Business for Good, not Evil

Do one thing every day!

2012-02-26T16:03:00.001-08:00

When I was an aspiring writer (for reals, not like a blogger) the advice I heard over and over again from my writing mentors was "Write every day." No matter what, you have to work on your novel or stories or poems or whatever every single day. And it really works. If you write in a dedicated manner every day, you'll find that you've written a novel in no time.

So I've been thinking that this approach will work wonders in other areas of my life. I've given up on blogging super regularly (and you don't want to see whatever random shit I come up with each day if I don't have something cool in mind), but I have two things I'm going to start doing each day, and see what happens:

1. Writing my book: I'm working (theoretically) on a non-fiction book about how to adapt the free market to serve people better. Its in the form of a crappy outline right now. But if I work on it every day....

2. Working on stuff for the National League of Students: This is the non-profit I created. I've got a lot of great people working on it, but there's always development work to do: donor research, building the database... I think if I make a concerted effort to work on it every single day, I'll get a lot done.

Its such a simple idea, but I think this will really work. What about you guys? Anything you can improve by just doing it every day?

Businesses Are Not Run By Gods

2012-02-12T12:57:00.000-08:00

So I was reading, as I obsessively do, the latest post over at Ask a Manager, which featured a question from an employee at a law firm who was certain that their office manager was not processing payroll on time. This is a pretty big deal, payroll is the budgetary item that should come above all others, since employees are your most valuable asset. But there was one comment on the post that got me thinking:

"How is it that a company can get this stuff wrong in the first place? The only reason people show up to work is because they get a paycheck."

Now, I feel like I'm being vilified in the comments a bit for saying it, but it makes a lot more sense to expect a quick and thorough response to mistakes by your employer than to expect no mistakes at all.

(I totally grant that in the case of the particular question raised, missing the payroll deadline some 5 times is not acceptable. But we're talking about one-offs, not chronic problems here.)

I've learned, through research and experience, that the people running most businesses are not the people you'd necessarily like running businesses. They are people with an idea and capital. They are not, necessarily, people who keep up on employment law, or read the latest on management theory, or even people who think its important to pay taxes or run things on the up-and-up.

That's not to say they don't have an obligation to do those things. They do. But the fact is, most don't. I'm not writing any of this to excuse any of the bad things that employers do. I'm writing this to make people aware of reality, and maybe help them think about more reasonable ways to approach problems.

I imagine that most really big companies, your national giants with branches or franchises in all states, generally get things right because they have the resources to do so. But I would bet good money that pretty much all other companies, from bottom to top, have some kind of hole in their procedures or compliance somewhere. It's almost impossible not to... once you have employees, there's a new set of compliance, and then when you get, like, 10 employees, there's a new set of issues, and once you hit 50 there's a whole slew of new federal laws. Not to mention that there's a completely different set of everything in each of the 50 states. If you have employees in California, you generally have to have a totally different employee manual for them as you would for employees in other states. For New York employees, you have to send them a yearly wage statement declaring the name or the entity they work for, the wage they make, and other info. If you hire an independent contractor in any state, you have to report their hire to a state... not necessarily the one you hired them in, it could be the one state you selected to report all your independent contractor hires to (if you were aware you had to make such a selection).

Now, most people starting a local business don't think about any of that. They get some minimal amount of advice and wing it from there. Most of the time, enforcement of such laws are low (with some notable exceptions), and employers never know that they're not even compliant. And even if they do know, many willfully ignore their obligations because to become compliant usually involves some sort of cost (and back penalties).

I used to not understand why employers would do that. Then I started my own non-profit.

In order to ask people for money in any one of about 41 states, you have to register to solicit there. Some states, like Arizona, have no registration fee. But most cost between $35 and $350 dollars (even for an organization with $0 in revenues their previous tax year). So, in order to raise money, you have to first shell out money. And yes, these registrations are generally required BEFORE you can start any kind of solicitation in that state. And each of those states have different fees, different requirements, and different forms. And most of them require yearly renewal, usually with fees for those as well.

I've been office manager at another non-profit for almost a year now, and I'm still discovering new and exciting laws that we had no idea existed.

Again, none of this is an excuse for payroll to be late. None of it is an excuse for anything. But I hope it serves to demonstrate a point: if you expect that your employer make no mistakes, and you think that the world of business demands a high level of engagement and compliance from your employer, you're probably wrong. Running a business of any kind is very, very demanding.

100% perfection is too much to ask. It just is. What's not unreasonable to demand is that your employer acknowledge and correct mistakes and non-compliance in a timely fashion. If you've got that, then maybe your workplace isn't so bad (the evidence suggests that it's probably better than most).

A New Taxation System- Part Two

2012-02-03T16:34:00.000-08:00

In my last entry, I discussed the possibility of creating a new system of taxation... one where the percent you pay to the government is based not on how much you make, but how you got the money. The idea that tax brackets be based on what sector you work in and your specific job title seems complicated, but then, isn't the current system? I think it's worth brainstorming a bit and exploring the possibilities!

In the last entry, I focused on professions that would be taxed less or not at all: the service industry and non-profit employees, specifically.

But the harder question, I think, is who gets their taxes upped?

For one, I think the obvious example is that interest and capital gains should be taxed MUCH more heavily. The argument for this is easy: if you can literally sit on your couch and do NOTHING and make money, then you're not doing something of enough value to society that we need to subsidize it with lower taxes. I'm not saying they should be taxed at 100% or even near that, and I do understand that in our crazy complicated economy investment does have SOME value to others, but just not that much (especially compared to the work done by, say, a social worker).

Advertising revenue is similar, though not to such a degree. For someone to make money by putting ads up on their channel or website, they have to get traffic. So it's self-rewarding in terms of getting revenue out in proportion to the work you put in. But it's still money that you can sit back and watch roll in, at least for a little while.

I would also argue for taxing the hell out of businesses that make luxury goods. If you're selling a Louis Vuitton purse for $1500, you're not doing any good for society (note: I still would say that at the retail level, those actually selling and stocking merch should get tax breaks. They have to deal with rich people all the time, which is incredibly trying and not very rewarding in a retail environment).

I think there's also an argument to be made for the entertainment industry. I mean, there is some value to movies and music, and that would be taken into account, but if you're Jessica Alba and you just made $10 million for a shitty romantic comedy... yeah, I'd tax that at like 50%. I'd probably say that movies with some kind of significant social or political message would get a break from that, simply because that would encourage studios and big-name actors to make more good movies, and fewer shitty ones.

Obviously, all this involves a lot of values judgement. But, I want to reiterate that it's not all that different than what we're doing now... in fact, the current system seems much more arbitrary. Why should a person making $250,000 a year get taxed at 33%, while someone else making $450,000 a year get taxed at 35%? There's no rhyme or reason there. At least in my system, we're making judgements about the value different people, companies and services add to society, rather than judge judging numbers as numbers.

What do you think? What professions would you like to tax the hell out of?

A New Taxation System- Part One

2012-02-01T19:01:00.000-08:00

So I've been mulling over our tax system for awhile now, which isn't surprising given the attention given to the recently released returns of Mitt Romney and the kerfuffle about his only paying an effective 15% -or-so tax rate.

And I was thinking, "I agree. That's unfair." Yeah, I know he paid like $6 million in taxes, which is (more or less) $6 million more than I paid in 2010. And it does seem unfair to increase taxes on people already paying a gigantic percent of total taxes collected. Though not as unfair as expecting poor people to pay a bigger share.

But then I thought of a possibility. What if your tax bracket was not determined by how much money you make, but by what you do?

Instead of having people who make more than X paying Y% in taxes, we would give tax breaks to people whose jobs make the world a better place, and those who have jobs that don't really help anyone would pay more in taxes.

So, like, everyone in the service and retail industries (at the service level) would pay like no taxes. Same with people in call centers, or janitors. Currently, the market doesn't seem to have a way to account for the fact that people in those professions have to take shit from random people, and sometimes have to literally clean other people's shit from the walls (ask anyone who's worked at any kind of restaurant or store. There's been shit on those walls at some point).

Normally, you would expect that the "free market" would see wages increase in jobs where you have to clean shit from walls, because there's not tons of people that are willing to do that. However, the evidence suggests that people are willing to do just about anything for $8.75 an hour when they've been unemployed for 10 months. So wages never go up, and thus prices at McDonald's don't go up, so the societal costs (externalities) of abusing people and being a jerk is never borne by me, the jerk.

The market needs to correct for the fact that I can spit in an employee's face at Burger King and leave with a cheap burger. This is one way to do that.

People who work in non-profits would get a tax break even up to the top, because non-profits do good things and people often take a pay cut (compared to what they could get in the private sector) to work for a charity. This is a way that non-profit salaries can become more competitive without taking that money from donors or from the cause.

So, to my mind, it's easy to come up with several professions that would get a tax break under my system. The next post will have to do with who would take a pay cut and pay higher taxes. It's harder to determine. But that's for another post. Today, what professions do you think should pay less in taxes regardless of how much an individual makes?

Sweet, sweet vindication

2012-02-01T18:58:00.000-08:00

I KNEW I hated Susan G. Komen for the Cure!

How to Network with Facebook

2012-01-28T11:43:00.001-08:00

Networking is one of those fancy business-type concepts that seem to work well for people that use it. The problem is that, from the outside, those people all seem to have awesome networks... and let's face it, it's easy to network when you have an extensive network! How do you build that network?

The good news is that, for the n00b networker, there's a great tool at your fingertips that you probably use every day: Facebook! See, the thing is, "network" is just a word meaning "people that you share an interest or set of interests with."* Ie, friends. Your network should be people who are...

1) in your field, in a related field, or a field that might eventually be useful to you, and

2) people that you don't hate.

That's it. There's no problem with thinking of the 250 friends, co-workers and random people you knew in elementary school as your network. And, in fact, friends are people who have already expressed that they like you and thus have some kind of investment in your well-being. Just because they're still in school or stuck at Burger King for the time being doesn't mean that they're not worth cultivating as part of your professional network.

So how do you effectively use Facebook as a networking tool?

1. Resist the urge to purge. Yeah, we all have FB friends we don't talk to that much, or that just post obnoxious game invitations on our walls all day. Don't delete the friend. If you don't like what they post, you can block applications wholesale, and you can have FB only show you status updates that are "important." But ending contact with people entirely is not the way to go unless you know that you don't want to have them in your life at all. Like, if they post something that makes you hate them. Otherwise, there will come a day when you find an article or a job post or a charity that immediately makes you think of them, and they won't be there to share it with you. And you won't be there when they find the perfect gig for you.

2. Actually read the obnoxious shit that people post. I'm not saying you need to play Farmville all day, but Facebook is a unique forum where people just put shit out there, and all you have to do is read it. You can learn so much about people seeing the articles they read, the quotes they post, the places they visit. Plus, frequently taking a look at the ol' wall and pursuing other people's profiles helps you keep track of where people live and what they're doing.

3. Be useful to them. Networking is a two way street. Keep an eye on what your friends and contacts like, what they're looking for, whether they're looking for a job or a new apartment, etc, and be helpful in helping them find it. Example: I'm friends on FB with a woman named Katie from my hometown. She posted that she's looking to move, and was wondering if anyone knew of any great one bedroom apartments. I live in DC, and she lives in Boise, but I know tons of people there, so I posted that a friend was looking for apartments and tagged her in it. Odds are, nothing will come of it. But it could, and that would be awesome, and the worst thing that happens is that Katie likes me better because I tried to help her out. You're helping create a friendlier, more helpful world, and possibly helping yourself out in the process.

4. Birthdays are important. Always, always ALWAYS write a comment on everyone's wall on their birthday. And don't just say "happy birthday" in lower case letters with no punctuation. That doesn't count. Make it personal. Ask about their kids (I can't believe how many of my friends from high school have kids now). Ask how the new job is going. At the very least, suggest that they have fun in a way that reflect that you know something, something about them. Even if you have to scroll down their timeline for 10 minutes to find something.

5. YOUR birthday is important. All those people who wish you a happy birthday on your wall, even if it was with all lower-case letters and no punctuation, are extending a hand to you. They're saying they like you enough to make a minimal effort. And that's half the battle of networking! Cultivate these relationships. Every year, on the day after my birthday, I respond to each and every birthday wish on my wall. And I try to make it personal, just like when I post on their wall. It takes awhile, but it allows you to connect with people that you've perhaps not had a one-on-one conversation with (even on Facebook) for years. And you're letting them know that when they do something nice for you, you notice and reciprocate. Everyone likes to feel appreciated.

6. Give generously. My final tip is based on a personal rule that I almost always follow: if someone on Facebook asks me for something, I generally give it to them. The most common is charitable giving, when people post a birthday wish collecting donations for their birthday or something like that. Toss them some cash. Even if it's only $5, you'll suddenly be in the top 2% of that person's friends... because like nobody I know gives much money to these things. It extends to items too... a friend of mine posted that he really wanted some whiskey stones that were on Woot! that day, and since my boyfriend and I wanted some too we bought three sets: one for ourselves, one for a Secret Santa gift, and one to send to this guy. It was very cheap, but as I mentioned with charities, it's not the dollars that matter, it's the sentiment. People remember when you do nice things for them.

Facebook makes it easy to express your needs and meet the needs of others. Yes, you should garner as many connections and recommendations on LinkedIn as you can, but for network cultivation, nothing beats the power of Facebook.

* - Definition made up.

A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.

2012-01-09T13:24:00.000-08:00

Just a short rant today. What's with re-using already common acronyms? There's a fundraising database I use at work called Revolution Online. It's common acronym is ROI. Now, when I first learned the database, I didn't have a background on what ROI meant (Return on Investment for those of you as clueless as I). Now, this is obviously the databases' fault, because Return on Investment is almost certainly it's ORIGINAL meaning, but I still can't be part of business-y conversations without wondering to myself "why on earth are these guys talking about a fundraising database? Oh, right..."

And NOW, I get to have my worldview crashed once again by people referring to corporate philanthropy (it's right and proper name) as Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR. Which, more commonly (at least on job boards) means Customer Service Representative. Which are, of course, crucially important to business and non-profits alike. But still, can't we call things by names that aren't already being used? If only concepts could sue one another for trademark infringement...

Anyway, the link above goes to a pretty good story that prompted my rant but does have some amazing numbers about how employee engagement programs (IE, a company paying it's employees to volunteer for a cause) dramatically increase happiness at work and lower turnover. It's by Susan McPherson over at the Harvard Business News, via LinkedIn.

Rant is over. Go learn something. :)

Unwitting and unwilling charity

2011-11-24T19:42:00.000-08:00

Normally I wouldn't be posting today, given the holiday and whatnot (I assume, perhaps falsely, that people aren't reading Blogger on Thanksgiving), but I'm doing some pre-Cyber-Monday-Sorta-Black-Friday shopping online, and came across a pretty great sale at Forever 21, including this pretty neat leopard print tee shirt (yes, that's the type of shit I wear. To work). You have to scroll down the page a bit to find it, it's on the leftmost column. Anyway, the thing that kills me about this shirt is that, unlike all the other clothing around it, this one shirt benefits Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Now, regular blog readers know that I hate Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and definitely think anyone or any company that supports them should withdraw said support (especially since this organization does the same work only way better and doesn't use donor money to sue other charities). So it's natural that I'm really hating this ambush charity that all these groups keep springing on me!

I want that shirt, but I won't buy it because I know who it supports. But there have been plenty of times lately where I've unwittingly supported Susan G. Komen before I even realized it. I get groceries via Peapod Delivery service, so I can't actually see my groceries when I buy them. So imagine my horror to find that several cups of yoghurt that I'd bought supported the work of this organization. Well, horror might be a strong word, but still. I hate the idea that I can't even buy yoghurt without worrying that I might be supporting a charity I hate.

Is it a big deal? Not really. The amount that these sorts of product sponsorships actually get to charities is notoriously low, and the alternative is that Peapod would note on the product page when a product is supporting a charity (which would be awesome, but I don't expect them to take on that burden).

I just hate it. Am I the only person bothered by this?

Black Friday... capitalist greed? Or just awesome?

2011-11-20T15:14:00.000-08:00

So I read this interesting note on HuffPost about how Target is opening at midnight on Black Friday, and how one employee started a petition on Causes to beg them not to:

'"With the midnight opening, employees like myself will have to leave for work right in the middle of Thanksgiving Dinner," Hardwick said in a statement. "We don't mind hard work, but cutting into our holidays is a step too far."'

Now, I do have some sympathy to this idea. I worked both Thanksgiving and Christmas last year, at my old fast food gig, and both were some of the worst days of my life. My manager had refused to work either day (though, to her credit, it was because she'd worked both holidays for several years), so I was the person in charge both days. On Thanksgiving, our exhaust fans for our fryers stopped working, so we had to work in a smoke-filled kitchen for like 2 hours while we tried to flip various breakers, until a repair person came and cleared leaves out of the nook on the roof where the fans drew air. This was the only problem, but since it was Thanksgiving, you can bet that repair dude got paid BANK.

Now Christmas was really, really terrible simply because we were the only game in town. We were scheduled for a day that could be defined as busy but not outside the norm. What we got were $1000+ hours every single hour after 9 AM (to put this in perspective, for our store, having a $1000 hour lunch, from like 12-1, was really good and happened maybe once a week). Orders were taking a half hour to get out. Some were lost entirely. And I had a crew that, while very awesome and dedicated, were working full shifts without any of their legally required breaks, and there was no way this was sustainable.

And, of course, the store manager was not willing to come in. Because it was Christmas.

So I said fuck it. I made an executive decision and closed the store from 12 to 1 PM. Yes, the single busiest hour, on what turned out to be the single busiest day of the year. Everyone got their half hour breaks, we were able to re-stock stuff, clean up the dining room, do some dishes... believe you me, I didn't take a break that day (I worked a (mostly) voluntary 12 hour shift, because working a 12 hour shift on a holiday with no breaks is something you would get an Achievement for if life were a Steam game), and it was pretty much a shitfest again once we re-opened... but the point is...

I don't remember my point. That day SUCKED BALLS.

But it didn't have to (oh, yes, THAT was my point). In the example above, Target is not really making people work on Thanksgiving much (opening duties which start at 11 PM)... something I was required to do in my much shittier job... and the employees that do have to do any work on the holiday itself are getting holiday pay. And, yeah, working Black Friday also sucks balls (if you're a fast food place right next to a major Black Friday retailer, you're going to get
your ass kicked all day), but if a business plans well, not only can they make the bank that comes from being open on major holidays, employees can feel good about being at work instead of being with their families too. Here's how:

1. Holiday Pay: If you can't afford to pay time and a half for holidays, you should consider not being open for that holiday. During my time at the aforementioned Fast Food Gig, we were bought out from our corporate masters. This meant that employees who'd previously earned holiday pay under corporate would NOT get such under our new franchise masters (who pretty much ruined a perfectly nice workplace in many other ways). Also, they made us open 24 hours during the holidays, where previously we closed early on Thanksgiving and Christmas. People LOVE to earn time and a half without having to work 60 hours a week. If that means they work Christmas, then their family celebrates on the 24th that year. It's not the end of the world.

The point is, employees feel VERY differently about working holidays when you make it worth their while. If you offer holiday pay, employees will VOLUNTEER for shifts. That's a big difference than creating a petition against you.

2. Adequate staffing: Really, it's hard for me to see how food and retail get this so consistently wrong (wait, I totally get it, corporations are more concerned about executive salaries than being the best they can be on the ground), but if you're going to be open for a major holiday, you've GOT to staff with flexibility. In past years, when we opened late and closed early for holidays, we were dead. Sometimes, holidays are totally dead days. But if you're doing anything differently, or if the retail/eating situation in the town has changed (ie, bigger sales, fewer open eating places), you've GOT to over-schedule, and then send people home if you don't need them. I was fortunate not to have any employees walk out on me in either holiday I was PIC for, but I think that was more because of the terrible job situation of that town than my ability to make things work. It was a downright hellish day that December that I worked X-mas, and I'll never forgive either my manager or the franchisers for that.

It could have gone down differently if more people had been scheduled. But you should always remember this ironclad rule of holiday staffing: If you put people on the schedule, they can come in and you can send them home early. BUT YOU CAN NEVER CALL PEOPLE IN ON CHRISTMAS. They won't answer their phones. Would you?

Now, looking back to our friends at Target, it's hard for me to not agree with one commenter:

"I hope Target fires the guy who started this petition. I have seen people fired for a lot less. There is no way it is appropriate for this guy to be giving his company bad public press. I would fire him in a heartbeat."

Now, firing might be harsh (and might have NLRB implications if not handled property), but they're paying holiday pay and, honestly, are not even generally making people work on Thanksgiving. They're working Black Friday. And while I'm reluctant to use the argument about how if they don't like it, they can quit (given the state of the labor market), the fact is that working shitty hours is part of working retail, and as long as people like to buy stuff, that's not going away. These Target employees get to enjoy a full Thanksgiving meal with their loved ones and can still take a nap before heading off to work. That's a lot more than a lot of Shit Jobs employees get.

What do you think? Heartless corporation, or just a corporation giving it's employees more hours to work in an economic downturn?

Why "State's Rights" Sucks for Small Business

2011-10-22T14:56:00.001-07:00

Without getting to the sorts of political discussions which I love to have but try to avoid on this blog, there is one big contradiction in mainstream conservative ideology that I think is excessively telling: State's Rights, as a general concept, is bad for small business.

Why, you ask? Let me answer, with the caveat that my only direct experience with this is in non-profits, but I'll try to let you know where I suspect the similarities and differences are: letting each state do its own regulatory thing creates a MASSIVE administrative and bureaucratic burden.

I often hear conservatives bitch about how onerous federal regulation is stifling small business and economic growth, but in my experience, the opposite is true. Federal paperwork is pretty easy. For any business, for- or non- profit, there's a handful of things you have to do: Apply for an EIN (which is a wonderful number that I'll get into more later), and file taxes. I assume something like an oil company has federal permits it has to get, but I also suspect that there's not that many SMALL oil companies, so for the sake of argument, let's talk about the kinds of businesses that "average Joe's" would start, like a non-profit (obviously), a coffee shop or a software company or an iPad game, or the like.

Taxes

The most complicated part of owning a business is filing and paying taxes. As a single obligation, this is true. The 990 for a large, national non-profit is a bitch of a document to fill out. And small business taxes can get complicated, sure. But it's important to remember that you also have taxes at the state level. You have to file a return for whatever state you're incorporated in, and all states' rules are different.

Now, at this point, it seems worth noting that, for both for- and non- profit organizations, things stay pretty easy if you only do business within your own state. This is both because you only have 1 state to deal with, and because the types of businesses that eternally stay at the state level generally don't incur further federal tax wrath, including vast numbers of sole proprietors (not to imply that sole proprietors can't operate in more than one state, in fact, it's not that bad, in terms of administrative burdens, to do so).

Now, many conservatives contend that the burden of federal payroll taxes is somehow significant for businesses. Yeah, it's a calculation that has to be made, and payment has to be remitted, and I think that in the past that was surely a big deal. But now there are companies like ADP, Intuit and Paychex who provide on-line payroll services that calculate and file all state AND local payroll taxes, direct deposit the paychecks, and freaking OVERNIGHT the pay stubs to distribute to employees. All this at about $16 a person or so. Technology has revolutionized almost all small-business administrative burdens. But the burdens for working in multiple states are multiplicative, and still a pain in the ass even if that state has online filing, where fees can be paid by credit card. Plus, you have to track different registration numbers in each state for Unemployment payments, the state taxes you withhold for income, random city taxes, etc. Ultimately, the administrative burden for payroll at both the state and federal level is surprisingly low, so long as the people in charge of that business have any clue what they're doing. But the states have a much greater ability to make it a pain in the ass than the federal government does.

But while that's pretty much it for federal administrative burdens, there are ALL KINDS of other burdens that states can add. For one, there's sales tax. Now, if you're just selling items over the internet to states that you otherwise have no business presence in, you can usually avoid collecting and paying sales tax in states that people buy your stuff in, as long as you're not storing items in that state or selling them directly, not via the internets. But there are many ways that you can create enough of a business presence in a state to trigger sales tax, and at least in California (a state with enormous administrative burdens), if you establish this business presence for one item, you trigger it for all items (including internet merchandise sales that other businesses without that presence in the state don't have to pay tax on). Now, with California, in addition to the base tax, dozens of counties and cities have additional sales tax, and then when you're remitting your quarterly sales tax, you have to take 1% of all your taxes paid and distribute that among ALL the districts, adding it to what you have already calculated for that district. And if it turns out that you've had enough "business presence" in the state to trigger liability for sales tax, you may have to do the calculations and remit taxes owed up to 8 years back.

That's just California. I have no idea what most other states' rules are for sales tax. The point is that you could, in the course of conducting your business, be creating state level liabilities left and right and have no fucking idea that it's happening. If you are fortunate enough to be successful quickly, it's even more likely that your burden is changing without your knowing it.

Worker's Comp/Unemployment

This is related to taxes, but is worth repeating because it's something that could so easily be handled completely at the federal level. There is federal unemployment tax (FUTA), and that's normally taken care of by payroll processors, as is state-level unemployment. (Which, if you already have a system for administrating federal unemployment, why not just do unemployment at the federal level only?) Worker's Comp coverage can also be covered by payroll processing companies, but not easily. Because each payroll provider contracts with different insurance providers, some just can't insure certain organizations in certain states. None can cover the state of Washington, which must always be applied for and administrated separately. If worker's comp were simply a federal program, it would be much easier to administer... as it is, if you happen to be an org that your payroll provider can't cover in particular states, you have to obtain, file and pay it on your own. And if you do that, you have to do payroll audits, which are a pain in the ass, ask for way more info than they actually need (all of which is just used as an excuse to increase your premiums), and have a complete other set of numbers to keep track of.

Charitable Registration

Now, for non-profits, there's a whole other level of burden to deal with: You generally must register in any state in which you solicit contributions. Not all states require it, but about 40 do, and each and every registration is different. Some use what's called the Unified Registration Statement, but many states require additional forms or attachments even with that form. Most states require you to submit your 990 in addition to a form. Many require an independent audit if your organization meets a certain revenue threshold (which is generally pretty high, but it triggers an expense that is often in the neighborhood of $10,000 a year). Some are outright ridiculous, such as Georgia's requirement that registering organizations supply the name, birthdate, social security number and a 10 year employment history of any control person, which is defined as anyone who, directly or indirectly, has the power to direct or cause the direction of management and policies of the applicant. This includes, but is not limited to, each executive officer or person holding a similar position. And this is all in addition to the 3 page form AND the attachment of a 990 dated within a year. And all of this must be signed and notarized. And, on top of it all, each state has its own due date for renewals, some of which are tied to the end of the org's fiscal year, some are just a single date or date range (often September), and California gives you four and a half months after your fiscal year end to file, with no extensions granted for the main form (forcing organizations to file their renewal possibly months before their 990's are prepared, and creating a double burden of having to re-send the whole thing once the 990 can be filed).

Now, the IRS does a fine job of registering and monitoring non-profit organizations. I can't think of a good reason why there should be a solicitation registration requirement at all (and around 10 states agree with me), but if a state does want to require registration, it should simply be that you file your 1023 or 1024 with the state, and then send them your 990's every year. The info that the individual forms want generally are just the information included in those docs anyway, they probably just have a separate form to justify the fees associated with registration and annual/bi-annual reporting, which range from $15-$200.

Registration Numbers

I mentioned above that the EIN, or Employer Identification Number, is a wonderful number. It's the way the federal government keeps track of all your shit. You have to have one, and they use it for everything. Awesome.

For some reason, it never occurred to the states that they could use this same number to track your shit at the state level. There are so few state registrations that just use your EIN. Some don't even ask for it. And most states have multiple numbers: your business registration number, the number associated with your charitable registration, your number used to remit unemployment taxes, the number associated with your Worker's Comp account, the number for your sales and use tax account, etc. Even states like Washington that have a UBI, or Unified Business Identifier, often still have other numbers for each department of state government that you need to report to, they just have the ability to look you up based on either number (sometimes).

Again, this is obviously a manageable burden. If your organization has it's shit together. And that's the rub... when you exponentially increase the amount of knowledge a business or organization needs to have in order to remain compliant, you make it harder to do so, and you cause orgs to shift more and more resources in a never-ending quest to know all the stuff they have to do, and then actually do it. Ultimately, it could have the effect of reducing entrepreneurialism or reduce the number of people crusading for important causes. But more likely, it just leads to non-compliance, which just leads to expensive fines and wasted time for everyone.

Does your head hurt yet?

This is what happens when you let each state operate as it's own sovereign unit. While the federal tax and registration burdens remain generally the same as an organization grows, their state obligations grow incredibly large. It's manageable, if you're paying attention and know what you're doing, but that requires organizations to have their shit together. And when we're talking about organizations that only pay a barebones staff, which are focused on the actual programs or the products or on making enough money to eke out those expenses, the amount of time that an organization needs to spend on fulfilling these obligations is a waste of a precious commodity.

New York is not so goddamn different than California that it needs to have a completely different system to do the same exact set of things. And if the federal government is tracking all these things anyway, why allow states to increase the administrative burdens of businesses that, if you believe Republicans, are already breaking their backs under too many straws?

Stay tuned for a (much, much shorter) post about why I think politicians ignore all this in favor of ragging on the federal government.

Every Day is a New Opportunity for Generosity

2011-10-16T07:58:00.000-07:00

So, I have a personal philosophy that I'm surprised more people haven't taken advantage of... in general, if someone on Facebook asks me to give them money, I generally do it. I mean, for a good cause (though nobody has tried to get any money for pizza from me... it's possible that a well-written appeal might get me!)

There are only two exceptions so far to this:

1. I won't give a damn penny to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. She knows why.

and

2. I have given to Habitat for Humanity before, but I don't like to, and probably won't do it again (it was a special situation where the networking assistance of that donation was likely to pay off in the future). I dislike the culture of home ownership in America (I can give you more details on that if you like), it's religiously affiliated (I won't give to a charity that I know to be religious), and I think that building houses is a waste of people's time and money when there are thousands upon thousands of houses sitting vacant.

But pretty much anything else - Birthday Causes, Philanthroper daily charity stuff etc - I tend to give when asked. This even extends to wedding and other gifts... if I know you and you post your registry info somewhere I can find it, there's a good chance I'll send something your way. I figure it's part of building a community of friends who value friendship, generosity, and charity, and are willing to part with a couple bucks when it means helping someone else. Also, soon (very soon) I'll start plastering Facebook with calls to donate to the non-profit I'm starting, and I'm hoping that by spreading a little goodwill around, some will come back to me (I'm not holding my breath, but it can't hurt).

So my current cause is Heidi Jensen's call for donations of $24 to the Children's Miracle Network. I don't object to children (well, children's charities), it's not religiously affiliated (despite being founded by Marie Osmond, among others, and being headquartered in SLC), and has a pretty good record. 89% or so of money goes right out to hospitals. So I'm gonna do it. I encourage you all to think about it, and think about the ways that you can bring more sharing and generosity into your lives! It's totally worth it. :)

The Innovate: Why I invented it, and why it's awesome!

2011-10-15T10:01:00.000-07:00

I've been mulling over this article that Alison Green over at Ask a Manager sent me a week or two ago about compensation in non-profits: You Should Be Able To Get Rich In Charity, and it took me all this time to figure out what I really think about it. The author makes legitimate points, and poses the scenario:

"Suppose a great and resourceful leader came along and said, "I will end world hunger within the next 10 years. That achievement will be worth billions upon billions of dollars of measurable value to society. Trillions, eventually. But if I achieve that goal, you must make me the wealthiest man in the world." Would we do it?

Of course we would. Who would begrudge hundreds of millions of malnourished people the end of their suffering because of a disdain for the idea of one person becoming wealthy?"

And it's true... capitalist theory proposes that wages go up in order to retain the best talent; ie, that if you have a truly exceptional person, the value that they add to your company/organization are well worth that extra compensation, and thus it is actually profitable to pay higher wages (this should, theoretically, be true at ALL levels of employment, but somehow only CEO's, other executive and consultants seem to benefit from this ideology).

But, I think, in the end, I disagree. I mean, I think in the above scenario, the non-profit in question would absolutely have to take the deal. That's not the problem. The problem is that people think it's OK to accept millions of dollars in compensation that could be re-invested in the company and the cause. I don't fault organizations for offering the compensation, I fault the people for accepting it.

But I think I know a better way.

I've long thought that nobody needs to make more than $1 million a year for any reason. They just don't (I actually believe this is true for $100,000, but since we're talking about for-profit sector wages going into the $20 million a year range, I'm willing to be flexible). But the problem is the exact problem alluded to above: if the best guy can get $22 million dollars to CEO at Bank A, and Bank B, in a progressive stupor, will only pay $1 million, where do you think he'll go? Again, I fault the person for taking the money, but that's aside from the point. How do you offer reasonable salaries and still attract talent?

I call it The Innovate.

Basically, instead of having a salary of $5 million, the employer would offer a new hire a salary of $1 million plus $4 million "innovate." Yes, I have nouned the verb. Here's what it means. Innovate is money that would normally have been salary (thus, it's already budgeted out as just going out the window, it's extra). If you took the above offer, you would have $4 million to invest in the company/organization however you damn well please. You could raise some other people's salaries. You could create a new division. You could invest in infrastructure. You could hire an interior decorator. As long as it benefits the organization, and not you (and, of course,
is not spent on hookers and blow), you're good.

You may ask yourself "Why would that help? How is that different than just offering a lower salary and re-investing the remaining money in the company?" Because this would attract and retain the best employees.

You see, study after study shows that money is, in fact, not the primary motivator for how well people perform on the job. More important is to change the way people feel about their jobs. As this Forbes article articulates, two big ways to improve performance are to increase autonomy and status. Having a huge Innovate would increase status (since that would be public, unlike your salary), and giving huge chunks of money to your best and brightest and letting them do whatever with it is giving them mad autonomy.

Think about the various jobs you've had. If you're even marginally good at it, marginally interested in it at an intellectual or creative level, you always have opinions about what could or should be improved or invested in that those idiots on the board (or your manager, or whoever) just don't understand. Imagine if you were given, as a reward for your great work, a chunk of money and told: "Invest this wherever you think we should." Wouldn't that be cool? At lower levels, it could be as simple as replacing a broken chair, getting an espresso machine for the employee lounge, or painting the waiting room a refreshing new color. At higher levels, you could create entire new departments. You could raise wages of cashiers across the board. You could start an employer matching IRA or 401K.

If that prospect doesn't excite you, then you aren't nearly interested enough in your job and are not the type of person that should be promoted to new levels of responsibility or prestige.

The thing that probably scares people about this idea is that in order for it to be effective, it has to actually be autonomous. It can't be subject to the approval of the Board or higher-ups. It's risky.

But it's also trusting money you were going to give away anyway to your most promising people. In that respect, it's not very risky at all.

As additional benefits, this means that raise money is serving double duty: it's increasing your employee's happiness and autonomy, improving their job satisfaction and performance, while also still being reinvested into the company. Firms will grow more and faster. Organizations will do more good. And while some risks don't pay off, many do, and this will give companies the opportunity to innovate in ways they've always wanted to with less risk. Capitalism thrives on new ideas, and this is a great way to see if shit will work!

OK guys, what do you think? Is it worth exploring? How would you tweak the concept?

The Tax Deductible Kerfuffle- Part Two

2011-10-10T08:39:00.001-07:00

Hello! Sorry about the delay... I'll be better, I promise.

Last time, I promised a Part Two, another tax reform that I think would help non-profits... it just won't help all of them.

As some of you may know, I work at a drug reform non-profit. It's terribly important, and it's really frustrating sometimes that people don't understand it. Legalizing marijuana at the federal level would, according to studies, increase revenue (through a combination of savings and tax revenues) by $23 to $30 billion a year. That's huge. And that's not even mentioning the people who would be able to go to college who couldn't before (certain drug charges, including some basic possession charges, make you ineligible for federal Pell grants), people who aren't getting shot when their homes get raided because they have a small, personal-use amount of marijuana (it happens surprisingly often). It's incredibly important.

But the thing is, it's not more important than making sure that people, everywhere, have adequate food, clothing and shelter, and aren't, you know, getting raped and genocided all the time.

It's just not. I think it's good that so many causes are represented by so many organizations, and the bulk of those orgs are doing good work and providing decent jobs. But I have to admit to feeling weird about the fact that a donation to my organization is worth the same tax deduction as a donation to CharityWater, which provides "clean and safe drinking water to people in developing nations." It's my favorite "essential" charity, and they do great work, seeking long-term solutions to water issues. In fact, this is a great example of something essential... clean, potable water reduces disease, reduces conflict, creates sanitation and the ability to heal from wounds. It seems undeniable that this is more important than drug policy, or breast cancer research, or most anything else... not because those causes aren't important, but when you're dying in childhood of diseases unheard of in the first world, it's not much comfort to know that people aren't getting arrested for smoking weed or that breast cancer survivors are... well, just that.

Why doesn't the tax structure of America reflect this?

While it would almost certainly hurt my own non-profit (not only the one I work for, but the one I'm creating), I think you should get a bigger tax deduction for donating to essential services. Food banks. Homeless shelters. Water charities. Aid to developing countries. Helping out after natural disasters.

The main complaint I think we'd hear about this is that it would add an immense administrative burden: how do you determine what charities are "essential," and how do non-profits get that status?

But, given that the 1023 (for 501(c)3 orgs) and the 1024 (for other section 501 orgs) is a HUGE task for any non-profit, and takes around 6 months to get an answer from the IRS anyway, I think you could just tack on another schedule (or, say, Form 1023e, for "essential"). The 1023 and 1024 are the forms a non-profit files with the IRS to gain official recognition as tax exempt and, additionally, to gain recognition if they qualify to have donations to their organization be tax-deductible for the donors.

I don't think this would need to be done in a way that hurts non-essential orgs, either. You could leave the current deduction the same, and just make the ones for essential services much, much bigger. I would even venture to say that such donations could be 100% deductible... that is, the services are so important that the government is willing to subsidize it almost completely, because it's something that they want to do, and should do, but obviously haven't. It would make it easier to fundraise for those causes because, well, I think it should be easy! It shouldn't be difficult to convince someone to give money that will save another persons life like, tomorrow.

What do you think? Would such a scheme hurt the non-essential charities too much? Or, really, would that be such a bad thing, if essential causes were being funded at triple or quadruple their current amounts?

And what do YOU think would classify as an "essential service?"

The Tax Deductible Kerfuffle- Part One

2011-09-11T11:42:00.001-07:00

I'm only assuming that that's how one spells "kerfuffle."

To my mind, there are two problems with the current model of tax-deducible philanthropy. One is who gets the benefit, and the other is, well, another kind of who gets the benefit.

First, it's great that charitable contributions are tax deductible. It basically means that the US government outsources both the social services it provides and the decisions about which services money should go to.

Wait, that doesn't sound good at all! Sure, there are a lot of social services government provides (and they're mostly less than solvent at this point), but I'm not sure if "everyone" is the best person to decide which social services are priorities, especially when most people give to charities based on how their heartstrings are pulled, or what diseases their family and friends have. Pluralism is the very legitimate idea that if everyone is asking for what they want, all viewpoints are represented and those with the most voices will get heard (and funded). I just don't think that it works for democracy (a clusterfuck of lobbying firms is really better than a small group of people who actually know what they're talking about and have no financial stake in the results making law? Really?) and I'm not sure its best for philanthropy.

But perhaps worse is that it's not "everybody" making these decisions. Granted, the poor and middle classes are actively involved in philanthropy, and tend to donate more money (as a percentage of their income) than the rich, but ultimately it's still the rich that have the most impact on philanthropy (Hey! Just like in government!). The reason is simple: You have to itemize your deductions on your taxes to claim any deduction for charitable contributions. Only 30% (or so) of Americans itemize their taxes, and those tend to be the more wealthy people... not only because they stand to gain more of a deduction (since a $10,000 donation will yield a nice chunk off your taxable income), but also because itemizing is more complicated, and the tax system is not well known for being user-friendly for those who can't afford accountants or tax preparers.

Which means that the government is really only subsidizing the preferences of the rich. If you think X charity should be supported, that's cool, and it's still something since that charity doesn't have to pay taxes on that donation, but the government is actually paying richer people for their preferences. If you don't itemize your taxes, you won't get any personal benefit from that donation you're making. And even if you do itemize, the standard deduction is right around $5,800 (give or take for different circumstances). Did you donate more than that to charity this year? If not, you're still better off taking the standard deduction

So what's the solution? Well, for this tiny corner of the "kerfuffle" problem, why can't they just make it so your deductions for charitable contributions are added to the standard deduction, so you don't have to itemize? It would help poor people a lot, and it would help rich people marginally, so you could still get Congress to back it. I suppose the question would become, then, why not make that the case for all deductions? There are all kinds of deductions and credits that you can only get if you itemize... they just tend to be relevant to smaller groups of people (and they are often home-ownership related, so it's easier to get a deduction better than the standard deduction). Whereas there are very few that you can still get easily without having to complicate your taxes... the only one I can think of is the Earned Income Credit, designed specifically for lower income people. And the answer to that is, of course, I'm not a tax expert, and I have no idea what the implications of opening that can of worms is (other than that I'd be fine with scrapping deductions for mortgage interest and other home-ownership deductions entirely, since I believe that the culture of "you're not really a grown-up until you own a house" is generally bad).

Well, I think that's enough ranting for today. Keep your eyes peeled for Part Two, where I'll propose an idea that I don't think is crazy at all.

Checking References... ah, how I wish I'd done it!

2011-09-03T09:33:00.000-07:00

Alison Green over at Ask a Manager recently had a post about what reference checkers ask, and I've been sort of mulling it over ever since. When I worked at my fast-food job, helping with hiring, I never checked references. No one did. To my knowledge, I've never had a reference that I put on an application called for anything. None of my previous managers checked references before hiring.

In retrospect, of course, this is silly. I've heard all kinds of stories about supposedly stellar candidates who ended up not being that, so much, after talking to a single person who'd previously worked with them (including people the candidate had listed themselves as references).

The reference guide that AAM gives in the aforementioned article is actually very good. I was worried at first, since it's four pages, but that's just because it has a worksheet to go with the example questions. It's really not very long... a 5 or 10 minute conversation with a previous supervisor, based on that handout, would reveal all kinds of things about a candidate that you won't otherwise learn until they're on the floor. Very useful stuff.

So, why didn't I do it? I've mentioned here before that fast food managers don't seem to grasp that they are part of a profession, a career for which there is all kinds of training and resources. These places (fast food and the service sector in general) tend to be very, very badly managed as a result. In retrospect, the lack of training for positions like that is truly absurd. Even in my last food job, which has the best management training I've ever seen in that sector, the management training was more focused on giving tips and tricks then on actually developing management skills.

When I have my own organization, I'll probably use that reference guide as-is. But I think the fast food industry would improve so much with the engagement of very basic management techniques, and the reference check is probably the absolute easiest to implement.

PS: My favorite thing about the Management Center's reference check guide is that it begins with an introduction to the company/organization. It makes total sense, but I never would have thought of it. But the person giving the reference is obviously going to be better able to determine if their former employee would be a good match for the new job if they know what it is!

How to get a Foundation job... and a non-profit stereotype I had no idea about!

2011-08-11T19:32:00.001-07:00

Jan Masaoka over at the Blue Avocado (which is, for the record, just about the best non-profit sector newsletter you can subscribe to) has a great article about How to Get a Foundation Job. Some highlights:

1. The intro:

An old joke: How do you get to become a judge on the Supreme Court?
Answer: Be the college roommate of a future U.S. Senator.

I was trying to find a way to make that my status everywhere on the Internet, but it's a bit long for iChat, so I gave up.

2. Tip Number One: "Be related to the founding donor. You may have already made the strategic mistake of not being born into the right family or not marrying the right guy."

Which leads me to the most interesting thing I learned from this: that apparently, Foundation jobs are regarded as the plushy, plum jobs of the non-profit sector. Apparently, they are higher paying and involve less work. However, they also seem to involve more "being related to rich people," which could be a significant downside. Kidding! Mostly!

But the fact that the author (who, by the way, is the Editor in Chief of said publication) treats her subject with such effortless parody tells me that the bulk of what she's saying is truly true.

It also reminds me of the second best twitter feed in the world (and the best one that is still running, curse you fake Rahm Emanuel!), which is the wonderful nonprofit nonadvice. Really, if ever there was a good reason to use Twitter, this is it (and it is, in fact, the most I've ever gotten on Twitter... I don't really get it. I guess 25 is too old!)

Some tasty nuggets from nonprofit nonadvice:

"Turn former volunteers into donors by shamelessly begging them for money"

"Monday Morning #np TIP: Grant makers often award funding based on how many "likes" your org has on #fb."

"The most important quality to look for in a potential board member is "Old Money."'

and the perpetual classic:

"Never thank donors. THEY should be thanking YOU."

I think the point of this post was non-profit stereotypes. I've heard we're also underpaid. The end. :)

Netflix: A Question for your Manager

2011-06-22T17:49:00.000-07:00

I've really enjoyed a lot of this Netflix internal presentation for salaried employees (and you can see the previous entries in my blog for more discussion on other aspects of the presentation), but there is one concept that I think really stands out:

"To avoid surprises, you should periodically ask your manager: "If I told you I were leaving, how hard would you work to change my mind to stay at Netflix?"

I think that's an entirely fair question. I wonder if managers would respond well to it, out of the blue? Is this something that I can reasonably advise all people to do?

It would definitely lead to more open and honest dialog about performance... unless the manager pusses out and just says "Oh, of course I would fight to keep you. You're awesome!" Which I worry managers would say, if blindsided by the question.

Maybe the key is to ask via email.

I think I'm going to try a fun experiment: I'll ask my boss tomorrow. He's certainly not read this presentation, it will be interesting to see what he says. I hope he doesn't interpret it as my already having an offer somewhere else and firing me... I guess we'll see!

Anyone else want to join me in this grand experiment?

Netflix: A Team, Not a Family

2011-06-16T18:40:00.001-07:00

Today's delicious nugget from the supremely interesting Netflix Internal Presentation is an idea that pretty much every fast food place has already sunk it's teeth into:

We're a team, not a family.
We're like a pro sports team, not a kid's recreational team
Coaches' job at every level of Netflix to hire, develop, and cut smartly, so we have stars in every position.

Now, when I hear that, I laugh a little. Because it seems like that's the mantra of every job I've ever had, especially my last one at a national fast food joint. How is it possible? You really think you're going to have a superstar in every position?

At least it's a little more likely to happen in salaried Netflix jobs than in fast food. And I think this is the central reason why, as I mentioned yesterday, these sorts of principles can't really apply to the lowest level of employee: because there are certain jobs that the vast majority of people just can't stand. Even if you compensate well, provide a nice work environment, etc, peeps are still working at a call center. Nobody works in shit jobs because they want to (well, I should qualify that. There are always weird people who just thrive on a totally different environment than what normal people do. It's OK), they work there while they have to and get the hell out as soon as they get the chance.

Call centers are a great example of this. In my hometown of Idaho Falls, the coveted job for young people (at least while my older sister was a "young person") was at Center Partners, which was some sort of call center. But while they (like most call centers) fairly consistently pay better than what someone with the needed skill set (being able to be in polite society for 8 hours a day without freaking people out), they still have ridiculously high turnover. And while studies indicate that the biggest reasons for this turnover are boredom and the lack of a career path, there's really not that much to be done about either. It's like how the worst part about being a janitor is cleaning up other people's shit: It sucks, but it's kind of what the job is about. To the extent that you're having people do stuff other than taking or making calls, you are directly hampering the point of the call center.

Of course, there's a balance. If taking hour long lunches increases morale enough that you save the money you would have made by cramming calls into that time, it's obviously worth it. But shit jobs have the eternal problem of just being plain shitty jobs.

Do I have a cure? Sure. Don't I always? I think the cure for this is the cure for a lot of personal ails all around: Make it a 4 day work week. Having three day weekends or Wednesdays off (meaning you never work more than 2 days in a row) does remarkable things to make a shitty job more tolerable.

That's not in the Netflix presentation. But I still think it's a good idea.

Netflix: Can a Call Center have Freedom and Responsibility?

2011-06-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

If you are at all like me, in terms of being a business nerd, then you should really read this presentation, called Freedom and Responsibility, which the blog Hacking Netflix found about that company's internal culture, compensation policy, benefits, and all sorts of other awesome tidbits.

I've been reading this a little bit at a time since it came out a few days ago, and really digesting each portion, and there's a lot of interesting ideas in there. I imagine I'll cover this in 3 or 4 posts total, each segment more exciting than the last (probably).

The first thing you see is telling: "Freedom and Responsibility applies to our Salaried employees: our Hourly employees are important, but have more structured roles."

Which is a bit disappointing. I assume this is because turnover at call centers is so consistently high that they can't afford to risk such an important part of a company's public face (customer service) to whatever weirdos and liabilities they may have hired last week.

BUT, I'm sure there are a great many entry level salaried jobs at Netflix, and that you don't have to wait until you're a VP to enjoy this kind of freedom.

Still, I can't help but wonder, and it's a question that will be a guiding theme of my coverage of this presentation: What would happen if you applied these ideas to hourly employees? Surely Netflix's treatment of managers and salaried employees can teach us something about managing cashiers and call center peeps. But the risk is higher: you're giving freedom to people who are not only the literal face and voice of your company at the ground level, but people who are usually working in high-stress, under-staffed jobs where it's easy to become dependent on employees who show up but often cause problems or make mistakes.

Just some ideas to think about on our magical journey through Netflix's Employee handbook.

Should salaries be public?

2011-05-29T12:33:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've been thinking of the issue of employee pay. A topic kept notoriously secret in most workplaces, knowledge of pay levels is a powerful tool that only the employer has access to. But the problems with this are obvious... for instance, women still only make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes, and there are countless cases where this has only come to light when a woman inadvertently learned the pay of an "equal" and was able to raise a complaint concerning the discrepancy.

So if you overhear Employee A discussing their salary with Employee B, and you tell that number to Employee C, who gets super pissed off about it because their pay is a whole lot less, what is the solution? What is the issue? Of course, there are a million legitimate reasons why one person at the same salary "level" could make significantly less or more than others. But employers also clearly love keeping this info a secret (presumably because it would piss people off, and take away their power tool).

I'm wondering, what would happen if every employer were legally required to disclose the salaries of all employees publicly? I'm not necessarily advocating this, I'm just wondering what effect it would have.When you're applying for a job, the employer must be completely forthright about the salary range they will consider. In the office, there's a notice on the bulletin board that shows the salaries of all people working there.

Would this be uncomfortable? Sure.

But would it be bad? I'm not convinced. First, pay discrepancies at the same level would be immediately known by all parties. This means that the employer must always know, and be able to articulate, why Person A makes more than Person B. Racial and gender discrepancies that are due to racism and sexism would presumably disappear almost entirely (there are all kinds of other reasons for racial and gender discrepancies than racism and sexism, but it would be a start), for one. But I think this would also inspire a more honest ongoing dialog about performance between employers and employees. If you're in the same job as someone else but making $5000 less a year, and your boss says, "Well, that's because she did this, this and this last year, whereas your major accomplishment was only this, and that is less valuable to the company," that gives you a real idea of where you stand.

Competitiveness might not always be a good thing, I admit. But I have to think there is a value to having flesh and blood performance bars to live up to. In the above scenario, the person with the lower salary doesn't just hear "You did a great job on this major accomplishment!" they hear "You did a good job on this major accomplishment, and that's valuable to us, but here's what your salary could look like. And here's a daily example of what kind of work that really looks like."

In any given department, the person with the highest salary would set the bar. Others would know how much that person makes and why, and have a clear standard that they interact with daily to remind them of that. But the person at the top would also know that their position, and would know that the objectives are clear for those nipping at their heels.

And finally, it would put employees in a better position when asking for raises. When you can say "He makes $5000 a year more than me, but in the past 6 months I've accomplished X, Y and Z, clearly performing better than he. I deserve to be at his same pay grade, because I know exactly how much you are willing to pay for this level of work."

What do you think of my fanciful universe? Genius or terrible? Give me some scenarios.

Firing Peeps for Facebook Comments Illegal!!!

2011-05-29T12:07:00.001-07:00

In what I think is spectacular news for workplaces not being able to spy on their workers 24/7 in the new digital age, the National Labor Relations board has declared that a New York non-profit acted illegally when it fired employees over posts made on Facebook.

The Board decided based on the idea that employers cannot restrict the right of workers to discuss their jobs with their co-workers. The idea, I assume, is that in cases with unfair or unsafe work conditions, being able to talk to co-workers can be the only way to bring such issues to light.

The non-profit argued that the statements amounted to harassment of a co-worker, but this article seems to imply that all the comments were about workload, staffing and program management issues, without any indication that any one person was unlawfully targeted.

Interestingly, the harassment claim can be difficult to make. While a workplace generally can fire people for any or no reason (the beautiful At-Will Employment agreement, which substantively only protects employers), in a case like this, where the Board seems to think the firing was illegal, the only way the non-profit could really argue against it would be if the harassment itself were illegal; ie, if it were the harassment of a legally protected class (sex, religion, race, ethnicity, marital status, etc). And it could well be that lines were crossed, since the non-profit in question is Hispanics United of Buffalo, a place where one can assume race is not the banned subject that it would be in most workplaces (granted, I tend to think places where dialog is more open and honest will experience fewer problems, but there's a reason why employers often go for a no-tolerance policy with anything regarding a protected class).

Clearly, there are still gonna be some instances where firing people because of Facebook comments is legal, even if there's no protected class involved. But it's nice to know that in this day and age, with our online identities being so important to our offline, there's still some space to be honest and be yourself, without having a CONSTANT "omg what if my boss saw this?!" filter. That's no way to live.

Cover letters are for more than just jobs!

2011-05-21T08:32:00.000-07:00

The importance of writing a good cover letter cannot be overstated. While resumes have an important blow-by-blow of your actual experience and contributions, your cover letter is where a prospective employer gets to know you, can start seeing how your personality meshes with the culture, how smart you are, and all the intangibles that really make the difference between getting the job and not.

In asking "Is the resume dead?" the Evil HR Lady (with the help of the fabulous Alison Green and yours truly) makes the case for a biographical cover letter. Above all, the cover letter should communicate everything you want them (your potential employer) to know about you that you don't mention in your resume. It should tell a story about how an awesome person developed all these cool skills and now wants to dedicate themselves heart and soul to X company.

But this skill is definitely not limited to the cover letter.

Sure, developing your writing skills is always good. Being a strong and mistake free writer and communicator (a goal sadly just beyond the horizon for the vast majority of us) will help you in pretty much everything you ever do ever. It will aid you in getting a job. It will help when placing your order at McDonald's. But it will also help you get an apartment.

I live in (or around) Washington, DC. and am looking for a place in the city. The area that I'm looking at is hyper competitive, despite high rent. And yet, I've had a pretty decent response rate (and have had two places offered to me).

When a person posts an apartment on Craigslist, they're looking for three things in a future tenant:

1. The ability to pay rent on time and in full.
2. The ability to not be noisy or annoying.
3. The ability to not be weird or crazy.

Really, other than the first one, those are the first things that an interviewer will pick up on in a job interview. But they won't know that you're not crazy because you say "Additionally, I'm not at all crazy." Quite to the contrary... people are often suspicious when you just bring something like that up.

The ability to communicate that you are a serious (yet fun), honest, stable, intelligent, awesome and not crazy person without saying directly that you are those things is crucial in both the cover letter and that initial email to a prospective landlord. There are many ways to do that, but pretty much all of them involve simply being a good and practiced writer. Some tips for the job and/or apartment search:

1. Know your audience and tone. It might suprise you, but I think the audience for the apartment search and the job search are mostly the same. Your tone should be professional but not stilted. Use colloquialisms. Don't use the word "ain't." Write like you would talk, were you in an interview (or chatting in the kitchen you hope to be yours). That is to say, I would never balk at using the word "awesome" in pretty much any situation, as long as the topic were actually pretty awesome. So I have no problem using it in a cover letter, in an interview, or in a eulogy (I haven't done this, but I'm sure I will). The more authentic your writing is to your personality, the more that personality will shine through.

2. Be specific. Sure, you have attention to detail. But nobody will believe you if you just come right out and say it. Give an example of your incredible attention to detail and how it saved the day. Don't say you're a good neighbor, give an example of the old lady who used to share a wall with you and how she said she'd never heard any noise from you, ever, even when you had friends over. Demonstrating your good traits is how they know that you're not a liar, or crazy.

3. Be honest. Nobody is the perfect candidate for a position. There is something about you that is less than ideal. Come right out with it. And don't give a shit answer like "Sometimes, I work too hard." Even if it's true, be honest about it: "In the past, I've actually missed deadlines because I can be a perfectionist, and I wanted it to be absolutely perfect before I turned it in. So I may need guidance about how important or flexible a given deadline is." You see that? Now they know an actual flaw that you have, and they also know that you're aware of it and will be willing to worth with them to resolve the issue. Same with a rental. If you don't get paid until the 3rd of the month, bring that up and make sure that you can pay rent by the 5th and still be fine. My biggest flaw (in terms of the housing market) is that I'm a hermit crab. In an area where group houses are common, there are plenty of people who want a fun, social roommate, and it's better to know in advance if your personalities won't mesh, or if they really want someone who will just stay in their room most of the time.

Once I really started putting more thought and effort into the emails I wrote to prospective landlords, I noticed a distinct uptick in the number of responses I've gotten. I've also had several places that I was planning to look at but didn't because I was honest about my needs and circumstances, and we were able to go our separate ways before anyone wasted their time.

Personality goes a long way, and the ability to express that personality in written and verbal forms will help you in all walks of life. Has anyone else had an experience where they got something they wanted because they were willing to open up, or because they applied job hunt tools to other aspects of their lives?

Robots are the future of everything

2011-05-09T20:36:00.001-07:00

Although they don't appear to make the big bucks... yet...

The Chronicle of Philanthropy has an article about fundraising robots. Which is fine with me, asking people for money all day is one of my least favorite things about working in non-profits or politics.

One was designed by a 21 year old college student, and the other is, surprisingly, not Japanese. Korean, though.

Don8r, the Scottish robot (and, in my opinion, the cuter of the two) only made around $43 in about nine hours of "work," whereas Dona (the Korean) makes a good $30 an hour.

If I saw a charity robot running around Union Station, I'd probably pop some change in there. Whereas I often avoid giving money to bell ringers at X-Mas time. So I think the idea has potential. Plus, they'd be almost useless to the overlords during a robot invasion, so that's always encouraging.

Good help is so hard to get...

2011-05-06T20:37:00.001-07:00

But not as hard as good management.

The fabulous Ask a Manager asked me to help her out with a reader's question, and it's got me thinking:

"I am a 16 girl that has just started my first month at a fast food restaurant. I have a manager that has a bad attitude that affects my working habits. I'm still new and so I have lots of questions and issues with the cash register and packing. It seems like every time I ask for help, she gets irritated but still helps me. I'm trying the best that I can, but when she corrects me, its not in a gentle, nurturing way that helps me, but a aggravated, getting-on-her-nerves-and-messing-up-things kind of way which makes me shut down and mess up even more. It makes me even more nervous because knowing that she has the power to fire me. Can you give me advice on how to handle this situation or how to approach her or the how to respond the next time she pulls me to the side to coach me? And provide some advice on how to take the criticism and improve myself by not getting nervous and messing up? Thank you!"

-Girl who just can't get it right.

This question is interesting to me, because I think it's actually closer to the norm than it is to any kind of anomalous situation. I say this with all due respect to the numerous food industry managers that have been great friends and from whom I've learned a lot: every one of them have been bad managers. All of them. There are, I think, two main reasons:

1. People don't tend to be in fast food management because they're passionate about fast food or management. They're there because they're making the best of a bad situation. There are precious few people who truly thrive in that kind of environment (the hardest work you're likely to do all your life for the lowest pay), and those that would usually end up with better opportunities.

2. Honestly, I think that it doesn't really register to most fast food managers that they're actually managers, that they are members of a large, well-researched and professional field. It would have never occurred to me that there would be blogs out there like Ask a Manager to help me hone my craft (I discovered that gem in my job search). The pitfalls of bad management are easy to fall into when you don't even realize how easy it is to learn a better way!

But all that doesn't really help our friend here. The problem is, how do you deal with bad management at a fast food restaurant? I have two answers: Effort and friendliness.

My first fast food job, my manager was kind of a bitch. I mean really. She was harsh, and mean, and didn't seem particularly interested in helping people do better. The first three months or so that I worked there, I didn't think I would make it. Every day was a struggle against managers that seemed to sabotage me, noticing every little slip up and making me more and more nervous and angry.

The most reassuring thing I can say about this is that while your manager has the power to fire you, she probably won't. And as odd as it sounds, it's a very good sign that your manager is still taking you aside to make you feel bad. That means she thinks there's hope. Remember, this manager hired you because she thought you had potential, and she's already invested money into that potential. She hopes you succeed. So to that end, you just have to keep trying. Any fast food job takes at least 2 or 3 months to gain solid proficiency. Some people are quicker, some are slower, but even being slow doesn't mean you won't get there (this is not something I put on my resume, but my learning curve for all my fast food jobs was noticeably slow. Once I had it down, I had it down, but it took longer, and managers noticed). You just have to prove every day that you're willing to do what it takes to get there.

And on a related note, not only do you have to be willing to do the gruntwork, you have to do it with a smile on your face and a song in your heart. Fast food politics are brutal, but there is one person that a manager always likes to have around: Someone who's always in a good mood, always happy to help out (especially when they see their teammates needing a helping hand) and always friendly to both customers and co-workers. The gossip and cliquishness is tempting, and can offer you haven in a hostile workplace, but ultimately you need to be able to get along with everyone you work with, and managers (even bad ones) will notice someone that is universally well-liked among their colleagues.

Finally, show ambition. Express a desire to stay for the long haul (don't worry, they understand that the "long haul" for a 16 year old is until college) and be promoted. Don't be pushy about it, but make it known to your manager that you want to learn everything you can in hopes of moving up the ranks. All that manager hears all day long (and probably all she says herself) is how much the job sucks. Someone who doesn't have that attitude is a refreshing change.

It's not an ideal job, I know, but I promise that you can learn so much working in fast food that will help you wherever you want to go. It's high stress, but if you can deal with lunch hour on a Saturday with a cranky boss and two co-workers calling in sick, nothing that any other job presents will compare. Well, except maybe being a doctor. Or nurse. Or something like that. But I digress. Good luck!!!!

Journalism that "Moves Share Prices?"

2011-05-01T19:04:00.000-07:00

Does that sound right to you?

I was perusing a jobs site called Simply Hired (after learning about it for the first time in the Blue Avocado's recent review of the best non-profit job posting sites), which looks astoundingly like Indeed.com, so much so that I think they must be the same company, when I came upon a job posting for a "Level 1 Journalist" for Thomson Reuters. Knowing a few journalists as I do, I figured I'd take a look, maybe post it to Facebook with a few friends tagged.

Of course, when Reuters is hiring a Level 1 Journalist, they really mean someone with at least 5 years experience working for major news organizations... sure, that's fine. But I was surprised when I saw this statement on the job posting:

"The correspondent in this job will put laser-like focus on U.S. Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, warnings and policy decisions - news that dramatically changes how diseases are treated and moves share prices."

Now, this is not as weird as I initially thought. Reuters has long been involved in the reporting of stock prices (as well as being the first news organization to report on the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Thank you wikipedia), and they've long had heavy involvement in market and financial reporting.

But something about that still rubs me the wrong way. Of course, news impacts share prices. News impacts reality and creates its own news, as much as it seems like the Daily Show is the only news outlet that wants to admit it. And they're not really asking for someone whose reporting will impact share prices, just that they would report on the news that moves share prices.

But doesn't it seem a touch crass to have that right there, out in the open, in the job posting? Is nobody even pretending anymore that news doesn't seek to change reality, and merely reports on it?

The Daily Show had a great clip show the other night about how all the news organizations were wondering if "all the news organizations could stop covering this Birther stuff now that the birth certificate has been released," to which Jon pointed out that it was obviously up to them, as they were the ones reporting it in the first place. Major news coverage gives stories like that traction in the first place, and allow relatively minor stories to become the national spotlight, because once one news outlet reports on it, pretty much everyone else has to.

I could have an entire, separate blog about the problems with the American news media. But that job posting really made it all pop into (and now, out of) my head. Am I wrong? What am I to expect?

Inflection Points and the Non-Profit/Political Sectors

2011-04-24T19:47:00.000-07:00

I was super pumped this evening to see that one of my favorite bloggers, Shadox over at Money and Such, had posted a new entry. See, he's like me, in that he hasn't been posting much lately. ;)

Anyways, his post is about Inflection Points. Great inventions and leaps forward in technology that changed the course of history. Heady stuff. Specifically, he referenced new techonology that basically reduces the cost to get payload into orbit by a factor of six. It's pretty cool.

But this got me thinking: is there some technology like that that could revolutionize the non-profit sector? I don't know if it counts as an Inflection Point, but I think what happened on the Obama campaign in 2008 was too big to ignore. While Obama obviously had the support of rich establishment Democrats, the amount of money he raised in small-dollar increments (often just $25) was astounding. Hillary did this to some extent too (obviously; she remained competitive with Barry long into the primaries). The involvement of people who had never been involved before was truly inspiring. I worked on my campus during college for the Obama campaign (he still owes me $100), and I saw a lot of the action second hand while working a congressional campaign in New Mexico during that cycle. There was something in the air. And when Obama won, against all odds, it truly felt like politics had changed forever.

Of course, nothing like that happened. I have many thoeries why (though this isn't a political blog, so you'll have to ask if you want to know), but it makes me wonder: can that something be tapped into for the future? I read a lot of blogs every day about how non-profits can best use social media to raise awareness and money, but despite the many vehicles for doing so (philanthroper, Facebook's Causes, text message donating, adding a buck to your Ebay purchase for a charity), it doesn't seem like these ideas have revolutionized anything. Now, these things definitely make a difference. The non-profit I work for makes a bit of scratch from Amazon royalty programs, the charities that Philanthroper features make a couple hundred extra bucks that they definitely would not have otherwise made, etc...

But where are the masses? These are the ideal platforms for young people to dive into philanthropy in a way that our 30-something forefathers never did. Donating is super easy, and you can now donate very tiny amounts (like $1 or $5) in ways that are practical; ie, ways that don't cost $4.75 to process, leaving your actual impact small or perhaps even negative.

I suppose the problem is the same as it's always been: We're asking people to give up their hard-earned money to causes that they will probably never actually see fulfilled (progress will be made, for sure, but while there are a few non-profits out there who close up shop because their mission is fufilled, they're still bureaucracies that benefit from their own failures), with the reward of feeling good about themselves (and maybe a mug). Is the problem simply that philanthropy has a limit? That there will always be significant proportions of the population that will simply never give?

What do you think?

Customer Service Chat: Reviewed

2011-04-03T10:24:00.000-07:00

Surely you've all noticed a new feature on many shopping websites: the new Customer Service Chat. Basically, it allows you to IM with a Customer Service Agent while perusing the site.

This isn't too new, it's just that I avoided using them for so long... for reasons I don't fully understand. I think it seemed scamming or something. Then, one day, it occurred to me: I HATE calling these people on the phone. I'm just not a phone person. And with email, there's always at least a day or two delay (and often more; in the last month, I've encountered two major websites that have such a backlog of email requests that they sent automated notices days later that they'd received the note and that it would be answered within a week or two, sorry for the delay, etc).

So I was on Maurices.com the other day because I'd received a defective item from them, but had received a refund, rather than the requested exchange, and because I hadn't been refunded all shipping costs, and was looking for a phone number or email or something to vent into. I saw the ad on the side to chat with customer service and thought... why not?

Since then, I've used customer service chat on OfficeDepot.com and Amazon.com as well. Here's the good, the bad, and the ugly:

1. Almost all of my chat conversations resolved my issues. At Maurices, I gave them my order numbers and they figured out what had happened (my exchange had been mis-routed in the warehouse), and that person had the power to issue refunds, credit, etc. This is key to good customer service: the first point person should have the power to resolve the issue in 90% of cases. This was how it worked at my previous fast food job: any given crew member had the power to replace an order, give someone a free shake, etc, because corporate understood the importance of empowering the crew to make those kinds of decisions. I actually had two chats with Maurices, and both times the person understood my problem and was able to quickly resolve it.

2. It's a bit cheesy. They clearly engage in trickery to make you think the response is more personal than it is. The customer service person clearly has a large selection of stock responses that they can copy and paste (why wouldn't you? I imagine at least 80% of the questions they get fall into one of 5 or so general categories), but when they use those, there's a big gap of time... they're waiting, so you think they're actually typing the response. It's a bit silly... I'm OK with the use of stock responses, so long as it's clear they actually understand the problem.

3. Training, as always, is still everything. Sometimes, it's clear they DON'T understand the problem. This was the case at Office Depot. I decided to hop on and complain about the way products were packaged for delivery. Office Depot (and I'm sure all other office supply houses) use a RIDICULOUS amount of packaging. They use too many boxes. Instead of consolidating items and using fewer boxes, they use tons of inflated plastic filler. The straw that had broken my back, though, so to speak, was the use of a box with dimensions of (at LEAST) 14/14/10 to hold two clipboards. Those clipboards would easily have just popped into the top of one of the other 3 boxes of stuff. So I got on Customer Service chat. At first, the guy suggested that if I had a problem with the clipboards, I should leave a review on the item page. I explained to him that, obviously, my issue had nothing to do with the clipboards (they were very nice), and that it had to do with the way they were packaged. So then the person assumed I'd had a problem with the delivery itself. Close, but no cigar. Unfortunately, I was at work and got distracted by something going on, and by the time I got back to the conversation the guy had logged off, so I don't know if we would have eventually reached a resolution. At the end, though, he was still asking if I wanted to leave a complaint about the delivery person, whose fault it was obviously not, despite explaining the problem at least twice in a form that the guy could go back and reference.

4. Automated customer service chat is lame. Ebay.com has Emma, an automated customer service chat person. This is just lame. Can people really not just search the Self Service area? It's the same process. If the info you need isn't in the self-service help, the automated version with a girl's name is not going to help you. If it's not a real person, it kinda defeats the point.

5. It's the best of both worlds. I truly believe this. You get the immediate responsiveness of phone service, with the impersonal-ness of email service. The customer service agent can probably handle more than one chat at a time, and I can be doing other work while getting my issue resolved. Plus, it's easy for them to send you links (at Amazon, I was putting in a comment about a mistake in an item description, and the customer service agent was able to take my complaint and then show me on the item page the place on the item page where I could submit errors in the future) and help you use the website more effectively.

Overall, customer service chat works. It's faster than email, doesn't involve being on hold, and usually hooks you up to someone with the competence and power to solve your issues. It's great that businesses are using all available methods to achieve great customer service; one size definitely does not fit all, but this one suits me particularly well.

You Only Get What You Give

2011-03-28T20:45:00.000-07:00

I love that song.

Anyway, this post has nothing to do with that song. Though it's a fantastic song. This post is about leveraging your synergistic shared value.

Kidding! It's just about shared value.

"Shared Value" is the sexy new way of saying "Corporate Philanthropy." They needed a sexier term because it's becoming increasingly unpopular to give away shareholder money expecting nothing in return. Something about theft. It's actually a very interesting concept, which I and those I link to explain pretty well in this post.

But, luckily for the third world, some companies are finding ways to profit off good fortune, rather than just misfortune. Nestle has a program whereby it helps poor coffe growers improve their yeild and reduce their impact on the environment. The result is win/win: The farmers have better crops, and make more money. Nestle has an improved supply of coffee. Citigroup does something similar, providing seed money as well as business management support for small business owners and entrepreneurs. Banks realizing that they have a vested interest in the long term success of that clothing store they loaned $20,000 to is definitely a good thing. And more companies engaging in similar projects will definitely be a positive trend for good in the for-profit world.

But is it philanthropy?

One could argue that if you're making money, it's not *really* charitable anymore.

That's why they call it Shared Value instead.

5 Ways Facebook Changed Everything

2011-03-20T15:05:00.000-07:00

In an attempt to quell the bitterness I feel every day about having a really great blog idea for Valentine's Day, then forgetting about it until the day after Valentine's Day, I'm going to discuss a topic I've been thinking about for months: Facebook.

And this is not because I use Facebook every day (although I do), or because I always have a Facebook tab open on my browser (Mousehunt needs tending to every 15 minutes). This is because there is not a single industry that hasn't been changed by social networking. And because I don't personally like Twitter very much.

1. You can use Facebook to sign into every other website in the world. I hate having a million logins and passwords for everything. LastPass helps with this, but it's still a pain to have to sign in all over the internet. But my desire to leave comments in random places on the internet remains. Luckily, I can now use Facebook to sign in to almost any website that needs signing into. This has the additional benefit (or downside) of making it easy to cross-post content. There have been plenty of times in my life where I was discouraged and ultimately abandoned a new website simply because I didn't want to give them information or have to think of a username. Problem solved.

2. The Newsfeed: Everyone hated it when it originally came out. Referred to it as the Stalker Feed. Which it was, in the sense that you saw the information that people posted on Facebook with the intention of being seen by you. It took Facebook from being a digital yearbook with pages to peruse to a way to keep up with friends without having to look up each of those friends individually every day.

But it did more than that. The feed became a way to keep up with everything. Much like how people smarter than I use Google Reader or RSS Feeds, I have Facebook set up to show me the news of the day, as it pops up. Every time any major news network publishes a story, it pops up on my feed. It's great, because it allows me to follow news, sports (if I cared about sports), car talk, weird science and new Cracked.com articles in the same way, and in the same place, as I keep up on the latest Friend news. I like having all my shit in one place. It lessens the chance that I'll forget to check it for months on end and miss something good.

3. Allowing greater interpersonal socialization. I hear people complain all the time that Facebook friends aren't "real" friends, that internet socializing isn't "really" socializing (I have a whole rant about that here). But the fact is that I am connected to people I haven't seen since elementary school. I'm connected to friends that have moved across the country. And ultimately I'm doing the same thing I would have done if they were sitting right next to me: link to funny videos on the Interwebs and talk about politics/religion/philosophy. As added icing, I can keep tabs on all the most talented people in my life so that when I'm running my own company/non-profit in the future, I'll have access to some serious talent that, importantly, are at least to some degree known quantities.

4. Creating an ad structure that is useful, non-intrusive and moneymaking. Yeah, I know everyone hates ads. I'm not a giant fan, but I am a big fan of Facebook, and I understand that they can't do what they do for free. In order to have great content on the Internet, I have to be willing to endure either ads or a subscription fee. The music industry had it's reckoning on this (somewhat) already, in that it's increasingly difficult to get free music. But Facebook has managed to create ads that are unobtrusive (I HATE ads that move around or flash about, because they slow my page loading) and even useful; I've discovered good sites through ads. It's not perfect, but ads on FB are by far better than ads on any other site I've ever been to.

5. They could create the ad structure of the future. They're already on this one a little. If you "like" Skittles on FB, they sometimes will use that information to advertise Skittles to your friends, with your specific endorsement. This practice is already pissing people off, because who wants to be used as an advertisement, and especially without getting a cut? My question is, why the hell aren't they just being more direct about it? I love The Daily Show and would gladly endorse it to my friends. Why not just have a check box next to The Daily Show on my profile where I grant my explicit endorsement?We all love products, but the way to tap into the whole "word of mouth" concept is not to be sneaky about it. They're on the cusp of creating something incredible: The first useful internet advertising. You know, advertising that leads you to buy products you'll actually like and want.

Who's afraid of the big, bad franchise?

2011-03-05T19:12:00.000-08:00

So my roommate just got a job (her third job, actually, meaning she is currently working three jobs) at the local Great Harvest Bread. This is great news for me.

I don't know if you've ever had Great Harvest Bread. If you haven't, go to the store locator, find one, and try it. You don't need to buy; every GH store gives free full-slice samples. It is, hands down, the best bread I've ever had. And I've had some bread. My mother in law bakes bread at home. I've had Dave's Killer Bread. Nothing comes close.

But, one might object, what about the local baker? Isn't it important to support local business? (I'm from Oregon, and am generally of the hippy persuasion, so I hear this a lot.)

The answer I ultimately have to give is no. I think that, right now, it's good to buy local ingredients and items when possible. However, once we finally get off our asses (so to speak) and master the use of alternative energies and fuels, driving products across the country in an electric truck that is charged with solar energies will have little effect on the environment. And I tend to think that even now the benefits we get from global trade outweigh the negatives of sourcing from far away places (though my good friend over at Green Vegan Living might disagree).

However, even buying at Wal-mart, you're still supporting your community. Your neighbors work there. While that shirt you're buying was almost certainly made in China, and obtained using ethically questionable bully distribution tactics, the person bagging your groceries lives in your community, and buys stuff in your community using their wages.

For the record, I don't shop at Wal-Mart, because their tactics as a business do not agree with my being a good person. But many people seem to object to the very corporate idea, the idea that a single person (or group, or bunch of shareholders) own stores all across the country, so when you buy from a franchise or chain, no matter where, you're ultimately sending your dollar to New York or LA or wherever the parent company is based.

This is marginally true. A portion of your dollar does go somewhere else. It pays for a customer service call center in North Carolina, or it pays middle managers at the corporate headquarters, or it goes into the pockets of the 12 year old who made that shirt. Sure, a few pennies goes to the guy at the top, the guy we all hate (and I hate because I think for-profit companies should follow non-profit compensation practices, but that's another blog entry), but substantively your money goes to the people who produce your goods and run the company that provides them. I don't see what's so bad about that, even if they don't live in a 20 mile radius of your person.

But don't kid yourself. The mom and pop stores you support are the same way, they just don't have the power to be truly evil about it. They negotiate prices from distributors just like Wal-mart, they just don't have the power to put those distributors out of business by walking away. They cheap out on labor. And to boot, they are often very poorly managed, because while Wal-Mart has the resources for a competent HR department, middle managers, and training seminars for executives, mom and pop probably don't even Google search good management practices. I'm not saying all small businesses are terrible; there are definitely ones who are not interested in growth or expansion, who pay employees well and are well-managed. It's just that in my experience, they are in the minority.

But, fear not, you silly hippies. Remember Great Harvest Bread? They are a national chain with a strong philosophy of community. Franchisers have a ton of freedom to run their own business, and many Great Harvest stores source everything except their wheat (which comes from a dedicated farm in Montana) locally and/or organically. It's a great hybridization of the corporate franchise and the entrepreneurial spirit. It's a chain that I don't think anyone needs to feel bad about supporting.

I think big business has some serious shortcomings to overcome. But the solution is not to blindly support local business as though they're inherently better. Chances are, they buy their shit from China, too. After all, they've got a business to run.

Tyranny at Idaho State University?!

2011-02-20T18:35:00.001-08:00

How much power should a president have?

If a president thinks there need to be reforms, but the faculty stand in his way, who is in the right? What should happen?

If you hadn't guessed, I'm not talking about national office here. I'm talking about the peculiar politics of American universities. In particular, a university in my home state of Idaho, ISU.

Idaho State University is a pretty big (15,500 students) public university centered in Pocatello, ID. And from that strange corner of the state, a far-reaching controversy brews:

The president, Mr. Arthur Valias, seems to be less than popular. I base this on the various articles that I've read about the controversy (this one is the best) as well as the stated opinion of the handful of people I know that attend the university.

This is also based on a recent no-confidence resolution passed by some 75% of the voting faculty in the ISU Faculty Senate (as well as a 55% vote of no confidence among all faculty at the university).

That is a big deal. Politics or no, you don't see 75% of a 30 member faculty senate representing all campuses, departments and levels vote no confidence because they're the problem. At that point, I think you begin to suspect the person in whom no one has confidence as being the problem.

Not the Idaho State Board of Education! At a meeting where the problems between the senate and the president were discussed (these are issues the faculty has with sweeping governance reform that the president is trying to enact), they discovered that an impasse existed between the faculty and the president, and that neither side was going to budge enough for compromise to be possible.

So it decided to suspend the Faculty Senate. And by "decided," I mean that Valias told them they should suspend the Senate because the faculty were being obstructive in matters beyond their purview.

The Chronicle of Higher Education (linked above) notes that this is an apparently unprecedented move in national higher education.

The next step? Valias apparently now gets to convene a new advisory committee of his own, consisting of faculty that were not in the senate. According to the SBOE, it remains to be "worked out whether, and to what degree" current members of the Faculty Senate will be allowed to participate in the new Senate, which will be designed by Valias and proposed to the SBOE in April (or eventually; they don't seem too concerned). To be fair, there are many other standing committees of faculty that will continue to function in the capacities they always have, so the faculty will continue to have a voice, supposedly.

This may seem all very one-sided to you, because it is. I've had a spectacularly hard time finding anything that paints Valias in anything close to a positive light. And it's no wonder, because all of his comments seem to indicate that he thinks the faculty should have a purely advisory role, and should have no actual power in determining anything about the school at all, even when the topic of discussion is organization of faculty governance roles (which is a part of Valias' reorganization plan).

I've read blog posts that compare Valias to Charles I, which may be extreme, but doesn't seem totally inappropriate. How on earth can this administration continue to function? Whether or not the reform passes or is abandoned, how will Valias continue to administrate a school where the majority of the faculty think he is terrible? How can he ask faculty to just forget the insult of having their democratic body summarily dismissed?

Really, I think the only good ending for this whole debacle is an ending where Valias isn't president anymore. Regardless of whether the reform is just or unjust, you simply cannot do that to your faculty and expect things to go well from there.

This would be like if an ED of a non-profit had a staff advisory committee that disagreed with a new, sweeping re-org, and in response the ED convinced the Board to not allow that staff board to convene again, and authorize a new board designed by the ED. In fact, that is what is happening now, because state schools are tax-exempt entities. Does this seem like a good way to run things to anyone, at all?

Should there be fewer non-profits?

2011-02-18T18:47:00.000-08:00

I've been perusing Idealist.org lately (that's a lie, I've never NOT perused that site, this is not a new development), and seeing the huge huge HUGE number and range of non-profits has got me thinking: does it really serve the good to have 15 organizations all dedicated to breast cancer research?

The organization I work for now used to be part of another, very large organization that does many of the same things. The goals of both groups are really the same, but the methods are quite different. One seeks to be uber-professional, the other is more counter-culture. As a result, one appears to have more success at the policy level, but the other is definitely more well-known and popular.

But ultimately, are these differences organizational differences, or people differences? The two groups I referenced above used to be one organization, but mine split off due to artistic differences. But was it a genuine belief that one model would be hands-down better than the other? Or was it a group of people who discovered that they all had differing ideas of where the group they'd founded together was going? And the important question that arises from that: could they have done both? Is it possible that a group can save resources and resist competing by working together and remaining as one, while still having two distinct methods of operation?

In the case of my organization, I genuinely don't know. I wasn't around for the split and I have no firsthand accounts from either side. The two groups do work together from time to time, but there seems to be a touch of animosity as well.

I can understand why this difference arose with my particular segment: drug policy. But breast cancer? Is there a rift between "For the Cure" and "Save the Tatas?" I can't help but think that these rifts are more significant to the people who head up these organizations than their constituents. With good reason, because you expect your Executive Director to be on top of that, to take into account how wording that letter differently will have a different effect, or determining whether a logo is professional enough or cool enough.

But do non-profits with the same goals really need to be competing for the same donors? Should a philanthropist really need to select from 15 non-profits that all want to end breast cancer? No, I don't think so. I really feel that a lot of these cases are simply Founder's Syndrome, because everyone wants to be an ED but no one wants to be a middle manager. And sometimes, its simply a matter of one person being unable to take orders from someone else, one person who is incapable of subverting their own ideas about how things should run.

But, as there always is, there is a converse to this. In the marketplace of ideas (god, how I actually hate that expression, if not the idea), what's wrong with some competition? In the for-profit world, competition increases efficiency, lowers prices and causes organizations to compete for the best staff. Eventually, bad firms fail if they fail to compete.

Is this so bad for the non-profit world? I mean, yes, it is bad, because when an organization tanks it takes donor (and probably government) dollars with it. But if there is genuinely an advantage in being professional versus being counter-culture, the difference should... well, make a difference! The successful organization is one which accomplishes its goals, does so using donor funds wisely and well, and as a result is able to procure more donor funds.

My worry is that this isn't happening in the non-profit world the way it should be. If there really are 15 breast cancer stopping organizations (there probably are, but I didn't count), they're competing, but none appear to be failing. There simply cannot be 15 best ways to deal with this problem. It's possible that the drug policy world benefits equally from both our approach and the original group's approach, though I'm not sure. Do you think non-profits tend to become more entrenched than regular firms? Or am I only imaging this... the example of Verizon vs. AT&T comes to mind. Surely, they cannot be equal, and there's probably very little difference, philosophically, in the way they function. Can it be that it's good to have two (or more) more or less equal organizations working completely separately for the same goal?

PS: I'm totally going to do a future post on Founder's Syndrome. It's a fascinating topic.

Job Posting: Staff Attorney for Greenpeace!

2011-02-08T18:24:00.000-08:00

Hey all you recent law school grads! The job does say two years practicing as an attorney are preferred, but that doesn't mean required! If you're passionate about the environment, you should consider applying!

POSITION TITLE: STAFF ATTORNEY

DEPARTMENT: LEGAL

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, DC OR SAN FRANCISCO, CA (with initial training period up to two months in Washington, DC)

SUPERVISOR: SENIOR ATTORNEY

Greenpeace is the largest international environmental campaigning organization. We use creative and confrontational tactics to run effective and hard-hitting campaigns that inspire our members and help protect the planet. The five areas we focus on are global warming, protecting the oceans, stopping deforestation, shutting down nuclear plants, and exposing the risks of toxic chemical plants.

The staff attorney will be responsible for handling a variety of legal matters under the supervision of the Senior Attorney and General Counsel. This position is necessary to help the legal department handle an increased workload due to the coal campaign that is expected to last at least three years.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. Provide legal advice to project teams and departments, as assigned.

2. Conduct research and write memoranda on various legal issues, including employment, environmental, tax-exempt and criminal law.

3. Draft and review contracts, leases and other legal documents.

4. Provide pre-publication legal review of public information.

5. Assist in briefing activists on legal rights regarding nonviolent direct actions.

6. Other duties as assigned by the Senior Attorney and General Counsel.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Education:

· JD Degree

Skills:

· Strong oral and written communication skills.

· Strong legal research and analysis skills.

· Excellent interpersonal relations skills.

· Careful attention to detail.

· Ability to work independently and effectively on multiple tasks. under tight deadlines.

· Commitment to the principles of peaceful direct action.

EXPERIENCE/ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

· Membership in the D.C. or California Bar, or eligibility to waive into these jurisdictions.

· A minimum of 2 years’ experience as a practicing attorney preferred.

· Experience in drafting contracts preferred.

· Experience in one or more of the following areas of law a plus:

- Tax-Exempt Organizations

- Criminal

- Employment

- Environmental

How to Apply: Please send resume and cover letter to resumes@wdc.greenpeace.org by February 23, 2011.

More New Adventures!

2011-02-07T17:32:00.000-08:00

So, my new job is going very well! I'm enjoying the people, the cause, and I have a desk, if you can imagine. Two drawers are currently being used for junk food.

Problem is, I'm an intern, so I am strictly limited to working 40 hours a week. This may not seem so bad, but think of it this way: The last time I had an office job, it was on a congressional campaign. Which, for those of you who have not had the pleasure, means I worked a minimum 12 hour day (9 AM to 9 PM, often later), 7 days a week. My average work week was 88 hours.

Now, I'm not saying that's what I'm looking for in a job. On a campaign, you have a very finite amount of time to get everything done, and a hard deadline: Election Day. You work your ass off for two or four months, take a few weeks off, then travel to a new part of the country and start all over again. It's fun, but its exhausting. That just wouldn't, necessarily, be good for a full-time, forever job.

But, on the other hand, you can see how it feels like I'm just getting nothing done with only 40 hours to work on it.

So, in an attempt to fill my extra hours with something other than sleep and riding the Metro, I've been coming up with little projects; I'm writing a political ethics book, I spent like 20 hours shopping for winter boots (in February). Important stuff.

But now I'll have the joy of a task that, while daunting, will be helpful for my non-profit future...

I'll be completing and filing Form 1023 with the IRS, an Application for Exemption.

Its for my non-profit; even though I won't be doing anything with it for awhile, I decided I should really at least get it set up and file my paperwork before the window closes where the tax exemption will retroactively apply to the beginning of the organization (which doesn't matter, because it hasn't done anything in the past year).

For those of you who don't understand, you should know that most of the interwebs, not to mention the IRS itself, recommends that this form be filed with the help of an attorney. Why? Oh, its just super complicated. These applications can take months for a professional to put together.

BUT, I figure I've got some advantages. First, I know my org inside and out. I created it. I've researched every step of the way and called the IRS and consulted with an attorney who was nice enough to give us like 2 hours of free advice (and whom we will definitely retain once we're up and running)... I feel like I'm ready.

I think I can do it. I guess we'll see how long it takes for the "OMG THIS FORM IS SO FRIKKIN STUPID!!!" post to appear. :)

Less than a rousing success

2011-02-05T12:08:00.000-08:00

So you may recall a couple weeks ago I posted an entry about having tough talks with employees (in this case, addressing sexual harassment cases head-on). And I was busily tooting my own horn, discussing how being direct with the employee had caused the problem to go away and it was a great lesson to everyone about the power of talking to your employees instead of just hoping problems resolve themselves.

Well, it turns out that that very employee was fired shortly after I left. For what, you might ask, but won't because it's terribly obvious? Sexual harassment.

It turns out that when I talked very seriously with this young man about how he had to be careful what he said at work, and that he simply couldn't talk to people in the way that he was, he didn't make the cognitive jump to apply that same advice to taking off his pants in the freezer for a confused and grossed out co-worker. And he was promptly, and correctly, fired for it.

Sigh.

So what lesson do I learn here? Did I really need to say to him that sexual harassment is about more than just saying the wrong thing? He had, after all, watched the corporate video on sexual harassment, which includes helpful role-playing to show what is appropriate and what's not. I would not have thought that pulling down your pants after asking a co-worker "Do you like this?" would fall into any kind of gray area.

Maybe if I'd had a better conversation, made him re-watch the video, something... maybe it wouldn't have happened. Maybe he's just an incurable creepster. I don't know. But I suppose my advice is this: Be specific, but also be general. If a person doesn't understand that certain conversations are not appropriate, maybe he also doesn't understand that certain gestures aren't.

And don't be afraid to ask for help. Maybe if I'd gone straight to my corporate HR person, he would have had an action plan to prevent all this from happening. It could happen.

Top Blog Picks: February 5, 2011

2011-02-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

Hey Readers! Here's a look at the best of the non-profit, business and related blogospheres for the last couple weeks. Enjoy!

My Non-Profit Experience: The amazing Madelyn has a great post about voluntourism, and links to several more great articles and resources about this lovely combination of personal vacations and philanthropy (not to mention talking about her recent trip to Malaysia for Habitat for Humanity).

The ABC's of College: Despite giving some very bad advice about preparing for job interviews, this blog has some really great interviews, including this one of a budding jazz musician from New York. It's nice to read stories about people succeeding when all we see in the news are people failing in this economy.

NTEN: This blog has a great discussion on how non-profits and small businesses should deal with new technology when they often don't have a staff that can handle all the issues that come with it. Luckily, it also has tips for improving your technology department in ways even very small organizations can use.

Employed Panache: As usual, Nicole has something great to read going on in her blog! My pick this time (since I can never decide which outfits are the best) is her post on resume-writing tips. Really, I can't get enough of articles helping people write good resumes, cover letters, preparing for job interviews... mostly because so many people still don't follow it! Give it a read.

Through Non-Profit Eyes: This is a somewhat funny post on how not to use social media. Gaffe aside, it makes the point that organizations need to be sensitive to how their message is being put out there in all mediums, and that something bad in Twitter is likely to become something bad worldwide sooner rather than later. I'm actually planning a post about some other ways your group might be sending the wrong message, but that is for a later date.

There you have it! Back to your regularly scheduled blog entries soon.

Pepsi Refresh: A new model of for-profit philanthropy?

2011-01-30T09:20:00.000-08:00

The blogosphere seems indecisive about Pepsi Refresh, the well-advertised program where Pepsi took the money they would have spent on a commercial during Super Bowl XLIV (don't even ask me what number that is) and instead giving grants ranging from $5,000 to $250,000 to non-profit groups and charitable causes, as voted on by you! Vote here.

But the project has not been without snafu. It launched to immediate technical issues that forced them to shut down the submissions page, and some have complained that the site is difficult to navigate and understand (I had no problems, but I just signed in through Facebook). The most interesting issue, however, is the categorization used for the entries. According to Soap Box Included, one Larry Moss, a contestant in Refresh for his Airigami project, said "It doesn’t make sense to me that art projects are competing for the same money as humanitarian projects. Voters are actually asked to choose between feeding the homeless and building balloon dinosaurs. That’s not right.” And that's true. In my voting today, I was saddened to see how many projects got big votes for things like buying new equipment for a Journalism program at a high school, or planting trees in low-income neighborhoods, but projects that create homeless shelters, fund housing for domestic abuse victims and create transitional housing for aged-out foster children get relatively few. Those votes definitely don't reflect my priorities.

But you know what? I think that's OK.

Part of corporate philanthropy is that, in theory, its entirely voluntary. Having trees in low-income neighborhoods is better than not, I can concede that. And if someone wants to spend their money on that, who am I to stop them?

But

And communications professional Ron Antonette seems to think that Refresh will pay off for Pepsi, too (which is consistent with a need for a profit motive in any corporate philanthropic adventure, because to not do so is tantamount to theft). While they won't have the "eyeballs" on the ad that Coke will, there has been entirely separate media coverage for this campaign (not to mention that there are TV spots about Pepsi Refresh going all the time), so the estimates are that Pepsi will make more money going this route than they would have with a traditional Super Bowl Ad.

Now isn't that just the definition of win-win? Good (or at least mediocre) charities get grants, and Pepsi gets the revenue wants for its investment.

The fact that this is both good and profitable means that it could indeed serve as a good model for corporate philanthropy. But can consumers be relied on to like companies that donate money to good causes over companies that don't? Probably not, given that many gay people probably eat ad Chick-fil-A and Target, and that people at all still shop at Wal-Mart and other big box stores. People are not very good at putting their money where their values are.

But Refresh works with that too. You're not expected to just know that they're a good company. They have a whole initiative here where you get to vote on where the money goes, you can follow it on Facebook, you can be involved. That helps.

Really, given that they use a precious finite resource (water) to make an incredibly unhealthy and resource-intensive product (soda), it would be a stretch to call them "good" company anyway. But it's definitely a start.

Breaking into a New Niche: Introduction

2011-01-29T08:12:00.000-08:00

Hello all! I've been thinking a lot lately about ways to break into new fields. The main thing about that: It's really difficult. Even in the best of economic times, people and businesses don't like to take a chance on an unknown, and nowadays there is little reason for them to when they may have 50 other applicants with experience and knowledge in the field. I managed to get a job in the non-profit world after two years of fast food, but I didn't luck into it (well, I did a little, but you have to work to have luck on your side).

So I'll be spending a few entries discussing ways to get your dream job in a field you've never worked in before. Or a field that you do work in, but that usually doesn't pay. Or working for yourself in a field where you've only ever worked for someone else. Or doing something that barely counts as work at all.

Surprisngly, it can be done. I hope to have examples of (and interviews with!) examples of each category above. I can't gaurentee you'll succeed, but if you do the work (and, of course, have a little talent and luck), it can happen. Stay tuned!

A Significant Debt

2011-01-25T20:20:00.000-08:00

I've been going through some big changes in my life recently. I'll be on my third day of a new job tomorrow; a really incredible job with a great organization that I moved from the Portland, OR area to Washington, DC for. I'm (finally!) advancing my career and my life in the directions I want them to go.

And while I feel every confidence that I've earned it, I know that I owe my budding success to a few people who simply must be acknowledged.

First, of course, friends and family. Particularly my boyfriend Geoff, who is willing to endure several months of separation (he still lives in Oregon) so that I can pursue my (our) dreams. We are all the product of those around us.

Alison Green of askamanager.org gets the next big applause. She hired me! She showed me everything a great blog could be, and taught me so much about good management through it. She took a chance in hiring me sight unseen, based on a cover letter (for another position, no less), my comments in our little internet niche, and this blog. And she continues to be a mentor and idol of mine. If my other 300 links to her blog haven't convinced you to read it yet, go do it now.

Rosetta Thurman is a force of nature in the non-profit world, and her intelligence and savvy are a big part of why this blog is as good as (I think) it is. Her 31 Day to a Brand New Blog is a rigorous exercise to put your blog through, but it pays in dividends... ultimately, that exercise got me the job I have today. Plus, Ms. Thurman is a font of inspiration on everything non-profit, and is a gleaming example of the possibilities our generation bring to the table.

And finally, I cannot exclude my former place of employment in this list. While I don't want to name them here (I did, after all, electronically sign rigorous confidentiality agreements which I'm pretty sure I haven't violated at all, but I want to cover my bases), I can tell you they are a major fast food chain that, in many ways, changed my philosophy about how the service sector can work. This chain was the first to offer health, dental and visual benefits to all employees, regardless of level or part-time status, after three months. They have a strong training program. They promote from within. They build a sense of company loyalty in employees that, in my experience, is unprecedented. It's really a shame that our franchisers so completely ignore the basic philosophies of their corporate counterparts, but that's all in my past. I just hope that those who remain in my store keep fighting the good fight, keep giving them the feedback they don't want to hear, and keep working hard to prove that they are worth the trouble.

I learned (and still learn!) a lot from Alison's management blog. But being able to apply it there made everything come together. Fast food is not a segment where managers keep up on the latest management blog. In fact, by and large they don't get any real training on management at all. I don't know if I made any kind of lasting impact, but I do know that I saved at least two jobs from being axed without warning, and mentored a wonderful employee from discussions about firing to being my replacement, just by helping her show the talent and drive she had all along. I will miss working there, especially the people and some of the customers, but I definitely won't miss the burns (I got myself particularly badly my last week there), the customers who spit on your face because you're out of an item, or the office politics. It was an important part of my life, but I am ready to move on.

I just have to figure out how to afford to take the Metro every day :s

Again, thank you all. And thank you to the readers, even the ones that didn't offer me jobs. :) Be assured that I eagerly look at my pageviews and gain immeasurable gratification from each and every one of you. You leave wonderful comments, and we've had some good discussions. And I hope to gain more of you as I move to the next phase of my life!

I can't tell you how grateful I am to all these wonderful people in my life.

Bad Customer Service

2011-01-23T18:25:00.000-08:00

Recently, I bought a fabulous coat on Alibaba.com (well, AliExpress), which is basically Chinese Ebay. They have a generally good reputation, so I didn't hesitate to buy from them.

My Mistake!

So the coat arrived, and was very nice. Exactly as pictured, very soft (and still for sale, I posted a thing on FB about it, I'd love to sell it for $70 OBO, it's the black one). But its just too small, especially in the shoulders. So I send a message to the seller that I would like a refund. No response. I send about 4 more messages, no response. AliExpress has an instant messenger service, and I attempted to contact the seller on that too. No response.

I want to point out that simply not doing refunds is not a problem. Had they responded to me, and told me they would only do exchanges, not refunds, that would have been fine! It was the complete lack of response that bothered me.

And I shop online all the time, I understand that sometimes things go wrong. I've had sellers on Ebay just not receive a message I've sent. But they've always gotten the second, and we all chalk it up to a misunderstanding and go our merry way.

So the time finally comes, I leave negative feedback. Here is the IM conversation that followed.

Kimberlee Stiens: Hello are you there?

Kimberlee Stiens: I'm about to leave negative feedback, this is your last chance!

guangjin caiyuan: hi

Kimberlee Stiens: Hello, I just had to leave you bad feedback. :( I just need to return an item, but you never responded. Can I return for refund?

guangjin caiyuan: Hello. Your side what circumstance. Please tell us,

Kimberlee Stiens: The item is nice, but does not fit

guangjin caiyuan: Please tell us the specific situation, we put your feedback to our boss, thank you.

Kimberlee Stiens: I bought it, but it is too tight across the shoulders. I have sent at least 4 messages asking how to return the item and receive a refund, but never got a response. I will be happy to change the feedback when I get a refund. Order Number:100127049

guangjin caiyuan: We have a complaint you

guangjin caiyuan: Sue you distort the truth and the affect fair trade.

Kimberlee Stiens: ???

Kimberlee Stiens: The "truth" is that I'm unhappy with my item, wrote you four times, never recieved a response. Poor customer service.

guangjin caiyuan: We have a complaint you,

guangjin caiyuan: You don't solve problems with our negotiation.

Kimberlee Stiens: What does that mean?

Kimberlee Stiens: Is it supposed to be "with out negotiation?"

Kimberlee Stiens: Because I tried to negotiate (four previous times) and still am

guangjin caiyuan: Because you don't contact us. You only according to your mean judge matter.

Kimberlee Stiens: I contacted you four times via message, and attempted to chat another time!

Kimberlee Stiens: FOUR TIMES! No Response!

guangjin caiyuan: no

guangjin caiyuan: We are very angry, the way you do things. Don't talk with us.

Kimberlee Stiens: Well, no is a good answer too. Look, you can give me a refund and Ill return the item and change the feedback, or the feedback can stand. Up to you.

guangjin caiyuan: We have a complaint you

guangjin caiyuan: You are dishonest.

Kimberlee Stiens: How? I sent you messages, you never responded, and now I'm giving you a chance to make it right. Are you going to give me a refund or not?

Kimberlee Stiens: I probably won't buy on Ali again, given how this went, so I don't care you give me negative feedback. YOU are the ones who will have to keep selling with poor feedback.

guangjin caiyuan: We just query your order number. We completely according to your message for you as commodity. Then free sent to you. You do make our company has a great losses.

Kimberlee Stiens: Well, you only lose money if you give me a refund. Are you giving me a refund?

guangjin caiyuan: You have done very bad things,

Kimberlee Stiens: ? Are you giving me a refund or not? I will revise feedback if you do.

guangjin caiyuan: I will give you the information release in many places. Tell them you are a liar.

Kimberlee Stiens: I don't understand. Please rephrease

Kimberlee Stiens: *rephrase

guangjin caiyuan: Your attitude is very unfriendly, we Sue you. You threaten us,

Kimberlee Stiens: What threat?

guangjin caiyuan: To copy sucstressed unfriendly. Don't You contact us to solve problems. Directly to our bad of feedback.

Kimberlee Stiens: I am dissatisfied with my purchase, I would like a refund. I sent several messages via Ali's messaging, I have confirmation copies. No response. Will you give me a refund or not?

guangjin caiyuan: You are not actively problem-solving attitudes. You do that, only in your own attitude to judge matter.

Kimberlee Stiens: Copy of message: Dear Kimberlee Stiens,

Your message was successfully sent to guangjin caiyuan click here for the detail information of your order No.1001270493.

Kimberlee Stiens: Hello! I'm trying to contact you one more time before leaving negative feedback. I need to return the coat because it is too tight across the shoulders. I would like a refund and will return the coat. Please tell me the address to send it to and confirm refund, and I will be happy to leave positive feedback.

Wishing you the very best of business,

AliExpress Service Team (2011-01-22 10:10:21)

Kimberlee Stiens: OK, lets problem solve, then. Give me a refund and I remove negative feedback

guangjin caiyuan: We want to Sue you. ,

Kimberlee Stiens: Good luck. I have done nothing wrong.

guangjin caiyuan: You have no contact with us. Positive to solve problems.

guangjin caiyuan: You threaten us,

Kimberlee Stiens: Are you giving me a refund or are you keeping your bad feedback? I'm getting tired of being called a liar and being told I'm making "threats.”

guangjin caiyuan: We are a comprehensive trading company, to operate the project a lot. We are actively communicate with customers every aspect. We are all in the positive cooperation and conversation.

Kimberlee Stiens: OK, then lets talk. Are you giving me a refund or not?\

guangjin caiyuan: But other digits. And because you copy sucstressed positive not with us to solve problems. And give us bad feedback. Threat to us, that we give you of personality have cast doubt,

Kimberlee Stiens: OK. I'm done. Are you giving me a refund or not?

guangjin caiyuan: If you don't give us bad feedback before. We can have a good problem solving. Now your behaviour has caused by our company's reputation and great losses.

Kimberlee Stiens: And if you give me a refund, I will change the feedback so it is not bad

guangjin caiyuan: Now you are threatening to us?

Kimberlee Stiens: No, I'm negotiating

guangjin caiyuan: You have no credibility.

Kimberlee Stiens: OK, last chance. Are you giving me a refund or not?

guangjin caiyuan: bye

guangjin caiyuan: You threaten us,

Kimberlee Stiens: I gave you many chances to resolve my complaint. You instead call me a liar and say I'm threatening you. I will never buy from you again and will complain to AliExpress about your store. And your feedback score will stay. One last chance. If you just refund my order, I will remove my feedback and not complain.

guangjin caiyuan: We will take you to send to the world. Let people around the world comments. Because you figure problem. Not our quality problem,

guangjin caiyuan: bye

Legal vs. Illegal Internships

2011-01-17T17:44:00.001-08:00

A discussion I've been a part of recently over at askamanager.org has gotten me all fired up about unpaid internships. In college, I held the position that people who took unpaid internships were scabs, creating a free labor market to the detriment of us all. I still generally hold that idea, but now it's more important to focus on how most unpaid internships are actually illegal.

Ah, the New York Times. How I love thee, just not enough to pay for you. :)

There are six criteria that have to be met for an unpaid internship to be legal:

1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the
employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic
educational instruction;

2. The training is for the benefit of the trainees;

3. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close
observation;

4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the
activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer’s operations may actually
be impeded;

5. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training
period; and

6. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to
wages for the time spent in training.

You can see how it would be difficult for a big company to have an unpaid intern who fetches coffee all day.

I was referenced to the NYT article this particular time (I've seen it floating about before) by Unfair Internships, and interesting little blog that looks critically at both paid and unpaid internships. The best thing about it was this little except, which references the NYT article:

"The story also quotes a business lawyer that pleads in favor of her clients:

Camille A. Olson, a lawyer based in Chicago who represents many employers, said: “One criterion that is hard to meet and needs updating is that the intern not perform any work to the immediate advantage of the employer. In my experience, many employers agreed to hire interns because there is very strong mutual advantage to both the worker and the employer. There should be a mutual benefit test.”

Mutually beneficial arrangements are not illegal at all, they are even encouraged. They are called “jobs” and the are usually paid a legal wage. If the intern is “beneficial” to the company, it means that they are profitable and hence they are entitled to a paycheck. This is certainly not an age-old principle that we want to overturn."

***********************

But in this crazy economy of ours, the question becomes: Is this so bad? If employers want free labor because profits are low (they aren't, but let's ignore that for now), and recent grads need some good company names and references to put on their resumes, is working for free really so bad?

I say yes, and it's because I'm not a free market capitalist. I'm a capitalist, to be sure, but in a free market the employer has more power than the employee, especially during times of high unemployment.

In this economy, would you work for minimum wage? Sure, many do. I get applications at my fast food job all the time from people who used to be bookkeepers, loggers, welders, nurses, and all kinds of other jobs that pay way better than we do (we even had an applicant who used to work for Blackwater!). But when you're alternatives are minimum wage and no wage, what're ya gonna do?

Its easy to see how this can hurt the little people. Are you willing to work for $5 an hour, over nothing an hour? How about $1 an hour?

Free market kids see this sort of bidding war as a good thing. By allowing people who want jobs to undercut one another, you eventually get to the true "value" of that job, the wage that the market will support.

But in reality, that doesn't work. Competition for jobs drives wages down. When you have many more people than jobs, theoretically, then, there is no bottom for wages. Even if $5 an hour is not enough to live on, it's easier than living on nothing, and when there is no alternative (and what alternative is there?) there is no true market value for many jobs. The illegal labor markets prove it; many illegal aliens get paid less than minimum wage because they exist outside the legal labor market.

Henry Ford, a smart guy who was generally an asshole, once said (or wrote) this: "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible."

If businesses actually followed that rule, then free labor markets might work. They would be getting the best, rather than the cheapest, labor. But most businesses seem to ignore the value of having a good worker rather than a warm body who won't complain.

The fact seems to be that free labor markets result in lower-than-living wages. It doesn't matter if prices get lower because people are being paid less, as a total free market would, because in a world of 7 billion people, you can always go cheaper on labor. It just can't even out. It doesn't even out now, with minimum wage set at, what, $7.50 now? Many people still can't afford healthcare. But the healthcare companies still make record profits, and still cut costs by lowering the wages of nurses, administrative assistants and other cogs that make the machine work.

So if you take an illegal, unpaid internship, you're a scab.

The reason so many companies still have illegal internships (other than that they can't be bothered to google labor laws)? Because young people will take them, do the drudgery, and shut up. You become complicit in a system where people are exploited for their labor in the same way illegal aliens are exploited: because the employer has so much more power than the employee, we are happy and even grateful for the pennies tossed us by an employer who is profiting off our free labor.

Shame on Susan G. Komen For the Cure!!!

2011-01-10T23:46:00.000-08:00

I knew I didn't like them...

Ok, for a long time I had a completely unwarranted grudge against Susan G. Komen For the Cure. I'd read something about pinkwashing (Like greenwashing, only instead of products that are only marginally better for the environment, it's pink cookware that donates a fraction of a percent of net profits to breast cancer research), and I've long had an attitude that "raising awareness" isn't really doing much of anything useful in most cases.

But I finally looked them up a few months ago, and found out that they were generally pretty good, putting money into good research, well managed, etc. And I let go of the hate.

Until I watched The Colbert Report the other day.

It turns out that Susan G. Komen thinks that they should have a monopoly on the term "For the Cure." As in, nothing can be "For the Cure" unless it benefits breast cancer research. Actually, even that's not good enough. It has to benefit Susan G. Komen.

They feel strongly about this, so they use donor funds to sue other charities that use the phrase "For the Cure" in any of their events or drives.

....

That's really just about the douchiest move ever by a charity that's not just straight embezzling money for orphans and spending it in lesbian bondage clubs. I don't think I really need to say anything else.

Why Republicans are Wrong About the Recession

2011-01-09T23:46:00.000-08:00

Well, they're not wrong about the entire thing.

I just think that the evidence suggests that their approach to stimulus and job creation is a bad approach.

I touched on this recently in another article, where I make the argument that because businesses have become more efficient and productive, increasing their capital does not lead to hiring or increased employment.

An article in my newest BusinessWeek adds evidence for this conclusion.

According to this article (which has a totally different title in the print version, for some reason) small businesses, which in the past have driven recovery from recession by hiring, aren't. The reasons are the same as for large businesses: they have learned to do more with less, and tend to hire more part-time workers for greater flexibility. They've been doing fine (more or less), but improved revenues don't cause greater employment.

In fact, when the recession hit, small businesses turned to simple employment tricks to save money, and many of those are still paying off. An example, excerpted from the article:

"Josh Frey, chief executive officer of On Sale Promos in Washington, fired six of seven full-time salespeople in 2008. When he offered to keep the employees on as contractors, all accepted, he says. Since then, Frey has cut costs on benefits, payroll taxes, trash removal, electric bills, and an office lease for his business, which puts corporate logos on T-shirts, mugs, and pens."

And, as he puts it, he's never been more profitable. Of course, there are definitely legal issues associated with calling employees contractors if they're not. Recently federal and state Labor Departments have been stepping up enforcement and investigation into unpaid internships, many of which are illegal. You may save money in the short term, but if you don't know what you're doing you could get in trouble.

So this suggests, to me, that cutting taxes will not help us get out of the recession. Tax cuts to the wealthy don't get spent, and thus do little to stimulate the economy. And clearly tax cuts to businesses don't lead to hiring, because businesses have in general had a great year but aren't hiring, at least not enough.

Maybe in boom times, but not now!

Lessons from Fast Food #6: Ask the Right Questions

2011-01-08T13:49:00.000-08:00

Recently, my manager decided to hire a young man who had interviewed with another member of our management team and seemed pretty stellar. Since I burn with curiosity about hiring, I picked up his application to review it, and was surprised to see that he had left his last two jobs due to medical issues.

So of course I went straight to the manager who'd hired him and asked "What were the medical issues he left for?"

He hadn't asked, so he didn't know.

So in the round of interviews where my manager had him and a few others she was going to hire, I attached a sticky note to his, saying "Be sure to ask about medical issues!" I know there are legal issues about asking about disabilities, but we're talking medical issues that he specifically mentioned on his application. We can totally ask about that.

He was hired, and when I met him he was very nice, and seemed quite promising. We spent about 10 hours of labor for him to do the computer based training. Then he had a four or five hour training shift on the floor.

Immediately after the lunch shift he worked, he put his name tag and visor, along with a note, on my manager's desk. It read, basically, that he did not feel he was cut out for fast food, that he couldn't keep the pace due to his medical issues (he also mentioned unresolved issues between co-workers, but I suspect that wasn't as important).

I asked my manager what his medical issues were exactly. She didn't know. Apparently she hadn't asked him, either. Sigh.

***Edit***
So it would seem that if he has a long term medical condition, it could be covered by the ADA, which means we couldn't ask about it directly. BUT, we have every right to ask why he left his previous jobs, and we can ask, even if he doesn't disclose exactly what the condition is, what he will be doing to ensure that he doesn't leave this job for the same reason. Right?

Lessons from Fast Food #4: Don't Screw Yourself Over

2011-01-08T13:25:00.001-08:00

This is a quick, and obvious one: Be prepared for the worst. What would you do if your two best employees quit tomorrow without notice? How long would they take to replace? Do you have people that can do the job? If they are management, do you have talent ready to promote?

Sometimes it means over-staffing. But sometimes, that's necessary to keep things running smoothly. Have contingency plans. Develop talent to be ready for promotion sooner rather than later. Be ready. Don't screw yourself over.

Lessons from Fast Food #5: Promoting

2011-01-08T13:06:00.000-08:00

There are two big lessons about promoting that I learned while working here:

1. Make sure you have all management positions filled at all times, preferably with people waiting in the wings ready to be promoted at a week's notice, and
2. Be careful who you promote.

It can be tough to hold both these ideals. In the past two years, we've had supervisors who quit without notice. We've gone through periods where supervisors and managers have to work overtime because there aren't enough of them to fully cover the hours of operation. And we've had times where we've had more management positions open than qualified people to fill them.

Unfortunately, now is one of those times. Our store runs optimally with 6 Team Leaders. We've had 5 for while now, which is enough, but having 6 ensures that when a supervisor calls out, we can actually cover the shift. But now both I and Fergalicious, another Team Leader, are leaving, so there are 2-3 open positions in the management team.

One of them is being filled by a young woman whom I had the opportunity to develop. I take great joy in saying that. She's not perfect (who is?) but I was telling people that she had management potential when other supervisors just wanted her fired.

At the beginning, she wasn't very good. Of course, no one is! That's what being new is about; learning the work and the standards. And she admits herself that she had a bad attitude when she started, and several members of the management team wanted her fired. But I started noticing, some days, she would pick out some kind of project and really work at it. She was dedicated to making sure the sauces were always stocked. She would clean something no one had cleaned in months.

She had intrinsic motivation. She had begun caring about the quality of her work not because she didn't want to get fired, but because she wanted to do good work. This is an excellent sign.

I immediately started working more closely with her. Teaching her more things, and letting her work on her own more. She just kept getting better. She quickly mastered the kitchen, and while its stretch to say that anyone who works at my store likes it, she seemed to enjoy herself, and took pride in a good day's work.

Eventually, I had a conversation with her that I try to have with almost everyone who works there. I asked her if she was interested in becoming a Team Leader. I told her that while she is still very new (at the time she was only, maybe, 4 months on the job?) and had a lot to learn, she'd been showing a lot of potential and that I thought management could be in her future.

I've found that this conversation can be a big motivator. When an employee knows that they could be promoted, and what they need to do to make it happen, it gives them an ego boost and makes them feel better about the job. That alone is all it takes to get a significant productivity boost.

Its also important to have this conversation with people who aren't on the road to promotion. And new people who haven't shown much potential. Its just phrased differently. "Hello, Flash Gordon! How have you been enjoying your first week? Are there any difficulties I can help you with? Also, I did want to mention to you that there is always something changing at this store, and we're often looking to promote for supervisory positions. Is that something you might be interested in for the future?"

For the young woman I was talking about, once we had that conversation, it was all over. She'd decided she wanted it, and worked furiously toward that goal. The quality of her work skyrocketed over what it had been before. She proved herself to her supervisors and they all now approve, and she'll be in her new position about a week after I leave.

______________________________________________

You may remember above, I mentioned that was were in a position where we have more supervisory positions open than qualified people to fill them. We are promoting another person, a young man who has worked there some three years. He's good at his work, very good when he wants to be... but doesn't seem to often want to be. He has less to learn about the store than the girl we're promoting, but less motivation. He's lazy. But because we're losing two team leaders before the month is over, we have to promote him. There's no one else. The only other person even close is still only about 6 months on the job, and needs a lot of development before he'd be ready. Months.

The person we're promoting will probably do fine. He does want the position, and like I said, he knows the store inside out. But its not the preferred route. Had we been more on-the-ball with hiring (our manager procrastinates terribly in hiring new people), and developing talent more, we might have had someone else. But the other big lesson here is this: Sometimes, unexpected things happen, and you have to make do. The best we can do now is help him get to where he needs to be!

Lessons from Fast Food #3: An Important Management Philosophy

2011-01-08T12:49:00.001-08:00

I initially got this philosophy from a manager I had at a ROSS Dress for Less I used to work at. It really made me feel good about my management team, and its inspired me ever since.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that these jobs (Dress for Less, fast food) are shitty enough. A manager's job is to make it as not shitty as possible for their crew.

At ROSS, this lesson was literal. The bathrooms were trashed (in these sorts of jobs, you encounter a lot of people who feel the need to smear their excrement on the walls, or who let their kids put handprints all over the glass, or throw their entire meal on the floor, etc). My supervisor Heather was putting on the gloves. And I told her I could deal with it if she wanted; I've cleaned bathrooms my whole working life, so it really doesn't bother me.

And she said "No. You guys don't get paid enough to deal with this."

And obviously she didn't either (no one really does), but it meant so much to me. Being a manager has its perks, to be sure, and I work with managers who assign tasks like cleaning the bathrooms to the lowest, newest person, as a way of expressing rank. But myself, I clean the bathrooms personally every night. I only delegate the task if there is a big reason why I need to stay on the floor; if I'm the only person who can cook, for example.

The owners of our restaurant are terrible at managing it. They provide no benefits, no internal service, not even an employee discount. If I can do something to make my crew more satisfied and happy with their job, its my responsibility to do so. Cleaning bathrooms is not below my pay grade.

Lessons from Fast Food #2: Hiring

2011-01-08T12:48:00.003-08:00

I recently made a mistake in hiring.

My managers all tend to be people who hate the whole hiring process, so because I like it, and am interested in it, they let me pretty much handle the whole thing. This is fortunate, because I've been able to learn a lot about the hiring process... and to be able to see where mistakes are made.

The mistake was this: just because someone is the best out of the group you interviewed that day doesn't mean they're the best for the job.

We were short staffed and needed to do some hiring, and my manager was just dragging her feet (Oh, we need to hire? OK, well, I'll look at the applications next week). So I went through all the apps, found 6 people that looked OK, and got the go ahead to do the interviews myself. Then I would forward my opinions to my manager, who would do a second interview and make the hire if she wanted.

The interviews were mostly terrible. I always forget that people, even if they've been unemployed for a year, don't always hop on a computer and look up advice for interviews, resumes, etc.

Its astounding, for instance, how many people respond to the question "What made you decide to apply here?" with "Because I have to be applying for jobs to keep getting unemployment." Seriously. Some people were just grating (and if they're grating in the interview, 30 hours a week with them will be hell). Two people had no fast food experience, which is fine except when you make it clear you've had better jobs in the past and figure that fast food will be a cinch because its a step down for you.

The candidate I ended up recommending was one we'll call Ben Grimes. He was a former felon with no fast food experience, but he was very nice, very personable, and seemed very dedicated to turning his life around. I figured he'd be a good addition to the guest service team, and he also seemed mature, which is important: in fast food, it can be tough finding a balance between young kids with little or no work experience and older people looking to turn over a new leaf, or work through school, or whatever. Mature person with kids to feed=person who will show up for their shift.

And I think he'll turn out just fine. Some people were frustrated at first, that he seemed too slow to keep the pace, but I understand that speed just doesn't come naturally to people, and that he'll get there with practice.

So what is the mistake, you ask?

I recommended him for hire not because I was excited about hiring him, but because we desperately needed a new person and he was the best in the small group I talked to.

A week or two later, I learn that I'm going to leave for DC in a month. And we learn that another supervisor, we'll call her Fergalicious, is leaving at the end of January. And we lose one of our veteran, been-there-for-5-years cooks.

And I'm thinking, how the hell is this going to work? I interviewed the best people I could find in our stack of applications, and there was only one even marginally good candidate.

So I started over. I grabbed the stack (we usually have like 100-150 apps on hand), and went through all over again. And I must have missed some the time before, because after maybe a half hour I had another 6 candidates ready to go. And sure enough, after interviewing all of them, most were better than the guy I'd hired, in that I would have hired them instead. We hired the top two from the group, who are (mostly) coming along great. We're going to hire my #3 soon, because another recent hire quit after his first day (another story for another day).

Maybe Ben Grimes will end up better than those other candidates would have. But I still consider it a mistake. If you don't think there are any good candidates in your pool, don't just hire the best of the bad. Expand your pool. Good candidates are out there!

Lessons from Fast Food #1: Sexual Harassment

2011-01-08T12:48:00.001-08:00

At my workplace, our on-boarding process consists of around 7-10 hours of video training. It's mostly watching, with a bunch of little activities to do in the process (it's on a touch-screen monitor).

In this video training, there is a section of at least a half hour on sexual harassment. It describes the rules, the statutes, the language, and even has little video scenarios of inappropriate actions by coworkers, vendors and management. It really does its best to be crystal clear about what is OK and what isn't.

For this reason, I was certain I would never have to deal with the issue as a manager. Ha!

I should have known. He had a period where everyone making really racist jokes all the time was becoming an issue (fast food, btw, is the only workplace I know of where making racist jokes all the time becomes an issue, over time, instead of being an issue right away). If people can't grasp that making jokes about Mexicans in front of Mexicans isn't appropriate, why would I assume sexual harassment was an easy concept?

But it wasn't, of course, until my second-to-last week of working there.

I'd recommended for hire a young man, we'll call him Nacho Libre, because he'd worked at another fast food place for three years solid, and that's a good record in the business. He was very polite in the interview, not stellar in his answers but nothing out of the ordinary.

Except one thing: he had a look of mischief in his eyes. That's really the best way I could put it. I told my manager that that was the only reservation I had about hiring him. She was confused at first, but then she interviewed him and completely understood. We hired him, and he seemed to work out fantastically well.

Then, after maybe a week, I started hearing complaints that he was, in the words of other supervisors, a "total creeper." Enough so that one of the supervisors didn't want to work alone with him.

So the next day I work, Nacho and I have, seriously, about 8 minutes of overlap on our shifts, and in the time span he managed to say not one but two inappropriate things to me. The first one was mild, something about how I looked thinner. Borderline, so I didn't say anything. I had, however, begun to think about how I would handle it next time, and its a good thing, because mere moments later the following conversation happened:

Nacho: So do you go by Kim or Kimberlee?
Me: Usually Kimberlee. But it doesn't matter, either is fine.
Nacho: I think I'm going to go with Kim. It sounds more erotic.

Ugh.

So I immediately stopped what I was doing and told him that that was completely inappropriate to say at work. He tried to explain he hadn't meant it that way, he was trying to say that Kim sounded cooler, or whatever. But I did my best to explain to him that he just can't say stuff like that, and that he needs to be careful, because I wouldn't want to see him fired over something like that. I made sure to include that last part, because that kind of harassment is just a lawsuit waiting to happen; he needed to know that his job was on the line with that kind of behavior.

I then went to the two other managers who were there at the time (one being the original manager who wouldn't work with Nacho alone, and the other a young trainee manager) and told them very clearly something that I hope they really understand and internalize, and the lesson I really want you to take away with you:
"I talked with Nacho about this, and make it clear that his job is on the line. If it happens again, at all, even one time, you need to write him up for it and explain that he will be fired if it happens again."

It seems simple. But given that Nacho has not made any such comments to anyone else since our little episode, I strongly suspect that nobody had said a word to him before about the problem. As in, he sexually harassed a member of our management team, and she ignored it. She let it continue, even though it was to the point where she wouldn't work with him, and she apparently still said nothing.

Even if it seems obvious, people do not know there is a problem if they're not told! If an employee does something in front of you and you don't say anything, the natural assumption is that that behavior is acceptable.

You would be shocked how quickly problems go away when they are addressed immediately and effectively!

Lessons from Fast Food

2011-01-08T12:41:00.000-08:00

Hello all! Over the next couple weeks, in addition to regular posts (I hope, anyway!) I'll be doing some reflecting. I've spent almost two years at a fast food restaurant, with about half of that being in management, and I think its time to look back at the lessons it's taught me.

It seems appropriate to do some looking back at the beginning of the year anyway, but I'm also reflecting because I am moving on. I was recently hired for an internship at a non-profit in Washington DC, so for the time being, both my fast food and management days are over! (Though I do want to manage in the future).

The main reason I'm doing this is because fast food is an extremely difficult environment to manage. Office jobs, while having their share of quirky people, just don't compare to the challenges of managing former felons, people with mental issues and 17 year olds, almost all of whom make minimum wage, in an extremely stressful and deadline-oriented environment.

Sure, there are probably aspects of food management that are easier, I just can't think of any of them right now.

So I'll be sharing my hard-earned wisdom with you!

Bouncing Back from a Big Mistake

2011-01-07T13:39:00.000-08:00

My workplace uses text messaging as our primary method of communication. Most of our management team doesn't pick up the phone, so texting is the best way to get people to actually hear what you need to tell them.

Of course, life being as it is, I've had not one, but two incidences where I sent a text to the wrong person.

The first one was relatively mild. Actually, I was just complaining about how my boss had scheduled me for a crappy shift... long, or late or something. Intended to send it to my boyfriend, sent it to my boss instead. Luckily, it had been rather good-natured complaining, so she laughed it off. Every once in awhile, I send a message to her, something like "OMG by boss is such a bitch!" and we have a good laugh.

I didn't get off so lucky with my second one.

We had a crew member, we'll call him Batman. He'd started out great, but due to (in my opinion) poor training and management (ie, my fault, at least in large part) he'd become a touch lazy. He'd seen what some people could get away with and followed suit. My manager had made the determination to fire him one day, but I talked her out of it, insisting that he'd been really great, maybe just a good talking to about his decline and a clear message that his job was one the line would be all it would take.

So she does that (although I suspect their talk was not as serious as it should have been) and I set to work re-training him when I can. Then, I hear a complaint from another supervisor: he'd been chewing gum during his shift. At a fast-food restaurant. And when she asked him if he was, he said no! She was peeved at him.

So I send a text to my boss, who is still looking for any good excuse to fire him: "Cathy caught Batman chewing gum today, and he lied about it. Why would he do something so stupid? I don't get it!!!" (It was something like that, anyway. Pretty close).

Of course, I sent this to Batman.

He was understandably upset. I mean, he clearly saw the humor in the situation, but still. And I freaked out a little. I felt SO bad. I needed to make it OK.

So here's what I did, and it may shock people that it actually worked: I was honest. I told him I'd intended to send that to our boss, but that I stood by what it said. I asked him why he would do something like that when he knew his job was on the line. His defense was weak (nobody told him he couldn't chew gum on the floor... why would you need someone to tell you that?), but he did explain that he hadn't lied about it, that when Cathy asked him, he'd said "No," as in "Not anymore!" which was followed by a conspicuous swallowing, intended to be funny but also communicate that he got the message and stopped the behavior.

And I admit one thing that made the whole thing better: I played the "I saved your job" card. I felt, and still feel, it was a questionable move, a sort of emotional blackmail, but I tried to explain that I'd gone out on a limb for him, and that he was expected to prove himself and not do stupid things and just trying to get fired.

In the end, our crew/supervisor relationship was stronger, and I really think it was because of the honesty. At my workplace, management has a strong tendency to not let crew members know when there is a problem, and unsurprisingly, problems then fester. Batman was eventually fired, but for calling his supervisor a douche (which was also a stupid move, but the supervisor really IS a douche, and is often called that, but that particular supervisor had wanted Batman fired for some time). He had improved marginally in the meantime, but he was still out of the job.

And that was my exciting foray into fixing my own terrible mistakes.

Top Blog Picks: January 5, 2011

2011-01-05T12:53:00.000-08:00

Hey all! Here's a smattering of what's been best on the webblog scene for the last few weeks (I'm still playing catchup after the holidays)!

Ask a Manager: As always, there's something on this list from the fabulous Alison Green. She gives great advice on how to fire someone with a bad attitude (or, more accurately, when firing for a bad attitude is appropriate and how to do it!). I really wish more managers would understand the basic importance of telling an employee when they're doing something wrong and how to fix it, before you start having conversations about firing them.

Mission Based Management: This great blog posted a blurb on a website you can go to to donate your new Bush-era tax cut to charities that can really use it.

Employed Panache: I love this blog. While I'm a bit late on it, this entry shows how you can be festive but entirely casual at an office party.

Nonprofit Conversation: I loved this article on how to protect your own computer, as well as the computers of busineses and non-profits, on Facebook and other social networking sites. I especially liked the bit about the Top Friends virus.

That's all for now. Hopefully the increasing frequency of posts in the last couple days bode well for the future! We'll see.

Are you ready for some tax-deductible football?

2011-01-05T12:22:00.000-08:00

Apparently, donations to college athletics booster programs are tax deductible in much the same way that donations to charities are. College sport is big business, both directly in terms of revenues from games and indirectly in terms of enrollment boosts at the school.

Then Charles Clotfelter has to come in and ruin all our fun. According to his editorial at the Chronicle of Philanthropy, some 45% of funding for some bigger college programs comes from tax-deductible donations through booster clubs. He advocates for an end to the subsidy, which costs taxpayers some serious money.

But I wanna stop and think about this for a moment. I'm not a football fan. I really don't care about the whole March Madness thing (other than as an excuse to gamble, and I base my brackets entirely on superficial impressions of the state/city the college is in, or even the name of the school). But colleges rely on sports programs. While very few college sports programs are actually profitable, even with booster clubs, I know something of the impact of football programs on schools.

My college, the College of Idaho, used to have a football program back in the day, and while I attended the school was debating with itself on whether to re-institute the program. Even proponents of the program acknowledged that it would itself lose money, but they felt the benefits would outweigh the downsides. Those benefits include:

1. Football is awesome. FTW.
2. Football leads to increased alumni contributions (hence the Booster clubs). While those contributions would not pay for the program outright, they would mitigate the costs and, more importantly, increase alumni involvement and grow the alumni giving percent (an important metric on college ranking lists).
3. Football grows enrollment. You gain a bunch of football players who otherwise would not have been interested in the college at all, but you also gain other students; girlfriends, friends, siblings, cheerleaders, and athletes who compete in football during that season and other sports in other seasons.

I don't know where I stand on the issue. I mean, contributions to schools that are 501(c)(3)'s are deductible, in general. And there are all kinds of areas of education that lose money. I mean, people don't even pay to watch science. Schools make it work with grants, revenues from tuition, and donations, largely in the form of alumni contributions. And there are TONS of student athletes out there who just won't be interested in a school that doesn't have a strong athletic program. They may never be professional, but at least college gives student athletes the ability to live the dream just a little bit, on a smaller scale, before they settle into hohum lives of science and accounting and other things that people don't watch or cheer you on for.

Ultimately, college is about keeping students happy, helping them learn, giving them the tools to succeed, and making a better world. I think that as long as college athletics contribute to that to the tremendous degree they do now, some subsidy is fine with me.

A Kind of Douchey Business Practice

2011-01-02T17:13:00.000-08:00

My boyfriend and I are in the process of moving across the country for a new job I've been hired for in DC (awesome!). And one decision we've been working on is whether we should both go at the same time, or if he should stay and continue his current job while I move to DC and make sure the job and the city are a good fit before we sell all our possessions.

But upon reviewing our lease, we found another reason he should stay (which is the decision we eventually came to): While our rental agreement is month-to-month, if we should vacate before we've been in our place less than 6 months, we have to pay a $250 "processing fee." We've been here roughly 3 months now (I knew, I just KNEW, that as soon as we moved from our last place, I'd get an offer requiring us to move again).

At first, I was like, meh, that sucks, but what are ya gonna do?

But then I thought about it.

The whole point of a lease is that it offers mutual benefits and protections for both the landlord and the tenant. Specifically, most of the time, your rent can't be increased during the term of the lease. However, most of the time, in a month-to-month situation, rent can be increased with like 30 days notice. So the benefit to the landlord is that you're secure in having a tenant for a minimum period, and the tenant has the security that their housing costs won't got up for the term of the lease (usually 6 months to a year).

Month-to-month is also somewhat handy for both sides. Namely, the landlord can increase rent when needed without having to wait a year for the terms of the original lease to expire, and the tenant can leave with only thirty days notice if, say, an awesome job opportunity in another city comes up.

You see where I'm going here?

The lease I signed (knowingly; I did remember a condition like that from when I originally read the lease, and that's why I looked it up) provides the landlord with most of the benefits of a lease (tenant more likely to stay for at least 6 months), while providing me with none (I have to pay a ridiculous fee if I want to take advantage of the ONLY benefit a tenant gets with a month-to-month lease).

That, I feel, is douchey.

OH MY GOD THAT HURTS! Or, The Peltzman Effect and Workplace Safety

2011-01-02T16:50:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I tricked you with a fancy title.

I've been thinking today about how dangerous my current workplace (a fast food joint) is. My wonderful and quite careful coworker Cassie just got third degree burns on her hand while cleaning the grill (an action performed at least once, and often twice, a day). Another co-worker got a nasty burn when she slipped on something and caught herself falling... with her entire forearm on the grill.

Pretty much everyone has had grease splatter directly from the fryer onto their eyeball. It's not pleasant.

But apparently making things safer doesn't always make them safer.

It's called the Peltzman Effect. I first heard of it (well, the concept anyway, not the term) from my HR manager at work. I mentioned to him that we don't have any back braces that the crew can use when they unload and put away deliveries. He said to go ahead and have the store manager order some, but not to worry about it too much because back braces sometimes increase the number of back injuries a workplace gets.

The Peltzman Effect: "When people adjust their behavior to a regulation in ways that counteract the intended effect of the regulation."

The example given by Wiki is people who drive less safely because they have a seatbelt. Or, in the case of my workplace, people who lift with their back more because they're wearing a back brace, which they subconsciously assume gives them superhuman immunity to back injuries.

It seems kinda silly, and its just a hypothetical effect, not a law of physics or anything. But the evidence bears it out. Bike accident fatalities have not gone down since the proliferation of helmets, even though helmets demonstrably protect the head and can prevent fatal head trauma. In fact, as the Cracked.com article linked above mentions, helmet laws pretty consistently increase the number of bike/motorist accidents.

But the solution, obviously, isn't to stop trying. Back braces, when used properly, DO reduce your risk of back injury. The key is for employees to know that they still need to be paying attention, even when using safety gear. This is something to incorporate into OSHA-required safety lessons; every time a piece of safety gear is mentioned, there needs to be a caveat, some mention of still being careful and using the equipment properly.

Honestly, I don't think those safety lessons really do anything; most employees don't read them and since our franchisers don't even provide a copy in Spanish, half our kitchen crew doesn't even know what it's about. Actual safety training, which is supposed to accompany those lessons but often doesn't, is the key.

I can't help but feel, however, that there is something more. Every bit of new busywork you add to a food place decreases the amount of real work done, but there must be some way of incorporating safety training and new innovative equipment without losing productive time and actually increasing safety. I'm not sure what it is though.

(I do know one thing, though. Cassie's third degree burns were the result of a single, small tool used to clean the grill; it grips the scratch pad and has a handle to allow you to move the scratch pad against the grill surface. Its old, so the spikes on the bottom have worn away, which causes the tool to slide off the pad and your hand to jerk forward, often right onto the grill. A $20 replacement. Sometimes, safety is just a matter of making sure things work the way they're supposed to.)

Some truly fascinating employment numbers, and why 9% unemployment isn't going anywhere anytime soon

2010-12-27T12:24:00.001-08:00

The most recent print issue of Bloomberg's Businessweek (which is a fascinating publication which you can often buy a year's subscription to for $3-$10) was a foray into a more visual layout than the usual; there are maybe 4 or 5 essays, and the rest are all sort of infographics and other visual ways of communicating. And while it was all very fascinating, there were a set of employment numbers that were just incredible:

"For every 100 people unemployed in October, by November:

...17 had found jobs
...64 are still unemployed
...19 have dropped out of the labor force.

BUT

For every 100 people employed in October, by November

...95 are still employed
...2 have lost their jobs
...3 have dropped out of the labor force."

What these amazing numbers show is that the economy (at least the labor economy) is in stasis. People are keeping jobs, but few are gaining new jobs.

The reason? Because employers have learned to do more with less. Corporate profits are up almost across the board; corporate America had a wonderful year. But they didn't start hiring again. This is because the deep cuts they had to make during the worst of the recession changed the way their businesses worked. They've discovered ways to function with fewer people, so even when the profits came back, they didn't need to hire, or at least not to pre-recession staff levels.

This was definitely true at my job. While there is a cost to trying to do more tasks with less labor, we are undeniably more efficient than we were at this time last year. And in some ways, that's good news for businesses. But in most ways, that's bad news for the economy.

Unemployment is one of the most visible effects of the recession. As long as we are out of work, or know tons of people who are, we'll still feel like we're in recession.

But how to fix it? I think incentives for creating new businesses could be expanded, including government backed loans (much like student loans) while credit is still tight. But lowering corporate taxes, or giving tax breaks to the wealthy, simply isn't the answer. Despite rising corporate profits, businesses aren't hiring. That means they're either paying dividends to stockholders (not good, at least in terms of the economy at large) or investing in other aspects of their business (which is better, because at least they are consuming and making expansions that could lead to greater employment); either way, the evidence of the last year suggests that increasing the capital businesses have to work with does NOT increase employment.

What solutions do you all think might work?

How to Write a Good Cover Letter... even if you're not totally qualified

2010-12-24T18:38:00.001-08:00

Hello all! Happy whatever holidays/birthdays/game wins you may be celebrating today!

I recently applied for an excellent-sounding job at The Management Center in Washington, DC, which is a non-profit that helps other non-profits manage themselves better. This encompasses everything from providing sample Employee Handbooks and Board Conflict of Interest policies to helping non-profits hire well and fire with grace. All in all, a pretty stellar group of people.

And lucky for you, I'm in the somewhat unique position of having had the best cover letter submitted for the position, but was not interviewed or selected for the job (they needed a local candidate, and I'm across the country).

But because the person hiring for the job happened to be the fabulous Ask A Manager, Alison Green, she gave me some excellent feedback and permission to use this posting as an example for writing an excellent cover letter!

Here's the job posting: (click link to see it in its original context)

program assistant

The Management Center (TMC) seeks a talented Program Assistant to support our growing organization. The Program Assistant should be a highly organized self-starter with an interest in management and a passion for making things run well.

About The Management Center
Our mission is to instill the management practices that make it easier for nonprofit leaders, and their organizations, to get outstanding results. We do this by providing direct assistance and coaching to client organizations, and by offering publications and training to the broader field. Founded in 2006, we have worked intensively with over three dozen clients, focusing in particular on leading progressive organizations working for social change. Along the way, we have built a strong reputation: on our most recent survey, 95% of respondents said they “Strongly Agree” that they would recommend TMC to a friend. Such positive word-of-mouth has created demand that the Program Assistant will help us meet by keeping our office running smoothly and efficiently and providing support to our programs.

Job Responsibilities
The Program Assistant will provide administrative and programmatic support to ensure that our client practice, training programs, operations, other functions, and special projects run effectively. Specific responsibilities will include:

Coordinating all operations and functions of our fast-paced office, including ensuring that staff members have the space and supplies to do their work, scheduling client meetings, managing calendars, and performing other administrative tasks as needed.
Helping to create seamless financial and HR management by managing accounts payable and receivable, working with TMC’s financial consultant to file taxes and produce statements, executing benefits policies, renewing benefits, and supporting the COO as needed.
Supporting the functions of our client practice and growing training program as needed, including designing and maintaining systems to manage and track information.
Owning and supporting other projects. Examples include creation of new tools to support our client work, design and analysis of our annual client survey, maintenance and expansion of our website, and help with revisions to our book and other publications.
Serving as the point person for IT and other vendors.

Qualifications
The successful candidate will be a self-starter with excellent written and verbal communication skills and strong attention to detail. Candidates should be highly organized, flexible, and willing to do what it takes to get the job done. Sense of humor and commitment to progressive values are a plus. TMC is an equal opportunity employer, and we make a particular effort to recruit people of color to apply for open positions. This full-time position is based in Washington, DC and reports to the COO.

Compensation and Benefits
Competitive salary and generous benefits package available.

How to apply
Send a resume and cover letter to Alison Green at alison@managementcenter.org.

_________________________________________

Here's the cover letter I wrote. What I want you to notice first and foremost is that I'm not particularly qualified for this position.

To Alison Green:

I'm very excited to apply for the position of Program Assistant at The Management Center. Though I'm a touch green, I feel strongly that my skill sets and aspirations would complement the needs of the Management Center, and that we would be quite happy together.

First, I love management and learning about the way businesses and non-profits run. I never would have thought I'd feel that way, since I always found Business majors to be irritating and a little dense in college, but then I found myself as a Team Leader at a (fast food restaurant) a year and a half after graduating. I didn't initially want the position, but once I took it (to appease my manager, who has been a wonderful mentor to me), I decided to dedicate myself to doing it right. I have seen too many managers make too many mistakes to allow myself to learn only from those in the industry. I found some excellent resources that I've come to depend on, including Bloomberg's Businessweek, Rosetta Thurman's blog (especially the 31 Days to a Brand New Blog project) and the Ask a Manager blog (which may or may not be written by you, Alison Green is a pretty common name). And the more I learned about the intricacies of founding and starting a non-profit (I'm pretty sure I have swaths of Publication 557 memorized), the more I discovered that my talents don't call me to politics (though I only needed to work on one campaign to figure that one out), but to making an organization work behind the scenes.

Now, what appeals to me about this particular position is that it seems like its a bit of everything. I have a background in the administrative tasks the job would demand, such as scheduling, ordering office supplies, and being the caulk that keeps the sanity of the office from seeping out around the edges. I relish that sort of role, and pride myself in strong logistical thinking. My experience at (fast food restaurant) has helped immensely with this. When you're on the crew, you do your job and go home, but in management you're responsible for running the shift; being aware of the schedule on which all items need to get done, when people get breaks, how the dinner rush will be positioned, and of course someone called in sick, and you have to spend a half hour finding someone who can come in without going into overtime. I have every confidence that I can keep track of the million things going on in The Management Center's office and keep them running smoothly.

But what really excites me about this position is the HR, finance and program functions. These are admittedly the areas where I will need the most guidance and training, but they are also areas that I would love to get elbow deep in. I'm a total nerd for paperwork, and will read and nearly memorize the employee handbook in my first week just for fun. I love the idea of helping create systems to track info about TMC's training programs, and I have enough background in statistics that I would be an excellent asset in designing the annual client survey. I am a talented, FAST writer (I'd be happy to provide samples), so coming up with some copy about a new program for the website would be a cinch. This is the kind of organization I would love to work for in the long term, so anything I can learn from the Program Director, COO, and the CEO would be absorbed like a sponge, tossed about and evaluated, and then returned with some glitter and embellishments added on. I want to be a valuable part of the team.

Thank you so much for your time! Please review my resume and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I wish you luck in finding your perfect candidate, and I hope that turns out to be me!

-Kimberlee Stiens

___________________________________________________________

See that? Now, it helps that the position doesn't specifically call for a degree, or X years experience in any job, or anything like that. Those sorts of requirements can be hard to get around (although a good cover letter goes a long way!)

Here are the most important things for you to take away from this:

1. If you're underqualified, say so in the cover letter, and state why this won't be a problem.

The list of functions in the ad that I don't know how to do is considerable: manage accounts payable and receivable, file taxes, executing benefits policies... but that's OK, because I want to learn those functions, and I have every confidence that I can. There are definitely some qualifications for jobs out there that you need to know from day 1, but this job is one where I could be trained to do all the things I don't know how.

But above all, don't just gloss over it. If you don't meet the qualifications, but don't seem to care that you don't, your cover letter will go right in the trash. Guaranteed. Well, unless your dad owns the company or something (in which case, why are you reading this?)

2. Emphasize how your experience will help you overcome hurdles.

I have experience working on a congressional campaign, and working in multiple administrative functions at my school. But notice that the job experience I cite the most is my work in fast food. Normally, fast food is not a jumping off point to bigger and better things (I'm just saying). But the logistics of running a shift are comparable to running any kind of office, or program, or event: you use your experience to show that you have the personal attributes needed to make it work. I don't know how to run trainings for non-profit managers, but I do know how to motivate and coach well, and I can demonstrate my ability to deal with a deadlines and high-stress situations. And that's what they're really looking for.

3. Be otherwise flawless.

Your cover letter and resume really just can't have any mistakes. The bigger the leap from your experience to the job, the more important this one is. I'm pretty sure mine had no errors, though I do often fall into what people tell me is called "passive voice," which is apparently super terrible despite being grammatically correct and often sounding better.

4. Don't be gimmicky.

Ask a Manager has a great post about how this is bad for both the candidate and the hire-er. Now, I think its important to turn in your papers as clean and wrinkle-free as possible, and I think having a solid resume layout can demonstrate certain valuable aesthetic skills, but perfuming paper (unless, and only POSSIBLY unless, you're applying at a perfume store or cosmetics counter or something), using writing gimmicks like your name being an abbreviation for all your good traits, or other non-merit related chicanery is a bad idea.

___________________________________________________________

Well guys, that's a start. But a bit of advice I want you to consider before you try this: really consider whether a more qualified person would be a better hire for this company. I felt confident that while that position might be challenging for me, I would be able to handle it and eventually kick ass. But if the job requires a skill set that you don't have and aren't certain you could pick up in the first couple weeks, consider doing yourself and your hiring managers a favor and only compete for jobs that are a good match for both of you!

5 Things Recent Grads Should Do!

2010-12-05T12:34:00.001-08:00

Its true. I was just perusing the archives over at Ask a Manager, and mulling over some of the advice she's given new grads who have trouble finding jobs.

I can definitely sympathize. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Political Economy from a small, private liberal arts college (Go Yotes!), I did an internship with a very prestigious GLBTQ advocacy group and worked on a major congressional campaign. And I've found myself working at a fast food restaurant for the last two years, after trying unsuccessfully to get a simple receptionist/admin assistant type of job.

So here's a list of advice for recent grads on the job market. I'm thinking I'm going to write a guest article in my college's student newspaper to the same effect, only with advice on what useful double majors might be to grab before they graduate. But, for the grads:

1. Grad school is not your escape. This one is straight-up jacked from Ask a Manager, so go here to read the original. Its not something I'd ever thought of though, so its worth discussing: Grad school will put off your job search, but it could also cause you to spend thousands of dollars for a degree you won't really need or use, and you'll come into a job market competing with people who now have 2 years more professional experience than you do. Definitely consider that decision carefully.

2. Volunteer. If you're unemployed, do SOMETHING with your time. Chances are you can find something in your field at a non-profit, where they're always happy for some free help! While you're unemployed, its important to be doing something that increases your employability.

3. Go Back to School. You're probably like, "Wait, Kim, didn't you just say..." Yeah, I said don't go to grad school. What I'm talking about here is different. If you're a recent grad and can't find work, consider going to night or trade school. Learn Spanish, which will make your like infinitely easier and will help you land any number of decent Customer Service or Sales jobs. Take classes on bookkeeping and learn to use Quickbooks, and you're much more likely to get a reasonably sweet job as a Receptionist or Administrative Assistant. A friend of mine is getting her Paralegal certificate right now, and because she already has a Bachelors she will be in a better position than the many people who get their Paralegal but don't get the degree. Check out your local Community College for options!

4. Tough it Out, and Learn Something New. You can also take my route. The happiest feeling I had when I got my degree was the knowledge that I would never have to work fast food again. And it only took 6 months to fall back in. But while I've been there, I've learned a lot about management, and learned that that is a field I'm very interested in. In fact, at this point, if I could do it again, I would probably have double majored in Business. I might be going for an MBA sometime. I hated Business majors in college (well, the concept, not so much the people). I never would have discovered this field if not for the unfortunate position I've been put in by this economy. So you have to consider the option of taking a career path that doesn't involve your degree at all, and riding it as far as it will take you. I'm looking at becoming the Manager of my restaurant someday, which will almost double my pay and give me an excellent credential to one day move into Management positions outside of the food industry which WILL require my degree.

5. Start Something! Because of the economy, there are all kinds of incentives out there to start a new small business. There are all kinds of needs out there to be filled by new Non-Profits. If you have a niche that you're super good at, become a Consultant. It would be hard work, but if you're spending your days sitting around at home, what's a little work? Fewer than half of CEO's actually have MBA's. And the vast majority of wealthy people get that way by starting something new, not by having their paychecks signed by someone else. Office and retail space is surprisingly affordable. This may be the time to go for your dreams!

Well, there you have it. I hope its helpful! Anything else that should be added to this list?

THIS is the future of foodservice!

2010-11-12T21:52:00.000-08:00

I was Stumbled today upon an article about the coolest innovation I've ever seen on the Internets that actually applies to my profession- the clusterfuck that is fast food management- and I really think that this is the future of eating out, whether fast casual or fine dining.

The Lettuce Vending Machine!!!!

Sounds a touch silly, right? But think about it... what would happen if your local cafe was able to use not only local vegetables, but ones grown in-house? No need to have space outside the restaurant, it fits right in there! Of course, there's no reason it would have to be limited to lettuce. Eventually, I'm sure they'll be segmented into different climate-controlled areas for different veggies.

Foodservice wouldn't have to order veggies from a distributor! At least not as much. Its less practical for a McDonalds, but more practical for, say, a fine restaurant that can have herbs growing all the time, to ensure the absolute freshest spices.

Its far in the future, sure. The things are probably INCREDIBLY expensive. And the article points out they probably use a lot of water, and of course tons of energy, in the form (in America at least) of burning coal. But there is something undeniably appealing to me about growing your own food in house, and that it can be done all seasons, all the time.

The future, today!

One thing YOU need to know about your manager!

2010-11-05T12:10:00.001-07:00

This applies to everyone who is managed by someone else:

Just because your manager didn't say anything doesn't mean they didn't notice. Sure, a good manager will coach you and let you know when you're doing something wrong. But if you've been told before, or its something small, they might not.

That shouldn't make you think its OK, or that they don't know. Chances are its affecting your status in their eyes, which will affect promotions, raises, etc.

So if you're not advancing as you'd like, or your not getting good reviews, but you're not clear why, think about the little things. Is there anything you're doing that others who are being promoted aren't doing, or vice versa? It's the little things that, over time, build an impression... and that impression is more likely to get you promoted or fired than any one big thing.

Nordstrom Opening Non-Profit Store!

2010-10-29T11:32:00.000-07:00

I was thrilled to read in the Chronicle of Philanthropy today that Nordstrom (whom I'm written of before) is opening a store in NYC that will give all profits to non-profit organizations. This is a huge experiment in the retail world, and if it works for Nordstrom, it could cause other stores to follow suit.

I've said before that stores themselves should function more like a non-profit does, but honestly this sort of model never really occurred to me. Nordstrom will use this store to learn more about New York retail, because it lacks a flagship store in the city, so while they might not be filling their coffers, the store will still help them expand and profit in the future.

Sadly, the stores will not be actualy Nordstrom stores; they will have a separate identity and branding from regular Nordstrom's or Rack stores. But, still. Its a good start!

How the HECK to deal with In-Kind Contributions in Accounting

2010-10-24T16:30:00.000-07:00

I'll be the first to admit that accounting befuddles me. I consider myself to be a smart person, and I can create a GoogleDocs spreadsheet to track expenses and revenues, even making deductions red and income black. It's pretty nifty.

Because of this, I hoped I could handle the books for my non-profit, at least while it was fledgling. I ordered Non-Profit Bookkeeping and Accounting for Dummies off Amazon, and once it arrived, I dove right in.

I lasted about 10 pages.

Seriously, why would you put in items twice? To do accounting everything has to show up in two books, one positive and one negative. I just couldn't make it work in my brain. So I've resigned myself to having to pay for bookkeeping services. Whatever.

But what about in-kind contributions? Because I don't yet know if my organization is viable, we don't have a bank account yet, I've been buying materials out-of-pocket and then considering them as in-kind.

But I can't put them on my spreadsheet! They need a different one. Because I can't put the cost of brochures in red because then the NLS will look like its in the red; but its not, because it didn't pay for the item. I can't put it in black because it looks like the NLS has $26 hanging out in a bank account, but it doesn't, it is at exactly $0.

I have a feeling all this will be easier when we have an accountant. You know, like 10 years in the future. Sigh.

Humanitartian Aid for Good, not Evil

2010-10-15T14:17:00.001-07:00

I read an interesting blog post in the Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reviewing a book by one Linda Polman of her book, The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid? I saw her interview on the Daily Show recently as well, and I'm surprised that more people aren't more concerned.

Basically, she argues that humanitarian aid to places like Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Sudan and many other places all over the world actually has the effect of worsening the crises in those locales. For example:

"Ms. Polman says money for famine relief in the 1980s in Ethiopia helped pay for the government’s relocation of dissident peasants against their will. She says nonprofit programs to buy the freedom of slaves in Sudan drove up demand for slaves, leading their captors to seize more people. During the Rwandan genocide, she says, perpetrators were given food and shelter by refugee camps in Eastern Congo, enabling them to continue their campaign of rape and violence."

So my questions are probably the same as anyone else's: what does this mean? Do we stop giving aid to these poor people? Is there a way to provide aid that doesn't help those perpetrating the harms? Also, does providing this aid make the victims less likely to stand up and fight? I suspect not, because if you've been raped, your family killed and your house burned down, I don't think a few medical supplies or a square meal will make you suddenly complacent. In fact, I think that providing this aid must hearten those victims, increasing their desire to fight back because they know at least someone is behind them.

So there must be a way to do it. But how? Is more oversight the key? Absolutely. I think this is one of those cases where creativity and the freedom for groups to experiment in finding new ways to help people come second to being accountable to results. If the indication is that your aid is helping the pillagers, you must be expected to change your program NOW. And freedom and creativity have a place in that. But there must be swift accountability first and foremost.

What do ya'll think?

Embarrassing Facebook Pictures! Oh, and the workplace.

2010-10-12T12:37:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not posting any. ;)

But its become an all-too common concern in this workaday life: All those good college times catching up with you when a prospective employer sees that you binge drank (or worse) in college (or worse, last night) and throws your resume in the trash.

And now MSNBC's Technolog, in an entry riddled with typos, tells us that even if an image is deleted, it can remain accessible for months, even years, out there in Facebook servers. Sure, you have to have a direct link to the photo to pull it up, its not just on your photo album page, but "still."

Here's what I think about this whole thing: Get over it.

Pretty much everyone who goes to college does stuff they regret. That's sort of college's "thing." And I don't care who your social group is, every one of them has a friend who dabbles in photography or at least has a camera with them at every event they attend. There will be pictures of you on Facebook, and if you've ever done something compromising, there will be a picture of that too.

My question is, how do employers find people who DON'T have compromising pictures of themselves on Facebook?

Sure, they can stick with hiring older people, but that's not a long term strategy. Facebook is here to stay, and its fun and point are significantly diminished if you're constantly bleaching it for fear of a potential employer seeing it.

My advice? If you're going to take a rip off that bong, you should probably not take a picture, because its stupid to take pictures of yourself doing illegal things. But if its legal, I say keep it up there, set all your privacy settings so that only friends can see your information and pictures, and create a LinkedIn account for your potential employer to see your bleached side.

Ultimately, people should be able to post pictures of themselves doing a kegstand without fear, because one's ability to create spreadsheets and give a good speech have little to nothing to do with one's ability to kegstand. And maybe if enough people keep those pics up, employers will realize that Facebook is not a good way to evaluate a candidate. It sure would be nice.

Interesting facts re: Lehman Brothers, College Funding and Contracts

2010-10-12T12:18:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting article today courtesy of the Chronicle of Philanthropy about how colleges are feeling the pinch in this dread economy, seeing declines in new pledges as well as many previous pledges falling through or being reduced. Some colleges have even been getting into a little trouble because they start buying or building based on a pledge that is later reneged. The opener:

"The $10-million pledge to Spelman College came with big plans.

The historically black women's college would take the money—the largest corporate donation in its history—and create a pipeline to Wall Street for black women, preparing them for international-finance careers by offering new courses, internships, and Chinese-language instruction. The program's home would be called the Lehman Brothers Center for Global Finance and Economic Development.

When the gift was announced with great fanfare, in 2007, no one imagined the investment bank's eventual collapse. The college would receive just $3-million of the original pledge—enough to start a Chinese-language program but not enough for the rest."

Oh, cruel fate. At least they got a Chinese program out of it, though!

One thing I found particularly interesting is that a pledge agreement between a college and a donor is a enforceable contract, meaning that the College can take legal action against donors who back out. But they "rarely, if ever" do so, because being a jerk to someone who offered to give you money is kind of a dick move. Of course, if you're halfway through building that new law school and the wealthy financier who pledged the other half is reneging, not necessarily because he is no longer wealthy but because he is less wealthy, what is a college to do?

Times like this I sorta wish we had a more European system, where colleges are often state-owned enterprises and don't need to be panhandling their alums all the time. But on the other, I don't know that it's such a bad way to do things. Getting alums to contribute after they graduate is tough, but the work starts as soon as that kid walks into the hallowed halls his freshman year. Most people I know that refuse to donate to their colleges do so because of things they feel the college did to them, back when they attended. Basically, if you do a good job providing a good education and a good community, you'll reap the benefits in alumni contributions. And if you believe you got your money's worth out of your education, and want to express your loyalty, giving is a great way to do it.

Oh, and BTW, its not necessarily those huge gifts that colleges appreciate the most. In fact, what may be more useful to them is their alumni giving percent, the proportion of their total alums who give a gift of any size. That number is used by folks like the Princeton Review and others when they do their big rankings and publish them. Those books are very influential with potential students, and even a claim like being the Best Educational Value in the Northwest is something you can pop on a postcard and mail to prospective students in Idaho.

If you think you got a good education, give your college $5. They'll appreciate it, trust me!

Two Views on Corporate Philanthropy (HINT: Both involve turning a profit)

2010-10-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

I've been reading a fine interview by Caroline Preston over at The Chronicle of Philanthropy of Citigroup's CEO, Vikram S. Pandit, about Citigroup's views on corporate philanthropy.

If you recall, a few weeks ago I discussed another model of corporate philanthropy promoted by an editorial at the Wall Street Journal. Basically, his position was that unless you specifically engage in philanthropy (with company, and thus shareholder, dollars) with the intent to make money (people like the idea that you're such a good company and are thus more likely to give you their business), you are stealing from shareholders. The way he illustrated it:

"Suppose you own a company that you do not want to manage. You hire a manager, pay him a salary, and one day you discover that he has transferred $100,000 to the bank account of an external party that has provided your firm with no goods or services. If the account belongs to the manager, or one of his relatives, he is clearly a thief. But what if it belongs to the manager's favorite charity? Then he is still a thief because the money is not his to give; it is yours as the owner. He cannot defend his action on the ground that you would have willingly given $100,000 to the charity. If that were true, then why not simply disperse the $100,000 to you as profits and allow you to make the donation yourself?"

You can see the argument, and to a large extent, I agree with it. Basically, the only way its not theft is if that money comes back to you in the form of increased business, and that has to be the intent when the money is given.

Citigroup has a little bit different of a perspective.

"There are philanthropic aspects to some of what one can do. But this is really about sustainability. How do you develop sustainable models of financial inclusion? That is a fundamentally different approach. If we bring everything we know about finance and our systems and our smart people together, we can figure out how to create a business model around financial inclusion that can even create a little bit of a profit. There has to be some aspect of philanthropy, which is seed money or start-ups or experimentation. But to make them sustainable, they need to be grounded in basic business theory, business models. Microfinance is a perfect example of that. It’s something that does great for people who are not part of the lending system, but also it can be profitable."

So basically, Citigroup likes to engage in philanthropy by providing seed money to entrepreneurs. But they also seek to help those entrepreneurs find ways to have a sustainable and profitable business model, so that Citi can get that seed money back, plus a little interest.

But, asks the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Aren’t what’s most profitable and what’s best for society often at odds?"

"There could be some people who believe they’re at odds. But this is so squarely in the pathway of our purpose, our mission, that it’s not incongruent with what is right for our shareholders. The primary goals of our foundation and our community efforts is to drive financial inclusion. How can that be bad for shareholders on any long-term basis? I don’t see that."

So basically, Citi's version of philanthropy is doing what they do anyway, only attempting to make some of their money available for people or groups that would otherwise not be able to get a piece of the pie, and giving them more help with business models and sustainably. And they have a separate budget for this, a philanthropic budget.

So my question is: wouldn't it be better if they ran like half their business loans this way? I mean, I feel part of the problem is that for the average entreprenuer business loans are a little out of reach because you have to do all kinds of research and business modelling before you get that money, which you really don't know how to do unless you have an MBA yourself. So you have to pay people to help you. Is their philanthropic program simply for people who can't afford to pay experts for those steps? I can see the value of this, don't get me wrong, and I think it would be great if someone with a great idea could simply go to a bank, tell them the idea, and say "How can you help me make this happen?" Maybe there is another subsection of the economy that provides this service, but to me it makes sense that a bank would provide free (or "free" as in built into the repayment of the loan) business consulting services for all its customers. This would make small businesses much easier to start, and the government wouldn't have to have anything to do with it.

What do ya'll think? Is this charity or just good business. Can it be both?

The Problem with Tipping

2010-09-26T16:41:00.000-07:00

Before we get into the more ranty portions of this, I want to make it clear: I like the concept of tipping at restaurants. The idea that there is a direct reward from the customer for providing exceptional service is a concept I can really get behind. I love meritocracy.

The problem with tipping is that it is not meritocratic at all.

First, there is the issue that if you don't tip above a certain amount, you're considered a jerk, regardless of the quality of service. There should not be a minimum, and a tip should not be a guarantee. You should have to provide excellent service to get a tip.

But more importantly, tips are not meritocratic because the distribution of positions that are customarily tipped are not meritocratic. Pretty much the only people I tip are servers at restaurants, and I want to mention the main thing that makes tipping servers entirely non-meritocratic: The tip is based on a percentage of the cost of the meal.

As in, at very expensive places, who can probably afford to pay their wait staff better (they don't, but they could), servers make appreciably more than a server at, say, a family Mexican restaurant that serves relatively cheap food.

The difference is significant. We recently went out to dinner at a reasonably expensive restaurant ($27-$37 entree, $10-$15 per appetizer, $30 min. bottles of wine), and while I was staggered at the prices (it definitely wasn't worth it to me) I was more staggered when I saw that, as a table of four, we were going to be leaving our server a good $30 in tips.

We eat frequently at a Mexican place down the street, with $8-$15 entrees, and tip generously, because I can see the stuff the waiters have to put up with. They have to gather and wear ridiculous hats and sing "Happy Birthday." They have to deal with drunk and otherwise classless people. And their reward, serving our table of four, is a generous $15 tip (more than 20%, or at least usually in that neighborhood).

So lets review. The person at the expensive restaurant has an obviously easier job. Our server was perfectly charming, but she did not earn that $30. There was not a child anywhere near the restaurant. Everyone was well dressed and on their best behavior. And there were 3 waiters/resses on duty for a very small place. We were there maybe an hour and half, and the best thing about her service was that she brought out more bread when we were almost out.

It takes me like 4 hours to earn $30 (after taxes, and based on the practices of most waitstaff I know, those tips go largely untaxed). And it takes my crew even longer than that, and they work HARD for it. They deal with hot equipment, they break a sweat, and they deal with people treating them like shit every single day.

And we, me and my crew, make $0 in tips. We're not technically allowed to take tips, though I never begrudge a crew member the occasional dollar that they might receive from a customer once a month.

Not to mention the other little detail that I find amusing about all this: I live with my boyfriend and one roommate, a friend of ours. We all work in the service industry. We also come from varied economic backgrounds; I come from a very poor family. My boyfriend comes from a middle class family, comfortable but not extravagant, as the main source of their middle-classness comes from a teacher's salary. And our roommate, while not wealthy, comes from a family that can definitely be described as upper middle class. We are all graduates from private, liberal arts schools (I am the only one still paying off my education).

I realized one day, reflecting on our backgrounds, that we had jobs currently that fit our socio-economic background. My roommate, who comes from the wealthiest family out of us, works at a pricey Spanish restaurant, and while he makes minimum wage, he makes much more than that in tips. A good Saturday night brings in more than $100 in tips, on top of the wage he makes (I live in a state where servers must be directly paid minimum wage, and all tips are on top of that). My boyfriend, the middle-class one, works at an organic grocery store and deli. There is a tip jar, but he seldom makes more than a dollar or two a day. He does, however, make as much money as a regular crew member at his work as I do as a supervisor at my fast-food job. And of course, at my job, I make no tips at all, and am one dollar over the state minimum wage (and I make more money than other supervisors, because they cut the raise one gets at promotion from $1 to a mere 60 cents an hour).

I don't know if that's representative of the service industry at large, but I suspect it is. If the child of an upper-class person is made to get a job in high school (or, in our cases, made to take a crappy job after college due to economic conditions), I would bet they tend to get those better-paying waitstaff jobs, while the rest of us are relegated to fast food an other non or low tipping professions. Why? I suspect connections and appearance (Try telling me that people do not get better looking as you go up the income ladder. Just try it. Even if a person is of average appearance, the privileges of participating in more school sports, getting microdermabrasion every few months in high school, and the ability to buy more expensive clothes go a long way to improving one's appearance).

And that is why I don't like tipping. Not because I don't think people in crappy jobs shouldn't get more money. I just wish more tips went to the people who truly deserved it, and that expensive places would limit tips and just pay their waitstaff better. That's all.

On Ethical Dilemmas and Their Commonness

2010-09-23T18:29:00.001-07:00

The Chronicle of Philanthropy was awesome enough to tell me in their headline of "Ethical Dilemmas Relatively Rare in Fund Raising, Says New Poll" what exactly the new poll they're talking about really means, saving me the trouble of having to interpret the data myself to possibly come to different conclusions.

Unfortunately for them, I can never leave a good study unexamined, and I was surprised by the results.

First, their announcement that 82 percent of fundraising professionals (at least of those who responded to the poll) report facing ethical dilemmas once a month or less is totally true. That's fine. And its an encouraging number.

However, you can also use the same study to produce the shocking headline "42 percent of fundraising professionals face ethical dilemmas once a month or more!" To their credit, at least the Chronicle went with the less sensational headline.

And both ignore the key thing that makes these crazy numbers work: That almost one quarter of respondents (24% of a total 493 responses) face ethical dilemmas roughly once per month.

That seems high to me. What do ya'll think? And what exactly are the ethical issues these guys are facing? Do you have a good example?

Guest Post: Personal Branding and Examiner.com

2010-09-23T17:01:00.000-07:00

A week or two ago, I read this article on why writing for Examiner.com is bad for your personal brand from Rosetta Thurman's Blogging for Branding website, and thought simultaneously that the arguements she makes are both valid and exaggerated. However, since I've never written for Examiner.com, I felt ill-qualified to respond. However, I did remember that the fabulous Megan Williams, a talented writer and friend from college, recently started writing for them, so I asked her for a response to the article.

A bit about Megan:

Megan Williams recently received her MFA in writing from Sarah Lawrence College. She is also a long-time vegetarian and food enthusiast who has been mastering the art of brunch since moving to Boise. Her poems have been published in Tin House, Mudlark, and Ducts. You can find her writing regularly at the Examiner page on Vegetarian Food in Boise and at her personal blog, Dreams and False Alarms.

**********

In the time that I have self-identified as a writer, I’ve made numerous mistakes in the pursuit of establishing my professional identity, or in capitalist speak, “personal brand.” For instance, I have a master’s degree in poetry. I’ve blogged about hallucinogenic drugs and wanting to engage in relations with women who are not my boyfriend. I’ve blogged about my boss. I blog for largely the same reason I write poetry: to search for meaning and structure in our godless, postmodern, consumer-driven society. Now, according to Rosetta Thurman of Blogging for Branding, my latest offense as a writer within this society is serving as the Boise Vegetarian Food Examiner on Examiner.com.

Kim invited me to write this guest post after reading “8 Reasons Why Writing for Examiner.com is Bad for Your Personal Brand” on Blogging for Branding. The fact that Kim remembered that I write for Examiner.com probably isn’t that shabby for my personal brand, but I have to admit that upon first glance at Rosetta’s post, I bought a few of her arguments. However, I think it’s narrow and limiting to assume there is only one possible path to branding oneself as a writer or expert or whatever people are thinking when they release content into the Internet, and Examiner.com provides one platform through which established writers can widen their readership and newbie journalists can learn to follow guidelines and, frankly, find out exactly what their niches are.

I haven’t been the Boise Vegetarian Food Examiner for long, and I’m well aware that I have not been using the site in a way that will make me a significant income. My decision to become an Examiner had more to do with craving a sense of direction than it had to do with wanting to make an income. I’ve heard many stories about writers who supplement their income or even make a living being an Examiner, and these are not the writers who believe they write for The Examiner the newspaper. For that matter, I know I don’t write for The Examiner. I write for Examiner.com because I wanted the challenge of writing about a limited topic external to my search for meaning (or however else I want to brand the intrepid navel gazing contained in my blog). I wanted to write for my Facebook friends and the handful of vegetarians in Boise who might happen to Google restaurant reviews or the name of the CSA to which I belong. I wanted to write to create a portfolio of pieces that might help me find a “legitimate” writing gig—one that may help pay the bills and fund my unfortunate poetry habit.

Without Examiner.com, I would not have thought to start, design, and attempt to promote a blog for my vegetarian food reviews and recipes. While I read food blogs (Save the Kales is excellent!), they did not make me go “oooh, I want to do the exact same thing as this person!” Plus, Boise already has an excellent local food blogger at Mundovore. Not only did Examiner.com’s structure inspire my topic, but it also provided a community—now that I am an Examiner, I am much more likely to look to other Examiners for advice on anything from where to run in Boise to local politics. The blogging community as a whole may work sort of like this, but in my experience there are far more bloggers than there are Examiners, and just as many bad bloggers and bad Examiners.

Plus, let’s face it: writing for or on a website besides your personal blog has an air of (albeit sometimes false) legitimacy to it, no matter how cute the kale bunches in your logo. Content farm or not, I feel okay putting my position as an Examiner on a resume or my LinkedIn page as a mark of writing experience, whereas my blog is much more likely to get me fired than hired. Still, I’m not discounting the possibility of someday migrating my content to a blog that I wouldn’t hesitate to show my boss. Maybe then my personal brand can buy me health insurance and deep, abiding meaning in my misdirected life.

Job Opening: Musical Theater ED

2010-09-23T10:59:00.000-07:00

Executive Director - Broadway Rose Theatre (Tigard)

Date: 2010-09-23, 9:35AM PDT
Reply to: job-kdfa7-1969366583@craigslist.org ^{[Errors when replying to ads?]}

The Broadway Rose Theatre seeks an Executive Director to manage the business operations of this well-established, financially sound, $1.7 million non-profit musical theater company. Duties include managing a staff of 12, overseeing budgets, leading fundraising efforts, and strategic planning with the founding Artistic Director and the Board of Directors. The ideal candidate must have 3+ years of experience as a non-profit executive director or development director (preferably in the arts); demonstrate clear success with fundraising, strategic planning, operations and financial management; and a proven ability to cultivate strong working relationships with donors, staff and the Board of Directors. To apply, please email a cover letter, resume, professional references and salary expectations by September 27, 2010.

Location: Tigard
Compensation: Competitive Salary + Benefits
This is at a non-profit organization.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

PostingID: 1969366583

Find it here.

Job Opening: Director of Grants/Communications

2010-09-17T13:55:00.000-07:00

Hello all! This is the first of what will be a regular column here: Job Openings!

As a job-seeker (and someone always interested in the non-profit sector), I often come across rather sweet job ads that are just entirely outside my reach. But they may not be outside yours!

Note: Almost all the jobs I'll post here will be in the Portland, OR area. That's just where I live. But its an awesome place to move to!

Today's Opening:

Director of Communications & Grants Management

Date: 2010-09-17, 12:44PM PDT
Reply to: staff@q-corp.org ^{[Errors when replying to ads?]}

Mission
Our mission is to measure and improve health care in Oregon through community-wide collaboration.

The Oregon Health Quality Corporation and Community
The Oregon Health Care Quality Corporation is a non-profit organization that brings measurable improvement to the quality and value of health care in Oregon. The Quality Corporation coordinates projects that lead to real solutions for improving health care quality through better information and increased statewide collaboration. We help doctors, hospitals, insurers, providers, purchasers, government agencies, and consumers work together to accomplish what they cannot do alone.
The Opportunity Founded in 2000, the Oregon Health Care Quality Corporation is a robust organization that is making a substantive difference in Oregon health care. It is managed by a strong Board of Directors, including senior representatives from consumer groups, physician groups, health plans, employers, hospitals, and policymakers. The Quality Corp provides a neutral forum for sharing information and best practices and identifies strategic projects for improving health care through collaborative activities. The Quality Corp seeks to strengthen, not duplicate, the work of other organizations engaged in quality improvement in the Oregon health care marketplace. The Quality Corp manages a voluntary multi-payer data system that delivers health care quality and efficiency measurement information to providers, purchasers and consumers. Further, Quality Corp assists those audiences in using the information to improve health and the value of health care. Quality Corp’s near-term strategic direction seeks to add clinical data sets, enhanced use of cost data and more robust quality improvement technical assistance for providers and consumers.
The work of the Quality Corp is recognized nationally. The Quality Corp received the Chartered Value Exchange (CVE) designation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2008 in recognition of the organization’s leadership to improve care in Oregon. In 2007, the Quality Corp became one of seventeen organizations nationwide to be awarded a grant from Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q), a program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s signature effort to lift the overall quality of health care in targeted communities, reduce racial and ethnic disparities and provide models for national reform. Quality Corp is also a member of the Network for Regional Healthcare Improvement, a national coalition of regional health improvement alliances that are working to improve the quality and value of health care delivery in the U.S.

Position Summary
Reporting to the Executive Director, this individual leads, develops and implements a variety of strategies to communicate the Quality Corp’s value proposition and initiatives to internal and external audiences. S/he plans, administers, manages, and coordinates activities of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) project.

Responsibilities
• Develop and implement coordinated communication strategies to convey the Quality Corp value proposition and strategic initiatives through its Web site, newsletters, consumer materials, media relations, technical reports, and partner publications.
• Design and deploy strategies to sustain strong relationships with key external organizations to include provider associations, public sector agencies, employers, business groups, and consumer organizations.
• Oversee the project work and performance of contractors and staff for management of consumer and technical materials, website content, and general communications with all stakeholders.
• Coordinate production of highly technical products, including health care quality reports, and tools for providers and consumers.
• Develop and convene gatherings of strategic partners, and stakeholder organizations through events such as work groups, roundtable discussions and learning sessions.
• Support and coordinate the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Aligning Forces for Quality grant team. Develop and monitor project plans. Coordinate grant proposals, progress reports, evaluation, and consumer engagement strategies and activities.

Background and Competencies
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills for technically difficult and politically sensitive issues. Includes public speaking and presentation on controversial subjects, and ability to write clear, concise, compelling and interesting narrative and statistical reports.
• Excellent organizational skills and ability to manage complex processes involving coordination of multiple parallel tasks and organizations.
• Strong interpersonal skills.
• Ability to meet deadlines, work within budget, and flexibility to adapt to a changing environment.
• Ability to represent the Quality Corp effectively to top management and boards of directors of physicians, hospitals, public groups, health plans, employers, and consumer groups.
• Experience using computer software such as Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook.
• Experience supervising and/or coordinating the work of others, including direct staff, non-direct staff and contractors.
• Master’s Degree in Public Health, Public Administration, Health Administration, Business Administration or a related field and at least five years’ related experience; a Bachelor’s degree and equivalent experience may also be considered.

How to Apply
Please send a resume, cover letter and answers to the following four questions electronically to: staff@Q-Corp.org by September 22, 2010.

1. Describe your experience in creating and executing strategic communications. What do you think are the key elements in a communication plan for a non-profit organization?

2. Describe your experience writing technical material. Provide a sample of written material you have developed.

3. Describe your experience supporting coalitions and/or partnerships. What do you think are the key elements for developing a constructive relationship with other organizations?

4. Describe one experience managing a complex project. Provide an overview of the project, problems that were encountered and remedied, and results. Be clear regarding your specific role in the effort.

For more information, visit the Oregon Health Care Quality Corporation’s web sites at: www.q-corp.org and www.PartnerForQualityCare.org.

Location: Portland
Compensation: The annual salary for this position is dependent upon experience. Benefits include comprehensive health, life, short- and long-term disability coverages, and a 403(B) retirement plan.
This is at a non-profit organization.
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

PostingID: 1959394949

Good luck non-profit professionals!

My Thoughts on Company Fitness Programs

2010-09-14T15:35:00.001-07:00

I feel that one fine day, when I own my own business/run a non-profit, I want to be the best place to be employed at, period. Best pay, best benefits, best workplace culture. Because that's how you get and keep the best employees. And that's how you treat employees in general, because they're human, and because employment is a two way street. I, as the manager, have obligations to my team. Instead of the way many businesses choose to view employment, which is that they hire someone who needs money and thus can treat them however they want, because if an employee makes a fuss they can be replaced tomorrow, on the cheap.

But there are definitely questions about how to provide that stellar workplace. I feel that encouraging the health of employees is a good thing, but as the Evil HR Lady points out this in this article I recently read, it can definitely be done badly.

The question came from someone whose company has a program where participation gets you a discount on your healthcare premiums, which is great, but some of the programs are definitely questionable, such as the challenge to lose 10 pounds in 10 weeks. The concern the reader has is that these sorts of challenges could be triggering events in people with eating disorders, which is totally true.

But the Evil HR Lady also pointed out a (seemingly) very good program, at Scott's (the people who make Miracle Grow):

"But Scott’s didn’t just tell people to lose weight. They offered actual medical intervention from, you know, people who actually know something about health. I can tell you right now that the Professional in Human Resources Certification doesn’t require any knowledge about heart disease."

The Scott's program, however, is hardly without controversy. The Evil HR Lady cites this fascinating article on the trial by fire Scott's endured as one of the first big companies to introduce something like a company ban on smoking and tackling issues like diabetes and obesity. A quote from the Business Week article:

"Workers told the CEO they were angry. Hagedorn concedes the program had Big Brother overtones. But he's adamant about bringing down health costs—even if it means being authoritarian. "If people understand the facts and still choose to smoke, it's suicidal," he says. "And we can't encourage suicidal behavior."'

I think smoking cessation programs are an excellent start. I don't know about requiring it, but letting your employees have access to whatever they need to stop smoking is definitely a good thing.

And the idea of charging more on health premiums for people who don't, say, join a gym or use the free resources available for losing weight, is totally fine with me. I think that maybe firing people for smoking takes it a little far, but then, so does Scott's, who hasn't fired anyone since the first guy they did, who now is suing them. I hope they win the fight. I mean, maybe it was a dick move to fire the guy for smoking on his 30th birthday during his probation period (before he had access to the company's cessation programs), and I think they should probably just offer to hire him back. But overall, I see a glimmer of hope for company fitness programs (just not ones like the one the questioner on the Evil HR Lady's blog asked about to begin with).

Top Blog Picks: September 12, 2010

2010-09-12T15:17:00.000-07:00

Perhaps its the lethargy from spending just hours and hours on busses a couple days ago travelling to an interview, but it seems that its been a slow week or two in the blog world. I have, however, found a couple of items worth sharing with you all!

Additionally, look forward to not one but two collaborative posts within the next week or so: one with the wonderful Daniesha Hunter over at Explore. Dream. Discover. and one with the fabulous Tanya Simpson over at Work in Progress. These will be some great posts, so keep an eye out!

In the meantime!

Ask A Manager: If a day comes where I don't have an Ask a Manager question in the Top Blog Picks, it would have to be because she's sick of putting up with people's shit and not answering questions anymore, because they're all just gold. This is a great post about whether or not you should check your gut instinct at the door when looking to hire people.

Through Non-Profit Eyes: I have to admit, the elevator pitch seems really tough to me. But I can recognize its absolute necessity for any non-profit and, really, any business. This is a great post on how to write a good elevator pitch for your organization.

Portland Real Estate: This is a new blog I'm following, written by real-estate agent extraordinaire Beth Silva. Now, I have no possible property which could possibly have any kinds of gains of the capital kind. But this is a handy post, and I've bookmarked it for future use. She explains, simply and briefly, what Capital Gains are, and how to calculate them. I love when professionals answer questions in ways I can understand.

NonProfit Gold: In the last year or two I've discovered I really enjoy management and working with internal service. So I love that Nonprofit Gold posted this excellent entry on becoming a humble and strong leader. Those are not usually the first two things you necessarily think of wanting to work on when you are in a leadership position, but there is some really solid advice in there.

That's it for now. Like I said, busses make me a little muddle-headed. But this week, I think we'll see blogging explode onto the scene again! Or at least I'll have the motivation to put out a few good entries.

Misguided philanthropy? Or is it better to have donated at all?

2010-09-10T10:28:00.000-07:00

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that an MIT alum is donating a staggering $24 million to the institution to increase enrollment. They will also be re-naming a dorm after him.

This makes me a little angry, I'll admit. $24 million could do SO MUCH in the world. He could bring any small or medium size non-profit completely in the black. He could build a school. He could buy tons of those straws that purify water, making clean drinking water available for tens of thousands of people.

But he decided that increasing MIT's enrollment by a measly 250 students each year is more important.

And granted, I can see his point. In theory, those additional MIT graduates will do wonderful things in the world, multiplying his gift many times, and ultimately doing greater good.

I just don't really buy it.

For one, is it just me, or is MIT like super competitive? I mean, how the heck are they spending that $24 million in such a way as to increase enrollment, when they accepted only 10% of applicants this past year? They're not building a new dorm, just renaming it. And while enrollment has dropped since the 1990's, I have serious doubts that MIT is in any kind of significant financial trouble, and it clear that they have no need to attract more applicants. Although I guess faculty at that school must make BANK.

The Greatest Evil Of The Workplace

2010-09-08T12:43:00.001-07:00

So a question I asked over at Ask a Manager caused such vitriol, nastiness and personal mudslinging that the poor Ms. Green was forced to do something almost unprecedented on her excellent career advice and hiring blog: shut down the comments section.

What caused this outpouring of sentiment? What issue could possibly lead to such unwanted comments as a poster telling me to go get a job slinging cocktails in a tank top, shorts and flip flops?

Pantyhose.

I hate them. Reasonable people don't care whether people they're interviewing are wearing them.

But as I constantly fail to take into account, there are waaaaaaay too many unreasonable people in the world.

Basically, the core argument came down to one side saying they're outdated (and super uncomfortable), with the other side saying that its always better to over dress than under dress, especially in professional settings.

That seems like such a reasonable discussion. And yet here is a great quote I pulled out:

"I don't believe this. What does the interview take, an hour or two? There's about a 90% chance the office will be air conditioned and comfortable. Is it really that much of a burden to you? Maybe you need to get a job slinging drinks at a poolside bar so you can wear shorts, a tank top and flip flops, unless you "hate" them, too. You're going for an executive position and you can't endure a tiny bit of discomfort to try to make a good impression? You want to set yourself apart from other candidates, so take the time and make the effort to present yourself as ideally as possible. Wear a neutral shade of hose or black, depending on your outfit. That's a business look. If you get the job, you can adjust to what seems to be the standard of the office. Show some class, not some bug bites and razor burn."

Ok, for one, I'm certainly not going for an executive position. I mean, I would have a hard time jumping up from fast food to executive. But that's not the point. This was really the first comment where things started to go ugly. Luckily, it was also one of the only ones directed at me specifically.

Why is my suit not classy enough?! It's a killer suit, as I mention in the question. Do I really make the jump from professional businesswoman to streetwalker if I skip the hose? Really?

Another great comment:

"Kara - this isn't Ugly Betty, it's called the professional business world. Law, Finance, Accounting, Sales...I work in one of those fields and I hire people do you?

You want to move up you dress the part and sorry to burst your bubble the people who don't look the part don't move up. Impression is half the battle at a company, and mini skirts, bare legs, sleeveless shirts, open shoes are not cutting it.

Pantyhose are a MUST at those interviews, not tights, tights are for ballet dancers."

I was really surprised by the number of people who mentioned TV shows. That my not wearing pantyhose indicates that I'm some kind of idiot who takes all my cues from reality TV. And I'm also suprised that bare legs are in the same category as a miniskirt. I would NEVER wear a miniskirt to an interview. I also am not sure what the objection is to an open-toed shoe. AAM advised keeping it closed, but its a distinction I don't quite understand.

OK, I'll risk opening it to the floor. What do you guys think? Are pantyhose necessary to wear with my awesome, conservative suit to my interview?

This whole Kentucky luxury suites thing

2010-09-04T19:49:00.000-07:00

I was first alerted to this story by the fabulous Madelyn Teresa over at her Non-Profit Experience blog, and she was understandably outraged by the fact that a charity that provides former inmates transitional housing and employment assistance recently spent $92,000 to lease luxury suites at University of Louisville sports arenas to “help us continue to thank supporters and corporate partners who employ our clients,” and the facilities will also be available to volunteers, staff and their families (though not to the former inmates they serve).

And I can definitely think of ways that perhaps that money could have been spent better. But I have a hard time being as outraged. I provide the example of the charity ball; a very expensive event put together to raise funds from the wealthy. It is justifiable in the benefits that it brings the charity, even though obviously the thousands of dollars to put on such an event could be used more directly to do the work of the organization. I'm worried that we become so alarmed at large expenditures by non-profit groups (including higher salaries for executives) that we don't give them a chance to explain how they're getting their money's worth, and how those questionable expenditures will ultimately further their mission.

Don't get me wrong. I've argued against high executive salaries in non-profits, and I have a hard time imagining how this charity will get $92,000 of utility from this purchase, but I do think that organizations need to have the freedom to experiment and do what works for them. Oversight is important, but constant scrutiny leads to a lack of risk-taking, and that means that we could miss out on valuable new ideas and programs. What do you guys think?

My First Voicemail Interview

2010-09-04T19:42:00.000-07:00

Hahaha, I won!

I applied for a Customer Service job with an insurance agency, and a few days later I get an email saying I've been moved to the next stage of the application process. They tell me to call a certain number after 7pm on a certain day, and leave a message no more than 2 minutes long answering the following questions:

1. Please reiterate your salary requirements, and explain how your value added services in our agency will grow our business and justify your salary.
2. Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

A voicemail interview! I didn't know such a thing existed.

Of course, I intended to write out my responses as the wonderful Ask a Manager would surely advise.... after all, if you're given the benefit of making a prepared statement, why wouldn't you prepare it?

But then, being myself, I winged it. Well, that's not totally true either. I got the email the night before it was scheduled, so I thought about my response all day. And I must have gotten it right, because I got an email to schedule an in-person interview.

And as I thought about it, I wondered if a prepared statement was a good idea after all. I mean, its obviously best to think about it and know what you're going to say, because it always it. But I suspect that if you actually read the prepared statement - and people who aren't that good at public speaking probably would - you could probably tell when listening to it that it was being read. I think mine sounded good, intelligent, funny and off-the-cuff, all of which I think helped me.

What do ya'll think?

Who's watching the watchdogs?

2010-09-01T18:24:00.000-07:00

The Chronicle of Philanthropy had a great article today on some recent studies done by academics examining charity watchdog groups. Very interesting results!

First, the studies looked at three groups: the American Institute of Philanthropy, the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator. The report summarized that the metrics these guys use are confusing and often too simplistic (such as in the case of overhead), and that charities sometimes make decisions that are not in their long-term best interests just to get higher rankings with these watchdog groups.

One point made by George E. Mitchell, a research assistant at the Transnational NGO Initiative at the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University, is that these ratings systems are sometimes biased against smaller non-profits, due to economies of scale being more efficient. I knows that this can also be the case with the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, because one of the requirements they have is unpaid board members, which can be difficult for new or very small groups.

However, it is worth noting that the BBB Wise Giving Alliance does change benchmarks if the organization objects. Which is pointed out in the article as a downside of the watchdog system, but I think its a huge plus. Its GOOD if a charity can still get a good score with the BBB despite having a paid board if they can give a compelling reason for having such.

And of course, there's the timeless problem of charities being held to rigid overhead standards, regardless of their individual needs (a problem I discussed in an entry yesterday).

Basically, the article ended on the same note that pretty much every article ends on: something needs to change, but nobody is totally sure of what. Though there was some encouraging discussion about accountability and transparency.