Question Of The Day - Raising The Minimum Wage?

Given all of the recent talk about growing economic inequality, the gap between real wages and what these wages can buy, the cost of living, and the effects of long-term unemployment, (I thought it was necessary to put the question of what the American people think about the idea of raising the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

In responding, keep the following perspective in mind:

-Congress, our "esteemed" federal legislative body, 50% of which are millionaires whose better-than-decent retirement plan WE taxpayers pay for can vote THEMSELVES a pay raise...
-Athletes who WE pay to watch (in one form or another) can earn millions of dollars a year...
-Corporate officers/CEO's/CFO's of companies WE work for can earn million-dollar salaries and golden parachutes severance packages --ALL because "they earned it."

But WE hard-working Americans can't have a minimum wage in line with the cost of living because it will "destroy jobs?" Some politicians apparently "care" about Americans having "jobs," just not well-paying ones.

Should The Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25 hr. Be Raised?
	Yes, Raise It
	No, It's Enough To Live Comfortably Off Of
pollcode.com free polls

Read More

Unemployment News…The Good, The Bad, and Reality!

Let’s start with the good news first. Wall Street analysts and jobs forecasters were (pleasantly) surprised by the government’s official job’s report released yesterday, which indicated that the American economy created an estimated 236,000 jobs last month. These numbers were a surprise to analysts because “they expected hiring to downshift in early 2013 because of ongoing U.S. budget disputes, the onset of higher tax rates and the looming threat of federal spending cuts that took effect in March” (“U.S. Economy Adds 236,000 Jobs In February”). According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the biggest increases in hiring occurred in professional services (73,000), construction (48,000), health care (32,000) and retail (24,000). On the surface, this is good news, as it infuses those seeking jobs a level of hope that employers are actually picking up the pace in hiring, and that they might actually land a much-coveted job in this still tough economy. However, these numbers provide a cautionary tale of how facts, figures, and semantics can often obscure the reality for—for example—job hunters on the ground.
Yesterday’s government jobs’ numbers routinely reflect a complicated mix of official projections, estimations, and tangible numbers that are calculated (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) to reach such conclusions. And despite calls from conspiratorial quarters which suggest that presidential administrations can actually fudge the numbers to their political benefit, the government uses the same criteria for assessing projected jobs numbers that they've been using since the 1940s. Today’s revealed 7.7% unemployment rate represents the aggregate the 12 million people who are known to be actively looking for work, but cannot any. This is what the government refers to as the “official” unemployment rate known as the U-3 rate. However, many Americans who struggle to find work know that there is a different reality other than the “reality” monthly official government numbers represent (I allude to this point in some part on one of my sister blogs, “Employers…Shut Up And Listen”). Take the hiring process. More and more employers are employing the practice of many multiple interviews in order to fill limited slots with qualified job candidates. One former human resources insider reveals that the well-known and increasingly used practice is known as “chasing that purple squirrel…a human resources term for an impossibly qualified job applicant” (See: “With Positions to Fill, Employers Waiting For Perfection”). And with the current economy representing an employers’ market,

But there’s also little pressure to hire right now, so long as candidates are abundant and existing staff members are afraid to refuse the extra workload created by an unfilled position. Employers can keep dragging out the hiring process until they’re more confident about their business — or at least until they find the superstar candidate.

Much in the way of the current hiring process seems to be more of a drain on employers’ resources than a legitimate screening process for a legitimate job applicant. One out-of-work video editor recalled the hurdles that he had to circumvent 8- and 9- round job interviews for a position which precisely matched his skills and experience. The applicant had

taken several video-editing tests, which he says he aced. But he has also been subjected to a battery of personality and psychological exams, a spelling quiz and even a math test (including a question that began, to the best of his recollection, “If John is on a train traveling from New York at 40 miles per hour, and Susie is on a train from Boston...”). He passed the math test with a 90 percent score.

This stringing-along-the-applicant process (with no call-backs) contributes to job searchers in many instances finally giving up looking for work. The unemployment rate that includes these disgruntled job searchers as well as those part-time workers looking for full-time work is what’s known in government circles as the U-6 rate. This rate is said to represent the true unemployment rate as it reflects the 8 million more individuals from these latter categories. Factoring in these job seekers that employers’ hiring practices dissuade means that the actual unemployment rate is an estimated 14.3%, as opposed to the 7.7% reported yesterday (See: Bureau of Labor Statistics website for rates that include these numbers).

The upshot is that the government’s reported numbers—particularly in the case of employment—should be taken with a little scrutiny, and great deal of due diligence on the part of the American citizen in order to sort the fact behind them. In many cases, there are statistics, and there is a level of inconsistent reality on the ground which tends to render such figures almost abstract. Shrinking unemployment numbers are good, but too many employers are making it too hard for job seekers to find work. According to a survey from Manpower, some 3 million jobs go unfilled from any given year-to-year because of employer’s inability to find qualified individuals. But such a figure seems to stand in contrast to the reality when employers are requiring qualified candidates to return for multiple rounds of interviews, only not to be offered a position; clearly many job applicants have the skills employers are seeking if employers are requiring job seekers to spent so much of their precious time and expense (such as high gasoline costs) to jump through hoops. The video editor who went through the multi, multiple-round interviews calculates that the three positions he applied for cost him $520.36 in parking fees, two parking tickets, gas and trips to Starbucks while waiting for his interviews. Clearly employers don’t take such details into consideration when requiring job applicants to go through such rigors for a coveted position.
What's more, data from Glassdoor.com, a site that collects information on hiring at different companies, shows that the average duration of the interview process at other major companies like Starbucks, General Mills and Southwest Airlines has roughly doubled in the last couple of years.  So it's not just high-tech, specialized employers who are requiring more in the way of excessive prospect weeding-out.

Another disproven aspect of the unemployment numbers is the notion that infusing American businesses with more tax-breaks in order to spur both growth and hiring is a non-factor. According to most recent figures, American companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash reserves, many of them holding back on hiring new workers until the economy stabilizes to a satisfying level (“The $5 Trillion Stash: U.S. Corporations' Money Hoard Is Bigger Than the GDP of Germany”). If companies are not reinvesting their already ample case reserves into growth and hiring, there is no rational expectation that an infusion of more cash reserves in the way of (more) tax breaks would spur them to do the same. Such thinking almost defies common sense.

When it comes to the monthly employment numbers, Americans should—as they should any other statistic from the government, the various political parties, and employers themselves—take the time to look below the partisan hype and promotion of “great times” or “doom-n-gloom.”  Solutions are simple; implementing them is a matter of will and clear thinking, not policy.

See also:  "A Criticism of Employers in America," "Employers…Shut Up And Listen!," and "Employers…Shut Up And Listen, Too!").

Read More

Let's REALLY Look At "Right To Work!"

On the surface, I agree with Michigan's new 'right-to-work" law, which forbids members of unions from having to pay mandatory union dues.  Yes, I don't agree that workers should be made to pay mandatory union dues as condition of their membership, but I don't believe that legislative action should be used to mandate such.
As with anything new law, the motivation was partly political.  Yes, it makes sense--especially in the automobile capital of America--to have a policy meant to stem the building of new automobile plants in mostly Southern "right-to-work" states.  Such a law incentivizes building new plants in Michigan, a state hit particularly hard by the recent economic downturn. But the law also has the added effect of siphoning off potential money which unions use in support pro-union candidates for public office...who are typically not Republicans.  Additionally, a provision in the new law which prohibits it from being overturned by popular referendum--a legal option in Michigan for undoing unpopular or initiating desired laws--smacks of imperialism; a we know what's best for you! law.  Big surprise.
If this new law was really meant to be "pro-worker," as Republican Governor Rick Snyder asserts, then maybe he and the Republican-led Michigan legislature wouldn't mind considering eliminating the the "at-will employment" doctrine among state employers.  In short, the law operates on the following basis:

"any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work" (At-Will Employment).

At the risk of incurring some criticism and "fact-checking" by hair-splitting types, my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience with at-will employment is that it allow employers to terminate employee for any reason which isn't explicitly prohibited by established laws (federal and/or state).  However, this does not include having a thread out of place, or giving a an opinion.  In many states, the attempt to unionize can also be grounds for termination.  I have personally witnessed more than my fair share if individuals having their employment terminated for the most relatively benign of reasons...and the fact that many of the employers were quick to tout "we're an 'at-will employer'" as a justification for their decisions tells me all I need to know about the doctrine. 
If those against the enforcement of paying union dues were really out to protect the "right to work," then they would balance the scales of the asynchronistic power relationship between employers and employees in America by eliminating this antiquated, outdated, and inherently unfair practice by employers.

Read More

Yes Virginia, There ARE "Lazy Americans!" (Part 1)

Early last week, President Obama received a moderate amount of flack because of a remark he made—within the context of a speech about whether America is doing its best to compete against other economic powers globally—about how Americans have been “lazy” in regards to focusing on our economic priorities. And naturally politicians (being the creatures of opportunity they are) and other assorted talking heads wasted no time in highlighting (or rather crafting) the president’s implied lazy American “insult” in official statements and opinion pieces. Republican Party presidential nominee candidate Rick Perry has even misleadingly parlayed Obama’s “insult” into a television campaign ad.



Sadly, predictably, and ironically, taking the president’s overall message out of context to form a straw man argument is a tried and proven method for conditioning mentally lazy Americans—those who make up a great many among the potential voting electorate who don’t objectively research issues—into believing the worst of an ideological opposite. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of employing this tactic.
But despite the distortion of the president’s message, the reality is that Americans are indeed lazy! Part of this stems from our desire to squeeze as much economic profit from so little effort or investment of what resources we have to utilize, whether they be mental, monetary, material, or spiritual resources. The remainder of the reasons derives from the erosion of the values which propelled America to the zenith of global and military dominance.
To the contrary, those in denial are usually quick to reassure us that America is [still] #1 in virtually everything we do. Common sense (with a helpful dose of reality) dictates that this isn’t true…far from it in fact. The recent trouble with Detroit’s auto industry proves this in the realm of auto manufacturing. When it comes to health care spending as a portion of a country’s gross domestic spending, other countries spend far less than America…and manage to cover the majority of their citizens—without the pretense by some political quarters that (somehow) our “rights” as citizens will be in jeopardy if all Americans are somehow covered by affordable health insurance. And depending on which survey/study you read, there are at least 14 countries whose student’s standardized test scores—as a reflection of the quality of their education and student motivation—are far ahead of lagging American students. In many ways, American arrogance is sorely misplaced.
And when such shortcomings are pointed out by souls brave enough to withstand the predictable barrage of oncoming criticism for their “anti-patriotic” overtones, they are invariably glossed over (read: ignored) by those who would portray themselves as defenders of American idealism. These people do themselves and the country a disservice when they attempt to stir a sense of national pride in American ingenuity which is fit more for memories of a bygone era than as contemporary “proof” of what we can do as a country. Instead of being ashamed when comparing ourselves to the rest of the industrialized world, we gloss over failings with misplaced patriotism, which touts innovation which rarely applies in the current world.
Why this conclusion? In many areas, the reality speaks for itself.

Public Education

What can be said about the public education system in America which hasn’t already been said? Too much government mandate. Too little regulation. Too much or too little local control. Government control vs. private innovation. Bad teachers. Good teachers who aren’t compensated enough. Too much or too little parental involvement. The list goes on. But whatever side one takes or whatever reasoning one assumes, the bottom line is that Americans put far more effort into bickering, arguing, and comparing ideological schools of thought on how best to fix our schools than actually remedying even the most fixable of basic roadblocks hindering an effective (and competitive) education.
Anecdotally and realistically, the curriculums in most American public schools are not challenging enough, nor are the learning environments in many schools functional enough for the formation of a globally competitive citizenry. We’ve known this for the last generation, but we lack the collective will to make the hard decisions as public servants, parents, politicians, and concerned individuals to change this. We know that our public school students’ performance as a nation is well below that of other students from “second class” countries; the comparative standardized test scores don’t lie (but I’m sure that those who don’t agree will find some “flaw” in the methodology). Having spent a great deal of time in and around colleges, I know firsthand that many foreign students take their studies in American colleges far more seriously than their American counterparts. This is a reality is based in part on the fact that many—if not most—of these students hail from countries whose public/primary school systems prepare them to face education abroad with a love of learning, disciplined structure, and in many cases the cultural banking of respect for teachers (as well as authority figures). Even in countries ravaged by war, civil strife, and other calamities, there are instances of children compelled to make their way—some by a sense of duty or personal conviction—to schools some distance away from home in order for them to learn.
One the other hand, we Americans program in our children a sense of entitlement rather than duty. Working currently with at-risk teens at an alternative school, I can’t tell how many times I’ve silently sighed in exasperation as I experience daily how pampered and lazy American children are academically (and in most other ways which count). Many, if not most middle and high school students—especially in urban and city schools—view books and reading in general as a chore given as a form of punishment. Trying to get some students to write is comparable to trying to bathe a house cat. And the respect for teachers is anything but…. Our schools are brimming with lazy students, too uninspired and unmotivated to open their minds to anything beyond the misplaced sense of self-importance and self-absorption their parents helped to impart them with. American students are (somewhat in many cases) indulged by having economic and material resources diverted to creating and maintaining morally and philosophically questionable “investments” such as police/resource officers, accommodation for special needs, and so forth. Such resources are financial and material burdens placed public education by bad/lazy parents who feel they have “rights” enough to allow their disruptive children (discounting those with bona-fide handicaps. What I’m speaking of are the many students over-diagnosed with afflictions such as “Oppositional Defiance Disorder” and other similar “disorders”) to negatively impact the education of those striving to learn in otherwise challenging environments (See: Related Article).
And those students who do take their studies seriously, some are too lazy to actually take the time and effort to learn. Many American students have been socialized with a new but warped set or moral imperatives that compel them to seek the quickest, least labor-involved way to carry out their study requirements. Online term papers, cutting and pasting, and half-hearted efforts are only few of the usual ways that American students showcase their lack of initiative. Once the sole province of a relatively few “slackers,” in our public schools, cheating, taking shortcuts, and/or just laziness has become the new norm in most public schools throughout America. Just last month, several New York area university graduate students were arrested for their involvement in a scheme in which they were paid by high school students to take the SAT college entrance exam for them. In another example, law enforcement authorities and college officials have been made aware of the growing trend of high school and college students obtaining by illegal pretenses (or purchasing on the black market) the ADHD prescription drug Adderall.


---


Sometimes called the “smart pill,” abusers are taking the drug as a way of increasing concentration needed to complete multiple assignments so that, in many cases, they are able to engage in more extracurricular activities. Finally, the recent reporting of several standardized testing scandals—aided by public school officials—in public school throughout the country attest to the new culture of thinking that many of our American students have latched onto. It’s no wonder American students seek shortcuts and embrace laziness; they are learning their laziness from adults (See: "And Now A New Standardized Testing Scandal" and "A Scandal of Cheating And A Fall From Grace").

To Be Continued

Read More

Record High Black Male Unemployment -- The Non-Issue For Campaign 2012

With the Republican contenders for the 2012 party nomination already lining up, one issue in the news which started the usual talk of policy and political rhetoric was—oddly enough—the issue of the high rate of unemployment among African-Americans, particularly among black males. CBS evening news reported last week that unemployment among African-American males was an astounding 17% nationally, a rate not seen since the Great Depression.

This high number seems almost welcoming when you consider that in some areas, the unemployment rate for black males is actually double this figure. According to the think tank, the Community Service Society, 34% of black men, ages 19 to 24 in New York City are not working. In Milwaukee, the rate is also 34%.

With such a tailor-made campaign season issues served up to them, some GOP candidates took the cue and began bringing attention on the problem. With an African-American Democrat in the White House, it was easy for those seeking to unseat President Obama to make the accusation that his administration’s policies were responsible for “causing” this crisis among this particular demographic, and “reveal” the failures of his policies. Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has referred to President Obama as “the most successful food stamp president,” an all-too subtle racial jab as his being both black and [perceptually] “liberal.” Fellow contender Michele Bachmann noted that "This president has failed the Hispanic community. He has failed the African-American community" when it comes to the issue of high unemployment among these traditionally Democratic voting groups.
Ordinarily, this would be a welcome focus. But in an early election season, a time when political opportunism is seized without a second’s hesitation by those jockeying amongst a crowd of contenders for top billing in the polls, the sudden “interest” in the plight of black males is suspect to say the least. Although most Americans know all too-well this phenomenon of election season “awareness” and “concern” of voter issues by Republicans and Democrats, black males have always seemingly been an overlooked demographic, election season or not.
So when Gingrich and Bachmann blame President Obama for his inaction in addressing black (male) unemployment, they fail to mention that same lack concern from their own party in Congress is a contributing factor. Even as they accuse Obama of failing black males, “Republican leadership has not considered or introduced one single jobs bill,” according to Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO). Democrats, whom the majority of African-Americans’ have traditionally given their voting allegiance to since the days of FDR, haven’t been that much more helpful on the issue. The pitiful few Democratic legislators supporting the even fewer number of legislative initiatives introduced in Congress attempting to address this issue reflects the near-apathetic level of concern among even their political party.
Trying to discern which action—or lack thereof—is more shameful, Republicans trying to exploit the long-existing socioeconomic troubles of black males for political gain or relative Democratic inaction with regards to addressing the issue (despite unswerving allegiance by black voters) is almost a lose-lose proposition. But whichever the more dishonorable act, many black males are unable to partake in even the most minimalist aspect of the American Dream…employment.
Why are so many black males unemployed? The answer(s) is/are a convergence of socioeconomic factors meeting on the corners of individual selfishness and market realities boulevards.

Black Males
Among the individually selfish reasons for high unemployment among black males are black males themselves. Many black men are simply not participating in the lives of young black males (who have the highest unemployment rate among the highest unemployed demographic), with whom they could be a key asset in preparing them for a competitive national employment market. Fathers, community leaders, business owners, and other otherwise
socially and economically productive male figures should be among the obvious first-liners in crafting positive images among future black men, while directly or indirectly mentoring them. Roles models for this group are desperately needed, and such civic-mindedness would go a long way towards making a difference in the numbers. Sagging pants, recreational drug use, young fatherhood, inappropriate slang use, and unprofessional behavior with regards to employment needs to be discouraged, while job/employment skills, a sense of responsibility, a professional appearance and demeanor, appreciation and emphasis on education, and training need to be instilled in these potential economic resources (and to put too fine a point on the issue, black women—despite the will, good intentions, and/or attempts by many—simply are not up to the task of helping young black boys become productive and employed adult males). Growing up in the 1970s and even into the early 1980s, it was not uncommon—at least for me—to see older black males showing younger black males how to perform work-related tasks around the house, in the neighborhood, or even taking them to work with them (as many more were more economically stable enough to do so).

Ineffective Practices & Shifting Economic Trends
After ill-preparation from lack of family and community support, perhaps the biggest factor contributing to the high unemployment rate is an outdated public education system model. An over emphasis on designating many young black males as being special needs or placement in special education does not help. Lack of direct parental participation and support (outside of the occasional visit to the principal’s office to address disciplinary problems), lack of an emphasis on discipline, strong curriculums which resist political pressure (and negative parental interference), early intervention for potential issues interfering with education, and laws which allow many young people to drop out of school are all absent in a public education dynamic more conducive to encouraging failure rather than success for many young black males. And with more and more local school districts cutting back on already substantively anemic educational curriculums, difference-makers like vocational programs, high school co-op, career-track curriculum- building and counseling have all but become extinct.
With a lack of appreciation for (or an emphasis on) secondary and higher education, many black males who graduated from public schools tended to head immediately into employment, mostly in vocations which required little in the way of education beyond the basics such as manufacturing, construction and certain segments of the service industry. Many of these jobs have evaporated, especially in the last decade due to shifting market trends. And with the lack of career diversity among many males in general and black males in particular, many simply did not and do not have other career options outside of the most menial, most low-paying offerings…or criminal activity.
On that point, many black males have criminal records, which make them undesirable as potential employees, which segues into another reason for so many black unemployed males, discrimination.
Dr. Rodney Green, chairman of the economics department at Howard University and the executive director of the university’s Center for Urban Progress sums up the situation best:

There has been a consistent pattern of black male unemployment rates that are twice the unemployment of white, even in good or bad times,” Green said. He said this is due to continuing discrimination against black males in the labor market and also a split in the labor market where job loss is greatest in industries that employ large numbers of African-Americans such as construction, service and retail.

In the final analysis, even in the best economic times, when black males manage to overcome socioeconomic disadvantages, possess education backgrounds comparable to other successful males from other ethnic groups, and lack criminal records, employers will invariably still manage to overlook these individuals based on some minor prejudice or preference—conscious or not (a reality which I can personally attest to).
In an effort to address this issue—and to prove that not all public servants are oblivious to this issue—a few in Washington have opted to tackle the issue. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have taken up the cause, drafting and introducing some 40 bills in Congress in an effort to marshal the power of government to do what the private sector is clearly not up to task to do insofar as the high rate of unemployment among African-American males. Members of the CBC like Cleaver have introduced legislative initiatives such as his-14 House Democrat-sponsored Urban Jobs Act, mean to provide training and other related services to at-risk youth preparing to enter the work force through the allocation of federal grant money to already established programs (http://politic365.com/2011/05/18/urban-jobs-act-seeks-to-address-youth-unemployment-crisis/). But in the defense of the lack of Republican support on the issue, the support of only 14 Democrats is hardly something which Democrats can tout as “concern.” It says that there is the lack of concern is being exhibited by both parties, and that maybe there is something to the Republican accusation that Democrats take the African-American vote for granted.
The lack of legislative success has spurred the CBC to take drastic action in the form of its For the People Jobs Initiative, a cross-country roving job fair of sorts, scheduled to visit many of the most hard-hit urban areas where black unemployment is at it highest beginning this summer. With a schedule start in Chicago, the initiative will be comprised of more than just a roving job fair. Each two-day stop will also incorporate a town hall meeting in which job seekers can offer feedback and describe their employment challenges in cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles. And despite the lack of broad initial Democratic and Republican support, the CBC plans to continue introducing legislation based community response and feedback gathered at from its cross-country tour, and culminating in the commission of a jobs advisory council of top black economic and business experts. It is hoped that the end result will a report proposing a long-term solution for job creation and economic growth.
So while certain politicians—including members of Congress—seemed more concerned with holding town hall meetings regarding “attacks on our Constitutional rights” from health care reform, they neglected addressing an issue that had already been problematic in the black and urban communities. If conservatives want to reach out to black voters, blaming a president they voted for overwhelmingly for his lack of directly addressing such a crucial issue, all the while engaging in the same lack of concern is not the way to do so. And if liberals (actual and self-professed) want to give only half-hearted support to concerns which affect those who blindly support their political representatives, then perhaps it would be best for African-Americans to adopt a swing-block voting attitude.
Even more so, it would be sensible for African-Americans males to take to the streets and rally in much the same way they did during the Million Man March of the mid-1990s and politicize an issue of such vital importance to their economic livelihoods. At any rate, its time to make the high rate of unemployment among black males an issue for the next campaign season.

Read More

A Criticism of Employers in America - Conclusion

When it comes to the tradition of employer hiring practices in America, there is probably no one reading this that hasn’t been labeled overqualified at some time during their lives. Granted there is some understandable reasoning from the employer’s perspective in this occasional practice, the fact remains that it insults the intelligence as well as creates an unnecessary roadblock in the path of someone seeking a job, a career, or simply a means to survive; people still need to eat, abundant experience and/or education achievement notwithstanding. The resulting logic of being tagged “overqualified” is that perhaps if a job candidate were capable of either dumbing themselves down, suppressing their ambitions, or hiding their education achievements, it would make them more employable.
When all is said and done, American employers need to abandon that logically-devoid dingy called blind adherence and try hopping aboard the good ship Reality. Just because you are unwilling to turn away from the old ways does not by any means mean that they are working. Expecting job hunters in this Save-Every-Buck-I-Can economy to travel excessive distances—on their own dimes—on the off-chance that they may actually be selected for employment is hardly realistic. This economy is affecting everyone…if employees and job hunters have to adapt, so must employers. Just because the current economic reality favors employers doesn’t mean common sense should be abandoned. They should really consider telephone interviews. Unless the prerequisite for a potential job includes sexual favors on the couch in the interviewer’s office, there is nothing that can be done in person that can’t be done over the telephone (and yes, I know that makes entirely too much sense, but then I find most decision-makers lack the critical thinking skills they are often looking for in employees). Insofar as "determining whether a potential candidate has the skills we need," that's what resumes and supporting references checks are for. Interviewing charm can be manufactured, so it behooves an interviewer to be more objective in their assessments of a potential employee.
Also, keep in mind that just because a job candidate has a loose thread on a button or scratches their head is no indication that they will potentially bankrupt an employer’s company. Too many individuals who believe that they are working in the best interests of their companies are way too judgmental. Not everyone is a salesperson, or possesses a salesperson’s persuasiveness, even as it relates to trying to get a prospective employer to consider them for a position. It doesn’t mean they lack confidence…it just means that people are different. Even more so, many lack the insight to “see” the outside-the-box thinker that many employers are often looking for, often mistaking plain-spokeness, uncommon beliefs, or a high-level of self-confidence and intelligence—all traits of self-motivated and innovative thinkers—as not being a “fit for our company.” The scenario is analogous to one of those Hollywood movies where a sophisticated thief has broken into a high-security museum, and is preparing to steal the Crown Jewels or some such item. He/She cannot see the infrared security beams until they adopt the special goggles that allow them to see the beams crisscrossing around the item. Well, looking for an innovative, outside-the-box thinker who could help an employer meet their goals is a lot like those movies. One cannot “see” an innovative person unless using innovative insight (or their old eyes as it were). In simplest terms, it takes a thief to catch a thief. Maybe American employers would be more successful if they would concentrate more on substantive attributes of potential employees, such as academic performance, personal adversities overcome (which demonstrates many positive traits), experiences and references, and leave the “behavior” observations to those more trained to observe such. Furthermore, tests that would actually measure potential job performance as it relates to whatever particular type of job being applied for (and not something that “demonstrates” aptitude or is done simple to “weed out” other similarly qualified individuals) would go a long way toward finding the right individual for an employer.
And lastly, employers could stand to be a little…no, a lot more professional in their dealings with job hunters. The American job hunter’s time is just as valuable as anyone else’s, and the time it takes to put together and send a resume or other job inquiry should be reciprocated; employers owe people interested in working for them the courtesy of response to inquiries, even if it is just a form response such as an automatic reply e-mail. It’s gotten so that those seeking work have become more professional in their endeavors than employers.
It’s understandable that for many American employers, good employers are hard to find, but not quality employees. If more time and effort were actually invested in seeing good potential employees instead of looking for them, perhaps American employers wouldn’t be in the same boat as we consumers and (ex-)employees, looking to survive in an economic downturn that is hurting employee and employer alike. Remember, it was who many chief employers decided to choose to employ that was in part, the cause of this economic downturn.

Read More

A Criticism of Employers in America - Part 2

Continued from Part 1


What in particular is beyond reason about the way by which American employers tend to choose and hire prospective employers is that during these unprecedented economic times, everyone has been forced to change the way they conduct business as usual, EXCEPT in regards to hiring practices. Many departments of the various levels of government around the nation as well as many private-sector employers have gone to (and continue) a 4-day work week in order to save on operating expenses and to help their own employees cope with exceedingly high cost of gasoline and the prohibitive cost of commuting to and from work. Transportation (of products) has become more expensive. Consumers have had to become innovative in their household-related cost-cutting measures in order to survive the rising cost of products and services in these lean economic times. Banks have cut back on credit and tightened their loan standards. But for some inane reason, the human resource departments of employers seem to think that they alone are exempt from the need to change in order to adapt to the shifting economic realities. They still use the model of hiring the best interviewer rather than the most intelligent, most experienced, most outside-the-box thinker (In 95% of cases, the ability to “interview” is a “skill” separate from the individual requirements of most job opportunities; one has nothing to do with the other, but most employers fail to notice this). The problem is lies with the competence of the choosing mechanism that employers use.
I can recall some time ago applying for a position as a delivery driver for one of the major soft drink giants. I knew that the local bottling company for this company only hired through an online resume system, a system administered by an outside company not affiliated with the soft drink giant, but contracted by the soft drink company in order to find “compatible” prospective employers. I obtained the fax number for the company’s local bottling office and faxed in my resume along with a brief cover letter, hoping that this would give me an edge on any competitors for one of several positions. Given the area I was living in, I was certain that my college degree, honors distinctions, spotless driving record/CDL, well-honed resume, and my lack of substance abuse or a criminal record—all I noted in my cover letter—would make me a shoe in for the company. Sure enough, the manager of the local office suggested that I go immediately to their online resume system and apply. I was contacted by the same manager, who was at a loss as to why my resume had not showed up on their radar as it were. What happened was that I was found “not to have been compatible” as a prospective employee based on my answers to the resume system’s question and answer section. You know the types of pointless questions that are intended to divine who you "really" are: Do you love your mother? Do you believe that most people are dishonest at some point time in their lives? And so on.
Such questions would not have revealed that I had every intention to show up early and work late at every opportunity in order to rise through the ranks of the company and acquire a semblance of job security (the company has boasted that they have never had any mass lay-off at any point in their entire history). Such tools do not reveal individual ambition, do not reveal the personal motivations that a prospective employee would have for working hard (such as having to feed and provide for a family) and securing something of a secure financial future. It didn’t matter that I had no criminal history, had never even touched alcohol or taken in any type of foreign substance, that I was motivated (in part) to have a steady income so that I could pay down my student loans, that I was looking to rise through a company’s ranks and become a reliable employee, or that I had a history of volunteering hundreds of hours for social and poltical causes…all that mattered was my ability to answer questions correctly.
Such tools and their obvious and inherent weaknesses are directly in-line with human resource personnel who work on behalf of their employers to find decent and successful employees. But the problem with their lofty goal is not in trying to achieve the goal itself; the problem is the criteria they use select employees. As you may have guessed, I myself have been told once or twice that I “didn’t interview well,” despite my ability to articulate myself, my intelligence, and my various related experiences (to which again, I ask, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China insofar as the particular positions?). What I take issue with are those individuals, who’s backgrounds and/or education are in human resources, that tend to over analyze a prospective employee to the point where every fidget or untimely clearing of the throat becomes symbolic of some presumed negative attribute that may interfere with their ability to carry out job duties. In the worse instances, individuals are judged to not "fit" into a particular employer's company simply by virtue of harsh and unfair judgements of their apparent personalities. And this particular assessment would probably have merit if interviewers, as employees themselves, would recognize the fact that their personalities are not representative of every employees' personality; just because a candidate did not personably appeal to a single interviewer does not mean that that the job candidate would not in fact be loved by someone else within the same company. Putting too much faith on their training and their “abilities,” these individuals forget that they are not psychologists, psychoanalysts, or even in most cases trained observers of human behavior…they are people like you and I…people who bring their personal and cultural biases to the office. They are individuals, many with “professional” flaws themselves, not oracles or seers! And employers (as well as the individuals themselves) need to remember that.

To Be Concluded...

Read More

A Criticism of Employers in America - Part 1

A couple of year ago, during a time when I was looking for work, I applied for a position located literally on the other side of the state of Michigan—a near 4 hours and close to 300 miles from where I lived. Between my own particular experience and the position’s duties and minimum education requirements, I felt that I was a lock for the position; it was a potential fit-like-a-glove match. The person overseeing the recruitment of potential candidates for this position must have thought so too, as I received an invite for an interview only one day after e-mailing my resume and cover letter to the appropriate personnel department. But my lack of positive results from the pitiful few interviews that I had gotten up to that point, the then-prohibitive expense of traveling so far on near $4.00 a gallon gasoline at the time had gotten me to think that I simply couldn’t afford what was something of a gamble with the limited financial resources I had at the time. Armed with this reality, I called and inquired about the possibility of a telephone interview in lieu of gambling with resources I could ill-afford to lose. The response that I received was “A telephone interview isn’t practical.” Needless to say, I was kind of taken aback; record-high gasoline, a 4 hours drive, and a day off from my part-time job…all on a gamble for a position that I may or may not get? ‘Impractical’ for whom?
This particular experience into the world of job hunting, as well as actually standing back and objectively observing how American employers seek potential employees taught me that America’s employees deserve whatever harsh fates await them in these unprecedented troubled economic times. Why do I say this? Because American businesses and organizations possess a remarkable inability to adapt their hiring practices to the new (and harsh) economic realities of global competition from workers in foreign nations, most of whom possess a level of productivity and a work ethic that dwarfs what we like to think of as “unparalleled” American output. So for the blindly patriotic or unyielding among you reading this, and who cannot think past old paradigms—even at the expense of embracing the illogical and senseless—you may want to stop reading at this point. But for those of you open and wise enough to release your death grips on traditional (but meritless) practices and consider valid cynicism toward current hiring practices in America, by all means, continue to enlighten yourselves.
Jumping right in, I am astonished at the way by which America’s employers blindly perpetuate hiring practices, which make little or no sense whatsoever, without dedicating even a nanosecond of thought to questioning their validity—the most obvious being the jump-through-the-hoop performance we call the “job interview.”
To start, this particular ritual is nothing more than a personality assessment as well as a lying contest—or is a reasonable person supposed to believe that every person applying for a job is everything he/she says that they are? According to a 2005 study in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, “60 percent of people had lied at least once during [a] 10-minute conversation.” What’s more, other similar research found that “extroverts tend to lie more than introverts…especially in a job interview situation.” With such being the case, it’s not surprising that a interview “offers success only slightly better than flipping a coin—52%” when it comes to their generally accepted (bus obviously mistaken) “accuracy” of finding a potentially successful employee. It speaks volumes then that, all other factors being equal, employers tend to hire the person who is the better performer rather than the one who is actually more competent.
To this effect, too much weight is given to “great answers” during a job interview, to which I find myself asking, what do ‘great answers’ have to do with the price of tea in China? Just because someone is able to spin a yarn, how does this translate into competence or potential successful employment? Call me stupid, but I simply do not see the connection. I mean, is this why so many recent immigrants from South of the Border are hired for a growing number of American jobs…because of their “perfect command” of the English language and their sophisticated interviewing skills…or is it because most know that they as a group are capable of outworking most Americans? I mean, if I were a candidate for a position as a janitor or window washer (or any other position), how does “how well” I answer pointless question assure the interviewer that I won’t sweep dirt under the carpets or leave streaks on the windows? A fact of life, especially given such precarious economic times, is that everyone lies, including our parents and best friends. Throw into the mix the immediate economic needs of job candidates and the requirement that they have to literally sing for their suppers, and you develop a clear understanding of why America is the nexus of the current worldwide economic turmoil; the “best and the brightest,” especially where Wall Street and the economic community in general are concerned, are most often chosen from among those who are able to sing their own praises the most effectively, and not necessarily the most competent, most innovative thinkers. How else can anyone explain why someone with superior academic credentials, self-confidence, and experience is turned down for an employment opportunity when compared to other candidates for a given position of lesser attributes? And with so many American employers all-too willing and/or eager to favor image over substance, some job candidates are resorting to facelifts and other forms of reconstructive surgery in order to gain favor with a prospective employer via “that extra edge.”


To Be Continued...

Read More