Past Blogs October 2007

October 16, 2007

Want a new perspective on the job market? Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel has written a fascinating column about the economy. It's too long and complex to try and capture in a few sentences, but here's a little of what he says.

 As the rich get richer and the demand for stars – highly skilled workers in every field – increases, there's also more demand for unskilled, low-wage immigrants. He's talking about those who wipe brows in hospitals, care for kids, clear tables and stand guard in office buildings. Those tasks can't be called in, done by computer or shipped offshore, and the more rich people we have, the more nannies, gardeners, personal trainers and gourmet chefs they'll want and need. So workers at both ends of spectrum are doing okay; it's those in the middle – those who are doing routine tasks in factories and offices, switchboard operators, bookkeepers, jobs that robots can replace – who are getting squeezed in this economy. Said one blogger in response, "People, keep educating yourself and upgrading your skills."

Click here to read a comment

October 15, 2007

You need a scorecard to track the legal maneuvering lately around the subject of immigration law and catching illegals. In the November Newsbrief (out 11-1) we report that the No-Match law was stopped in its tracks by the courts. Illinois passed a law stopping employers from participating in E-Verify, a program that lets you check an employee's online Social Security and citizenship records, and the Homeland Security Department is now suing Illinois to get that law off the books.

In New York, a class action lawsuit charges that agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement unlawfully force their way into the homes of Hispanic families in the New York area without court warrants or other legal justification, sometimes pushing down doors in the middle of the night, in search of people who do not live there and "could not reasonably have been believed to be present.”

In Alexandria, VA, civil rights groups filed a lawsuit last week arguing that a measure ordering police to check the immigration status of people in custody violates federal law. The lawsuit asks a judge to declare unconstitutional a controversial resolution that the Prince William supervisors passed in July. Before the largest crowd to attend a board meeting in two decades, the supervisors heightened immigration enforcement by local police and attempted to curb public services for illegal immigrants.

In Los Angeles, former detainees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement accuse the agency in a lawsuit of forcibly injecting them with psychotropic drugs while trying to shuttle them out of the country during their deportation.

And in Arizona, defenders of their get-tough-on-employers law are fighting to keep the courts from striking it down, as the federal court in Pennsylvania did with a similar law in Hazleton in July.

There may be more that we've missed, as libertarians and legal experts clash with government nationwide. No one wants a country full of illegal immigrants and we certainly don't have the answer, but It does bring to mind the words of FDR – "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

(Click here to comment and let us know if you'd rather remain anonymous.)

October 12, 2007

All the major candidates have now come up with a health care plan. Among other ideas, most of the Republicans want to offer tax cuts to give low-income people enough money to afford health care coverage. But wait a minute . . . aren't those low-income people the same ones who don't earn enough to pay taxes?

Their numbers are growing. Today's Wall Street Journal points out that the richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record. The top 1% of earners took home 21.2% of all the money in 2005. The last time their share was this high was in the 1920s. The bottom half earned 12.8%, down a little from 13.4% in 2004. (Click here to comment.)

October 11, 2007

The attention-getter on the cover of the latest HR Magazine is a small boy in a briefcase, seemingly asking "Are You Too Family Friendly?" Don't be thrown. The point the story makes (and it makes it on the first page) is that it doesn't work to ask why an employee needs a little extra time, and as the number of single, unmarried, childless employees grows, it becomes even more important to focus on results instead of reasons if you want to avoid backlash. The buzzword, the article concludes, should be "employee-friendly" rather than "family-friendly." We agree. But there's nothing wrong with giving employees with families a little extra consideration. If anyone is irritated, explain that one of your organization's commitments is to foster healthy families. They are, after all, our society's future.

(Click here to comment and let us know if you'd rather remain anonymous.)

October 10, 2007

A Florida State University study looked at the behavior of employees who reported abusive bosses and compared them with those who didn't. They found "staggering" differences. Employees who reported abusive bosses purposely hid from the boss, made errors, slowed down their work output, took sick time when they weren't really sick, took longer breaks, etc. etc. But which comes first, abusive bosses or bad employee behavior? Said researcher Wayne Hochwarter, "The data do not allow us to definitively state if abuse leads to these reactions or if managers are just responding to their subordinates' less-than-stellar behavior." One thing is clear, he added (although this examination of 180 employees doesn't quite support his conclusion and he doesn't say how he knows this): "Employee-employer relations are at one of the lowest points in history."

October 9, 2007

There's a wonderful article in the Oct. 8th Newsweek – "Just Don't Call Me Mr. Mom." It's fun reading, but if you don't have time to read it, here are some highlights. Newsweek staffer Brian Braiker took a year off from work to care for his infant daughter – shopping, cooking, diaper-changing and bathing, spending a lot of time on playgrounds and play dates. Boring? Unbelievably so. Rewarding? "The most rewarding time of my life," he says, and wonders what on earth the average '60s Dad did with his free time. He didn't spend much of it with his kids – just 2.6 hours a week in 1965. Today it's up to 6.5 hours, still less than an hour a day. But in what family studies professor Glen Palm calls a "fascinating cultural shift," the number of stay-at-home dads has tripled, and 11% of those suing their employers for family leave are men. Says a 2007 survey by the MN Dep't. for Families and Children's Services, men consider childcare to be far more important than a handsome paycheck. Braiker believes he'll get something out of parenting that his Dad failed to get. Click here to comment.

October 8, 2007

Discrimination in an employment situation tops the list of Terrible Ten behaviors at work, says a survey by the Civility Initiative at The Johns Hopkins University and the Jacob France Institute of the University of Baltimore. "The research suggests that people are bothered more by the transgressions of coworkers and strangers than by those of family and friends," said a spokesman. "Maybe we are less rude towards family, or maybe we are more inclined to tolerate rude behavior when it comes from family." The complete list of "Terrible Ten" behaviors:
1. Discrimination in an employment situation.
2. Erratic/aggressive driving that endangers others.
3. Taking credit for someone else’s work.
4. Treating service providers as inferiors.
5. Jokes or remarks that mock another’s race/gender/age/disability/sexual preference or
    religion.
6. Children who behave aggressively or who bully others.
7. Littering (including trash, spitting, pet waste).
8. Misuse of handicapped privileges.
9. Smoking in non-smoking places or smoking in front of non-smokers without asking.
10. Using cell phones or text messaging in mid-conversation or during an appointment or
      meeting.

The survey polled employees of two Baltimore-based companies and University of Baltimore employees and students, asking them to indicate the degree to which they personally considered each behavior offensive.

(Click here to comment and let us know if you'd rather remain anonymous.)