A Consultant's Chronicles

What About Wisconisn: Part II

Throughout the debate in Wisconsin, I have been listening for a more thorough discussion on a larger but very related issue relevant to all workers public & private but all I have heard is silence. Quite aside from the Wisconsin's Governor's goal to break collective bargaining, this whole dispute has crystallized something far bigger for me. Companies public & private have been playing fast & loose with their pension funds for years, which is the unspoken piece of fact in this debate. It seems to me that at least in part, public employees are being asked to provide a solution to the state government's own greed & mismanagement. Why? Now that the bill is about to become due for scores of retiring employees, these governors are in a panic. Retirement funds have been in greater danger than social security for the last 10-15 years. The current debate is like a "fig leaf" designed to mask the larger reality. As retirement of the baby boomers begins to roll out, new retirees are going to have a rude awakening at precisely the same time when our national debt requires that we make cutbacks in social security.

The By-product Of Ending Collective Bargaining

Howward Feinman of MSNBC & other pundits have also suggested that the GOP as a whole sees this as a means of diffusing a powerful political machine that always operates against them in every election. More significantly, the net result would be to stick a dagger in the Democrats financial machine. They speculate that if Walker & other governors are successful, it could translate to something like a 200 million dollar loss to the Democrats' electoral machine.  If Walker & the other governors succeed, get ready for a very different looking electorate as well as a different definition of the "American Dream." That's my opinion. What's yours?

What About 'Wisconsin'

Unless your head is buried in the sand or you've been on another planet, you can't help but take notice of the battle raging in Wisconsin these days over their state debt & governor Scott Walker's desire to break collective bargaining in his state. However, as someone who works with employers & employees, I have been peppered with a lot of questions so here's my take. It's near impossible to clearly favor one side or the other on the issues. Why, because BOTH sides are being disingenuous when it comes to telling the whole truth. Having said that, I think there are 3 things that most people [who are being intellectually honest] can agree with: 1- these are tough times & sacrifices along with some very tough choices are going to have to be made in order to get our fiscal house in order at both the state as well as the federal level; 2- again, assuming that people are being intellectually honest, collective bargaining by itself did not create this problem so "breaking it" won't guarantee a solution. Most people don't realize what happens in collective bargaining. It is through this kind of bargaining, that you get safe workplaces, a framework for how to resolve grievances, & a ton of other workplace related measures having nothing to do with pay or benefits; & lastly, 3-while the unions did not steal their benefits, which is to say that they negotiated for them fairly, there have been circumstances where they have taken advantage of the taxpayer's generosity. 

Governor Walker's Problems

On the merits of fiscal solvency, it is really hard to defend a governor who will not take "yes" for an answer because the unions have already said they understand that when it comes to money, the cuts have to be made. At this point, they are fighting for a "seat at the table" over all other workplace issues. That seems like a fair request & one thing we voters like to see is "fairness." Another problem for the governor is that his rationale has changed. He started out saying that this is strictly a budget issue but since the unions have yielded, he can no longer make that claim & is now fighting an ideological battle. Fairly or unfairly, this last point was driven home when he was publicly caught in a fake conversation with one of his ideological & financial backers [at the time, the governor thought the conversation was legitimate]. Politicians of all stripes miss the mark when they fight an ideological war instead of "solving the people's problems." It should be noted that while the current battle is being fought in Wisconsin, other governors in the "rust belt" [nearby states] are considering similar measures adding to the seriousness of the debate.

In My Opinion 

When a state like Wisconsin [& this is also true for my own home state of CA] finds itself in dire financial straits, cuts have to made & that is just fact. However, the cuts should start top down in areas & with people who will feel the pain the least although it will have to be experienced by all in order for it to be fair. If the government is going to cut the pay & benefits of public employees, he & his administration should experience those same proportionate cuts. There are also other nice little perks that come with administering government that he should trim whether they make a financial difference or not. Why, because such sacrifices even when they are only symbolic count when you are asking people who make far more modest money to make significant cuts. I was listening to a pundit this morning comment about the Wisconsin democratic state senators who have fled Wisconsin so that a vote cannot be cast on the governor's bill. He said that such behavior goes against the covenant that these officials have with the people. Well, the government made a covenant with the public union members too. They said to public workers if you do these necessary jobs to run the state for modest wages, i.e.; teach our children, keep us safe, put out our fires, etc, we in turn will be sure that your health insurance & retirement is secure. Right now, it almost seems as if no side has kept their word.  

Worker Wars: 'X,Y & B'

According to blogger Penelope Trunk, workers belonging to Gen Y can do your job better than you [if you belong to the Boomer, Obama, & X generation that is].  Really? This is not the first time that I have had serious disagreements with Ms Trunk & it may not be the last. Let's start with her initial premise that Gen Y is optimistic about their employment future. About this I'd say perhaps but it's is not the whole story. While I believe that unlike boomers, the 'Obama Generation,' & perhaps even some of those in Gen X who may have been confronted with some very tough employment options going forward, I believe that Gen Y has every reason to believe that, if they are unemployed now, they will eventually get a job. What Ms Trunk doesn't talk about is that Gen Y is now confronted with a new world in terms of their job opportunities, & salary realities relative to their expectations in addition to a growing uncertainty that they too will have an equal shot at the American Dream. Basically, this is not the rosier world promised to them by their parents. However, these issues are for a different blog because the main thrust of Ms Trunk's post is that as children of the information age, Gen Y is so digitally facile that they "can run rings around" anyone older.

A Generation 'Born with A Mouse In Their Crib'

However, as I observed about some of her other positions, she tends to view things outside of their larger context. For example, it was not Gen Y who created the information age. No, the information age as we currently understand & use it was brought to us by 'old geezers' of the baby boom generation with names like Jobs, Gates, & Dell followed by the slightly younger Mr[s] Yang, Brin, & Page. Basically one needn't be born "with a mouse in their crib" in order to be at ease in the information age which is a fact that is conveniently overlooked by Ms. Trunk [& to be fair, some others who write about Gen Y]. Instead she tends to support her argument with an outdated stereotype of the "befuddled boomer" who can't manage to program their VCR. Facts however are inconvenient things. For example the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is between the age of 45-55. Thee same groups she tends to discard are busy buying new [information] gadgets like smartphones, e-readers, & tablets for themselves. Do they do that because they are so hopelessly out of touch? Somehow I think not.

The World According To Trunk

In a point by point analysis, according to Ms. Trunk:

-Productivity-She believes Gen Y are better, & more comfortable 'knowledge workers'
 I'd say this an outdated assessment based on stereotypes & not the realities of today's rapidly changing workforce

-Communication- She says Gen Y are skilled communicators because they are comfortable writing online
I'd say their older peers are better communicators because they are more facile communicating across platforms or "live as well as in cyberspace." Plus they acquire information from a variety of mediums not just online.

-Career mobility- She maintains that Gen Y is more comfortable job-hopping
I'd have to agree on this point. People in Gen Y are definitely more comfortable jumping from 'start-up to to start-up' because spending an entire career with one company is as outdated as the Edsel.

-Career resilience- She says young people use entrepreneurship as a safety-valve & when they don't earn enough money, they move back in with the folks.
Once again, she is looking at employment & the workforce with Gen Y blinders on. Globally, entrepreneurship is a go-to safety valve across many age groups. What's more when people are older, they don't have the option of moving in with mom & dad & therefore have more pressure to build a successful venture or find an alternative position..

Results Of Re-Training

Don't get me wrong, there's  still a small percentage of people in these older generations who are not digitally fluent but they are rapidly becoming a smaller portion of the overall  "workforce pie" especially as folks go back to school for re-training in order to stay current & employable. I'd say it's time for Ms Trunk to take off her 'Gen Y' blinders & give the total workforce a more dispassionate assessment. What's your view?

 

College GPA & Admissions Scores: The New Code For 'How Old Are You'

In this election season, if you live in CA, you cannot turn on the TV without seeing a commercial paid for by Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay who is now running for Governor here. In many of these commercials, she extols the virtues of the way business is done in the Silicon Valley. While it's true that there are lots of awesome companies based there & it is certainly an engine of innovation for the state, it is also something else. According to a source who works there & has close ties to many of its power players, it is an open secret that many of its top companies endorse age discrimination in their hiring practices.

 Your College GPA & Admissions Scores: The New Code For 'How Old Are You'

While age discrimination is illegal, getting away with it is easier than one might think. For example if on a hiring application, it is required that you provide your college GPA &/or entrance exam scores, that will pretty much exclude anyone over 40. Not only is that kind of data irrelevant by that time but very few people will be capable of accurately summoning them to memory [unless you were a returning student later in life]. Basically, with that requirement, they may as well say, "middle aged applicants needn't apply!" When one extremely successful & well known company was actually confronted with this accusation, a representative from management didn't confirm or deny it...he simply smiled. Now we can argue all day long about the wealth of experience they are missing in an older but nonetheless skilled workforce; age discrimination however, has always been one of the tougher practices to prove. If it's hard to prove, it makes the practice mighty tough to change. Moreover, given our current economic environment, never have the consequences been so grave.

Applying The 'Carrot & The Stick'

 

When you consider that the latest "jobs report" reflects an unemployment record somewhere around 9.6% we can no longer afford to let the practice slide by with a "wink & a nod!" The Silicon Valley is a place where new jobs are being created all the time so what's the solution? Instead of giving these companies "special dispensation" to hire workers from overseas [or worse, moving large chunks of their workforce outside the U.S.], force them to play by the rules using the "carrot & the stick". The "carrot" could easily be tax incentives especially if they provide targeted re-training & the "stick" of course is to re-shape the law making it more eaisly enforcable by providing stiffer penalties for those that try to circumvent the rules. After all, a jobless rate of 9.6% reflects a large swath of Americans who are not employed but the number is even higher because it does not take into account the number who are under-employed, working only part-time [not by choice], & worst of all, those so broken that they have stopped looking. 

 

Line of the Week 5-9-2010

This week's line of the week belongs to blogger & editor Andrew Berg of Wireless Week. Talking about the fact that while he loves the iphone, he has opted to, as he puts it "go Google" regardless of the oft heard concern that Google has amassed far too much information about us all. Explaining the reason for this change, he said:

"... I’d rather have my personal information in Google’s open hands than in Apple’s closed fists..."

What Berg is alluding to of course is the open-source style of Google extending to their cell phone platform Android as compared to the very tightly closed & insular style that typifies Apple which by extension includes their cell phone modality. 

Putting Your Money Where Your Values Are

I think the bottom line is that here we are talking about two large & compelling companies that have gathered a lot of power & influence when it comes to how we communicate, work & play. Without rendering a judgment about his views regarding the organizational cultures of the companies involved here, Berg's decision exemplifies the fact that sometimes people decide to put their money where their values lie & that's not necessarily a bad thing. What's your view?

Google's Nexus1 

                     vs.          Apple's iPhone

Facebook & Today's Workforce

In earlier posts I have written about the fact that while social media sites like Facebook & Twitter represent fabulous marketing venues for individuals & [small] business, they are also not without business peril. There have been some notable examples of how people err on these sites because they blur the lines between professional & personal life. This merging of the public & private spheres of life is like a giant pothole on these sites, which is to say the problem is easily seen yet people stumble anyway. Until recently, I have only been involved with professionally oriented sites where everyone's guard is up. However, now that I am on Facebook, I see just how easily those lines can be crossed in a way that could be harmful to a career. A picture posted of someone smoking a bong is probably not their ticket to the corner office.  Should that be the case?

The Facebook Faux Pas: A Dealmaker Or A Deal-breaker

There is a school of thought representing the belief that as people become more at home with social media, the "Facebook online faux pas" will become a mere "blip on the radar screen;'' others maintain that if online indiscretions don't interfere with their work performance, it shouldn't matter.  I believe this view to be naive & self-serving. Allow me to explain. Part of what employers & [potential] colleagues  look for is how you handle yourself in every setting especially personal ones. Why? It's a window into what you will be like to work with as well as providing a feel for your ethics & moral compass. For example, how do you treat the wait staff when dining out with the boss, do you cheat at golf, do you drink too much at business mixers? These are all "real life" examples of where professional & personal boundaries cross & as a consequence, fairly or not, we are judged accordingly. Social media just provides another venue for more information. Is your input responsive, communicative, and a reflection of good judgment or is it immature and unprofessional? Does it matter? In my view, absolutely. Can a Facebook or Twitter post be a dealmaker or deal-breaker; without a doubt-just ask "Cisco Fatty!" She lost her job as the result of "140 characters or less!" 

What Your Golf Game Reveals About You To Business Colleagues

In the business world, the approach of September & October means many things but one particular item always comes to my mind: it's business golf tournament time. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say right here that I am not a "gifted golfer" [understatement of the year!?] but I do know how to conduct myself to make the fairways enjoyable & profitable.  However, in the fall there always seems to be these big company wide tournaments each year. In fact, in certain industries [like insurance], golf & business are a year round affair paired together like ham & swiss [cheese].

What Does Your Golf Game Say About You 

A friend of mine, Suzanne Woo is a business golf specialist & she believes that it is often beneficial for people to play golf together before deciding whether or not to do business together. Why? Just like in any other non-work activity, there is much that can be gleaned just by playing golf together. What are some examples of the kinds of things you can learn?

• How a person handles pressure? Are they at ease or do they crumble?
• What happens when they make a bad shot? Do they make excuses, get so angry that they crack a club over their knee, or simply say "my bad" & move on?
• Do they cheat? Do they lack integrity or are they someone who has to win at any cost?

Would A Stranger Elect To Do Business With You After 18 Holes

Anyone who's ever played golf knows it is extremely difficult to master but at the end of the day, it's just a game.  How do you conduct yourself on the fairways? Could you survive a game with the boss? Would a stranger elect to do business with you after 18 holes together?

Behavior In the Workplace: The YouTube Guide To Life

Recently I read an article, which offered many different & useful tips when it comes to managing in a crisis. The source of these tips came from consultants, academicians, authors & CEO's alike. However, there's a tip that really caught my eye. It comes from columnist Bruce Weinstein & it is something that I believe every manager should heed at anytime. It requires screening your actions in a very simple way. Always ask yourself "can my actions pass the YouTube test? If you wouldn't mind seeing what you've done [or plan to do] "going viral" in a video clip great but if not, stop right there! Actually this is a pretty egalitarian guidepost since it could easily be applied to managers & employees alike.

The Ethical Layoff: Lose the Job But Keep Your 'Face'

In this financial climate jobs have been decimated across almost every industry even those, which were traditionally immune like the law. In some ways comparing a struggling factory worker's job loss to that of a lawyer in a "white shoe" [read; conservative & elite] firm is like comparing "apples to oranges" but at the end of the day, a layoff is a layoff. This brings me to something that impressed me in an article in this past Sunday's New York Times. It was about White & Case a century old Wall Street firm that recently cut 200 lawyers off their payroll, both junior associates & partners alike. These days there's is nothing remarkable about a big company laying off employees. While much of the article was spent discussing whether or not this move represented a paradigm shift for the profession as a whole, what struck me was how they conducted the process. 

Keeping The 'Face"

According to the chairman Hugh Verrier, they could have done one of 3 things:

• they could have done nothing [considered unhealthy for the firm's survival]
• they could have dissembled alleging poor performance
• they could tell the truth; basically they could no longer afford the larger staff

While the first option clearly sounded like a death knell for the firm, there are many companies today that opt for "plan B:" asserting the reason is poor performance or [gasp] some other malfeasance. What's the difference between alleging poor performance/malfeasance & the truth? Aside from the fact that it would be untrue, it therefore also opens them up to legal liability. However doing what White & Case opted for generally puts the company on the hook for more money [especially at the partner level]. What their choice did NOT do was destroy their employees' "face," their professional & personal prestige. Instead White & Case decided to be candid & reveal that as a firm, that they were ill prepared for a financial downturn, a move that tarnishes their brand further.  As a result, their employees "only" had to deal with the layoff & could at least take [cold?] comfort in their ability to market their skills elsewhere with the general expectation of supportive references. A difficult task but done in a cleaner & far more ethical manner. Now if only they could take "ethics" to the bank... 

 

 

 

'Everybody, Somebody, Anybody & Nobody:' How To Keep Your Job

About a year ago I shared something here I saw in a Dr's office that everyone in the work world can relate to probably because to varying degrees most of us can see ourselves & our co-workers in it. Considering the post was well before our economic tsunami I believe it bears repeating.

The Story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, & Nobody

The title is "Whose Job Is It" & it says:

"...This is a story about 4 people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry with that, because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done..."

Author: Unknown

Moral of the story: Like the commercial says "just do it" [& improve your chances of staying employed]!