The labor movement in Wisconsin has given news-watchers more than drama. It has given everyone in labor and management a reason to follow the drama on the streets and in the State Capitol Building. No doubt politicians everywhere are watching this unfold and wondering if state executives across the country will have a unique card to play if Wisconsin governor Scott Walker will win this battle with the unions.
Walker has no right to attempt to strip the unions of their bargaining rights. If he really wants to do something about the $137 million budget defecit, he should look into reports by the Huffington Post that states, "two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes."
The State of Wisconsin, like any other employer, should be bound to honor the agreement made with labor. If they feel they got a bad deal, there is nothing they can do about it until it is time to negotiate a new agreement. When that time comes, then and only then should Walker ask for more consessions from the other side of the table.
Scott Walker can not blame unions for agreeing to deals with him. Workers should not be punished by taking away their unions. If Walker is so concerned about his state's economy, go after the aforementioned corporations who are doing business in the Badger State but not paying anything into the tax coffers.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Qualified Candidates need not apply
Yahoo.com has reported on something that, unfortunately, is nothing new or uncommon. According to a story on its website, an increasing number of employers will not consider unemployed people who apply for a job.
According to the article, employers who practice this do so because they believe there is a reason someone is unemployed. Because they are unemployed, taking a chance on this person may not be a good thing for the company to do.
This may be true for some people but it is certainly not the case for everyone who is without a job. The recession that may or may not be ending (depending on who you listen to) has taken its toll on the economy and the people who contribute to it. At this time, it would be foolish to think that every unemployed individual has only themself to blame for being out of work.
Any company that uses this form of discrimination is hurting itself. Refusing to look at the credendials and qualifications of someone who is unemployed is denying itself a chance to get a potentially great worker. Limiting the pool of candidates hurts not only the potential growth of the company, but also the community the company is in.
Refusing to interview people who are not working shows another angle ignorance. Why would someone who is employed take a chance on another prospect in this economic climate. One who already has a job would be less likely to leave a position knowing there is so much uncertainty in the job market.
Posting a job opening and making it available only to people who already have a job makes no sense. These companies are hurting everyone including themselves. Opening a position to everyone will improve the economy and allow all companies to advance and improve. It is the only solution that makes sense.
According to the article, employers who practice this do so because they believe there is a reason someone is unemployed. Because they are unemployed, taking a chance on this person may not be a good thing for the company to do.
This may be true for some people but it is certainly not the case for everyone who is without a job. The recession that may or may not be ending (depending on who you listen to) has taken its toll on the economy and the people who contribute to it. At this time, it would be foolish to think that every unemployed individual has only themself to blame for being out of work.
Any company that uses this form of discrimination is hurting itself. Refusing to look at the credendials and qualifications of someone who is unemployed is denying itself a chance to get a potentially great worker. Limiting the pool of candidates hurts not only the potential growth of the company, but also the community the company is in.
Refusing to interview people who are not working shows another angle ignorance. Why would someone who is employed take a chance on another prospect in this economic climate. One who already has a job would be less likely to leave a position knowing there is so much uncertainty in the job market.
Posting a job opening and making it available only to people who already have a job makes no sense. These companies are hurting everyone including themselves. Opening a position to everyone will improve the economy and allow all companies to advance and improve. It is the only solution that makes sense.
Monday, February 07, 2011
The Wal-Mart Dilemna
There has been a lot of talk lately about Wal-Mart and the damage they do to a community when a new store is opened in a community. A lot of people criticize the retail giant for shutting down Mom-and-Pop stores, not paying fair wages and mistreating employees in other ways.
Wal-Mart's website boasted sales of $405 million in fiscal year 2010. For all of the complaints that seem to be lobbed against the store, there seem to be a lot of shoppers who either don't know about the allegations or simply don't care.
Why? Why do millions of people go into a store that may or may not use unethical business practices when it comes to fair wages or humane working conditions? The answer is simple: When people are shopping, they are looking for something they can afford. Not something that was made and sold by people who are treated fairly.
The past three years have been marred by economic turbulence. Many people, especially those in the financial sector have referred to 2000-2009 as "The Lost Decade". Many people have seen their life savings and retirement plans go up in smoke. People must work longer and put off that retirement because of the damage done to their 401k's.
Wal-mart knows this and uses it to their advantage. As much as people want to help the local store around the corner, why buy something for $5 when they know they can get it at Wal-Mart for $2.15?
It would be unfair to say it is only Wal-Mart who does this. Large-chain retailers have been doing this for years. It is bad for the local economy. Jobs are getting rubbed out and businesses are going under but millions of people are saving money everywhere.
Where are you going to go the next time you need bathroom tissue or a roll of tape? You know you will keep your money in the local economy if you head down to Joe's Local Store but you will keep your money in your own pocket if you are at Wal-Mart or want a little "Cheap Chic" at Target. You really want to do the right thing but can you afford to?
A very vicious circle is going to rear its ugly head before long. Large stores will continue to swallow smaller competitors and the business they continue to lose. People's chances for honest work and a fair wage will fade. Before long, employees will be forced to take jobs that will not pay them what they are worth or what they need to even get by. Customers looking to save a buck will groan about how hard it is to find good help.
Wal-Mart's website boasted sales of $405 million in fiscal year 2010. For all of the complaints that seem to be lobbed against the store, there seem to be a lot of shoppers who either don't know about the allegations or simply don't care.
Why? Why do millions of people go into a store that may or may not use unethical business practices when it comes to fair wages or humane working conditions? The answer is simple: When people are shopping, they are looking for something they can afford. Not something that was made and sold by people who are treated fairly.
The past three years have been marred by economic turbulence. Many people, especially those in the financial sector have referred to 2000-2009 as "The Lost Decade". Many people have seen their life savings and retirement plans go up in smoke. People must work longer and put off that retirement because of the damage done to their 401k's.
Wal-mart knows this and uses it to their advantage. As much as people want to help the local store around the corner, why buy something for $5 when they know they can get it at Wal-Mart for $2.15?
It would be unfair to say it is only Wal-Mart who does this. Large-chain retailers have been doing this for years. It is bad for the local economy. Jobs are getting rubbed out and businesses are going under but millions of people are saving money everywhere.
Where are you going to go the next time you need bathroom tissue or a roll of tape? You know you will keep your money in the local economy if you head down to Joe's Local Store but you will keep your money in your own pocket if you are at Wal-Mart or want a little "Cheap Chic" at Target. You really want to do the right thing but can you afford to?
A very vicious circle is going to rear its ugly head before long. Large stores will continue to swallow smaller competitors and the business they continue to lose. People's chances for honest work and a fair wage will fade. Before long, employees will be forced to take jobs that will not pay them what they are worth or what they need to even get by. Customers looking to save a buck will groan about how hard it is to find good help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)