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.

Hollywood, You So Silly!

Where do I begin with the latest Hollywood drivel, Larry Crowne? It's the story of a middle-aged man (played by Tom Hanks) who reinvents himself by going back to college after losing his job. This movie is Hollywood's way of telling the rest of us that we're pathetic losers; Hollywood gets the last laugh though because it's us losers who will pay for the displeasure of seeing this movie.

I'm not sure how many (if any) Hollywood stars have ever had to work at a poorly-or-only-adequately-paying job with health coverage that's hardly better than no health coverage and no retirement benefits for most of their lives only to lose said job because the company decides that employee is making too much salary and is costing the company too much in health premiums and they think they can replace said experienced employee with a wet-behind-the-ears fresh-out-of-college kid who can barely wipe his or her nose without first checking a textbook for directions. I’m pretty sure that neither Tom Hanks nor Julia Roberts have ever had to worry about their next mortgage/rent payment or car payment, or whether they will have enough beans and hot dogs for dinner again. I am also pretty sure that neither Tom Hanks nor Julia Roberts have ever had to give up any of their pets because they either couldn't afford to feed them or because they had to move into a one- or two-bedroom apartment after their house was foreclosed.

The movie is just a happy-go-lucky romp through the trials and tribulations of a middle-aged man who actually needed to be fired as a kick in the pants so he'd learn to find happiness and new adventures in his life; unemployment offices are just littered with people who look like Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts who would welcome the chance to meet a flabby, out-of-work, bitter, middle-aged person and teach them how to live and love again. By all means, Hollywood, please continue to churn out this inane claptrap all the while sticking your middle finger out at the fans and general public who have been paying good money to put you where you are.

Everyone should take to heart the simple sweet message this movie has to offer: Go and accumulate $100,000 or more in tuition debt, some 10 or 20 years before retiring, so you can go back to college and earn a degree that you'll never use in your $10 an hour job, which is the only job you'll be able to get while the economy is so shitty...oh, and you'll be competing with thousands or tens of thousands of other people for that same job. Enjoy!