December 28, 2006 2:59

Vacation-Deprived? Maybe It's Your Fault

If you're like many Americans, you're back at your desk this week after a totally relaxing long weekend of last-minute gift-buying and spastic present-wrapping and uncontrolled gingerbread-gorging. You're as glazed as a 10 lb. ham. It's all you can do to get through a few days of paper-pushing until--hallelujah!--the compulsory Champagne-drinking contest known as New Year's Eve.

More than once you've grumbled, Heck, why don't they just give us the whole week off? What planet-saving project do they expect us to complete in the few working days between Christmas and New Year's?

What we employees don't like to admit is that the responsibility may lie to some extent with us. What profit-minded, shareholder-driven CEO would force workers to take a holiday? ...a CEO who doesn't want to keep the job that pays him 369 times more than his average worker, that's who.

"My workers don't take holidays because they don't want to," is what CEO Guy says to his board. And he wouldn't be completely wrong.

Employed Americans get about 14 days of vacation on average. Those 14 days are measly compared to the 24 the average Brit gets, and practically a joke compared to a Frenchman's 39 days. What's worse, a third of working Americans say they don't even take all of those 14 days, on average leaving four on the table.

And there you have it: those are the four days between Christmas and the weekend that would have let you take this whole week off.

Those stats come from the 2006 Expedia.com Vacation Deprivation survey. Expedia is so alarmed by this trend that it's created a fancy web site dedicated to persuading workers just how vacation-deprived they are. You're either a Daydreamer, a Workaholic, or Overworked (I hate it when parallels aren't parallel). A faux Post-it on the Workaholic page reads, "Reminder: you deserve a break." In a "folder" marked vacation tips, the site urges, "Consider a 'breakation!'" Each page leads conveniently to Expedia's travel-booking site, of course. So clever, these webvertorials.

The travel and leisure industry isn't the only group to notice American workers' apparent allergy to vacation. The trend intrigues scholars, too. The excellent Knowledge@Wharton web site of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania examined it in an article last July:

As recently as the 1960s, Europeans worked more than people in the U.S., according to a 2005 study by Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth University and Alberto Alesina and Ed Glaeser, both of Harvard University. Since then, however, the regions' appetites for leisure have diverged, with Americans grinding away for ever-more hours at the office and Europeans taking time to savor la dolce vita ("the sweet life"). These days, the U.S. even outworks famously industrious Japan.

The article goes on to mine the various reasons bandied about by other scholars and by the popular press, noting that the proliferation of Blackberries, our financial burdens, differing values, unions and even taxes all seem to play a role in why Americans take fewer vacations than do Europeans. It concludes by quoting a Wharton management professor named Nancy Rothbard who questions the basic premise that vacations are, in fact, relaxing:

She cites research that has found that the recharge effect lasts about three days. And for many people, those three days come with a hefty price of their own--and it's not entirely financial. "Would more vacation be better for us?" she asks. "It depends on the tradeoffs." If it means making less money, some people might pass, preferring to save for their children's college educations, their retirements or even a house at the beach--even if they rarely have the time to use it.

Studies also show that some people bank weeks and weeks of vacation, she points out. Analysts tend to assume that their bosses discourage them from taking their time or that they fear a rock pile of work when they return. But it's possible that they just don't want to leave work.

Which brings me back to my point. We can't complain about how much we need a vacation unless we take a vacation. I think our bosses do pressure us not to take time off, if only by forgoing holidays themselves. But if we insist, all together now, on using our alotted time--skiing in Vail, trolling Parisian bakeries or playing Sudoku by the fire with our kids--our CEOs will just have to deal. Preferably by pumping some of that seven-figure pay package back into the economy by booking their own extracurricular adventures.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 26, 2006 3:22

How Do You Regift a Fighting Fish?

On Dec. 15, I wrote about a marketing exec who had received donations to charity in her name from vendors in lieu of the traditional holiday popcorn bucket. One brand new company in Phoenix called David and Sam PR had even decided to make it their thing, offering to stuff clients' stockings with either a) fruitcake or b) charitable donations.

After appearing on Work in Progress, Sam Alpert of David and Sam asked for my address so that he could send me something. I told him I didn't like fruitcake, but thanks.

A day later, my husband answered the door to a delivery guy from Petco. "Goldfish for Lisa Cullen," said the guy.

"Excuse me?" said my husband.

The Petco guy held a glass bowl filled with green marbles in one hand, and, in the other, a plastic bag filled with water and said goldfish. It was, we learned later, not a goldfish at all but something called a Betta fighting fish.

Great. So not only was I now the caretaker of a scaly, smelly, aquatic thing, but the fish was ornery, too.

This was absolutely, hands-down, the worst holiday gift I've ever received, corporate or personal. I already have a toddler and a dog; I didn't need yet another living thing whose poop to clean up after. I would have returned it to Petcoland had not my two-year-old squealed in delight and christened it Dorothy (you toddler parents will understand).

I'm not alone in my displeasure, says a Dec. 21 release:

According to the third annual Holiday Re-Gifting Survey commissioned by eBay, the vast majority of Americans--more than 57%--say they normally receive holiday presents they don't like.

Seeing as I'm feeling as ornery as the fish, let's pick on the wording of this press release: is 57% a "vast" majority? Why not just say majority? And when people say they "normally receive holiday presents they don't like," do they mean, like, regularly, as in, every year? And why not just say that?

Post-script on the goldfish: I tried. I read the instructions three times. I cleaned the bowl out and filled it with non-chlorinated water. I gave it the fish food that came with the delivery, which I know was top-notch because it's labeled "gourmet," though come to think of it I don't get what constitutes gourmet fish food, or if fish can tell the difference.

On Christmas morning, Dorothy died.

The eBay survey says that 55% admit to regifting their horrible gifts, and

the most popular re-gifted items include: knick-knacks (32%), bottles of wine or spirits (26%), DVDs, CDs or books (23%), bath products (22%) and fruitcake (17%).

No mention of what to do with a dead goldfish.

Our little girl, crusty-eyed with sleep, asked, as she had every morning since its unwelcomed arrival: "Where's Dor'ty?"

My husband thought fast. "She's...gone back to Elmo's house," he said (you toddler parents understand).

She stood there in her footsie pajamas, blinking. "Shall we go look for her?" she asked.

So, Sam: not only did you encumber us with fish that wasn't sashimi, but you made us lie. On Christmas. To our daughter. About death.

"No way!" wrote Sam in an e-mail. "So sorry to hear that. I should have sent a Pez dispenser."

No kidding. Even a fruitcake would've had regifting value.

R.I.P. Dorothy the Fish

12/21/2006-12/25/2006

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 22, 2006 2:47

Questioning the Wage Gap

In response to my posting about the wage gap between men and women, my friend Gerry writes:

I've always been suspicious of the stat that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for performing the same job as a male colleague. Why? Because if there's one thing we know about corporate America is that it loves to pay less and get more. Just like Wal-Mart shoppers.

Any former customer service rep who watched his admittedly miserable job leave for foreign shores can attest that corporations will do anything to save money. If Dell could save a few rupees by moving its helpline to India, wouldn't it hire only women domestically to save 25% on salaries? If this stat were an accurate representation across the board then there would be a lot of unemployed men in this country. The Old Boy Club wouldn't survive that kind of benefit to the bottom line.

This is not to deny that sexism exists and that it manifests itself in the workplace. I'm certain it does because I've witnessed it. But an article on CNN Money reports that a flaw in the formulation determining the wage gap accounts for at least some of the misleading statistic.

Jeanne Sahadi writes that "all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That's it. It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked."

I present my own situation as support. For years my wife and I held the same position at competing ad agencies: Director of Editorial Services. On paper we held the same job: we ran departments, managed workflow, hired and fired people, stamped out fires. But she earned about 20% more than I did.

Why? Because she had a three-year career head start on me and was hired at higher base salary based on her experience; her company grew faster than mine did (she managed 14 editors; I managed only 4); her job was more demanding; her company was part of a global advertising conglomerate and mine was not; her boss went to bat with senior management for her during her reviews and mine did not; and she was with her company for ten years while I was with mine for only 7. For those reasons she received better raises than I did, even though we held the same position.

My point is that on paper I made less for the same job but in reality we did not have the same job.

Or maybe I'm more effeminate than I realize.

Comments?

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 22, 2006 2:23

Free Post-Christmas Job Advice

Quick note: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the Chicago-based outplacement agency, is offering free call-in job advice on the days following Christmas. The hours are 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. EST. Call 312-332-5790.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 20, 2006 2:50

Ladies, Let's Gun for That Eight-Figure Salary

So I opened the WSJ online this morning and nearly spat out my decaf:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. paid its chairman and chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, about $54 million for 2006, a record for Wall Street bosses who are harvesting their share of bull-market bounty.

Say what? Fifty-four million? Can that be right? According to the World Bank web site, $54 million is the entire GDP of Sao Tome and Principe in West Africa.

One guy earned what an entire country did? What did he do--invent the AIDS vaccine? Cure world hunger? Broker peace in the Middle East?

Ha, ha! Oh, I jest. Of course he didn't. To bring home a morbidly obese paycheck, Blankfein helmed an investment bank during a year in which it generated record-breaking revenues of $9.5 billion and its stock soared 59%.

For this he earned $25,961.54 an hour.

Isn't that great? And they're bickering down in Washington about hiking pay for burger flippers and toilet cleaners to $7.25 an hour! Blankfein earned that in one second! (For real--do the math.)

The Good News Express continued to roll as I read a report released today by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR), a Washington think tank. In "The Best and Worst State Economies for Women," IWPR found that "despite women's quick-paced progress in some areas, fair compensation continues to elude them." Some findings:

* Between 1999 and 2005, 15 states saw a widening of the wage gap between women and men.

* Nationwide, women who work full-time, year-round have median annual earnings of $31,800--or 77% of men's annual earnings of $41,300.

The news wasn't all bad: the study found that women are in fact scratching their way up the ladder.

Despite a lag in wage parity, women are making gains in other areas related to employment and earnings. The proportion of women in managerial and professional occupations, for example, is on the rise, at 35.5%, up from 33.2% at the time of IWPR's last data release. The best states on this indicator are the District of Columbia (52.5%), Maryland (43.1%), Virginia (40.3%), Massachusetts (39.7%), and New Jersey (37.6%); the worst states are Idaho (27.1%), Tennessee (28.7%), Utah (28.8%), Arkansas (29.5%), and Nevada (29.6%).

Landing an office with a window is nice and all. But what's the point if we're still making less by a quarter than Bob next door?

We're not asking for eight-figure salaries here (unless that's what Bob's making). No, all we want is something to show we're valued equally for our equally hard work. Ladies, it's time to gun for 100% pay parity.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 19, 2006 4:17

What Do Gen Y Job Seekers Want?

That's a question I've seen posed a lot lately online. As college seniors knock off their midterms and begin thinking in earnest about life A.C. (after college), the tight labor market is forcing employers and recruiters to ask themselves how best to attract the top talent.

Here's one answer: a recent survey by recruiters Hudson found that what young employees crave is "more feedback, access to managers and social interaction than their older counterparts."

To put it a little more bluntly, they want their hands held. Not that there's anything wrong with that; other studies have shown that guidance and mentorship are key to job success and employee retention.

Here are Hudson's findings:

A quarter--24%--of workers from both Generation X and Y said they would like feedback from their boss at least once a week, if not every day. A fifth of baby boomers want report cards that frequently.

Gen Y workers like their cubicles situated just under the boss's nose: 81% of Gen Y workers say direct access to senior management is "very important." Three quarters of boomers and Gen X agreed.

And chatting up the boss daily at the espresso makerisn't enough for Gen Y. No, sir. Over a quarter, 26%, want "more frequent social interaction with their managers"; the same number "would like to socialize with their boss at least monthly." As for Gen X, 21% want to hoist an Amstel with the boss every month. Boomers are so over that; only 16% of them want to hang with their superiors.

Hear that, bosses? Gen Y likes you! Attracting and keeping young talent might hinge on your willingness to give them a little time--and maybe a beer or two after hours on the corporate Amex. It could be worse. You could be hanging out with your boss.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 18, 2006 10:35

Welcome to Harvard's Economics Ph.D. Program! Now Watch This Boring Video

In an earnest attempt to join the 21st century, two professors in Harvard's economics department created a video welcoming potential students to its program. The result: brilliant, if unintentional, comedy for the masses, courtesy of YouTube.

Professors John Campbell and Ed Glaeser sit shoulder to shoulder before a wood-paneled wall. Campbell's tie is distractingly askew, and Glaeser looks a lot like comedian Steve Carrell, circa the Daily Show years.

"We want you to come to Harvard," says Campbell, in British. "But we particularly want you to be able to make a well-informed decision." Glaeser, fingers interlocked over crossed knees, here looks over at Campbell--TV-anchor style--nods his head, smiling, then looks back at the camera.

YouTube has invaded the recruiting world, as we've seen with video resumes and job postings. (It's also TIME's de facto Person--or Thing, or Concept--of the Year.) The great thing about this medium is that not only does it allow us to disseminate, say, a job opening in a colorful, speedy and far-reaching manner, it also allows the hoi polloi to respond.

There were, of course, the reviews. "It's like watching paint dry," writes one viewer on YouTube.

"I don't think it's quite that exciting," writes another.

But because it's YouTube, some viewers responded with video parodies. Campbell and Glaeser are not handing out nearly enough homework, judging by the time and effort put into these efforts by their students.

"Harvard Economics Recruiting Video--Skit 2006" begins with this message:

Female enrollment in the Harvard PhD program has been declining for years...In an effort to reverse this trend, Harvard has recruited two professors skilled in the art of seduction.

Then, set to the bonkety bonk of a BeeGees tune, its creators edited the original video so that the professors appear to be coming on to prospective students.

Glaeser: "We think we are superb economists."

Campbell: "We are truly exceptional. And extremely strong. Now we need a little help from you. We'd like to date you on April 17th.

"We want you. But we particularly want to touch you."

Glaeser: "...and we will of course coordinate rooms while you're here."

Another video, "Harvard Economics Outtakes," features two students in the roles of Campbell and Glaeser, spouting economics mumbo jumbo and bickering. At one point, "Glaeser" makes "Campbell" cry by making fun of his inability to read a teleprompter.

"Campbell": Ed, are you sure this is the best way to attract graduate students?

"Glaeser" (waving dismissively): Don't be absurd.

Absurd is how the professors might have felt in the glare of their Internet ignominy, but Campbell, at least, is laughing--if a bit sheepishly. He says Glaeser came up with the idea of including a video on the web site created for prospective students accepted into the Ph.D. program as a way to make the site more personal. "We didn't at first realize we were making the web site more pompous than personal," Campbell writes via e-mail ("I'm a phoneophobe," he says).

The video was posted for a short time on the departmental web site in the spring, from where it apparently made its rounds on campus. "Then I forgot about the whole debacle until this month."

The creators of the video parodies are Ph.D. students in the economics department, "some of them first-year students who decided to come to Harvard despite viewing the video," says Campbell. And who decided making fun of their professors was a good idea despite having yet to pass their midterms.

Campbell explains: "There is a long and honorable tradition by which students spoof the faculty at the annual Christmas party. The new twist is the way the spoofs can be created on video, and then shared with the world over the Internet."

The spoofs, he adds, "are much better than the original!"

I asked if he would do it again. Campbell responds:

"I've realized I'm out of my depth in the video age. If I see a video camera pointed my way, I shall react like the New Yorker in Borat who is seen running away across a busy street."

That's too bad. The video did much for the cultural learnings of YouTube viewers for make benefit glorious university of Harvard.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 15, 2006 2:01

Donate My Fruitcake to Charity

My friend Jessica Kutash, a marketing exec at a consumer products company, writes:

Several vendors with whom I do business have recently sent me my token 'thanks for doing business with us' holiday/end-of-year gifts. Normally these gifts are trinkets or candy. I quite like trinkets and candy. This year, however, I am seeing a new kind of gift: donations made to charities in 'my' name in lieu of the trinket. I'm not sure how I feel about this trend. On one hand, it's nice to donate to charities. On the other hand, these are not charities that I've picked, so I don't feel a strong connection to them. One of them was a charity I don't even really believe in at all. Also I miss my trinkets and candy--does that make me a Scrooge?

Corporate gifting is tricky. There's a legion of consultants claiming to help corporate clients avoid gifting gaffes et cetera. In Japan, the year-end gift between businesses constitutes an art form and a multimillion-dollar industry.

But giving in my name to a charity? I'd never heard of that, at least not in the realm of the workplace. (I admit I considered the idea briefly this year for my herd of over-indulged nieces and nephews, but I knew my siblings would stone me. Maybe next year.)

At Jessica's office, the holidays used to mean bins of popcorn, buckets of chocolate-covered pretzels, baskets of pretty fruit. There were useful trinkets like pens and mugs emblazoned with company logos.

This year, though, Jessica has yet to receive a single box of bonbons. What she has gotten are cards from vendors cheerily informing her of donations made in her name to charities of their choice.

It's the choice of charity Jessica questions. One vendor elected to give to an organization that provides video-game monitors to terminally ill children. "I have to be honest," she says. "My God, that's a terrible situation--a sick child--but I don't know that I'd spend my money buying them more TVs. So not only don't I get my chocolate, but I'm making a gift to these kids that I wouldn't have picked."

What else is there for bed-bound children, I ask--books? "I would have approved of books," she says. "Or bedside jugglers. Or traveling minstrels."

I wondered about the extent of this trend. After a little digging, I came across a company in Phoenix called David and Sam PR that has a similar campaign. The proprietors e-mailed 150 clients and contacts--including a law firm, radio show and hospitality consultant--asking if for their holiday gift they would prefer a) a fruitcake or b) a donation to one of three local charities, says Sam Alpert, a co-founder. Of about 100 responses, none so far have opted for dessert.

By the time they launched their own firm about a year ago, Alpert and David Eichler, his partner, were already discussing their charity-over-fruitcakes idea. "In most agencies, any time the holidays come around, it's like, What do we do--do the clients like wine, assortments of food, stationery, nice pens?" says Alpert, 27. "In this industry, it's always about gifts. That's so boring. We wanted to do something different."

Alpert hopes to donate in the four figures ("we're still a small company," he says, apologetically) to three charities that he or his partner have personal connections to: a local breast cancer survivor group called Bosom Buddies; a Phoenix chapter of Habitat for Humanity; and the regional Big Brothers Big Sisters program.

And what if a Grinchy--or hungry--client chooses the fruitcake? "We'd have to call them and say, What are you thinking?" Alpert says. "No--we knew nobody was going to do that. Who would want a fruitcake?"

They better keep a few in stock. In the absence of bonbons, even petrified pastries might look tempting.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 14, 2006 3:19

When Internships Are the Stuff of Reality Shows

I work in a field so competitive that few would consider me weird for having slogged through four internships before graduation. All involved little or no pay, soul-deadening work, and absolutely not one iota of glamour.

So you could've knocked me over with a feather when I learned today that one of my lame internships is going to be a reality show.

Come Jan. 7, MTV will launch "I'm With Rolling Stone," a reality show about six interns vying for a job at the music magazine. "The Rolling Stone reality show--it's for real!" crows the mag's web site. RS has already set up a blog for the interns to display their presumably vast talents, on which readers/viewers can currently view cute Q&As with each contestant. (I'm already rooting against the smirking blonde.)

That's right: I was a Rolling Stone intern, circa 1992. And believe you me, there was no blog to showcase our Hunter S. Thompson plagiary. There was no cheesecake promotional photo of us splashed on Jossip.com. None of my fellow interns looked like Kurt Cobain, and he wasn't even dead yet.

Internships are changing, as I chronicled on Time.com in September ("The New World of Internships"). Many involve real, consequential and stimulating work. Employers assign enthusiastic staffers to act as mentors. Some even pay.

And at least one internship is apparently so fascinating that it warrants a whole camera crew from MTV.

In the fall of 1991, I applied for an internship at Rolling Stone. I was fresh from another crappy internship at an advertising trade magazine that summer, and clearly I am either an optimist or a very slow learner. Unlike the ad mag, RS didn't pay, and would require schlepping two days a week from my college in New Jersey. Unlike every college student in America, I could care less about music; I had never heard of Lou Reed and was only vaguely aware of the Chili Peppers. Truth be told, I only applied to impress a boy.

After sending a blind resume, I was called in for an interview. The slick offices in midtown Manhattan wowed me. Its corridors were lined with original artwork of rock legends. The editorial assistant who would be my boss--a petite redhead with a pixie cut and granny glasses--led me to a sculpture and motioned for me to sit on it.

The assistant didn't crack a smile at any of my jokes. The interview lasted about 10 minutes. So I was surprised when she called a week later and told me when I would start.

Here's what I did at my Rolling Stone internship. I opened letters from readers and responded to the sane ones, like those requesting a copy of a certain back issue, and passed along the insane ones, like the ones demanding personal pitch meetings with Jann Wenner. I sorted reporting notes by freelance writers and filed them into giant metal cabinets. My favorite job was sorting books in the library, where I could crib poetry to further impress said boy.

My only contact with real staff was when a nice writer named Alan Light told me about his college thesis at Yale, which had been about the Beastie Boys (he later became editor of Spin).

I glimpsed Wenner, the legendary editor of Rolling Stone, a couple of times, when he stalked past to his huge corner office. None of us interns ever got an introduction, let alone an audience. He was very tan and kind of short.

You can't really blame the employer. The labor of interns was free and plentiful. Our compensation, they could argue, was the line on our resumes that would read: "EXPERIENCE: ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE." I'm sure it landed me at least one interview in the real world, if not the boy.

I'm setting up my Time Warner DVR now for "I'm From Rolling Stone." I'm a sucker for reality shows, but one about a job I once held? Shoot. I can't wait to see how they make filing cool.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 13, 2006 3:13

Boomers: Put Off Those Hammock Dreams

Ah, retirement. For the 76 million people born between 1946 and 1964, those golden years of sipping Coronas by the pool don't seem so far away. With the first wave hitting 60, baby boomers are only five years away from sailing off into the land of shuffleboard and bingo.

Not so fast, says a new study. Fully half of boomers are nowhere near ready to retire--financially, that is. That's according to a survey of employers by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

The survey asked employers how many white-collar and rank-and-file employees, currently in their 50s, will not have the resources needed to retire at the same age as similar workers have in the past. At the median, employers responded that half will not have the necessary resources.

The study points out that many boomers will have to rely on their own savings--namely, defined contribution plans, or 401(k)s--to fund their retirements. That's because the other legs of the so-called three-legged stool of retirement planning--Social Security and pension plans--are beginning to wobble under their massive numbers.

There's just one problem. Boomers haven't saved.

Median 401(k) assets, including IRAs, for workers in their 50s are just $60,000.

Yipes! That won't even cover a tricked-out RV!

What to do? According to the report, one in four boomers will want to work beyond the traditional retirement age--for at least two more years. The researchers think this is not necessarily a bad thing, both for the economy and the workers:

...continued employment would make a significant contribution to retirement income security. If they are able to extend their working careers, many Boomers could enter retirement reasonably well prepared--either by having sufficient resources at the traditional retirement age or by working longer.

That hammock by the pool will just have to wait.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 12, 2006 4:38

Beware the Compliment-Spewing Boss

Next time your boss drops by your cube to slather you with praise, be afraid. Be very afraid.

He may be among the 74% of managers who believe praise can serve as a substitute for money in motivating employees. And that "attaboy" could mean "no bonus for you."

That's according to a survey released today by Sirota Survey Intelligence called "The Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies Profit by Giving Workers What They Want." The survey also found that 62% of bosses believe "employees who complain about their pay are really unhappy about something else."

Right. You're in the corner office asking for a raise because you had a lousy childhood.

Those deluded managers might see an exodus of talented but undercompensated workers next year. Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the Chicago-based outplacement consultancy, says high-paying jobs in some sectors will go begging for qualified applicants in 2007.

Hot jobs next year will include those in sales, support staff in the legal sector, personal trainers and transportation workers in trucking and rail. And the pay for some of the jobs break the six-figure mark.

As always, white-collar workers with four-year college degrees will nab the best of these openings. John Challenger, CEO of the firm, points out that just 1.8% of those workers are currently jobless, while the unemployment rate stands at 4.3% for high-school grads. For those with some college or a two-year degree, unemployment is 3.3%.

You don't need parchment from the Ivies to land a good job in this economy, though. Language courses at the community college might make for a better investment: interpreters of tongues like Korean and Arabic are in great demand, particularly in polyglot urban centers.

Or how about working on the railroads? Challenger says Union Pacific is sending recruiters around the country to scour for workers.

They ought to find some takers. After all, nobody doesn't like a fat paycheck. Praise is nice, but it doesn't buy the Cheerios.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 11, 2006 1:07

Time to Hug It Out With Flex Time

Seems like flex time is on everyone's mind these days. The current cover of BusinessWeek features the flexible work program at Best Buy (which I might point out was explored in a July 2005 TIME article, "Reworking Work," by my colleague Jyoti Thottam). "Smashing the Clock," shouts BizWeek's headline. "No schedules. No mandatory meetings. Inside Best Buy's radical reshaping of the workplace."

Here's an excerpt:

At most companies, going AWOL during daylight hours would be grounds for a pink slip. Not at Best Buy. The nation's leading electronics retailer has embarked on a radical--if risky--experiment to transform a culture once known for killer hours and herd-riding bosses. The endeavor, called ROWE, for "results-only work environment," seeks to demolish decades-old business dogma that equates physical presence with productivity. The goal at Best Buy is to judge performance on output instead of hours.

Interestingly, the article leads with examples of men--I repeat, men--leaving their offices at the unmanly hour of 2 p.m. to attend matinees or go hunting. This is no accident, according to another article today, this one in the Wall Street Journal. Employers are trying to wipe out the stigma of flex time as a women's issue by focusing on men:

Among the techniques companies are testing: highlighting successful men who have tapped flexible work arrangements; encouraging more employees to work from home part of the time; and promoting alternative career paths.

Ernst & Young is one such employer. Its internal promotional campaign stars male employees who dared to have a life and lived to tell the tale. One Rob McLeod, for instance, took paternity leave--and promptly got promoted.

From an employee's standpoint, it's hard to find fault with these corporate initiatives. I venture to guess there isn't a working person alive who wouldn't want more time for themselves. But it's not just about time away from the office; it's about control over the time we have to spend there. That, in a nutshell, is what's so revolutionary about Best Buy's program: it allows workers to build their own office schedules, leaving them responsible for meeting deadlines, managing staff and completing projects.

The fact is that face time still counts too much at too many offices. Here's a survey released Dec. 7 from the staffing services company OfficeTeam:

More than three-quarters (76%) of executives said they attend to office duties at least a few times a week while on vacation; 33% said they conduct business every day when away from the office.

Mind you, those are the bosses. How are employees supposed to feel comfortable taking a laptop-free afternoon to attend Suki's kindergarten holiday pageant--never mind a week at the Jersey shore--when their managers are Blackberrying away from the beach in Maui?

Chronic Blackberryitis is one symptom of an epidemic a recent report calls the "extreme job." A staggering 1.7 million Americans work up to 70 hours a week, according to a report by The Center for Work-Life Policy published in this month's Harvard Business Review--not because they have to but because they're such incorrigibly high achievers. (My own boss is one of these: he Blackberried incessantly from jury duty, which I think ought to be illegal.)

I think employers like E&Y are on to something: this kind of extreme lifestyle does indeed have a macho undercurrent. But machismo isn't relegated to men. The macho-est manager I know is a woman.

That same manager was macho enough to stalk into the big boss's office a few years ago and declare she and other editors would be leaving--on a deadline day, no less!--to go trick-or-treating with their kids. Then she left.

Even at companies progressive enough to push flex time, it'll take more than a glossy inhouse promo to make it work. It'll take managers--male and female--with the kahonas to embrace it. Only then will we worker bees believe we can, too.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 8, 2006 4:30

We're Happy! We're Happy!

On the heels of a relatively cheery government jobs report comes news that American workers are hop-skippingly happy with their jobs. What's more, we love our bosses.

The nation's employers added 92,000 jobs last month, bringing the average monthly gain for 2006 up to about 150,000 per month. The unemployment rate fell to 4.4%--the lowest since May 2001. Job gains came mainly in the service sector, many of them white-collar: 43,000 were in professional and business services, of which 15,000 were temp workers.

What a coinkydink, then, that I receive this survey today from Kelly Services, the temp agency. It reads:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. employees--65%--reported that they were either happy or very happy with their current position, while a mere 16% were at the opposite end of the satisfaction spectrum.

That apparently puts American workers ahead of Hungary, Russia and Turkey on the Happy Meter. Okay. This I get. I figure factory workers in Siberia aren't glowing with content. But the survey says we're less happy than workers in Denmark, Mexico and Sweden. Mexico? I risk making an un-P.C. joke here about immigration, so I'll just shut up. But come on.

The survey continues:

Job satisfaction is also heavily influenced by how employees view their bosses. Asked to rate their bosses on a 10-point scale, the American workers gave theirs a respectable 7.3, on average--second only to the 7.6 their Mexican counterparts gave their bosses.

Again with Mexico! It's apparently a worker's utopia, its offices teeming with adoring employees throwing rose petals in the paths of their magnanimous bosses.

The only explanation I can muster is that we Americans do like to kvetch. Nearly one in three of us grouse that we're "never" rewarded for work well done, though, to be fair, 58% say they are.

Our happiness in our jobs doesn't seem to be dictated by the gender of our bosses. Three quarters of us don't care if our bosses are male or female, though 15% admit a preference for men and 10% for women. Job sectors do seem to matter: 80% of those in travel and leisure profess contentment in their work (it's not hard to smile when you're mixing margaritas at some bar in Waikiki); 74% of teachers say they're happy (okay, that's a little more suspicious); and 70% of engineers love their jobs (they were also the kids who loved school).

Jobs growth is indeed happy news for American workers (but let's parse these numbers in a future posting; there are lies, damn lies and statistics, and then there are government figures). And I've got a solution for the 16% who aren't happy in their jobs: they can move to Mexico.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 7, 2006 11:35

Okay, So Go Drink at the Holiday Party...Just Don't Drive

Judging by the comments to my previous posting about holiday parties, workers feel strongly about their right to get pumpkin-faced at their year-end corporate do. Twelve months of pouring your very soul into PowerPoint pie charts deserves some alcoholic compensation, dangit.

You're in luck. A fresh batch of surveys in my in-box today insists that employers are throwing more parties, not fewer, and that they'll be pumping up the booze. Battalia Winston International's Annual Survey on Corporate Holiday Celebrations found that 94% of employers will have some type of year-end party, up from 87% in 2005. What's more, 86% will serve alcohol at their parties, up from 75% last year.

For those readers who insist they enjoy these events, another survey, this one from staffing company Adecco, backs you up: 85% of workers attend, and over half of those because they enjoy loosening up with their cubicle buds.

As "Liz" writes:

Holiday parties are one of the chances where people who work together can have fun and blow off some steam. Besides, if there's nobody making fools of themselves by getting drunk at holiday parties, what would people in the office talk about for the rest of the year?!

You're right. I guess I'd forgotten; it's been so long. My own employer ixnayed the holiday party years ago in an apparently permanent belt-tightening measure. But I have fond memories of an over-the-top bash in the go-go late '90s: fancy Manhattan restaurant, palm readers, deejays, goodie bags. It was a little weird to watch my boss shimmying to Christmas rock, but I admit feeling flattered and impressed that he went through that much trouble to throw us such a swanky event.

Or maybe those warm feelings were from that third mojito.

One thing I do remember very clearly: the staffer standing by the door of the restaurant, guiding partiers into cabs or hired cars. As one reader writes:

Personally, I don't drink at these things because I don't want to make a fool of myself but I don't mind other people drinking. However, companies should find ways to curtail the people getting wasted then driving. We recently had our Christmas party and one employee of ours left the party drunk and killed someone while driving. Now his life's basically over along with the poor guy he hit. I'm sure my company will pay a large price for that and we probably won't allow liquor at any events again.

Sobering. So: go ahead and imbibe. Just leave your keys at the door.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 6, 2006 2:35

So I Don't Deserve a Raise

I just took a quiz on our sister site CNNMoney.com, and it turns out I really don't deserve a raise.

The quiz accompanies a smart article by career-advice guru Annie Fisher of Fortune on how to get a raise. It's adapted from Are You Paid What You're Worth?: The Complete Guide to Negotiating the Salary, Benefits, Bonus and Raise You Deserve, by Michael O'Malley. Apparently, I am.

Question 1. If you left the company, how easy or hard would it be for the company to replace you? Um, easy. Writers are a dime a dozen, and what eager-beaver J-school grad wouldn't want my job?

2. To what extent do you have abilities or possess knowledge that most others--both inside and outside the company--do not have? Somewhere between none and plenty, I guess. I mean, after five years with the magazine and 10 at the company, I'm somewhat comfortable navigating our administrative system and office politics. But there's plenty I don't know, like Ben Bernanke's cell-phone number, or how to redesign a weekly magazine for the 21st century.

3. If your company had to eliminate departments, what would happen to yours? Sheesh. I'd like to think we wouldn't be the first to go, but we wouldn't be the last, either. Many publications farm out their writing; Reuters made news last year by outsourcing reporting to India. Who's to say some smart girl in China couldn't scratch out copy on deadline?

4. Is your department respected by other parts of the company? Here I can say, yes, absolutely. My department boasts a century of storied accomplishments, none of which I personally can take credit for but whose glow in which I can happily bask.

5. How much does your business or division contribute to the profitability of the company? Uh. Not the least, but not the most, either. It's not our fault InStyle gets all the perfume ads.

6. Does it look as if your business will grow or shrink in coming years? Boy. That's hard to say. I'd like to think the business, particularly the digital end, has unlimited potential for growth. But all signs point to a shrinking in our traditional line of work.

Overall I scored 18 out of 30, which gave me an "indispensability rating" of "medium." In other words, I'm somewhat indispensable, or, if you're a glass-half-empty sort, which I am--somewhat dispensable.

I'm glad I took this quiz. Truly, I am. It's good to manage expectations. My kid's Christmas list just got a little shorter.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|

December 5, 2006 12:17

Don't Get Drunk at the Holiday Party. Better Yet, Don't Go

Lately I'm reading a lot of surveys and tip sheets from HR experts about holiday parties and gift-giving: how many offices are having them (a shrinking number), what behavior to watch out for (don't get drunk--just don't), to what degree they torture employees (off the charts).

Turns out holiday parties can also be lawsuit magnets. Lawyers.com and Harris Interactive found in its recent poll that 29% of workers have experienced or observed sexual advances by coworkers at the year-end gathering. Just 12% say employers stow car keys or otherwise try to curb drunken driving; fewer than one in three say workers are offered cabs or other means of getting their drunken selves home. In fact, only one in four knew their party hosts are legally liable should an accident occur following a vodka-drenched event.

Which leads me to wonder: if holiday parties are so hateful and fraught with career-wrecking landmines, why do we bother showing up? We don't, according to a survey I got today by staffing company Spherion and Harris Interactive. Though 58% of workers say their employers are throwing holiday bashes, about that many--57%--say the parties are "not important" to them, and only 46% say they feel obligated to attend.

The younger you are, the more obligated you feel: 32% of workers aged 18 to 24 and 40% of those 25 to 29 say they'll go, compared to 21% of those between 50 and 64. Lisa's theory #1: Younger workers don't yet understand that office parties are less likely to resemble the one on last week's "Ugly Betty," with romantic coworkers and supermodel guests in lingerie, than they are to identically echo the one on "Office Space," where drab people glumly eat cake. Lisa's theory #2: Open bar.

The less you earn, the more you value the holiday party. This makes sense: your boss owes you that free cake, man.

Speaking of owing you, a survey released today by BNA and Kronos found that employers will spend more on those holiday parties: $7,000 on average, up from $5,000 in 2005. That's $36 a head on average.

Seriously? Just give me the cash. My chances are good: the BNA survey also found more employers--49%--plan to dole out year-end bonuses and gifts this year, up from 40% last year. I'm waiting. That $36 might cover the gift wrapping.

Sphere Related Blogs & Articles

|