Prophetic Post?

I hate to be a know-it-all, but back in July, I posted "Why Robots Are Better Employees Than Humans" and I prattled on about Citicorp, one of the many evil empires who gleefully accepted some of the free cash that was being liberally strewn about for the poor banks and corporations who were really hurting for funds.  Nevermind that these business were suffering due to poor management; don't confuse the issue with facts.  Citicorp, headed by Vikram Pandit, who also happens to be one of the top ten CEOs who are job killers (http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878&GT1=33002) has recently announced that is seeking to trim costs and is considering cutting about 1 percent of its work force or 3,000 (or more) workers.  http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Citigroup-considers-3-000-job-cuts-2273202.php  Aren't we glad that they got some of our hard-earned tax money in that gigantic bailout that was meant to not only keep the companies afloat but to help them grow and create jobs?  Heaven forbid that Vikram should have to eat anything lesser than lobsters caught near Fourchu and flown fresh to whichever home he happens to be at (depending on the season, of course).

I wonder how many other companies who received bailout money have been or are planning on getting rid of employees ostensibly in the interest of cutting costs.  And in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie scandal where millions have been paid out in bonuses so these companies can retain "talent," my question is:  Why do these big-wigs not have to earn their millions in salary and bonus BEFORE the salary and bonuses are paid?  Why do they not have to save the companies prior to getting compensation since that's what they were hired to do?  And if the companies go under, or don't do as well as they should have, why should this "talent" get paid at all?  What does a CEO really do that is so special to warrant earning 6- or 7-figure salaries and bonuses?  I've never seen a CEO or CIO or executive of any kind actually roll up their sleeves and participate in anything except meetings or news releases or, at worst, "sexting" subordinates while they're sitting in their office and arranging to meet for an afternoon tryst.

The Occupy Wall Street protest was inevitable when people who have lost touch with reality and have nothing to lose treat their subordinates like pawns in a terrible game.

Social Media as a Job Killer?

I recently participated in a comment war via a local newspaper the other day because the editors posted an article stating that they felt that people should be careful what they post on Facebook and other social media sites because employers are monitoring these sites and either terminating employment or not hiring people based on what is found. I say BULLSHIT. This smacks of discrimination and NO ONE seems to be objecting to it. In fact, several people chastised me for saying that employers do not have the right to terminate employment based on social media posts, especially if those posts are not made while the employee is at work. Many people seemed to think it was OK to fire someone or not hire them if they posted that they got "wasted" on the weekend or posted too many swear words, apparently accepting that discrimination is OK if you agree with it. If these same people were excluded, or terminated, from employment due to something they said or posted on the internet, they would scream bloody murder. The haters also criticized me for posting information online and then expecting privacy. First and foremost, I don't post anything and then expect privacy. What I DO expect is FREEDOM OF SPEECH - you know, the FIRST AMENDMENT in a little thing called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

I do agree that anyone posting anything on the internet should have no expectation of privacy, and probably should have more sense than to post that their boss sucks big green donkey dicks. However, we all have the right to say what we want, and as long as it's legal and we're not at work when we're saying or posting questionable or tasteless rhetoric, our employer does NOT have the right to terminate employment or exclude anyone from employment because of it.

It sets an extremely dangerous precedent to say that employers have the right to terminate employment or exclude people from being hired based on what they post on social media. Why? Because we then give permission to discriminate. You're thinking, "I don't post anything offensive." But do you post that you're female? Do you post what your religion is? Do you post that you belong to the Red Hat Society? Do you post pictures of your kids? What if an employer was allowed to exclude potential candidates because they don't want to hire someone with a bunch of kids, fearing that person will call in sick too much? What if your employer decides to terminate your employment because they found out you're a member of AARP and they feel that you're too old to work? Or terminates your employment because they found out you're a member of a different religion from them (or - horror or horrors - an Atheist)? What if an employer excludes you as a potential candidate because they saw a picture on Facebook that shows you're in a wheelchair? It's bad enough that employers are excluding candidates for other ludicrous reasons such as wearing too big of a diamond ring to an interview - let's not give them any more excuses to be assholes.