Friday the 13th! Can we get any luckier?
Hope your work week has been a good one and now it is time to give your brain a break.
Try reading these random thoughts that I found out about:
1. There are 77 million Baby Boomers in America.
2. Mourning Doves mate for life. (I have a pair that are nesting already for the 2nd time this season!)
3. 11% of grandparents have a grandchild living with them. 16% provide daycare.
4. A $.50 allowance in 1963 would be equal to $3.67 today. Check out http://www.threejars.com/allowance_calculator.html for other allowance comparisons.
5. Recipe: We know those who are lactose intolerant, and I bet you do too. Also, this time of year I head to the frozen fruit section because the winter fruits are waning and the early summer ones are not yet here. I picked a vegan muffin recipe from Food.com that uses frozen blueberries. Looks easy too!
1/4 c. soy margarine (could use regular)
1/2 c. unsweetened applesauce
1/c tsp. salt
1 c. sugar
2 c. flour
1 TBSP baking powder
1 tsp. vanilla
1/2 c. soy milk
2 c. frozen blueberries
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
Line muffin cups with paper liners.
Mix all ingredients together until moistened.
Divide batter evenly and fill cups 3/4 full.
Bake 35 minutes or until tops are firm.
Cool on wire wrack.
Panoramic View
Friday, April 13, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Working Wednesday: Not Hiring the Unemployed
Sounds like an oxymoron doesn't it? An employer refusing to hire someone who doesn't have a job. Isn't that why a job seeker has come to apply for the company's open positions? Do you not see on the headlines major companies still laying off hundreds/thousands at one time? What if the "hundreds" all live in the same city which has happened more than once since 2008? Many have the same job credentials. Do you really think your city or even your state can absorb all those unemployed at the same time into new jobs? We are still not over the depression. If we were, layoffs would not be large numbers at one time and people could find jobs within the traditional 6 months time period.
Job posting ads are popping up with words to this effect: "applicants must be currently employed" or "applicants must not be unemployed". Some states across this country are considering or have passed legislation to ban companies from discriminating against the unemployed. Each state is writing their law differently, so check your state for what the legislature is concerned about in particular. Most are concerned about marketing the open positions as noted above.
Rather than say "all unemployed" are not wanted at your company, take it on a case by case basis. Keep the playing field even by letting everyone apply for the position you advertise. Look at resumes and/or applications as your process dictates. Then call in the best candidates for interviews. If you do pick one that has been unemployed for awhile, be sure to ask what they have been doing in the interim. I know some have taken classes to update or enlarge their skill base, volunteered to keep abreast of their career field, joined network groups, conducted research, etc. You may be surprised they are now better matched to meet your needs. After all, it is all about you and your company. Don't short sight yourself if in the end you get a better employee than what is on paper.
Job posting ads are popping up with words to this effect: "applicants must be currently employed" or "applicants must not be unemployed". Some states across this country are considering or have passed legislation to ban companies from discriminating against the unemployed. Each state is writing their law differently, so check your state for what the legislature is concerned about in particular. Most are concerned about marketing the open positions as noted above.
Rather than say "all unemployed" are not wanted at your company, take it on a case by case basis. Keep the playing field even by letting everyone apply for the position you advertise. Look at resumes and/or applications as your process dictates. Then call in the best candidates for interviews. If you do pick one that has been unemployed for awhile, be sure to ask what they have been doing in the interim. I know some have taken classes to update or enlarge their skill base, volunteered to keep abreast of their career field, joined network groups, conducted research, etc. You may be surprised they are now better matched to meet your needs. After all, it is all about you and your company. Don't short sight yourself if in the end you get a better employee than what is on paper.
Alone in the Car: Gender Gap Health Insurance vs. Obamacare
The United States of America was set up with a representative form of government using 3 branches or divisions for day-to-day management as well as a checks and balances for its citizens. Those branches are in alphabetical order: executive (the President), judicial (U.S. Supreme Court), and legislative (Congress).
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as "Obamacare" is 2409 pages long. So far as I can research, the President has not read its entirety and neither has the Supreme Court Justices or all the members of Congress (House and Senate). Something is missing here. I could offer a variety of solutions, but I will let my readers carry on with their thoughts and actions on this matter.
The media, both for and against, has been so "gun-ho" for their side, and remember they are a business and need to make a profit just like any other business, so they go after this topic with great gusto, that they have forgotten something.
This, at least partly, has turned into a religious fight. I use Roman Catholic owned hospitals as an example but clearly they are not the only employers in this matter that have said they will not adopt Obamacare. They have made it clear they will not, not have they ever, cover certain elements in a health insurance policy contract for their female employees. It is against their religion to do so. With Obamacare, they would be forced to carry such health insurance.
What concerns me is that this was never a religious question for most women but a gender gap question.
Many employers would sign health insurance policy contracts with an insurance company that covered male employees but would not cover female employees for similar coverage. The woman would have to pay out-of-pocket but the male employee would have partial or full coverage. This of course is for same job responsibilities/same salary level. Discussions were way past the "water cooler" stage and actually caused employee and/or employer relationship problems or work environment problems. The employer could easily have solved this by making coverage the same for male and female employees.
Using the example of the Roman Catholic hospitals again, certain female procedures are never done there and likewise it is same to say neither are men's. Both genders know this ahead of time, both are treated equally, and both know to go elsewhere for those operations.
Employers, please look at your contracts. When it is time for renewal, be prepared to treat all employees the same, even if this means reducing coverage of one group to create a balanced work environment. It will pay off in the long run.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as "Obamacare" is 2409 pages long. So far as I can research, the President has not read its entirety and neither has the Supreme Court Justices or all the members of Congress (House and Senate). Something is missing here. I could offer a variety of solutions, but I will let my readers carry on with their thoughts and actions on this matter.
The media, both for and against, has been so "gun-ho" for their side, and remember they are a business and need to make a profit just like any other business, so they go after this topic with great gusto, that they have forgotten something.
This, at least partly, has turned into a religious fight. I use Roman Catholic owned hospitals as an example but clearly they are not the only employers in this matter that have said they will not adopt Obamacare. They have made it clear they will not, not have they ever, cover certain elements in a health insurance policy contract for their female employees. It is against their religion to do so. With Obamacare, they would be forced to carry such health insurance.
What concerns me is that this was never a religious question for most women but a gender gap question.
Many employers would sign health insurance policy contracts with an insurance company that covered male employees but would not cover female employees for similar coverage. The woman would have to pay out-of-pocket but the male employee would have partial or full coverage. This of course is for same job responsibilities/same salary level. Discussions were way past the "water cooler" stage and actually caused employee and/or employer relationship problems or work environment problems. The employer could easily have solved this by making coverage the same for male and female employees.
Using the example of the Roman Catholic hospitals again, certain female procedures are never done there and likewise it is same to say neither are men's. Both genders know this ahead of time, both are treated equally, and both know to go elsewhere for those operations.
Employers, please look at your contracts. When it is time for renewal, be prepared to treat all employees the same, even if this means reducing coverage of one group to create a balanced work environment. It will pay off in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)