I Wish I Could Work THERE!

Tags

business, workers rights

No, I’m not saying I wish I could work at Google.

But plenty of people do.

In fact, Google won the top spot for “best place to work” in Fortune’s annual list just released today.

Now, I don’t know that much about Google, except that I pretty much like their search engine, and I like their Images search engine. I didn’t care so much for Chrome, but hey, you can’t hit the jackpot on everything.

They were interviewing someone from Fortune who announced this years top 10 this morning on Morning Joe. The question was inevitably asked: what do all the companies in the top ten have in common. The interviewee responded immediately: they care about their employees, actually they put employees first.

Now we have all heard that the mantra of any company is supposed to be “the customer is always right” which essentially means that customers come first. We know that this is a lie mostly, unless there is fierce competition. But the first goal of most companies seems to be to destroy the competition so you can force the consumer to take what they are offered because there ain’t no alternative. It was surely Rockefeller’s goal that if you wanted kerosene to light your lamps, it’s was either his or sit in the dark, so pay what he demanded.

Those of us not in the top 1% have long known that the real power and the real value in business is the employee. Ideas are essential to the success of any business, but in the end, it is the employees who make it happen. They produce the “product” whatever that may be, and they interact with the public however that is defined. So it is in the end a no brainer: happy employee = successful business (all other things remaining equal of course).

Fortune and others who study this sort of thing seem to agree. Robin Hartman, who helps companies achieve “a great place to work” gives a list of things a good company does:

• They treat employees like grown-ups. They share information with employees, listen to their ideas (or better yet, actively seek out and act upon their ideas) and assume they are responsible enough to manage their own time.

•  They treat people fairly. They pay people decently and give them good benefits, including not only decent healthcare but other even rarer essentials, like paid parental leave. And they use lay-offs as a last resort.

•  They help employees with their careers and understand that not all careers are built the same. They have strong training programs, reimburse tuition for education outside of work, have active, well-thought out platforms for mentoring–especially for women and minorities–and provide pathways for non-traditional career paths.

•  They understand that people have lives outside of work, and that these lives might sometimes impinge on (or even take over) their time and attention. They realize that allowing for some work-life give and take means not only that they won’t waste time and money on unnecessary turnover, but that they’ll build loyalty and commitment. They know it’s give and take, not give or take.

•  They see fun, humor and relaxation not as the enemies of hard work, but as its allies.

•  They have a purpose — a mission — that everyone understands. Even better, every employee can tell you the role he or she plays in achieving that purpose.

•  They are good citizens of their communities and of the world. Not just according to their P.R. campaigns, but for real. They think about their carbon footprint, they come up with creative ways to support local projects or small businesses, they actively promote volunteerism among their employees.

Tony Schwartz, CEO of The Energy Project has his own list.

1. Commit to paying every employee a living wage. To see examples of how much that is, depending on where you live, go to this site. Many companies do not meet that standard for many of their jobs. It’s nothing short of obscene to pay a CEO millions of dollars a year while paying any employee a sum for full time work that falls below the poverty line.
2. Give all employees a stake in the company’s success, in the form of profit sharing, or stock options, or bonuses tied to performance. If the company does well, all employees should share in the success, in meaningful ways.
3. Design working environments that are safe, comfortable and appealing to work in. In offices, include a range of physical spaces that allow for privacy, collaboration, and simply hanging out.
4. Provide healthy, high quality food, at the lowest possible prices, including in vending machines.
5. Create places for employees to rest and renew during the course of the working day and encourage them to take intermittent breaks. Ideally, leaders would permit afternoon naps, which fuel higher productivity in the several hours that follow.
6. Offer a well equipped gym and other facilities that encourage employees to move physically and stay fit. Provide incentives for employees to use the facilities, including during the work day as a source of renewal.
7. Define clear and specific expectations for what success looks like in any given job. Then, treat employees as adults by giving them as much autonomy as possible to choose when they work, where they do their work, and how best to get it accomplished.
8. Institute two-way performance reviews, so that employees not only receive regular feedback about how they’re doing, in ways that support their growth, but are also given the opportunity to provide feedback to their supervisors, anonymously if they so choose, to avoid recrimination.
9. Hold leaders and managers accountable for treating all employees with respect and care, all of the time, and encourage them to regularly recognize those they supervise for the positive contributions they make.
10. Create policies that encourage employees to set aside time to focus without interruption on their most important priorities, including long-term projects and more strategic and creative thinking. Ideally, give them a designated amount of time to pursue projects they’re especially passionate about and which have the potential to add value to the company.
11. Provide employees with ongoing opportunities and incentives to learn, develop and grow, both in establishing new job-specific hard skills, as well as softer skills that serve them well as individuals, and as managers and leaders.
12. Stand for something beyond simply increasing profits. Create products or provide services or serve causes that clearly add value in the world, making it possible for employees to derive a sense of meaning from their work, and to feel good about the companies for which they work.

Interestingly, Schwartz’s list was compiled in 2012, and he stated that no company can do all of these perfectly, but Google probably does the best job. Hence, Google‘s number one position in the Fortune list appears to be no fluke.

All this is mildly interesting, for in fact, those of us who have been mostly employees rather than employers already know all this stuff.

But in a world where we are told that employers are “job creators” and thus should expect everyone else to cut them all the monetary slack they need to get on with that job, we are reminded anew that we, the worker is what really counts. Make no mistake, business is still in the business to make money, but the surest way to get there is to create a happy work force, not just with “gifts of money and benefits” but to be cherished as part of a team, and valuable for their brains as well as their brawn.

We all know that Wal-Mart and McDonald’s can pay a living wage. We know they can but won’t because nobody has yet forced them to. Jobs are so scarce that people hold on for dear life those puny jobs that force them to apply for food stamps in order to feed their kids. They continue to call these jobs “entry-level” for which there somehow is supposed to be low remuneration in return for the “gift” of a job at all. That is nonsense. There is no greater learning curve to flipping a burger than there is to learning how to integrate into a company’s bookkeeping framework. One is called “entry-level” the other surely not.

Little by little, we are educating the public to what they used to know. Workers matter.

 

 

 

 

We Built That Malarky

Tags

business, economy, Election 2012, free markets, GOP, Mitt Romney, panic of 1873, Paul Ryan

Saturday evening we watched a two-part docudrama from the History Channel, called The Men Who Made America. Now get past the sexism and the pomposity of the title if you will. There is something important to be said here.

By intention or otherwise, THC offered up that a few “titans of industry” filled the void left by the death of Abraham Lincoln at the close of the Civil War, and singlehandedly rebuilt America. Dubious as this contention might seem, they offered it with no tongue-in-cheek.

Better that they had since they then peppered the show with commentary from none of than the likes of Donald Trump and Jack Walsh, aided by Mark Cuban and a pinch of Steve Wozniak. These “modern-day entrepreneurs” sought to explain the mind-set of men like Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie.

Vanderbilt, having made a fortune in the shipping industry, sells off all his fleet and invests in what he sees as the future: the railroads. Soon he has a commanding amount of track. Gould and Fisk apparently by pure counterfeiting, sell Vanderbilt millions of dollars in fake railroad stock (Vanderbilt is trying to buy up all the little railroads in the best traditions of monopoly), and so anger Vanderbilt that he vows never to be beaten again.

Now that he most of the railway, he must put something in his cars. He contacts a struggling oil man, John D. Rockefeller, and Rockefeller gets a sweet deal to ship all his crude via Vanderbilt’s rails. This lasts until Rockefeller is big enough to want a better deal, so he agrees to send his crude via a railroad owned by a guy named Tom Scott whose right hand man is one Andrew Carnegie.

Vanderbilt and Scott join up in an effort squeeze Rockefeller for more money. Rockefeller replies by building his own pipeline from the oil fields of Ohio and South, to his refineries in the North. Vanderbilt dies, and Scott replies by building his own pipeline that will require Rockefeller pay to move his crude to his Pennsylvania refineries. Rockefeller replies by shutting his PA refineries, throwing the railroads into bankruptcy and destroying Scott. Rockefeller then calmly buys up the destroyed railroads for pennies on the dollar.

Trump, Cuban and Walsh stand as a cheering squad, pontificating about how men like these (and themselves presumably) are cut of a different cloth. They started out poor, worked from dawn until midnight, came up with a great idea, and let nothing stand in their way. It was a game of war to them, take no prisoners and the winner has all the money. These men are apparently men we should admire.

Such men, we come to learn, get up each morning with only one thing in mind–how to beat the competition and secure the whole pie. They do not want to compete, they want to control.

The show tends to imply that Rockefeller, by his actions causes the panic of 1873. No doubt he played some part in it, since it was the over extension of railways that led to the panic, but frankly that bit is overblown from my short delve into the real history.

What is missing here?

It is so clear that all these men were indeed engaged in a game. And the pawns were the men and women who worked on the railroads and in the refineries and all those supporting industries that lost their jobs when these men decided to play hardball with each other. There is nary a breath of concern expressed for all those who will be out of work and what that will do to PEOPLE.

The docudrama points out on the other hand, that the depression that came from the 1873 Panic, caused no inconvenience in the lives of the wealthy.

What is also missing is that the Panic and following depression were caused by the unregulated excesses of these men. There was no mention of quality of goods or services. Nobody cared about the consumer. There was no interest in competition as it relates to improving the end product. Monopoly was the only interest of these men. Raw power and money and what money could buy.

This is the free market economics that are favored by the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. They are the ideal of Ayn Rand.

Somehow we are supposed to conclude that the ends justify the means, i.e., America got built. And we are to believe without proof, that if left to their own devices, everyone would have been the better for it. But that is not what happened. The excesses of these men led to anti-monopoly laws, unions, limits on working hours, child-labor laws, workplace safety laws,  various banking restrictions and so forth.

It is all these things that Republicans are against today. They believe that business, if left to its own devices, will naturally spread the wealth. Except they have no evidence that this has ever happened. Instead, business leaders continue to war on each other to gain the advantage and be kings of their various hills. And NO THOUGHT is given to the worker or the public good.

If you believe that certain business leaders act improperly then why aren’t they being shunned by the rest of the business world? Everyone knows that Trump, once things start to turn sour, gets out and leaves somebody else holding the bag. Yet people continue to “make the deal”. That’s because they secretly admire his success, and look only to out-Trumping Trump.

I suspect The History Channel meant to show us about the great men who built America. Instead what they have done is shown us exactly why we cannot trust the likes of Romney/Ryan or the corporatocracy they envision.

Curbing the Rhetoric?

Tags

bigotry, business, conservative, duelism, liberal, political labeling, Politics, religions

It seems that as never before, at least since the Civil War, has this country been so ideologically divided. The fractures appear to be between what are known as liberal/conservative labels, but in truth, there are several dozen cracks–small groups who have their own personal issues.

Some are interested in health care reform, others in gay rights, others in abortion denial, tax reform, regulators or not, first amendment issues, church/state, and on and on. We artificially call people liberals, socialists, fascists, communists, conservatives, neo-cons, right-wing evangelicals, wackos, reactionaries, anarchists, you name it. Some of us fit one category and some of us fit partially in several. We are all at each other’s collective and individual throats on any given day.

People have solutions or not. Obama urges that we sit down and bypass the rhetoric and get down to details–look for common ground issues and build on them. Others want utter purity within their ranks and will give in on nothing. The GOP increasingly becomes branded as the party of “NO!” Tea Party adherents in more than a dozen organizations emphasis different core issues. Plenty of people are more than happy to give lip service to any group to gain their vote.

Fran, who is a great blogger and posts often on Facebook, decries this labeling. Many others do as well. Some decry the fact that those in powerful positions cause much of our dismay, by “modeling” bad behavior and making it “okay” for others to come forth with their favorite brand of bigotry. Those who feel put upon decry their martyrdom, and those who are accused of the outrages point to their own martyrdom imposed from the other side. We talk past each other.

We are the product of a lousy inadequate public education system that leaves us ill-prepared to evaluate the problems of our day. We are victimized by a co-opted media that no longer has much of  a clue as to what journalism is supposed to do.  We are the recipients of too much wealth and “stuff” and have developed the attention span of gnats. We are lazy and want others to do our thinking and research for us. We are susceptible to the “snappy retort” the glib “sounds good” bite.

We, all of us, are mired in way too much rah rah flag waving exceptionalism. If we are “best” then somehow, others must be less. If Episcopalians are best, then Baptists must not be. If Toyota is best then Kia can’t be. We are dualistic to an extreme. If there is left, there must be right, and if there is right there must be wrong. We like tidy columns like that, even when it leads us to “sides” that are separated by an increasingly uncrossable chasm.

Our churches, those valuable places where so much good could be done, are often times just exactly the opposite in that they claim exclusive ownership of the “interpretation” of God. Mainstream churches have lost their way, sliding into secular happy religion, while the Evangelicals are trapped in a rigid sense-deprived world that demands pure faith against physical realities.

Wherever we look, we are asked to choose. It is the battle cry of big business. Our car/computer/kitchen cleanser/potato chips are better than theirs. Pick us! Buy us! Taste test  us and them–See! We are better. They suck. Polls are run now, not days later, when we have had time to digest, reflect and work through new information, but now, as it’s happening. We have the clicker in our hand, dial it up for “like that” and dial it down when you don’t.

The immediately generated “public opinion” is pulled from the copier and sent off with a click to all those that need to know, and adjustments are made on the fly. A little less emphasis on “green” power Senator, the voters are projected to not favor that so much today. We can perhaps mold, manipulate that opinion later on, if you truly care that much about it. The election is the thing today. Stick to the script of what works.

We are caught, you and I with having nobody out there that we can rely on for truth much any more. Everyone has an axe to grind it seems. Everyone is lying or cheating, or somehow disguising who they really are for whatever they think is some greater good, for the moment. I may be a philanderer, an abuser of the public funds, but hey, guys, you need me! I’m convinced only I can save you from yourselves. So I tell myself, and will tell you if you catch me in all my naked wrongness.

I have not a clue how to get beyond this. I can only, it seems try to carve out my little corner of sanity in an insane world. I’m a offender. You come here to read my “witty” repartee, my sarcasm dripping with some truth and a lot of anger. Occasionally, I write uplifting stuff, but truly, you come for the ball-busting screech at the other side. That makes you chuckle and nod, or it makes you angry enough to write comments dripping with your own sarcasm and lauding my lacking mental faculties.

I am part of the problem, yet I have no clue what would work. They are wrong, and I want to state that very clearly. And so I do. You right wing wacko! Get a brain, get a life! And then I confess my sins and promise to do better. But you see I don’t.

As the snow starts and we face another long week of being locked within, I’ll give it some thought. But I don’t think I’ll come up with an answer. After all, I am right, right?

Sweeping out the Cobwebs

Tags

bailouts, Benedict XVI, business, excommunication, fundamentalism, gay rights, John Thain, Merrill Lynch, social issues

As I listen to news and read, I am struck by things that, much as I wish I could, I cannot explain or understand. I thought I would set down a couple, in the hopes that somebody might give me an answer. They trouble me and make me wonder if I am somehow just organically different, or in a subset of humanity that is organically different somehow than others? It seems impossible to believe, but I find some of these things impossible to believe as well.

I read the other day that Pope Benedict XVI has seen fit to rescind the excommunication of four bishops of the Separatist group the SSPX. They generally consider Vatican II to be somehow illegal, and call themselves “traditionalists.” They continue to claim that they are the true Church, and not the one led by the Pope.

That on it’s face is most extraordinary, since ultra conservative Catholics often point at all non RCC denominations as illegal formulations of man. Many non RCC folks would of course argue that, like the SSPX, they are merely claiming to be the true repository of the faith, abandoned long ago by the Vatican and it’s practices. But no matter.

The point is not that the have been allowed back into the Church in some fashion. I find excommunication a practice that is wrong period. Exclusion is not an option, in my very humble opinion. It is not the Church’s right to deny table hospitality to anyone. And moreover, if you feel someone is in error, how do you hope to change attitudes when you keep people at arm’s length?

More to the point, the SSPX has flagrantly denied the truth of the teachings of the Church. Worse, one of the four bishops, is an active Holocaust denier. Benedict’s move seriously jeopardizes relations with the Jewish church from which we as Christians all spring.

This is in line it seems with recent Vatican moves. I have read, and don’t know the truth of the assertion, that Benedict is not well respected within the Vatican setting. In any case, he has in recent years, moved to adopt the ultra conservative position on issues. He has approved the Mexican determination to excommunicate or remove table fellowship to parliamentarians who support abortion. He has, as I’m told, supported the efforts of a few bishops and archbishops in this country who attempt to do the same.

Given that JPII went to some lengths to install new Cardinals who were favorable to his way of seeing the world, I don’t hold out much hope for the immediate future. No, I see more of the same for the RCC during my lifetime.

Things seem not to be a good deal better in my neck of the woods. The Episcopal Church seems to be on the way to losing it’s way as well. I was taught that TEC argues about everything from Monday through Saturday, and then goes to Church on Sunday and worships together. That too seems to be falling apart, as various parishes sever ties with the American Church and join others, and then squabble about who owns the property.

A quick trip around the religious forums leads to no further comfort. The ultra right wing of many churches ask some of the following questions:

• How are you surviving in an Obama world? (Mostly by claiming to withdraw their kids from public schools to keep them from learning all that socialist evil. )
• Why does God allow Protestantism? (Because Roman Catholicism is too hard for all but the best so God relented and allowed the rest of us various Protestant churches.)

That’s but a sampling, it’s just too awful to add others. My question is simple: How do you call yourself a Christian? What does it mean to you to be one? You are against the concept of global warming, why I can’t answer. You are against the idea of over-population. You are for wars of choice and the death penalty. You are against universal health care, fair wages, unions and the like.

Worse, you vilify Obama largely because of his stance on abortion. This seems to be your only real objection to the man. The average person balances good and bad and comes out in favor of that which has the most good. Yet you don’t. Why do you continue to support big business, trickle down economics, and a continuation of the growing chasm between the tiny very wealthy (of which you are not a part and never will be) and the growing underclass (of which you are most definitely a part)?

It’s no doubt politically incorrect to say this but, I don’t have to be here. I think it’s racism plain and simple. All the abortion rhetoric is just a mask for the fact that at heart you are still a racist. It’s the same when it comes to everything else that you don’t like for no good reason. You prop up yourself by telling yourself that poor people are poor because they are lazy and want handouts.

You make yourself feel worthwhile by wagging your finger at gays and lesbians calling them perverted and their orientation distorted. You of course are not asked to give up sex for life, yet you claim that God asks them to.

On the business front, more evidence that apparently our colleges and universities do not make ethics a course required of its business students.

John Thain, previous CEO of Merrill Lynch and now fired executive of Bank of America, who bought it, recently has been discovered to have paid out millions in bonuses to ML executives from bailout money. Further, he took the opportunity to fix up his corporate digs to the tune of 1.2 million.

Talk about your lack of government oversight! I mean these bozos have proven beyond any doubt that they are incompetent at their jobs,  yet we continue to hand them billions, with no strings attached.

But what gets me, is just where or where are parents, teachers, professors, a good aunt, anybody at all in all this? Did these people grow up in test tubes without a modicum of social learning? Does it take a IQ of more than 85 to get that when you have followed policies that have bankrupted and lost billions, you might not be entitled to a BONUS?????? And perhaps you can get by with the desk and chair you already have? You, sir are lucky not to be sweeping streets for a living.

Have you no honor? Have you no sense at all of common and I do mean common decency? Are you so swollen with wealth and self entitlement that you can’t understand basic concepts of right and wrong? If this is the best you can do, then buddy, I can run the company better than you can.

Has the world gone mad? Is it just me? Does anyone have an answer that makes sense? Perhaps we are in need of a smart bomb, you know, one that just kills asshats. If anyone has a spare one, I have the list!!!! The world needs a new start.  I’m ready to storm the ramparts!