02/140-google-interview-questions.html.
20 More Weeks of Unemployment Aid
The Senate unanimously passed a bill Wednesday that would extend unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks in states with rates of joblessness above 8.5 percent, which means the jobless in those areas could get up to 99 weeks of benefits. (States with lower rates would get 14 weeks.) This is the "second stimulus" some have buzzed about (though Democratic leadership has avoided the term); it contains other measures to boost the economy as well, all of which were in the original $787 billion stimulus package but were set to expire. This includes an extension of a first-time homebuyer tax credits, credits for homeowners who lived in the same place for at least five years, and would allow businesses who suffered operating losses in 2008-2009 to seek refunds on taxes paid over the past five years. The legislation will likely pass the House Thursday and be quickly signed by President Obama.
(Source: The Daily Beast, November 5, 2009)
(Source: The Daily Beast, November 5, 2009)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Moms Increasingly Going Back to Work in Recession
Thursday , October 29, 2009
By Julie Banderas/Fox News
With men accounting for 72 percent of the nation's job losses since the beginning of the recession, many American families are looking to mom to bring home the bacon. Recent studies found that 40 percent of American women are now the primary earners for their families, and that means more and more moms are going back to work — or at least trying to.
"If you had told me five years ago I would be doing what I'm doing now, I might have said no way," said Liz Morgan, a full-time mom who hopes to return to the workforce.
Morgan, 44, worked for 13 years as a legal publisher before taking on the role of a stay-at-home mom. She left her job four years ago to spend more time with her kids, as her husband's small business provided for their family of five.
But being a stay-at-home mom is a luxury the Morgans can no longer afford.
"I thought, well, it shouldn't be too hard to find a part-time job, and that proved to be more difficult too. I'm not only competing with people my own age — there are a lot of younger people who have more flexible hours," she said. "I basically want to work between 8 and 3."
"They face a motherhood penalty which will make it harder for them," said Pam Stone, a professor of sociology at Hunter College in New York. "It would be hard enough because they have interrupted their careers and their skills are getting rusty."
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an increasing number of married women with a college education between the ages of 25 and 44 are working. Some see the predominantly "male'" recession as an opportunity for women to make a new start.
"The sectors that men have traditionally found good jobs in — finance and technology — aren't going to be doing well going forward," said Sylvia Hewlett, founder of the Center for Work Life Policy.
"So I think a lot of couples are understanding that over the long haul it's the wife and the mother that has the better prospects in the job market."
Times have definitely changed, but not completely: despite women making up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, women continue to be paid 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
By Julie Banderas/Fox News
With men accounting for 72 percent of the nation's job losses since the beginning of the recession, many American families are looking to mom to bring home the bacon. Recent studies found that 40 percent of American women are now the primary earners for their families, and that means more and more moms are going back to work — or at least trying to.
"If you had told me five years ago I would be doing what I'm doing now, I might have said no way," said Liz Morgan, a full-time mom who hopes to return to the workforce.
Morgan, 44, worked for 13 years as a legal publisher before taking on the role of a stay-at-home mom. She left her job four years ago to spend more time with her kids, as her husband's small business provided for their family of five.
But being a stay-at-home mom is a luxury the Morgans can no longer afford.
"I thought, well, it shouldn't be too hard to find a part-time job, and that proved to be more difficult too. I'm not only competing with people my own age — there are a lot of younger people who have more flexible hours," she said. "I basically want to work between 8 and 3."
"They face a motherhood penalty which will make it harder for them," said Pam Stone, a professor of sociology at Hunter College in New York. "It would be hard enough because they have interrupted their careers and their skills are getting rusty."
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that an increasing number of married women with a college education between the ages of 25 and 44 are working. Some see the predominantly "male'" recession as an opportunity for women to make a new start.
"The sectors that men have traditionally found good jobs in — finance and technology — aren't going to be doing well going forward," said Sylvia Hewlett, founder of the Center for Work Life Policy.
"So I think a lot of couples are understanding that over the long haul it's the wife and the mother that has the better prospects in the job market."
Times have definitely changed, but not completely: despite women making up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, women continue to be paid 23 cents less than men for every dollar earned, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Is Your Career Site Making A Good Impression?
A career site can be an effective part of an overall Talent Management System. Or, it could be one of the main reasons why that Talent Management System isn’t doing what you need it to do on a consistent basis. We sat down with interactive design expert Maarten-Jan Waasdorp, COO at Six Foot LLC, and asked him questions that non-interactive experts might want to ask about their own career sites:
1. What are some most common mistakes you see employers making with their career sites?
Companies tend to stick to their current look and branding and make recruitment a part of the corporate site. This often leads to the Career Area on the site being overlooked. If it doesn’t stand out and engage potential candidates, then the candidates will not be motivated to apply for a position with the employer.
2. What are some general suggestions you might have for employers to help them make their career sites more effective?
Some of the suggestions I would make are:
· Start to think like your potential applicants think. Ask “How can I “entertain” the candidate while they are on my site? Are they tech savvy? Are they into Social Media?
· With the current available technology it is very important to be leading-edge so you will get the best people for your jobs.
· Make your recruitment site interactive, attract with visuals like video’s or animations. Engage the potential hire in a game or quiz.
· Make optimal use of all available media; on-line, print, TV and radio and be combined into one powerful recruitment tool.
· Also think of separating recruitment from your main site and set up a separate (mini) site. You can be more efficient and use more SEO/SEM (Search Engine Optimization/Marketing) tools aimed at recruitment.
3. What is the best way to measure traffic coming to your site?
First you have to make sure that anyone looking for a job in your industry/geographic area will find your career site/mini-site. I can’t stress enough the importance of making the search process fast and easy. It all starts with the way your site is initially set up. Once set up, it’s a good idea to ask the company that built your site to also track the traffic coming to the site. There are free options available, but for a small fee it’s worth the peace of mind you get by having experts handle the process on a monthly basis. And it’s quite possible they will notice “Red Flag” indicators you might miss and be able to trouble-shoot on the spot so that your site continues to enjoy a robust flow of traffic.
4. What are a few of these “Red Flags?”
One of the biggest issues is always the question of are you using the right key words to reach your target audience? You may think you know what is driving people to your site, but sometimes perception is not the reality. That’s why traffic metrics are so important. Most employers realize that SEO is not a miracle tool. You have to do intelligent research to ensure your SEO strategy is targeted and will reach the audience that possesses your desired levels of skill-sets and experience. Wrong input will result in wrong output.
5. What steps can an employer take if they need to build or improve their site but don’t have an in-house web department?
The obvious answer is to look for a partner like Six Foot! Aside from that, even if you have an in-house web department, it’s worthwhile to look outside the company and find a vendor who can help you realize the goals you’re trying to accomplish. Take Six Foot for example. We have a large team that does nothing but design and develop solutions exactly like this, using the latest technologies. An experienced design team will come up with ideas you haven’t even thought about yet simply because you were unaware of all the possibilities available at your fingertips.
In Six Foot’s case, we combine these skills with more than 20 years of experience in the Talent Acquisition & Retention business to help you come up with the customized strategies for your specific situation. We also use our vast network of industry partners to combine (web) technology solutions with a wide variety of related consulting services.
6. How do you prevent getting "ripped off" by an outside vendor?
There are a lot of suppliers out there who will provide a lot of different solutions with a lot of different price tags. The outcomes, of course, will be different, too. In most instances you will find that you can’t expect the same result from a smaller “start-up shop” versus a well seasoned, very experienced, award winning company.
In today’s economy it’s tempting to underestimate the importance of quality and focus rather on the cheapest price. Well, a quality product doesn’t always have the highest price. Hopefully you are developing your website so that it becomes an important, strategic and cost-efficient part of your Talent Management process.
For example by attracting higher quality candidates, an effective career site can often help reduce the amount of fees you find yourself having to pay staffing agencies. A good site will also increase your brand identity and value. Paying more does not automatically guarantee good service so I do advise you shop around before making any decisions. Ask friends and colleagues if they are happy with their website provider. Be sure to sit down with the potential design team and engage them in a comprehensive “discovery phase” before you kick-off the project. The discovery will give you an exact scope and plan of the project and will confirm whether or not you are dealing with the right supplier.
SIX FOOT: Six Foot is an interactive agency and consultancy that specializes in ORGINEERING (process mapping, usability and information architecture), INTERACTIVE (websites, portals, animations and applications), ONLINE MARKETING (brand marketing, SEO/SEM, social media and metrics), and EXPERIENTIAL DESIGN (touch screen, digital / interactive retail experiences, kiosks and trade show support). Six Foot has emerged as a leader, specializing in the development and execution of combined online and in-store brand experiences, e-marketing programs, creative design, 2D and 3D animation, and database and back-end infrastructure development.
Maarten-Jan Waasdorp: COO at Six Foot LLC; Maarten-Jan (M-J for short and definitely easy) has over 20 years of global experience in finance, operations, company strategies and general management for Fortune 100 companies. M-J combines all his skills and experience to develop and execute plans for any kind of challenge. M-J was born in the Netherlands and moved to the US in 2007. He is a member of the national COO Forum and the World Affairs Council of Houston.
1. What are some most common mistakes you see employers making with their career sites?
Companies tend to stick to their current look and branding and make recruitment a part of the corporate site. This often leads to the Career Area on the site being overlooked. If it doesn’t stand out and engage potential candidates, then the candidates will not be motivated to apply for a position with the employer.
2. What are some general suggestions you might have for employers to help them make their career sites more effective?
Some of the suggestions I would make are:
· Start to think like your potential applicants think. Ask “How can I “entertain” the candidate while they are on my site? Are they tech savvy? Are they into Social Media?
· With the current available technology it is very important to be leading-edge so you will get the best people for your jobs.
· Make your recruitment site interactive, attract with visuals like video’s or animations. Engage the potential hire in a game or quiz.
· Make optimal use of all available media; on-line, print, TV and radio and be combined into one powerful recruitment tool.
· Also think of separating recruitment from your main site and set up a separate (mini) site. You can be more efficient and use more SEO/SEM (Search Engine Optimization/Marketing) tools aimed at recruitment.
3. What is the best way to measure traffic coming to your site?
First you have to make sure that anyone looking for a job in your industry/geographic area will find your career site/mini-site. I can’t stress enough the importance of making the search process fast and easy. It all starts with the way your site is initially set up. Once set up, it’s a good idea to ask the company that built your site to also track the traffic coming to the site. There are free options available, but for a small fee it’s worth the peace of mind you get by having experts handle the process on a monthly basis. And it’s quite possible they will notice “Red Flag” indicators you might miss and be able to trouble-shoot on the spot so that your site continues to enjoy a robust flow of traffic.
4. What are a few of these “Red Flags?”
One of the biggest issues is always the question of are you using the right key words to reach your target audience? You may think you know what is driving people to your site, but sometimes perception is not the reality. That’s why traffic metrics are so important. Most employers realize that SEO is not a miracle tool. You have to do intelligent research to ensure your SEO strategy is targeted and will reach the audience that possesses your desired levels of skill-sets and experience. Wrong input will result in wrong output.
5. What steps can an employer take if they need to build or improve their site but don’t have an in-house web department?
The obvious answer is to look for a partner like Six Foot! Aside from that, even if you have an in-house web department, it’s worthwhile to look outside the company and find a vendor who can help you realize the goals you’re trying to accomplish. Take Six Foot for example. We have a large team that does nothing but design and develop solutions exactly like this, using the latest technologies. An experienced design team will come up with ideas you haven’t even thought about yet simply because you were unaware of all the possibilities available at your fingertips.
In Six Foot’s case, we combine these skills with more than 20 years of experience in the Talent Acquisition & Retention business to help you come up with the customized strategies for your specific situation. We also use our vast network of industry partners to combine (web) technology solutions with a wide variety of related consulting services.
6. How do you prevent getting "ripped off" by an outside vendor?
There are a lot of suppliers out there who will provide a lot of different solutions with a lot of different price tags. The outcomes, of course, will be different, too. In most instances you will find that you can’t expect the same result from a smaller “start-up shop” versus a well seasoned, very experienced, award winning company.
In today’s economy it’s tempting to underestimate the importance of quality and focus rather on the cheapest price. Well, a quality product doesn’t always have the highest price. Hopefully you are developing your website so that it becomes an important, strategic and cost-efficient part of your Talent Management process.
For example by attracting higher quality candidates, an effective career site can often help reduce the amount of fees you find yourself having to pay staffing agencies. A good site will also increase your brand identity and value. Paying more does not automatically guarantee good service so I do advise you shop around before making any decisions. Ask friends and colleagues if they are happy with their website provider. Be sure to sit down with the potential design team and engage them in a comprehensive “discovery phase” before you kick-off the project. The discovery will give you an exact scope and plan of the project and will confirm whether or not you are dealing with the right supplier.
SIX FOOT: Six Foot is an interactive agency and consultancy that specializes in ORGINEERING (process mapping, usability and information architecture), INTERACTIVE (websites, portals, animations and applications), ONLINE MARKETING (brand marketing, SEO/SEM, social media and metrics), and EXPERIENTIAL DESIGN (touch screen, digital / interactive retail experiences, kiosks and trade show support). Six Foot has emerged as a leader, specializing in the development and execution of combined online and in-store brand experiences, e-marketing programs, creative design, 2D and 3D animation, and database and back-end infrastructure development.
Maarten-Jan Waasdorp: COO at Six Foot LLC; Maarten-Jan (M-J for short and definitely easy) has over 20 years of global experience in finance, operations, company strategies and general management for Fortune 100 companies. M-J combines all his skills and experience to develop and execute plans for any kind of challenge. M-J was born in the Netherlands and moved to the US in 2007. He is a member of the national COO Forum and the World Affairs Council of Houston.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
US in need of Tech reboot
From John Mitton:
Much has been made about the shortage of workers, in the USA, who have the skill-sets needed for jobs of the future, including jobs which haven't been invented yet. I have recently given a series of keynote speeches to a variety of professional groups in different industries which all share the same dilemma: How do we starting producing tomorrow's workforce today? During the keynote sessions we explore answers to questions like: What changes need to be made in what and how we teach our children?; How do we strengthen our childrens "soft skills?"; With only 28% of 9th graders headed to a four-year university, how do we prepare the other 72% to survive in today's workplace?; What happens if we don't act now?
The article by Kendra Marr, "US In Need of Tech Reboot," illustrates that many in corporate America have begun to put realistic training programs and mandates for innovation back on the front-burner. It will be a process involving parents, teachers, Board of Educations, state legislatures, institutions of higher learning at the 2-year and 4-year levels, and finally the workplace itself.
Enjoy the article:
(Source: Politico.com; By: Kendra Marr October 28, 2009 05:01 AM EST)
For years, the U.S. was a pioneer, the renowned home of Yankee ingenuity. The United States put the first man on the moon and invented the light bulb. The country gave the world the daring Wright brothers, billionaire computer genius Bill Gates, Google and the iPod.
But lately, experts say, the U.S.’s creative streak has sputtered. Today, it has gone from being the No. 1 innovative country in the world to No. 6 and has made less progress in international competiveness and innovation than 40 other nations and regions measured in the past decade.
Concerned about the failure to innovate — and convinced that it is the key to a vibrant economy — officials at Intel, the world’s largest maker of semiconductor chips, are convening a high-level conference in Washington next month. There, Obama administration officials, high-tech gurus, NGOs, corporate titans and academics will share ideas on how to spur economic recovery through innovation.
“You need to create circumstances that encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship,” said Peter Cleveland, Intel’s vice president of government relations. He said the conference will explore what skills U.S. workers need to compete in industries of the future, including green technologies, and will tackle how to foster creativity, make scientific investments a priority and encourage cooperation between the public and private sectors.
Industry’s focus on innovation as a key to the future dovetails with White House thinking, and several senior administration officials will participate in the conference, including top economic adviser Larry Summers, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Austan Goolsbee, staff director and chief economist on the president’s economic recovery board. Other scheduled participants include America Online founder Steve Case; Jeff Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric; D.C. Public Schools chief Michelle Rhee; and Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education.
In February, when consultants at McKinsey & Co. asked executives how the government should spend federal stimulus funds, 59 percent answered, “fostering innovation and potential new industries.” Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg echoed that sentiment last week when he proclaimed “investment and innovation has never been more important than it is right now.” “In the face of a global recession, economies all over the world are looking for ways to become smarter, more productive and more competitive,” he said at a broadband industry conference in Chicago. “The key to a smart economy is smart technology that can change business models and change society.”
President Barack Obama embraced the same message last month when he outlined the “groundwork and the ground rules to best tap our innovative potential.” Building on more than $100 billion in stimulus funding, he promised to invest more in research, promote policies that foster entrepreneurship and provide federal backing for clean energy, advanced vehicles and health care technology. “By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world,” Obama said. “We used to be No. 1. We should be No. 1 again.”
That, however, is a formidable challenge. Tight credit markets have driven companies to stash away cash, cut wages and lay off workers. Companies in Standard & Poor’s 500 index chopped 5 percent of their research and development costs and 25 percent of capital expenditures between the end of the third quarter last year and the second quarter of this year, according to the index.
To match Finland’s investment in technology programs on a per capita basis, the U.S. would need to invest $33 billion each year, said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Today, the U.S. spends about $2 billion. “In reality, innovation is not manna from heaven,” he said. “It’s human made and influenced by policy.”
Many experts believe that policy imperative begins with investing more in education. Over the past decade, numerous studies show, the United States has failed to raise math and science test scores, and students in several Asian countries consistently score higher in both subjects.
Economic turmoil often breeds technological breakthroughs. During the Depression, DuPont invented nylon, which paved the way for parachutes and toothbrushes. The dot-com bubble burst in 2001, but that same year, Apple introduced the iPod. The hope is that history will repeat itself. Intel Chairman Craig Barrett has been repeating the company’s mantra: “You can’t save your way out of a recession.”
In February, Intel CEO Paul Otellini announced plans to spend $7 billion to build advanced manufacturing plants in Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico. The company funded mini-documentaries produced by PBS’s “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” that examined the role of innovation in the economy.
Intel and the Aspen Institute also hosted dinner discussions featuring Summers, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra. The Aspen Institute, the journal “Democracy” and PBS are co-hosting the Nov. 30-Dec. 1 Intel Conference. Lehrer and PBS correspondents Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff will be among the moderators.
“It was definitely not hard to get people to participate in the conversation, because it’s on everyone’s mind,” said Jamie Miller, Aspen’s vice president for public programs. “You look at the auto industry and places like Detroit, and there’s a fear that if America’s not at the cusp of innovation, we will not be able to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off,” she said. Said Atkinson: “We were ahead so long — really since the ’50s — that we were kind of blind to the threat going on.”
Much has been made about the shortage of workers, in the USA, who have the skill-sets needed for jobs of the future, including jobs which haven't been invented yet. I have recently given a series of keynote speeches to a variety of professional groups in different industries which all share the same dilemma: How do we starting producing tomorrow's workforce today? During the keynote sessions we explore answers to questions like: What changes need to be made in what and how we teach our children?; How do we strengthen our childrens "soft skills?"; With only 28% of 9th graders headed to a four-year university, how do we prepare the other 72% to survive in today's workplace?; What happens if we don't act now?
The article by Kendra Marr, "US In Need of Tech Reboot," illustrates that many in corporate America have begun to put realistic training programs and mandates for innovation back on the front-burner. It will be a process involving parents, teachers, Board of Educations, state legislatures, institutions of higher learning at the 2-year and 4-year levels, and finally the workplace itself.
Enjoy the article:
(Source: Politico.com; By: Kendra Marr October 28, 2009 05:01 AM EST)
For years, the U.S. was a pioneer, the renowned home of Yankee ingenuity. The United States put the first man on the moon and invented the light bulb. The country gave the world the daring Wright brothers, billionaire computer genius Bill Gates, Google and the iPod.
But lately, experts say, the U.S.’s creative streak has sputtered. Today, it has gone from being the No. 1 innovative country in the world to No. 6 and has made less progress in international competiveness and innovation than 40 other nations and regions measured in the past decade.
Concerned about the failure to innovate — and convinced that it is the key to a vibrant economy — officials at Intel, the world’s largest maker of semiconductor chips, are convening a high-level conference in Washington next month. There, Obama administration officials, high-tech gurus, NGOs, corporate titans and academics will share ideas on how to spur economic recovery through innovation.
“You need to create circumstances that encourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship,” said Peter Cleveland, Intel’s vice president of government relations. He said the conference will explore what skills U.S. workers need to compete in industries of the future, including green technologies, and will tackle how to foster creativity, make scientific investments a priority and encourage cooperation between the public and private sectors.
Industry’s focus on innovation as a key to the future dovetails with White House thinking, and several senior administration officials will participate in the conference, including top economic adviser Larry Summers, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Austan Goolsbee, staff director and chief economist on the president’s economic recovery board. Other scheduled participants include America Online founder Steve Case; Jeff Immelt, the chairman and CEO of General Electric; D.C. Public Schools chief Michelle Rhee; and Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City Department of Education.
In February, when consultants at McKinsey & Co. asked executives how the government should spend federal stimulus funds, 59 percent answered, “fostering innovation and potential new industries.” Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg echoed that sentiment last week when he proclaimed “investment and innovation has never been more important than it is right now.” “In the face of a global recession, economies all over the world are looking for ways to become smarter, more productive and more competitive,” he said at a broadband industry conference in Chicago. “The key to a smart economy is smart technology that can change business models and change society.”
President Barack Obama embraced the same message last month when he outlined the “groundwork and the ground rules to best tap our innovative potential.” Building on more than $100 billion in stimulus funding, he promised to invest more in research, promote policies that foster entrepreneurship and provide federal backing for clean energy, advanced vehicles and health care technology. “By 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world,” Obama said. “We used to be No. 1. We should be No. 1 again.”
That, however, is a formidable challenge. Tight credit markets have driven companies to stash away cash, cut wages and lay off workers. Companies in Standard & Poor’s 500 index chopped 5 percent of their research and development costs and 25 percent of capital expenditures between the end of the third quarter last year and the second quarter of this year, according to the index.
To match Finland’s investment in technology programs on a per capita basis, the U.S. would need to invest $33 billion each year, said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Today, the U.S. spends about $2 billion. “In reality, innovation is not manna from heaven,” he said. “It’s human made and influenced by policy.”
Many experts believe that policy imperative begins with investing more in education. Over the past decade, numerous studies show, the United States has failed to raise math and science test scores, and students in several Asian countries consistently score higher in both subjects.
Economic turmoil often breeds technological breakthroughs. During the Depression, DuPont invented nylon, which paved the way for parachutes and toothbrushes. The dot-com bubble burst in 2001, but that same year, Apple introduced the iPod. The hope is that history will repeat itself. Intel Chairman Craig Barrett has been repeating the company’s mantra: “You can’t save your way out of a recession.”
In February, Intel CEO Paul Otellini announced plans to spend $7 billion to build advanced manufacturing plants in Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico. The company funded mini-documentaries produced by PBS’s “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” that examined the role of innovation in the economy.
Intel and the Aspen Institute also hosted dinner discussions featuring Summers, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra. The Aspen Institute, the journal “Democracy” and PBS are co-hosting the Nov. 30-Dec. 1 Intel Conference. Lehrer and PBS correspondents Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff will be among the moderators.
“It was definitely not hard to get people to participate in the conversation, because it’s on everyone’s mind,” said Jamie Miller, Aspen’s vice president for public programs. “You look at the auto industry and places like Detroit, and there’s a fear that if America’s not at the cusp of innovation, we will not be able to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off,” she said. Said Atkinson: “We were ahead so long — really since the ’50s — that we were kind of blind to the threat going on.”
Monday, September 28, 2009
Understanding Available Retention Strategies: Are You Prepared for Turnover Rates to Double?
(Part 1 of a 2-Part Series) by Dr. John Sullivan on ERE.net, September 28th, 2009:
As the economic turnaround picks up steam, turnover rates in many organizations are likely to skyrocket and recruiting replacement workers of the same caliber will be extremely challenging.
Study after study has confirmed the notion that many employees would have left their employers months/years ago had the option to do so been viable. The economic downturn, combined with the mortgage crisis, has forced many frustrated, disappointed, and unmotivated employees to stay put. The trend is not a new one and is consistent with past downturns.
While turnover rates are at an all-time low, they most certainly cannot be taken as an indication of a firm’s status as a desirable place to work.
Just as in years past, when job opportunities become more prevalent, employees will exercise their right to demonstrate just how much they appreciated the treatment they received throughout reductions in force, furloughs, clumsy mergers, travel freezes, and budget cuts. The level of animosity among many will render most traditional retention [1] approaches ineffective.
Some studies indicate that as many as two-thirds of employees are ready to go. Unfortunately, few corporations are preparing today to handle the dramatic increase in voluntary terminations that will come tomorrow.
While few organizations completely decimated their staffing functions, the majority have cut back to the point where capability has been negatively impacted. Strategic programs that deliver retention have been cut, and in most cases, no one is held accountable for retention solutions. It might seem outrageous, but unless you consider the phrase “let’s keep them all” to be a retention strategy, it’s a fact that most HR and recruiting executives can not even list common retention strategies, let along devise their own.
Retention Is One of the Most Poorly Managed Goals in HR
It’s hard to argue that retaining key employees isn’t a high-value activity, and I can’t say that I have ever visited an organization that would argue otherwise. In fact, most HR leaders and recruiters talk a lot about the importance of retaining the very best employees that the organization has invested so much time, money, and development resources in. Unfortunately, talk is where most HR organizations end when it comes to formalizing retention efforts.
Among organizations that force-rank satisfaction with HR deliverables, retention often ranks high in importance but extremely low in execution. In fact, it’s often lower than compensation and benefits, if you can imagine that!
Its perennial position at the bottom of the list qualifies it as the most poorly managed staffing activity. However, its position at the bottom should come as no surprise, since few organizations can identify who’s in charge of it, what is the strategy, and how retention efforts are measured and evaluated.
These three factors are the reason behind most organizations’ poor retention performance:
Reason #1 — Who is in charge of retention?
In many organizations the answer to this very basic question is no one! Rarely does the organization’s design for the HR function include a role(s) charged with designing, developing, and executing retention programs. When such a role does exist, rarely is it positioned at level with enough resources and power to make a difference (i.e., Senior Director or VP).
When it comes to organizational design, nothing says “low importance” more than lack of budget or executive-level leadership at the helm. Some might argue that all are responsible for retention, but merely listing it as one among many responsibilities essentially guarantees a mediocre enterprise-scale effort.
While great managers may assume ownership of retention activities in their group, because there is no clear support organization, their approaches will largely be ad hoc in nature and inconsistently leveraged, opening the door for anyone disgruntled to scream discrimination!
Reason #2 — The real costs of key employee turnover are not reported.
Retention metrics in most organizations begin and end with overall turnover by period. Absent are metrics that measure the business impact of turnover and specific goals to mitigate predicted impact. If your retention function doesn’t measure and report these five key metrics, chances are your efforts are under-managed:
The cost of turnover. Reporting a percentage turnover rate seldom excites executives, but converting that turnover rate to a dollar impact on business performance can establish the visibility on talent issues needed to transform a good recruiting function into a great one.
Top performer/key employee turnover. Often called regrettable turnover, this measure prioritizes the jobs and individuals based on the degree to which their leaving hurts the firm.
Competitor win/loss ratio. This metric is simply the ratio of the number of top performers you have successfully recruited away from a competitor compared to the number of top performers who voluntarily terminated to join a competitor. If a top performer quitting goes directly to a competing firm (vs. retiring), it raises the costs because it hurts the firm while aiding a competitor.
Preventable turnover. If turnover is occurring for silly or preventable reasons, the percentage of cases where that is true needs to be reported and fixed.
Percentage of “at risk” employees. The best firms proactively identify high-priority individuals who present a high risk of leaving during the next one or two years. Reporting the percentage of target individuals at risk alerts managers helping them put into place proactive programs attacking retention issues before they get out of hand.
Reason #3 — What is the name of your retention strategy?
The economic impact of losing 10% of the workforce each year in a major corporation amounts to tens of millions of dollars. With that amount of money and disruption involved, retention is clearly a strategic issue. To develop a competitive advantage around a strategic issue requires a strategy that is measurably superior to that of your competitors.
Unfortunately, it’s rare for organizations to develop a formal retention strategy. To make matters worse, most HR executives don’t even know the common retention strategies in use that they could adopt.
Before launching into a comprehensive list of common retention strategies, note that all retention strategies fall into one of three categories and usually contain five common elements.
The Five Common Elements of a Retention Strategy
As the economic turnaround picks up steam, turnover rates in many organizations are likely to skyrocket and recruiting replacement workers of the same caliber will be extremely challenging.
Study after study has confirmed the notion that many employees would have left their employers months/years ago had the option to do so been viable. The economic downturn, combined with the mortgage crisis, has forced many frustrated, disappointed, and unmotivated employees to stay put. The trend is not a new one and is consistent with past downturns.
While turnover rates are at an all-time low, they most certainly cannot be taken as an indication of a firm’s status as a desirable place to work.
Just as in years past, when job opportunities become more prevalent, employees will exercise their right to demonstrate just how much they appreciated the treatment they received throughout reductions in force, furloughs, clumsy mergers, travel freezes, and budget cuts. The level of animosity among many will render most traditional retention [1] approaches ineffective.
Some studies indicate that as many as two-thirds of employees are ready to go. Unfortunately, few corporations are preparing today to handle the dramatic increase in voluntary terminations that will come tomorrow.
While few organizations completely decimated their staffing functions, the majority have cut back to the point where capability has been negatively impacted. Strategic programs that deliver retention have been cut, and in most cases, no one is held accountable for retention solutions. It might seem outrageous, but unless you consider the phrase “let’s keep them all” to be a retention strategy, it’s a fact that most HR and recruiting executives can not even list common retention strategies, let along devise their own.
Retention Is One of the Most Poorly Managed Goals in HR
It’s hard to argue that retaining key employees isn’t a high-value activity, and I can’t say that I have ever visited an organization that would argue otherwise. In fact, most HR leaders and recruiters talk a lot about the importance of retaining the very best employees that the organization has invested so much time, money, and development resources in. Unfortunately, talk is where most HR organizations end when it comes to formalizing retention efforts.
Among organizations that force-rank satisfaction with HR deliverables, retention often ranks high in importance but extremely low in execution. In fact, it’s often lower than compensation and benefits, if you can imagine that!
Its perennial position at the bottom of the list qualifies it as the most poorly managed staffing activity. However, its position at the bottom should come as no surprise, since few organizations can identify who’s in charge of it, what is the strategy, and how retention efforts are measured and evaluated.
These three factors are the reason behind most organizations’ poor retention performance:
Reason #1 — Who is in charge of retention?
In many organizations the answer to this very basic question is no one! Rarely does the organization’s design for the HR function include a role(s) charged with designing, developing, and executing retention programs. When such a role does exist, rarely is it positioned at level with enough resources and power to make a difference (i.e., Senior Director or VP).
When it comes to organizational design, nothing says “low importance” more than lack of budget or executive-level leadership at the helm. Some might argue that all are responsible for retention, but merely listing it as one among many responsibilities essentially guarantees a mediocre enterprise-scale effort.
While great managers may assume ownership of retention activities in their group, because there is no clear support organization, their approaches will largely be ad hoc in nature and inconsistently leveraged, opening the door for anyone disgruntled to scream discrimination!
Reason #2 — The real costs of key employee turnover are not reported.
Retention metrics in most organizations begin and end with overall turnover by period. Absent are metrics that measure the business impact of turnover and specific goals to mitigate predicted impact. If your retention function doesn’t measure and report these five key metrics, chances are your efforts are under-managed:
The cost of turnover. Reporting a percentage turnover rate seldom excites executives, but converting that turnover rate to a dollar impact on business performance can establish the visibility on talent issues needed to transform a good recruiting function into a great one.
Top performer/key employee turnover. Often called regrettable turnover, this measure prioritizes the jobs and individuals based on the degree to which their leaving hurts the firm.
Competitor win/loss ratio. This metric is simply the ratio of the number of top performers you have successfully recruited away from a competitor compared to the number of top performers who voluntarily terminated to join a competitor. If a top performer quitting goes directly to a competing firm (vs. retiring), it raises the costs because it hurts the firm while aiding a competitor.
Preventable turnover. If turnover is occurring for silly or preventable reasons, the percentage of cases where that is true needs to be reported and fixed.
Percentage of “at risk” employees. The best firms proactively identify high-priority individuals who present a high risk of leaving during the next one or two years. Reporting the percentage of target individuals at risk alerts managers helping them put into place proactive programs attacking retention issues before they get out of hand.
Reason #3 — What is the name of your retention strategy?
The economic impact of losing 10% of the workforce each year in a major corporation amounts to tens of millions of dollars. With that amount of money and disruption involved, retention is clearly a strategic issue. To develop a competitive advantage around a strategic issue requires a strategy that is measurably superior to that of your competitors.
Unfortunately, it’s rare for organizations to develop a formal retention strategy. To make matters worse, most HR executives don’t even know the common retention strategies in use that they could adopt.
Before launching into a comprehensive list of common retention strategies, note that all retention strategies fall into one of three categories and usually contain five common elements.
The Five Common Elements of a Retention Strategy
- Goals of the strategy. This element identifies the goals and specific results the strategy should produce.
- Prioritization process. This element specifies the methodology that will be employed to determine which (if any) employees should receive priority treatment.
- Identifying turnover causes. This element specifies the methodology that will be employed to identify the primary factors that “cause” employees to leave.
- Retention solutions. This element contains a catalog of proven counter measures or solutions that can be employed by managers to halt or reverse a trend of turnover categorized by common cause.
- Success measures. This last element covers the process for selecting retention metrics and reporting the results.
The Three Categories of Common Recruiting Strategies
Retention strategies usually fall into one of three categories, but world-class organizations often employ a hybrid approach that uses different strategies for different groups within the organization based on their role in achieving wildly important organizational goals. The three common categories include:
- Laissez-faire approaches. This group contains decentralized retention strategies that rely almost exclusively on operating managers to solve the retention problem.
- Comprehensive approaches. These approaches attempt to retain all employees by improving the treatment, pay, or benefits of all employees. These approaches are also called “peanut butter” strategies because they attempt to spread the improved treatment evenly across all employees.
- Targeted or personalized approaches. This category concentrates retention efforts on high-priority individuals and jobs and then customizes the treatment as much as possible in order to fit the individual needs of the targeted employee.
Friday, September 18, 2009
My Boss Sent "Friend Request!"
(Source: medialifemagazine.com. Sep 18, 2009 - 1:02:58 AM)
Dear Rachel, I have a problem. My boss has sent me a friend request on Facebook. I know she's already friends with a few people in the office. The thing is, I don't know if I should friend her. We get along fine, but I don't particularly want her to see my status updates, some of which are inappropriate for work, or know the fact that I stay logged on to the site all day, even during work. At the same time, I don't want to offend her by rejecting her request. So far I've just been pretending I haven't seen it, but it's already been a few weeks, and I'm starting to feel uncomfortable. What should I do?-- Facebook Addict
Dear Addict, I think you should be truthful with her and explain that as much as you respect her as a boss and like her as a person, you believe it's important to keep your personal life separate from your office life and that friending her would cross that line. You won't feel particularly comfortable about doing it, but if you handle it well, you can maintain good relations and get the matter behind you.
You don't have much choice, really.If you don't address the issue, she might let it drop but more likely she would persist, and at some point you could find yourself in a far more uncomfortable situation.She’ll be offended on two fronts. You’ve not friended her and you’ve been rude in not even acknowledging her request. I think the other issue you raise is what you are putting up on your page.Sites like Facebook invite users to open themselves up to their friends, and they are a wonderful way to stay in touch with people without having to pick up the telephone. But we all know the downsides. What you post can find its way into the wrong places, leading to all sorts of embarrassment. The best advice--and I am hardly original in saying this--is to never post anything you wouldn't want your mother to see. So leave off all references to your steamy dates, and leave off all snide comments about people you work with, or know socially.
As for your Facebook addiction, I can offer little help there. I have the same addiction, and I rationalize it this way: There are worse things to get hooked on.In time there may be a 12-step program for us, but until then I'll just have to learn to control my addictive behavior.
Dear Rachel, I have a problem. My boss has sent me a friend request on Facebook. I know she's already friends with a few people in the office. The thing is, I don't know if I should friend her. We get along fine, but I don't particularly want her to see my status updates, some of which are inappropriate for work, or know the fact that I stay logged on to the site all day, even during work. At the same time, I don't want to offend her by rejecting her request. So far I've just been pretending I haven't seen it, but it's already been a few weeks, and I'm starting to feel uncomfortable. What should I do?-- Facebook Addict
Dear Addict, I think you should be truthful with her and explain that as much as you respect her as a boss and like her as a person, you believe it's important to keep your personal life separate from your office life and that friending her would cross that line. You won't feel particularly comfortable about doing it, but if you handle it well, you can maintain good relations and get the matter behind you.
You don't have much choice, really.If you don't address the issue, she might let it drop but more likely she would persist, and at some point you could find yourself in a far more uncomfortable situation.She’ll be offended on two fronts. You’ve not friended her and you’ve been rude in not even acknowledging her request. I think the other issue you raise is what you are putting up on your page.Sites like Facebook invite users to open themselves up to their friends, and they are a wonderful way to stay in touch with people without having to pick up the telephone. But we all know the downsides. What you post can find its way into the wrong places, leading to all sorts of embarrassment. The best advice--and I am hardly original in saying this--is to never post anything you wouldn't want your mother to see. So leave off all references to your steamy dates, and leave off all snide comments about people you work with, or know socially.
As for your Facebook addiction, I can offer little help there. I have the same addiction, and I rationalize it this way: There are worse things to get hooked on.In time there may be a 12-step program for us, but until then I'll just have to learn to control my addictive behavior.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Best Buy calls Twitter a job qualification
Employment ad asks for "250 plus followers" on social networking site
By Paul McNamara on Mon, 07/13/09 - 10:46am on Buzzblog.
Twitter skeptics -- and they remain legion -- will find the idea silly … but it's not, particularly not in this case.
Of course Best Buy should be seeking Twitter experience in a candidate for a senior manager's position in "emerging media." Who would dream of landing such a job without first-hand knowledge of the most-hyped emerging medium in recent memory?
But that's not to say the company is going about measuring Twitter savvy in the right manner; its not.
Nor does it answer the more difficult question of who among us needs to be on Twitter for the sake of our employers and our careers. (It's a question we're grappling with right now at Network World.)
From a Computerworld Canada story:
A recent job posting on Best Buy Co Inc.’s Web site for a Senior Manager – Emerging Media Marketing position based out of the company’s corporate headquarters in Richfield, Minn. listed two preferred job qualifications: a graduate degree and 250+ followers on Twitter.
Basic qualifications for the position include a Bachelor’s degree, “two plus years of mobile or social media marketing experience” at the director or strategist level, “four plus years people or resource leadership experience” and “one plus years of active blogging experience."
Again, I'd want any candidate for such a job to be an active blogger and have a hand in Twitter. However, an arbitrary number of Twitter followers will not separate the dabblers from the more meaningfully experienced, as was noted by employment experts quoted in the story.
Anyone can accumulate followers on Twitter. The real questions are whether you're actively participating and realizing any tangible benefits from that participation.
Although I'm not interested in working for Best Buy, I do meet the company's Twitter threshold, having attracted 1,653 followers since taking the plunge eight months ago. Over that span, I have sent 2,552 Twitter messages -- roughly 10 Tweets a day, seven days a week. While not by any stretch a Twitter heavyweight, that does put me in the top 1 percent of 2.7 million accounts tracked by TwitterGrader.com.
Yet I remain wholly unconvinced that everyone needs to be on Twitter.
Yes for would-be senior managers of emerging media. Yes for technology trade-press editors. No for CEOs. (A recent survey showed only two Fortune 100 CEOs are on Twitter, and it seems to me they have more to explain than the non-Tweeting 98.) Maybe for most everyone else.
As for you, your job and your future aspirations? The best way to find out is to give Twitter a shot. It's free, it can't hurt, you might find you like it … and you never know when you might need a job at Best Buy.
(Update: Just stumbled across this item noting that Best Buy in general is big on Twitter and that company CEO Brian Dunn has an account, albeit one that just barely would qualify him for employment in his marketing department.)
By Paul McNamara on Mon, 07/13/09 - 10:46am on Buzzblog.
Twitter skeptics -- and they remain legion -- will find the idea silly … but it's not, particularly not in this case.
Of course Best Buy should be seeking Twitter experience in a candidate for a senior manager's position in "emerging media." Who would dream of landing such a job without first-hand knowledge of the most-hyped emerging medium in recent memory?
But that's not to say the company is going about measuring Twitter savvy in the right manner; its not.
Nor does it answer the more difficult question of who among us needs to be on Twitter for the sake of our employers and our careers. (It's a question we're grappling with right now at Network World.)
From a Computerworld Canada story:
A recent job posting on Best Buy Co Inc.’s Web site for a Senior Manager – Emerging Media Marketing position based out of the company’s corporate headquarters in Richfield, Minn. listed two preferred job qualifications: a graduate degree and 250+ followers on Twitter.
Basic qualifications for the position include a Bachelor’s degree, “two plus years of mobile or social media marketing experience” at the director or strategist level, “four plus years people or resource leadership experience” and “one plus years of active blogging experience."
Again, I'd want any candidate for such a job to be an active blogger and have a hand in Twitter. However, an arbitrary number of Twitter followers will not separate the dabblers from the more meaningfully experienced, as was noted by employment experts quoted in the story.
Anyone can accumulate followers on Twitter. The real questions are whether you're actively participating and realizing any tangible benefits from that participation.
Although I'm not interested in working for Best Buy, I do meet the company's Twitter threshold, having attracted 1,653 followers since taking the plunge eight months ago. Over that span, I have sent 2,552 Twitter messages -- roughly 10 Tweets a day, seven days a week. While not by any stretch a Twitter heavyweight, that does put me in the top 1 percent of 2.7 million accounts tracked by TwitterGrader.com.
Yet I remain wholly unconvinced that everyone needs to be on Twitter.
Yes for would-be senior managers of emerging media. Yes for technology trade-press editors. No for CEOs. (A recent survey showed only two Fortune 100 CEOs are on Twitter, and it seems to me they have more to explain than the non-Tweeting 98.) Maybe for most everyone else.
As for you, your job and your future aspirations? The best way to find out is to give Twitter a shot. It's free, it can't hurt, you might find you like it … and you never know when you might need a job at Best Buy.
(Update: Just stumbled across this item noting that Best Buy in general is big on Twitter and that company CEO Brian Dunn has an account, albeit one that just barely would qualify him for employment in his marketing department.)
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tough job market for teens
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10:08am EDT
Atlanta Business Chronicle
Companies are hiring more teens this summer, compared to a year ago, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.
But at the current pace, it would still be the second-worst job market for teens since the late 1950s, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Companies hired 111,000 teens in May, followed by 698,000 in June — or a total of 809,000 jobs this summer. That’s about 10,000 more than the first two months of summer 2008.
Last year, companies hired 1.17 million 16- to 19-year-olds, the lowest since 976,000 teens in 1954.
“While summer hiring among teens is by no means robust, it has been stronger than expected, particularly in light of this recession’s impact on retailers, restaurants, tourist destinations and other businesses that are typically the biggest recruiters of teenagers during the summer months,” said John Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
The company estimates more than 1 million teens will find work this summer.
“For those who are still wanting a summer job, it is not too late to find one,” he said. “Some retailers may add more workers for back-to-school sales. Other employers may need to replace workers who didn’t work out.”
Atlanta Business Chronicle
Companies are hiring more teens this summer, compared to a year ago, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc.
But at the current pace, it would still be the second-worst job market for teens since the late 1950s, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Companies hired 111,000 teens in May, followed by 698,000 in June — or a total of 809,000 jobs this summer. That’s about 10,000 more than the first two months of summer 2008.
Last year, companies hired 1.17 million 16- to 19-year-olds, the lowest since 976,000 teens in 1954.
“While summer hiring among teens is by no means robust, it has been stronger than expected, particularly in light of this recession’s impact on retailers, restaurants, tourist destinations and other businesses that are typically the biggest recruiters of teenagers during the summer months,” said John Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
The company estimates more than 1 million teens will find work this summer.
“For those who are still wanting a summer job, it is not too late to find one,” he said. “Some retailers may add more workers for back-to-school sales. Other employers may need to replace workers who didn’t work out.”
Thursday, June 11, 2009
U.S. college grads shun Wall Street for Washington
U.S. college grads shun Wall Street for Washington
11 Jun 2009 12:03:20 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Wendell Marsh
WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) - Wall Street may be losing its luster for new U.S. college graduates who are increasingly looking to the government for jobs that enrich their social conscience, if not their wallet.
In the boom years, New York's financial center lured many of the brightest young stars with the promise of high salaries and bonuses. But the financial crisis has tainted the image of big banks, and with fewer financial jobs available, Uncle Sam may be reaping the benefit.
"Some grads might have seen two of their older siblings go through the dot-com crash and the emptiness of that, and now the Wall Street crash, just chasing after the big bucks," said John Challenger, chief executive of job placement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Some of the appeal of Washington simply reflects the grim reality of graduating in the midst of the worst recession in decades. The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 9.4 percent in May, which means new graduates are competing with a large pool of older unemployed workers for a limited supply of jobs.
A report from the National Association of Colleges and Employers projected a 21.6 percent decrease in new hires among college graduates. Almost every sector was hit, with banking taking the biggest blow, dropping 70.9 percent.
"Students don't see the private sector as being as viable this year," said Edwin Koc, director of strategic and foundation research for the Pennsylvania-based NACE.
Of the roughly 1.6 million students who recently graduated from college, only 19.7 percent had secured jobs upon graduation in May, according to NACE's 2009 student survey.
But Labor Department data shows employment in the Washington area has increased since early 2008, even as other regions have lost jobs.
"D.C. is the only place where we can point to that is actually adding jobs right now, and we also know that the government is hiring thousands of people to oversee both the (economic) stimulus package and all the associated projects," said Marisa Di Natale, Senior Economist for Moody's Economy.com.
GIVE BACK
Challenger said the excitement surrounding the election of President Barack Obama, who enjoyed huge support on college campuses, was also attracting young graduates to government and government-service contractors.
Britini Wilcher is one of them. Wilcher, a recent graduate from Spelman College in Atlanta, spent two summers as an intern for Merrill Lynch, which was hard hit by the financial crisis and taken over by Bank of America Corp last year.
When it came time to look for full-time employment, Wilcher wanted to do something with a bigger social impact.
The California native will be working in Washington for a government consulting firm where she will specialize in economic development.
"It's becoming trendy to take your community into your hands and give back, which is a good thing," Wilcher said. "People are empowered by the current political climate."
The shift in attitudes is also apparent in graduate school enrollment. At Morehouse College, more graduates are opting to study public policy, said Douglas Cooper, director of career services at the college's division of business and economics.
That is a big change for Morehouse, which has a long history of sending its students on to Wall Street, thanks in part to a relationship solidified by former college president and current Bank of America Chairman Walter Massey.
"Clearly, students who have historically planned on making a beeline to Wall Street have rethought that or are rethinking that," Cooper said.
The share of Morehouse business students going into finance has decreased to 37.5 percent this year from 44 percent a year earlier, while the number of students going on to graduate school has almost doubled.
Most students who continue to graduate school this year are planning to go into government-related fields, Cooper said.
Some think the shift will have longer-term consequences in employment trends as the baby boomer generation approaches retirement, opening up career paths in government and service.
"You may see a whole generation of some of the very best students that decide to do public service rather than business," Challenger said.
(Reporting by Wendell Marsh; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
11 Jun 2009 12:03:20 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Wendell Marsh
WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) - Wall Street may be losing its luster for new U.S. college graduates who are increasingly looking to the government for jobs that enrich their social conscience, if not their wallet.
In the boom years, New York's financial center lured many of the brightest young stars with the promise of high salaries and bonuses. But the financial crisis has tainted the image of big banks, and with fewer financial jobs available, Uncle Sam may be reaping the benefit.
"Some grads might have seen two of their older siblings go through the dot-com crash and the emptiness of that, and now the Wall Street crash, just chasing after the big bucks," said John Challenger, chief executive of job placement company Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Some of the appeal of Washington simply reflects the grim reality of graduating in the midst of the worst recession in decades. The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 9.4 percent in May, which means new graduates are competing with a large pool of older unemployed workers for a limited supply of jobs.
A report from the National Association of Colleges and Employers projected a 21.6 percent decrease in new hires among college graduates. Almost every sector was hit, with banking taking the biggest blow, dropping 70.9 percent.
"Students don't see the private sector as being as viable this year," said Edwin Koc, director of strategic and foundation research for the Pennsylvania-based NACE.
Of the roughly 1.6 million students who recently graduated from college, only 19.7 percent had secured jobs upon graduation in May, according to NACE's 2009 student survey.
But Labor Department data shows employment in the Washington area has increased since early 2008, even as other regions have lost jobs.
"D.C. is the only place where we can point to that is actually adding jobs right now, and we also know that the government is hiring thousands of people to oversee both the (economic) stimulus package and all the associated projects," said Marisa Di Natale, Senior Economist for Moody's Economy.com.
GIVE BACK
Challenger said the excitement surrounding the election of President Barack Obama, who enjoyed huge support on college campuses, was also attracting young graduates to government and government-service contractors.
Britini Wilcher is one of them. Wilcher, a recent graduate from Spelman College in Atlanta, spent two summers as an intern for Merrill Lynch, which was hard hit by the financial crisis and taken over by Bank of America Corp last year.
When it came time to look for full-time employment, Wilcher wanted to do something with a bigger social impact.
The California native will be working in Washington for a government consulting firm where she will specialize in economic development.
"It's becoming trendy to take your community into your hands and give back, which is a good thing," Wilcher said. "People are empowered by the current political climate."
The shift in attitudes is also apparent in graduate school enrollment. At Morehouse College, more graduates are opting to study public policy, said Douglas Cooper, director of career services at the college's division of business and economics.
That is a big change for Morehouse, which has a long history of sending its students on to Wall Street, thanks in part to a relationship solidified by former college president and current Bank of America Chairman Walter Massey.
"Clearly, students who have historically planned on making a beeline to Wall Street have rethought that or are rethinking that," Cooper said.
The share of Morehouse business students going into finance has decreased to 37.5 percent this year from 44 percent a year earlier, while the number of students going on to graduate school has almost doubled.
Most students who continue to graduate school this year are planning to go into government-related fields, Cooper said.
Some think the shift will have longer-term consequences in employment trends as the baby boomer generation approaches retirement, opening up career paths in government and service.
"You may see a whole generation of some of the very best students that decide to do public service rather than business," Challenger said.
(Reporting by Wendell Marsh; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Houston Community College Launches Job Partnership Program
Houston Community College's "Partners for Jobs" is a collaboration of interested organizations helping Houstonians get an education or training and identify job opportunities. Members of the corporate community assisting HCC in this effort include: MITTONMedia; Employment Expert Rick Gillis; Jobs Ministry Southwest; Waste Management; HR Houston; Greater Houston Business Partnership; HoustonJobs.com; Workforce Solutions, Houston Chronicle and Comcast.
Learn more about the program by going to http://www.hccpartnersforjobs.org/. To watch part of the press conference launch with Houston Mayor Bill White, click on this link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AkxKkS04tk
And remember, "A great job is only an education away."
Learn more about the program by going to http://www.hccpartnersforjobs.org/. To watch part of the press conference launch with Houston Mayor Bill White, click on this link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AkxKkS04tk
And remember, "A great job is only an education away."
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims: The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.
There are many sides in today's debate about job gains or losses in this economy. Wanting to present all sides, here is an article from today's WSJ:
By WILLIAM MCGURN/WSJ/June 9, 2009
Tony Fratto is envious.
Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."
"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."
The president should 'save or create' more jobs in Cleveland.
Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."
Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.
And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.
"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."
Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.
It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.
"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.
If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.
"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."
By WILLIAM MCGURN/WSJ/June 9, 2009
Tony Fratto is envious.
Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."
"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."
The president should 'save or create' more jobs in Cleveland.
Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."
Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.
And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.
"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."
Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.
It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.
"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.
If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.
"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
