One More Reason To Hate Your Employer

My most recent employer initially wasn't terrible, but like everything else in this world, the honeymoon didn't last long, especially when many of their promises were as empty as Kim Kardashian's head.  I was basically thrown into my job and pretty much expected to learn everything myself because the former area manager (demoted) doing the "supposed" training was busy texting and calling her kids and boyfriend almost the entire time she was supposed to be training.  I never got any feedback as to whether or not I was doing things correctly until I got an annual review (which was actually very good, though I didn't get a raise or anything out of it).




One of the biggest problems came when my one-year anniversary came around and the company tried to fuck me out of 24 hours of vacation time because they didn't rollover vacation time (which I think is very chicken shit, as well as not making employees aware of this).  Bad enough that they only give one week of vacation no matter how long you've been at the company (unless you're management, I'm sure).  I did get paid 16 hours of the 24 owed, but I was left with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth.




About a month later, my co-worker was fired, and the district manager dumped all of said co-worker's workload on me.  In other words, I got to do the work of 2-3 people with no extra pay or incentives or help.  I was told that when needed, the aforementioned "trainer" would step in and help me out, which was bullshit because she either never showed up or came in and complained about her kids and boyfriend and then left without taking any work with her.  I was not only supposed to do all this work, but also field calls every week from literally hundreds of angry people demanding to know where there records were.  Don't get me wrong:  I have no problem with hard work.  I just don't think it's necessary or warranted to dump all the work on one person and expect them to take all the complaints and headaches and then not at least compensate them for it.




After several months of this, on top of the district manager refusing to communicate with me at all, the "trainer" advised me that because I have a bad attitude that I was about to be fired.  WTF?  I just can't imagine why anyone would have a bad attitude in this situation.  And how fucking tacky and unprofessional of the district manager to send her little minion to tell me this instead of talking to me personally about the situation.  It was not something the "trainer" should have even known about since she was not a manager or supervisor.  What the Hell did they expect?  I'm human, and I'd bet that most other humans would react in much the same way.

How To Be A Great Boss

1. Don't show your emotions, especially if you get angry or upset with your employees.  I had a boss who sent me an email asking, "Can you explain to me why you didn't do this?" after I neglected to change a status in our sales app for a customer.  Treating an employee with contempt does nothing for their morale, and will probably make them resent you.

2. Don't bad-mouth your employees, especially in writing.  I worked for two guys who acted like Beavis & Butthead: they fucked off and giggled like two little girls all day long, harassed and intimidated their employees, sent emails between themselves disparaging the employees and talking about all the drugs they'd been doing.

3. Don't make stupid bigoted comments about sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, weight, etc.  I've had a couple of bosses who asked me to "do a friend a favor" or what they should serve for breakfast at a morning meeting because "being a woman" I would know about what to serve for breakfast.

4. Don't let your insecurities (or other mental illnesses) get in your way.  A woman I used to work for always told everyone she had a degree in Communications (the degree people get when they can't hack an English Literature degree), but couldn't spell potato and did everything in her power to fire me after I teased her about it.  Guess what, Barbie doll: you look like a moron when you try to make yourself look smart by bringing up your degree but can't spell or use "big" words properly.

5.  For God's sakes, do not micromanage!  I used to work for a CIO who couldn't tie his shoes, much less manage anyone.  This imbecile claimed it only took "five clicks" to troubleshoot and fix PC problems, mainly because he wanted to outsource our PC techs to India.  If we experienced an outage or problem, he had to be right in the middle of everything, telling us what to do and how to do it.  Consequently, it always took twice as long to fix anything because he didn't know his ass from his elbow and his meddling only inhibited the actual problem solving.

The best bosses I've had simply get the hell out of the way, lead by example, and offer guidance when necessary.

Companies Are Screwing Job Applicants

I realize that this article comes from a humor website called Cracked, but the content is accurate and depressingly scary:  http://www.cracked.com/article_20322_6-ways-companies-are-secretly-screwing-job-applicants.html

I'd heard about these "blacklists" but hadn't seen a lot of coverage or information about them until I stumbled on this information.  Now think about this with a mature, clear, reasonable head.  Is it fun to sometimes get back at people you don't like?  Of course it is.  Is it fun when it happens to you?  No, it's not.  Is this something that we should really allow?  Oh, Hell no.  Just think of all the havoc you alone could wreak by putting names of people who've pissed you off onto a blacklist that may prevent them from ever getting hired again.  Now, think about how many people YOU have pissed off over the years.  How about coworkers, bosses, former friends, exes...Are you sure that guy you were tailgating doesn't have (or can't get) your name or information?  I used to work with a guy whose ex-wife (who worked for a mortgage company) ruined the credit of an enemy by reporting her to a credit agency for defaulting on a loan that she'd never had.  I've pissed people off, and I've been "wronged" by others.  That does not give me or anyone else the right to ruin their lives.

I understand that potential employers want to hire the right candidate; however, the availability of a "blacklist" opens up a Pandora's box for HR and hiring managers, and is too subjective and extremely dangerous.  Holding a grudge to the point of ruining a person's life says a lot more about a supposed "professional" than it does about a supposed "bad" employee.

How To Know If It's Time To Quit Your Job

When your company is spending lots of money refurbishing the break rooms while laying people off.

When your boss kicks and punches multi-million-dollar equipment because he's "upset" about not getting a bonus.

When your boss starts talking to you (and treating you) like you're a dimwitted 3-year-old.

When your boss asks you to answer a question about breakfast because, "...you're a woman and you fix breakfast."  (Same boss wouldn't hire another woman because he, "...already had a woman in the department.")

When your boss signs up for an MLM and puts all of his (and your) energy into it.  News Flash:  MLMs don't work, they never have, they never will (except for the person/people who start the MLM.  Think "Bernie Madoff.")

When your boss throws you under the bus for something he did.

When your boss changes your job description such that you don't qualify for your own job.

When your boss stops acting like an adult and/or professional.

When your boss won't communicate information to you but gets mad at you because you apparently can't read minds and don't have the information that's not being communicated to you.

When you don't receive your paycheck.  Twice.

Jobs vs. Disability

In June, more workers went on disability than got jobs.  What does that mean to you?  Well, the likelihood that Social Security will be bankrupt in the very near future.  Also, there isn't as much money circulating because being on disability means they aren't spending money on "luxury" items, such as automobiles, clothing, shoes, eating out, CDs or DVDs, etc.  There also isn't as much money going back into Social Security, State and Federal income taxes, and if these people lost their homes because of their decrease in income, that means less property taxes, and a glut of houses which affects neighbors, banks, realtors, cities, and counties.  With fewer people in the workforce and fewer dollars being pumped into the economy, Mr. or Ms. CEO will probably stop getting those multi-million dollar bonuses they've become accustomed to.

What the politicians aren't saying is that all of this - the lousy economy, the lack of jobs or lack of good-paying jobs, the increase of workers getting food stamps or going on disability - is all connected and is affecting EVERYTHING.  Whether workers aren't getting hired because of a lack of jobs, or more likely, ridiculous and discriminatory interviewing and/or hiring practices, it's now reaching crisis mode.

I realize that the economy and debt crisis is not necessarily completely the fault of companies' laying off workers or not hiring qualified workers because they didn't answer a question "correctly" or they wore too big of a diamond ring to the interview, but this is not just a fun little HR game anymore, it's a country-wide problem that could have long-term effects on our country and even the world.

Corporations Can Get Away With Murder

Lo and behold, I found yet another reason to bitch about Citi:  http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=17846187#.TtP_Ru2mNUc.email  Basically what this article says is that Citi committed crimes, Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission then came to some sort of agreement (e.g., payoff), and now the SEC is shielding the public from details of the firm's wrongdoing.

As if Citi doesn't make enough money gouging people with exhorbitant fees and interest rates that would make the Mafia blush, they also have to mislead investors in order to make even more obscene profits.

According to this article:  "U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said the public has a right to know what happens in cases that touch on "the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives." In such cases, the SEC has a responsibility to ensure that the truth emerges, he wrote."  Pretty amazing that the SEC would allege criminal activities and then run away with their tail between their legs; of course, they probably had a suitcase full of money to buffer any apprehensions they might have had about not forcing Citi to admit guilt or wrongdoing.

And as if that weren't enough to make one vomit every time one sees anything with the Citi logo, there's another article listing CEOs who are job killers, which I've posted previously, but this time with a video clip on Vikram Pandit's slide that reads: "Citigroup board gives Pandit a big raise." http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878  Warms the heart to know that Vikram is getting raises even as Citi is announcing projected layoffs to cut costs.  These stories of corporate greed, corruption, and malfeasance keep getting more and more frequent and more and more ludicrous.

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.

Why Robots Are Better Employees Than Humans

So now companies are coming right out and posting in employment listings to NOT apply if you're unemployed: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/job-listings-unemployed-not-apply-133143362.html.  If we as humans needed any more proof that (most) companies are run on the same principles as the Evil Empire, all of the news, headlines, and rumors about how (badly) employees are being treated should do the trick.  I really have to wonder if this isn't all an elaborate mind-game so that those in power can play God in order to observe how other people react when they're pitted against one another at work, vying for the same jobs, or when they're unemployed for long periods of time.

I was recently employed by Citi, where I received countless "kudos" and gratitude calls from customers who appreciated all the help they received from me.  Was I recognized or thanked in any way by Citi?  If by recognition you mean absolutely scathing and demeaning criticism by means of monthly quality call monitors, then yes.  However, when you consider that Citi is not only one of the many floundering companies who took advantage of the huge 2008 government bailout, but Citi also is notorious for having one of the top ten CEOs (Vikram Pandit) who are job killers (http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878&GT1=33002) you begin to understand why the company is structured so that employees are setup to fail and why CEOs like Pandit make such huge salaries and bonuses. A bailout, especially that of the 2008 bailout, is typically necessary when a large company or companies have been mismanaged by incompetent executives who couldn't balance their own checkbook if their life depended on it.  Why are we are STILL seeing this mismanagement?  Why are we still sitting idly by as stuffed-shirt, college-educated idiots are running our business into the ground, trotting out the same tired business model and management practices that got us into this mess in the first place?

And what was so horrible that I said or did in my calls with customers to get such caustic reviews in my "quality" call monitors ?  I didn't thank the customer for calling about their specific issue and paused during the calls ("dead air"). I was told that it's my fault my quality scores were so poor and that I should "expect" negative feedback.  The other agents who are rude to customers and disparage them with slurs such as "diaper head" and "stupid" are praised by management because their call handle time is low.

Probably the only reason companies would not want to replace actual humans with robots would be the fact that there's too much enjoyment in inflicting pain and grief.

Call Centers, aka Planet Motherfucker

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have worked in 9 call centers either as a Telecom professional or a call center/customer service agent.  What's my beef with Call Centers?  Why do the companies that contract with call centers pay more to train agents than to retain them?  AT&T pays Teleperformance $15,000 A PIECE to train agents, but nominal or no fees to retain those agents.  Do the math: Ten agents=$150,000.  So what do you think Teleperformance is going to do with those agents?  If your answer was "treat them like pond scum and throw them out faster than yesterday's trash" you win the $49.99 prize.  Logically those companies paying so dearly for training would maybe do some overseeing, such as, I don't know, maybe analyzing the number of people being trained vs. the number of people who have actually stayed on the job for longer than 6 months.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when a company pays more to train employees than to retain employees, that call center is going to install a high-speed electronic revolving door on their building.  Paying for training is simply a money maker, a "cash cow" if you will.

Because it's a money maker, getting rid of agents quickly is the main goal, so call centers have collectively devised childish and cruel methods of beating down agents' self-esteem and confidence while maintaining the pseudo-professional statistic-collecting mumbo-jumbo needed for management and HR to justify their positions.  Pitting employees against each other is one more tactic of getting rid of employees - they'll rat each other out faster than you can say hostile work environment.  A crummy job market is obviously an employer's dream, because they not only can pick and choose but they always have a fresh supply of warm bodies to fill positions and keep that cash flow going.

It sure makes me proud when I see all the corruption, depravity, hostility and ruthlessness that the combination of lousy employers and high unemployment fosters.  All of this ties into my previous rantings about a common thread among companies and businesses who are more concerned with their bottom line than with people or quality or investing in the future.  The "grab what you can" attitude is probably the main reason that humans will eventually destroy one another and of course the planet in the process.  Yey for us!

Common Thread

I hate to use cliches and buzzwords, but looking at the "big picture" I find it so very interesting that so many companies seem to use the same business model over and over and over again.  It didn't work the first time, so why not do it again (and again, and again)?  And when that business or company stumbles, they go right back to the drawing board with the same old dog and pony show.  Perfect examples are AIG, GM and Chrysler, as well as SPS and Citicorp, and all those other companies who also took stimulus money but are still playing the same old games (if they're still in business).

I was listening to a commercial this morning about Ram Trucks, talking about what a great "value" they are.  Guess what GM and Chrysler?  You've taken enough of my money over the years, you've lied to me, you've ripped me off, you've sold me automobiles that were barely better than driving a sardine can, and you now expect me to come crawling back and invest my money in your shitty-ass company with the same slimy, corrupt management and executives and shareholders only concerned with the bottom line and their own huge bonuses?  With all due respect, please go fuck yourself.

SPS had a Vice President in charge of their I.T. Infrastructure who had the mental agility of a small soap dish and was fired ONLY because he had been assuring the other executives that backups sent off-site were being encrypted; however, when a technician who worked for the off-site backup storage company had his vehicle broken into, it was discovered that the backups were not encrypted as promised; consequently, a large number of accounts, and personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers, were compromised.  Did SPS bother to find a replacement who was able to dress him or herself and didn't require a drool bucket to be taped to their head at all times?  Oh Hell no.  They replaced him with an equally arrogant and lackadaisical jackass because he had a degree and the ability to bullshit his way through just about anything.

Citigroup recently had their systems hacked (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43421143), and announced that the initial number they threw out about how many accounts were hacked when the news first broke was significantly lower than the number of accounts that were actually hacked.  Oopsie!  A hundred thousand here, a million there, it's so hard to keep track, especially, you know, with our current lack of technology.  Honestly, the bottom line is that Citigroup has (1) very shitty I.T. people and (2) a boatload of excuses and news releases queued and ready for any situation, which means that instead of fixing the problem, they're more concerned with damage control and covering up.  And like a bad penny, there are the same slimy, corrupt management and executives and shareholders who couldn't care less about this company doing the right thing; they're only concerned with the bottom line and their huge bonuses.  These companies perpetuate ridiculous myths such as: only college-educated people can and should be in positions of authority, subordinates need to be micromanaged, and by God, do everything you can to keep your job even if that means intimidating and crushing the heads of anyone who gets in the way or who questions anything management or executives or the company does.

By all means, please do everything you can to run your company or business into the toilet - it makes socialism so much more attractive.  But maybe that's just my paranoia talking.

It's Not Discrimination, It's Science!

I ran across this article, "Are You Built To Make Big Bucks," on aol.com:
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/02/24/are-you-built-to-make-big-bucks/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl11%7Csec1_lnk3%7C46465

Basically the article claims that there are attributes and physical characteristics that employers favor.  If you haven't choked on your dinner by the time you get to the end of 10 multiple choice questions, you can calculate your score to see how big of a loser you are.

This list is one of the most repulsive and blatantly prejudicial I've ever read.  If employers really are using the "reasons" listed in this article, it's illegal, or borderline illegal, and definitely unethical.  The height question smacks of HANDICAP/DISABILITY, RACIAL/ETHNIC, and SEX DISCRIMINATION.  Blond hair or bald?  RACIAL/ETHNIC and AGE DISCRIMINATION, and possibly HANDICAP/DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION.  Is your face weathered and wrinkled?  AGE DISCRIMINATION.  Asking if women wear makeup to work?  Duh! SEX DISCRIMINTATION.  The Ancestry question is RACIAL/ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION as well as ridiculous.  How on earth would anyone know if a person was of Russian descent unless they asked?  They forgot obese, ugly, stupid, cleft palate or lisp, lazy eye, and handicapped.

Whatever happened to hiring the most qualified candidate?

Worst Bosses

Here's a list of the worst bosses I've ever had and why:

Ivan: He and his wife used to dress alike (e.g., white shirt with denim shorts, hawaiian print shirt with white pants, etc.).  You've seen these dorks.  In retrospect, Ivan was insecure (hence why he dressed to match his wife) and so had to prove his "manhood" by insulting women.  He'd make cracks about how stupid I was, or he'd stand next to me when I was bent over to pick something up and say, "Do a friend a favor..." As if.

Joann:  Was sleeping with, and broke up the marriage of, one of the Vice Presidents, and got mad at me because I said I thought that Vice President was grumpy.  How was I supposed to know she was sleeping with him?  And he was grumpy!  Joann was one of those women who had gotten through life on their looks, but now that she was in her forties, her insecurities were really showing.

Jama: My supervisor when I was a computer operator.  Jama made statements like, "All PCs are mainframes, really."  Jama thought the best path to promotion was by looking cute and "doing a friend a favor."

Dave:  Didn't hire me for a desktop publishing position because I "wasn't qualified" but did hire me for an office position.  However, he then asked me to train the MAN he did hire for the desktop publishing position.  Dave spent his entire day flirting with one of the office girls by telling her he used to be with the CIA, FBI, and had been in Vietnam.  Dave wasn't very bright.

Andrea:  Informed everyone within 5 minutes of meeting them that she "had a degree."  I guess she didn't want anyone thinking she was a bimbo, even though she wore tight, short skirts.  I asked her if she'd gone to the Dan Quayle School of Spelling after I noticed she misspelled potato. Soon afterward, she gave me one of the worst job reviews I've ever had, then was mad when I disputed it.

Gary:  I was a Telecom Specialist, but he continually asked me if I wanted to be his secretary and would ask me "woman" questions.  I guess he thought I was fair game since I was the "token" woman in the IT department.  He refused to hire any other women, telling the women he interviewed: "...we already have a woman in the department."  I filed a complaint against him because he gave me the lowest annual bonus in the department - even though he himself bragged that I got more compliments than everyone else in the department combined.  Of course HR came back and said there was no discrimination, although he was fired after their investigation.

Shayne & Jeremiah, aka Beavis & Butthead:  It would be difficult to pinpoint two more unprofessional and unqualified persons during my entire working life.  They were immature bullies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying)  who would sit in their office giggling and repeating buzzwords and buzz-phrases like, "Cool, cool." "It's all good." "My peeps!".  Perfect example of two people who should NEVER have been promoted to any position of authority, but the department Director refused to admit he'd made a mistake.  I was laid off shortly after I filed a 17-page complaint against Beavis & Butthead, which I did mainly because Jeremiah - who kicked and punched expensive IT equipment whenever he would have one of his tantrums - was getting more and more aggressive towards me, punching my cubicle walls and the back of my chair, and threatening to fire me because he suspected I was looking for another job and wouldn't admit it to him.

Jaynee:  Where do I begin?  Jaynee got her "management" position because she married the director of the department after breaking up his previous long-term marriage - oh, and because she dressed like a streetwalker.  She was unprofessional, and had no discernible skills, education, or experience.  Jaynee's one of those middle-aged women who act like they're still in high school and always have to have a "posse" of other women because they can't stand on their own two feet.  I made a naive observation that neither she nor her underlings were necessary, but since she had to constantly justify her existence, I became her target.

Brent and Mark:  Brent was a control-freak, micro-managing CIO, which was curious because he was barely capable of powering on his own PC.  Mark was a hyperactive, smelly little cockroach whose only skill was regurgitating buzzwords and buzz-phrases like, "You can't backup data that doesn't exist!" "It is what it is!" and "Manage their expectations!"  Two more examples of people who should not have been in their positions, but management didn't want to admit they'd made a mistake in hiring or promoting them.  Great reasons to keep imbeciles in their six-figure salary positions.

Employers or Children?

It’s time for employers to start acting like adults and not like spoiled, sadistic 3-year-olds. Case in point: During one of my recent interviews, the manager, ostensibly to test my “troubleshooting” skills, told me he was thinking of an object in the room and that I had up to 20 questions to determine what that object was. My first thought was, “Is this person supposed to be on medication?” Obviously this employer was not right for me – or anyone else in their right mind.  Another example is when I interviewed three (3) times for a potential employer, but never heard from them again.  A month or so later, I got a call from a recruiter asking if I'd be interested in interviewing FOR THAT COMPANY!  I informed the recruiter that I wouldn't interview or work for that company for all the money in the world.  How unprofessional is that company that they can't be bothered to send a "thanks but no thanks" letter or email to someone who wasted their time on 3 interviews.

***UPDATE: As of March 4, 2011, I have been called no less than 3 times to interview AGAIN with the company whose manager thought playing 20 questions was a great way to determine a candidate's qualifications.  In less than two years, the company has lost at least 2 or 3 employees in the position I interviewed for, which I'm sure is a direct reflection on this ditzy manager.***

If I am to believe all of the job seeker newsletters I get, employers are either collectively smoking crack or are dangerously schizophrenic. The latest recommendation I read said to not appear willing to take any job, but another newsletter advises to apply for any and all openings and modify my cover letter and resume to fit the job. It’s gotten so ludicrous that The Onion did a hilarious piece in July regarding unemployment (here): http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-unemployment-high-because-people-keep-blowi,17803/

One article advises to include a quote in my cover letter to make it stand out. How about, "You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on," by Dean Martin; or this one from Albert Einstein, "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." I figure I can't go wrong with a quote from Albert Einstein.

I’m also hearing a lot of hype about “social networking presence” and how we shouldn’t post anything that we don’t want an employer to see. Are employers really so controlling or paranoid that they care that much about what an employee says, whether it's about them or not?

Pre-interview advice: "Don't job hop," then "Don't stay at one employer too long." What constitutes too long? A year? Two years? Is it like my biological clock, where my hormones begin to overtake me if I'm at the same employer for too long? "Prepare," but "Don't be too prepared," "Don't assume they read your resume," which tells me they are interviewing "salespeople" who simply are good at convincing the interviewer they can do the job, regardless of whether they really can or not. The one pre-interview tip I've always had problems with: "Research the company." Does it really matter to a secretary or a security guard or a PC specialist what the company does? Would a janitor clean the toilets more thoroughly for one employer than another? The only time it matters is in the interview, and all it really proves is that I can read or that I can play their silly game.

Interview advice runs the gamut: Be prepared to answer the, "Where do you see yourself in five years?" question (to which I always want to say, "Employed."), “Don’t wear too big of a diamond ring,” “Be early,” “Don’t be too early,” “Don’t look up (or down or right or left) because the interviewer will think you’re lying,” to “Don’t fold your arms,” “Don’t sit on the edge of the chair because you’ll look nervous,” "Sit with your back pressed against the chair and don't lean forward because you'll appear desperate," and, by God, "Watch your facial expressions," because they can telegraph your thoughts. In other words, if an interviewer asks you a dim-witted question, try not to look like you just bit into an earwax-flavored jelly bean.

Post-interview advice: Be a “pest” and “follow up, follow up, follow up,” “Don’t be a pest, follow up but don’t call so much you tie up their phone lines,” “Send a formal thank you letter,” “Send a hand-written thank you note,” “Send a thank you email.” No word yet on whether or not a small gift of cash or jewelry is acceptable.

Whatever happened to hiring the most qualified person for the job? Why are we buying into these stupid games? All this advice tells me that I need to act like a robot and if the interviewer likes me and I'm the best bullshitter, I'm going to get the job.

Bottom line: Until the economy improves, or we all come to our senses, we will have to put up with this nonsense – but that doesn’t mean we can’t make fun of it.

Workplace Complaints

I'm glad to finally see some articles, albeit very few, talking about how important employees are to companies and ways to attract and motivate them, such as the recent article on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/02/cb.not.motivate.employees/index.html  When the current unemployment or underemployment situation ends, all those employees who were treated like dung on the bottom of a CEO's shoe will jump ship faster than you can say, "Where do I send your last paycheck?" Here are some additions to theirs or some suggestions of my own:

1. With regard to the halo effect: Managers and supervisors need to be objective and introspective.  If they've put someone in a position in which they are either performing poorly or are not qualified for, take them out of that position.  I've seen way too many people either hired into or promoted into positions they are not qualified for, and their managers refuse to take them out of that position for what seems like fear of admitting they were wrong. There's nothing more annoying than watching an incompetent employee, such as a six-figure income Vice President, who does nothing but regurgitate nonsensical cliches like, "Manage their expectations!" until you're ready to grind them up in a garbage disposal.

2. Don't practice nepotism. There's hardly anything more frustrating or morale-stomping than to have to deal with your cronies, especially when they are promoted more quickly and see more and higher pay raises based solely on their relationship with the boss. It also makes it impossible to discipline said family or friend  because you don't want to "rock the boat."

3. "Sandwiching" feedback is a manipulative and passive-aggressive form of praise and reprimand. It causes friction and distrust, especially if this kind of praise-reprimand is doled out on a regular basis.  In that same vein, don't email your employees page-long diatribes bellyaching about a mistake or your frustrations. It makes you look like a petty sniveling fussbudget, and after the first tirade from you, you will lose their loyalty and they will never take you seriously as a leader.

4. Outsourcing.  I'd really like to throttle the person or persons who came up with the concept of outsourcing.  Have you ever spoken with a Customer Service agent from another country?  Normally you cannot understand them because they don't speak English well and they have very thick accents, and they normally don't understand what you're trying to communicate to them.  Working with outsourced agents is just as bad.  They don't seem to want to do a good job - normally outsourced agents are paid whether they do a good job or not, so what is their incentive for doing a good job?  So guess who gets stuck making sure the customer is happy?

5. If you don't know something, admit it!  Tell the person you will research and get back with them.  Not everyone has the answer to everything, and it makes you look like an idiot to pretend that you do.

6. If you make a mistake, admit it!  If your employee(s) makes a mistake, let them admit it!  Who the Hell ever set the expectation that no one can ever make a mistake?  It's ridiculous and unreasonable to think that humans never make mistakes and puts people on the defensive if they feel they are going to be crucified for doing so.

7.  For the love of God, can we please do away with the wretched "Annual (or worse: Monthly) Performance Review" which is as useless as lipstick on a pig?  If your boss likes you, you will get a good review.  If your boss doesn't like you, possibly because you offended their overblown opinion of themselves by insulting their spelling abilities after they misspelled "potatoe," you will get a lousy review.

Jobless Need Not Apply?

I just finished reading an article about a new form of discrimination by employers refusing to hire anyone who has been unemployed for 6 months or more.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110217/ts_yblog_thelookout/help-wanted-jobless-need-not-apply  Their reasoning? "Some employers have said they're unwilling to hire unemployed workers because they believe that if a worker has once been let go, that's a sign that he or she is probably not a great hire. "People who are currently employed … are the kind of people you want as opposed to people who get cut," one recruiter told the Atlanta Journal Constitution in October."  To borrow a phrase from my best friend, "Are you fucking kidding me?"  Damn you for losing your job because your company was mismanaged and went under, or your company decided it was better to outsource or layoff employees as a quick way to sweeten up their bottom line or increase annual bonuses for upper management.  YOUR UNEMPLOYMENT IS YOUR FAULT!  I personally know of at least one person who was so despondent about not being able to find a job that he committed suicide, leaving behind a wife and children.

Another laughable excuse: "If you've got a huge stack of submissions, and you want to get through them quickly, [you can say] 'OK, all the people who are not currently employed, forget them,' " Deutsch explained. "That's gonna cut down on your workload."  So laziness is justification for employers to exclude prospective candidates?  God knows I wouldn't want Human Resources or Management to have to do their job.

As if it weren't bad enough that a potential employee is cut during the screening or interview process because they didn't have their resume in an acceptable format or had their hair parted on the wrong side, employers are dreaming up these preposterous "reasons' to not hire applicants - regardless of their qualifications.  And don't kid yourself: age and sex discrimination are still very much alive and very pervasive.

I might be a little more understanding of employers if the employees at their companies were so remarkable that it justified these contemptible measures.  However, six-figure income Vice Presidents who do nothing but sit around "sexting" reciprocal female employees are hardly what I would call the cream of the crop.  If I owned a company, I would never put up with technicians playing foosball during working hours, system administrators who sleep on the job, or managers who furnish their homes with expensive equipment courtesy of the company.  What about the incompetent schmucks who "misplaced" a vial of VX Nerve Agent at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah (west of Salt Lake City)? http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51134945-76/dugway-king-base-deadly.html.csp If employers don't expect any more from their current employees than the effort it takes for a snail to leave a slime trail on a linoleum floor, why do candidates have to pass such rigorous but idiotic interviews and why are people who are jobless for 6 months or more rejected?

Companies with a "God" complex are screwing with people's lives and it has got to stop.  Shame on you!  Please pull your heads out of whichever orifice you have it shoved into and start acting like reasonable human beings.  What is going to happen to business if this disgusting approach is not checked?  Our companies are going to be staffed with nothing but drooling, inept blockheads.  Is it any wonder why companies like GM and Chrysler, AIG, and Goldman Sachs, etc., needed to be bailed out?