It’s the economy, stupid
There is a great deal of concern about job creation in the United States today. (He writes with a large degree of understatement in play). One of the things I wrote about recently dealt with what HR professionals could and should be doing about jobs. I am a strong believer that the only way we are going to see a lasting economic recovery is when the private sector begins to create new permanent jobs again. This isn’t going to happen rapidly, which means we are going to be stumbling along, applying band-aids and looking for the quick fix.
Public Sector Approach to Jobs
Leading up to the 2007 federal election in Australia, the Labour party used reforms to the Australian education system as a key policy offering to the Australian public. Dubbed the ‘Education Revolution’, these reforms consisted of a $14.7 billion investment in education over the following three years. Much attention has been paid to these reforms; they will have fundamental impacts on the future Australian labour force, with flow on effects for workforce planners globally. Since the election however, the government has also promised over $40 billion in response to the global financial crisis, and is facing rising health care costs related to population ageing. In this context, are the proposed education reforms efficient, and how can they be improved?
Many academic studies have demonstrated that although investments in the public education system may encourage income growth and equality, these outcomes are dependent on student attendance and completion of schooling. Despite the compulsory nature of primary and secondary schooling, Australia currently ranks 20th amongst OECD countries in terms of school completion – overall, 72 percent of 19 year olds had completed year 12 in 2006. Only just over one third of ‘very remote’ students had completed 12 years of high school, while a similar proportion had not even completed year 10. In this case, rather than simply providing more financial input to the education system, a real education revolution would target the underlying factors which prevent children from attending school, the most prominent being the requirement in some families for children to earn an income. One simple suggestion in the literature is to schedule school holidays at a time when a child’s labour is most required in the family business (harvest time for farming communities, for example).
I’ve been vocally frustrated on this blog about the health care situation in the US for almost 18 months now. I’ve been personally frustrated for longer. As much of the national dialog has shifted to focus on the government and what it can do (and really, that is a wild card at this point), it is interesting that not much has changed. Interesting but unsurprising. And I do think it is an underrated threat to US dominance in global business and innovation.
How much say do employers have in all of this? For better or worse, they’ve been along for the ride as much as employees. They’ve been taking the brunt of the heat as insurers pressure them to use wellness plans and other poorly laid out incentives to bring down their rates a couple of percentage points. They’ve taken the brunt of the heat when premium payments for employees go up. It is no wonder that many of these companies are looking for answers.
In reality, most of these “innovations” in the health care are stop gap solutions at best and don’t address some of the key figures that continue to push health care costs further out of reach.
This Thursday and Friday, I will be attending the Employee Health Care Conference in New York as a guest of The Conference Board to see what else is going on in health care. Are insurers responding? How are they working together with employers? Will any of this mean anything with the possibility of reform?
Do you have any curiosities or questions you want answered from the Employee Health Care conference?
Jobs are our Turf
Sharlyn Lauby recently wrote about what she called the single most important component of economic recovery – job creation. She opens with the following shot:
In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama said the administration was going to focus on creating jobs and getting people back to work. It’s about time. Really. We’ve all known for a painfully long time it will take getting people back to work to kick this recession in the butt. Employed people spend money and spending money grows the economy. I’m not Ben Bernanke and even I figured this out.
The initiatives to create jobs can’t come soon enough. In fact, I’m curious to know what’s going on with the outcomes from the jobs summit that was held last year. You remember the jobs summit? My recall of the event was very few human resources professionals were on the invite list. Such a shame. You’d like to think that any conversation about creating jobs would have HR pros in the room.
I’ve been biting my tongue about this for quite some time. I have my own theory on why human resources wasn’t at the jobs summit. It’s because HR pros aren’t focused on job “creation”. Instead they’re focused on job “readiness”.
In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama said the administration was going to focus on creating jobs and getting people back to work. It’s about time. Really. We’ve all known for a painfully long time it will take getting people back to work to kick this recession in the butt. Employed people spend money and spending money grows the economy. I’m not Ben Bernanke and even I figured this out.
The initiatives to create jobs can’t come soon enough. In fact, I’m curious to know what’s going on with the outcomes from the jobs summit that was held last year. You remember the jobs summit? My recall of the event was very few human resources professionals were on the invite list. Such a shame. You’d like to think that any conversation about creating jobs would have HR pros in the room.
I’ve been biting my tongue about this for quite some time. I have my own theory on why human resources wasn’t at the jobs summit. It’s because HR pros aren’t focused on job “creation”. Instead they’re focused on job “readiness”.
An Inconvenient Choice?
Last week, China Gorman used Twitter to announce that Al Gore had been selected as the Keynote Speaker for the 2010 SHRM Conference and Exposition in San Diego. It didn’t take long for the news to spread, or for a debate to spring up on Twitter about whether the selection was an appropriate one. My own take is that Gore is a good choice in juxtaposition to Jack Welch last year. You can see my full post on Why Al Should Be This Year’s SHRM Annual Keynote Speaker by clicking here.
HR people love a controversy.
One of the more vocal opinions against Gore that I encountered on Twitter was that of Martha Finney. To say that she was not in favor of the selection would be putting it far too mildly. It is more adequate to describe Martha as feeling disenfranchised by SHRM as a direct result of this choice.
I thought the best to describe how Martha feels was to ask her to say so for herself. She was kind enough to agree to pen a guest post on the topic, and so here is Martha Finney, kindly sharing her thoughts on Al Gore speaking at SHRM in her own words. I think you will find them thoughtful, compelling, and perhaps even provocative!
If you don’t know Martha, here is a short bio. Martha Finney is, an employee engagement consultant, who vastly prefers writing and speaking about great corporate cultures and people who love their work, as well as giving her Career Landscape workshop to internal corporate groups. You can tell her off at martha@marthafinney.com.
A ConvenientTruth
Twitter is a great tool for making connections, spreading the word on services, exchanging thoughts, and sharing important information with various communities. Last week, China Gorman broke the news on Twitter that Al Gore will be the Keynote Speaker at the 2010 SHRM Annual Conference and Exposition in San Diego.
It wasn’t long before a dialogue broke out via Twitter about the merits of this choice. What got me involved was a tweet from Martha Finney, who expressed extreme dismay at the choice. I think it is safe to say that Martha feels disenfranchised as a member of SHRM as a direct result of the selection of Gore as the 2010 keynote speaker. We engaged in a short, but very interesting dialogue about the issue. You can see her thoughts on why Gore shouldn’t be speaking at the 2010 SHRM conference here.
Why Al Gore should be speaking in front of SHRM
My take is that the selection of Al Gore as the keynote for 2010 is not significantly different than selecting Jack Welch as the SHRM keynote in 2009. This looks like SHRM’s way of presenting different perspectives on business and leadership at their National Conference. Certainly, Jack Welch is the polar opposite of Al Gore when it comes to thinking about business, economics, and the environment. Human Resources professionals need to be aware of the thinking that each represents, and possess an understanding of how issues like these can impact your business, and your brand. The presentation of these influential, yet oppositely aligned speakers would probably be more effective if you could see them speak at the same event, although speakers fees would surely make this approach cost prohibitive.
I am sorry but Humpty Dumpty has already fell off this wall. To think that a mangled piece of legislation known as McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (or any of its predecessors) somehow fixed corporate and union influence is, to put it lightly, bullshit. If corporate and union influence has really killed democracy, it happened decades ago. I don’t think that’s reality though.
From the time they were conceived to present time, corporations and unions (and to a lesser extent, special interest groups) have been trying to sway the will of the people they influence the most using various methods. In the past, it may have been by force or intimidation. Other times it was with sweetening them up. Almost always, it involved money. Lots of it.
Fast forward to now. Wait, that is now.
Smartbrief on Workforce
Mary Ellen Slater at Smartbrief was kind enough to include me in a group of bloggers from the Smartbrief on Workforce Advsory Board that she is asking to write a piece detailing our personal look forward into 2010 regarding what issues might impact work and human resources next year. Unfortunately, she gave us a very, very tight deadline, so this is going to be an overview post, rather than a detailed one. I’ll flesh it out a bit more in December.
Looking back at 2009 – Once in a lifetime
Before I take a look forward, I need to take a quick look back to the beginning of 2009. Here is a quick review of topics I was thinking and writing about a year ago:
Economy
- President Obama
- Bailouts and policy issues
- Survival/failure of the auto industry
- Jobs
- Corporate scandals
This headline in a MSNBC article caught my eye – “Consumers are changing, but are retailers?”
The article goes on to talk about Black Friday, Cyber Monday and the changes being seen in consumer spending habits. My take away from the article: there’s a huge tug of war game going on right now.
On one side are consumers, who say they want value for their hard earned dollar and respectable customer service.
On the other side are businesses who want revenue and profits.
At some point, something’s gotta give. Businesses need to understand when they have good products at fair prices and deliver an excellent customer experience…people will spend money. And, consumers should be fine with companies making profits as long as the company provides a good product at a reasonable price in a pleasant environment.
As part of a year-end report, Mary Ellen Slayter at SmartBrief on Workforce asked each member of their Advisory Board to write a blog post about a workforce trend that shaped 2009. When I first got this request, frankly I was a little stumped. There are so many things that have happened this year. But a recent incident really focused my thoughts on the subject.
Mr. Bartender’s Blackberry died so we needed to get him a new phone. He decided to join the ranks of iPhone users…so we went at the AT&T store. (Side note: he ended up getting my 3G and I got the new 3GS!) Anywho, while we were there the store manager was chatting with us and had to quickly excuse himself to take a call. He came back to tell us that his brother (who lives in Pakistan) called him to see if he was affected by the shooting taking place in Orlando.
This week, I’ve talked about my skepticism about green jobs (without the supporting training), about exploiting a good cause and businesses with sustainable practices. It is almost like I planned to talk about my cynicism about all of these niche business ventures that tend to separate people’s money from their pockets with no appreciable gain for the environment.
Let’s Get Something Straight…
This may not be a popular post (with anybody) but before you go all out on me, you should understand where I am coming from. For one, I believe climate change is real. The science, while not conclusive in all areas, easily points to the impact we have on the planet being a negative one. And I am an environmentalist. There is no moral basis for needlessly destroying what we have. But I too believe that there are ways we can use our resources responsibly (like timber, farming, mining and harvesting). I am skeptical of many of the regulations that have been used to try and fix these issues though (that’s why I refused to sign the petition that Blog Action Day tries to throw at you in order to participate). And while I believe awareness is important, I believe education (without ridiculous fear mongering from the partisans) is most important.
I live in the middle of the green boom here in Portland, Oregon so it may be easy to see why I am bit cynical about green business in general. For one, many of the subsidies and tax credits simply aren’t making it down to infrastructure development and job creation. Attraction of businesses that depend heavily on this money to float operationally is a gamble that lawmakers are willing to take with tax payer money. Many in the green industry say that pulling tax credits and subsidies will sink their businesses. They are correct too.
Sustainability Is Also About Business Practices
When we talk about sustainability in the green economy, we rarely talk about business sustainability. So we essentially switch one broken model that requires subsidy (our dilapidated manufacturing and old energy infrastructure) with another (green business and energy models that require massive public investment to break even). Of course, the cry is that it is necessary, that infrastructure developments are a one time price for the switch and it is much better than investing in our current industrial base. Best of all, politicians get to feel like they can push forward ideas with vision, purpose and (most importantly for their constituents and donors) targeted funding for their district’s contribution to green industry.
So now there are thousands of companies out there who are either drawing up business plans or executing on business plans that essentially say “Qualify for government subsidy, ride it out and cross our fingers that we have a product or service in the end that we can limp along with after our runway ends.” It is a killer business plan because it gets people money (not because it works).
Think Outside Of The Green Box
There is a better way and it starts with leaving government money off the table for a second and thinking about ways you can run your green business without it. That doesn’t mean that government money doesn’t come on the table later to help ease or encourage distribution or help supply investments in infrastructure and plant facilities. While much of the focus right now is on consumer driven solutions (think hybrid cars, personal solar panels or wind turbines), the most important gains will come in industry and agriculture. That’s why programs like industrial power conservation and methane capturing don’t need a ton of money for the relative benefit they provide. This is also why low risk, high reward green businesses haven’t stopped to think about how they could get more money from the government: they don’t need it.
We need more of that and less of these schemes that are going to require government interference for decades, carbon swapping or any of these other ideas that move the problem of climate change around rather than fixing it. I think devising sustainable business solutions are the best way of moving forward.
When I first heard that the topic was climate change, I was like…hmm…this is a workplace blog. How can businesses get involved 
with climate change? Then, I checked out the EPA website. They have a whole section devoted to workplace best practices that can have a positive impact on the environment. I also discovered the EPA has a great kids’ site that explains what climate change is and how we can all make a difference. Between you and me, I enjoyed the kids’ site a whole lot more than the adults’ site…bright colors, great graphics and never once saw the words “regulatory initiatives.”
But just as I was getting ready to write this post, a headline from my SmartBrief on Sustainability newsbrief caught my eye. The headline read: “Apple resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over Climate.” Their decision follows the resignations of Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon over climate policy differences.
If you didn’t think before that climate change is a business issue, then I hope that the actions of these companies send the message. We only have one environment, people. Consumers want to know that companies are sensitive to our climate as they produce their products. And, consumers are willing to support businesses that take care of our precious resources.
Being a socially responsible company is not just a nice thing to do. It makes good business sense.
I think it’s great to be able to use this blog for a global awareness purpose. I hope you enjoyed the change of pace and check out the EPA sites for more info. We’ll resume our regular programming about managers and martinis tomorrow…October 16 is National Liqueur Day and National Bosses Day!
Okay, not really HR related but it addresses an issue very close to my heart.
This was sent to me by Eve Batey, the brilliant Editor and Publisher of the San Francisco Appeal . It seems that a San Francisco marketing company is making quite a bit of out-of-state money on an anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine. Never mind that the campaign itself is absolutely offensive, it just amazes me that a company based in San Francisco is focusing their business on anti-gay marriage measures.
From SF Appeal :
Hey, remember all the frustration voiced in the wake of Prop 8’s passing, when folks talked about how much of its support came from people who didn’t even live in California? Maine’s the next battleground for the right to marry, and the “out of town support” argument’s apparently rising again — this time, by a group that’s paying a San Francisco based company over half a million dollars to in an effort to take that right away. That’s right, this time, the call’s coming from inside the house…This company is listed 4 more times in that section [In the filings, released yesterday, from Stand For Marriage Maine], and has been paid nearly $360K. They’re also listed 12 more times in the “unpaid debts” section, billing about $240K more. So, so far they stand to make at least $600,000 off the deal. Coincidentally, this is just slightly higher than the extra tax burden shouldered by many gay couples due to discriminatory tax penalties.
Now I realize that every company should be able to make money in any way they want, as long as it’s legal, but in San Francisco? REALLY? And on Maiden Lane nonetheless? Talk about being a mouse in a cat house.
It gets even weirder though. The company has now taken down its YouTube page, its Facebook page and its own website.
When The Appeal tried to contact the company, they were told, “no one was available …they were “traveling for business.”
If one didn’t know any better, one would think that this company is ashamed of what it’s doing. Not that they shouldn’t be, but if you’re a marketing company and you’re taking the money, shouldn’t you be getting the word out?
Just a thought.
I believe in global climate change
 |
I believe that we are undergoing some sort of global climate change. I am not sure how much, but I do know that it used to snow a lot more in Michigan when I was a kid than it does today. I remember building and freezing a skating pond in the backyard of my suburban Detroit home and it would stay frozen all winter. You can’t do that today.
Rush Limbaugh does not believe in global climate change
On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh does not believe in climate change. In the world according to Rush, the entire concept of global climate change is a big hoax fostered by Al Gore so he could give a great PowerPoint presentation. I wonder if Guy Kawasaki helped Gore with that presentation?
The world according to Rush:
By the same token,man-made global warming is a total hoax. It has no basis in fact, and yet it has acolytes out the wazoo. We have people going out and living their lives and changing their lives to account for this hoax and this man-made global warming that’s destroying the planet, that they have been led to believe they are responsible for in part, and so they gotta do things to absolve themselves of their sin. So, they’re putting in these screwy little spaghetti light bulbs, they’re driving strange cars, they’re using something other than toilet paper in the bathroom, whatever number of things. No matter what you tell ‘em, they go out and watch Gore’s movie. You can point out every factual error in Gore’s movie. “No. It’s bad. It’s bad. That movie is the truth.”
The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming
As I was reviewing various resources on global climate change for my Blog Action Day 2009 post, I came across this article that was written two years ago called The Top 100 Effects of Global Warming. I am not going to cover all topics, but I am going to point out some that concern me right now.
Every one of these could impact the tourism business in the state of Florida where I reside.
The Death of Pinot Noir
The reason you adore pinot noir is that it comes from a notoriously temperamental thin-skinned grape that thrives in cool climates. Warmer temperatures are already damaging the pinots from Oregon, “baking away” the grape’s berry flavors. [Bloomberg]
The End of Snorkeling
The elkhorn coral which used to line the floor of the Caribbean are nearly gone, “victims of pollution, warmer water and acidification from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide seeping into oceans.” [Denver Post]
No More Lobster
Lobsters thrive in the chilly waters of New England, but recent numbers show that as those waters have warmed up, “the big-clawed American lobster—prized for its delicate, sweet flesh—has been withering at an alarming rate from New York state to Massachusetts.” [AP]
Bulgarian Hooker Shortages
“Brothel owners in Bulgaria are blaming global warming for staff shortages. They claim their best girls are working in ski resorts because a lack of snow has forced tourists to seek other pleasures.” [Metro UK]
Jellyfish Attack
Ouch! At least 30,000 people were stung by jellyfish along the Mediterranean coast last year; some areas boasted more than 10 jellyfish per square foot of water. Thank global warming: Jellyfish generally stay out of the way of swimmers, preferring the warmer, saltier water of the open seas. Hotter temperatures erase the natural temperature barrier between the open sea and the shore. The offshore waters also become more saline, causing the stinging blobs of hurt to move in toward the coastlines (and your unsuspecting legs). [BBC]
Giant Squid Attack
Giant squid—an “aggressive predator” that grows up to 7 feet long and can weigh more than 110 lbs—used to only be found in the warm waters along the Pacific equator. Hotter waters mean today they’re invading the waters of California and even Alaska. [ABC]
Florida’s National Marine Sanctuary in Trouble
Global warming is “bleaching” the coral in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, killing the coral, tourism, and local fish that live among the coral for protection. [Washington Post]
More Hurricanes
Over the past century, the number of hurricanes that strike each year has more than doubled. Scientists blame global warming and the rising temperature of the surface of the seas. [USA Today]
Spread of Dengue Fever
Scientists predict warmer temperatures will allow mosquitoes carrying Dengue Fever to travel outside the tropics. Since people in cooler climes lack immunity from previous exposure, that means transmission would be extensive. You get a severe fever, you start spontaneously bleeding, you can die. There is no vaccine. [Science Daily]
Who the hell would want to vacation in Florida if it starts to look like this?
And here’s the scary part. News reports from Key West, Florida, indicate that three patients have been discovered with dengue fever. All three have recovered. These were the first reported cases of Dengue Fever in Florida in the past eighty years.
Please help fight global climate change this year!
Share and Enjoy:
(C) 2008 Ulrich Kerler & Marcus Schiesser Report an issue | Feedback | Privacy Policy | TOS