Down But Not Out

Reading through Yahoo news this morning, I came across an article, and subsequent link, to this: Down But Not Out: http://downbutnotoutletters.tumblr.com/

It is a compilation of stories (in their own words) of those who have been unemployed for an extended period of time and what it means to them; short and long term effects.

Curiosity got the better of me and I started to read through the individual stories. Once I started, I couldn't stop. Each and every story is one I've heard before; no one story stood out from the others. Not to diminish their situations, it is just that none was unique. I'm not sure what I was looking for, maybe at least one story to say, "See, you could have done something different to change the outcome!", but I never found one. Each of these letters came from someone who wanted to work, and could work, but for reasons beyond their control, weren't doing so.

Instead, what I found were some very cold employers, a market that is severly disabled due to work going overseas, negative stereotypes of people who have been unemployed and a large section of corporate America who is not willing, for whatever reason, to help out those who are trying to do the right thing (mortgage modification, benefit plan adjustments, affording day care to continue to work, etc.).

Another similarity among the stories were the suggestions made by each and every person that were very valid. There is a big difference between a program working 'on paper' and how it works in real life. If these suggestions were made to those doing the hiring, creating and executing programs, foreclosing on homes, etc., we may come to some sort of agreement and be able to help some of these people get back to work.

For any employer reading this, please don't overlook someone who has been unemployed/underemployed at any point over the past 4 or so years. In most cases it was due to some sort of downsizing, layoff, change in ownership or outsourcing. There are some very good, qualified individuals available but we are overlooking them due to our own preconceived ideas of what constitutes a 'good' employee.

So, recruiters and hiring managers everywhere, please do your part to help out. Please give feedback as often as you can to candidates who you have interviewed but didn't receive an offer from you. Please let them know if there is anything they can do next time. Education, age, drive distance, etc, are all poor reasons for not hiring someone. Take a look at their skills and their personalities. Hire people who are qualified and will fit into your company. THESE are the people who will be your most dedicated employees. THESE are the people who aren't going to come to you telling you they are going to quit unless you come up with a counteroffer. THESE are the people who will make sure your clients/customers are taken care of on your behalf. THESE are the people who truly understand the value of the job and will work extra hard to stay employed. THESE are the people on which you can grow and thrive in your business.

You know you will be able to count on them. After all, they are "Down But Not Out".

Wait, what?! Did I read that right?!

Please read this article before you read this blog post…..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/

OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?

So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?

Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.

Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.

I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”

Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.

Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.

Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?