The recent dust-up over comments by the CEO of Chick-fil-A on gay marriage have provided a good test case regarding the type society we are vs. the type society some would wish us to be. Liberals constantly crow about "tolerance" and "diversity", but their walk almost never keeps pace with their talk. After Truett Cathy surprised absolutely no one who knows anything about him by saying he believes marriage to be defined as one man/one woman, the left went into high hysteria with a few mayors suggested that Chick-fil-A not even look at their cities for possible expansion. That those mayors can be supported by anyone should be frightening, but in this age of speech codes, it isn't.
Last I checked, Cathy had a Constitutional right to his opinion. There is no corresponding right that forces me to agree with him, nor is there one that inoculates him from potential backlash. In this case, 'backlash' means anyone offended by his remarks can stop buying Chick-fil-A's products. In a free society, it does not - or should not - mean that elected officials get to use veiled threats of govt action in order to force businesses into ideological compliance. If a city has the legal authority to stop a business from building because its CEO opposes gay marriage, then nothing can stop another city from similar sanctions against a CEO who, say, opposes abortion or favors gun control. And, that's the thing about the left.
Liberals believe that diversity is a group of folks who look different but march in ideological lockstep, and tolerance is everyone agreeing with even the stupidest ideas. Wrong on both counts. Diversity means accepting that individuals are different and and will have varying opinions on a range of topics. Tolerance means understanding that not everyone has to agree with you and that a person having a different viewpoint is not inherently evil or motivated by sinister forces. It just means that person has his/her own opinion.
We get into (potentially) serious trouble when govt believes that its role is mandating thought and what the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, among others, are doing is exactly that. Each has said that Chick-fil-A may not be allowed to build in their cities because some elected official - that would be a person who works for us - does not like what a CEO believes. To call this a slippery slope insults the term; it is a steep precipice that can only produce bad results.
There are some in this country, okay there are many, who hate the concept of individual liberty or of individual anything, for that matter. They would prefer that we become a Borg-like collective where everyone is assigned a specific set of thoughts and then does what our betters dictate. That sort of approach has been tried in numerous places, always with bad outcomes. Liberty means the freedom to think and act for yourself, and to understate that statements can have consequences. Some folks may boycott Chick-fil-A just as surely as folks who agree with Cathy may double down on doing business with the chain. That is how a free society works.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
This is how you beat age discrimination
In this current state of normal - and sorry, I refuse to call it the new normal because nothing lasts forever - there are some economic realities to be faced. One of them is, seasoned workers stand a very good chance of being screwed, sometimes because of self-defeating reasons and sometimes because of misperception.
The biggest self-defeating reason is the most obvious - economics. Less experienced people command lower salaries. Why self-defeating? If you run an organization, new hires are essentially learning on your watch, quite possibly learning enough so that they can shop themselves to a higher bidder. There is nothing wrong with inexperienced people; I used to be one. But, you can't run a place on their backs. They need people to learn from, people whose roles they can move into at some point. Conversely, the older worker will also learn from younger counterparts, but that is another topic.
Areas of misperception are going to be more common and they are infinitely more maddening:
Tough economic times have made for a much competitive workplace. Graduate schools have enrolled a goodly number of older students who find that their experience alone is not enough. And, it is difficult to blame organizations. When hundreds of people apply for an opening, there is no way a human is going to sift through every resume. So, screening parameters are designed to cull the resume herd; "Masters" is one of the words used to narrow the field of prospects.
You cannot change your age but you don't have to run away from it either. Experience matters, perhaps more so today than in fatter times. But be aware; you are going to face one or more of the bullet items if you are of a certain age and on the job hunt. Be ready with answers.
The biggest self-defeating reason is the most obvious - economics. Less experienced people command lower salaries. Why self-defeating? If you run an organization, new hires are essentially learning on your watch, quite possibly learning enough so that they can shop themselves to a higher bidder. There is nothing wrong with inexperienced people; I used to be one. But, you can't run a place on their backs. They need people to learn from, people whose roles they can move into at some point. Conversely, the older worker will also learn from younger counterparts, but that is another topic.
Areas of misperception are going to be more common and they are infinitely more maddening:
- "You are overqualified." While that may be true, you are not applying for such a job in order to show off. It may be that you've been in your boss' shoes and you found the view unpleasant. Or, it could be that you want to dial down your level of responsibility. Or, you want to focus on a specific task(s) without also having to supervise/internalize the drama of subordinates. But your best means of overcoming that objection is this: "I have had your position and I understand the demands and pressures you face. I can help you with some of them and you can be certain I will not add to them."
- "Are you sure you won't be bored?" The plain fact is that not every job is a thrill a minute, but jobs exist for one purpose - there is work to be done. Presumably, you will be busy. Focus on the skills required for the job and the tasks that are entailed in it. "The mark of a well-run organization is when the routine things are done routinely. Every place has its things that, while maybe not exciting, are nonetheless critical to the overall function. I like contributing to success and a big part of success is so-called little things; this is where my experience really comes to the fore. I have seen what happens when details are addressed and when they are not."
- "The workplace has changed." Pardon the expression, but no shit. If you are a Boomer, your entire existence has been about change. You remember when research meant going to the library, using the Dewey Decimal System to track down reference material, and then typing the finished work. Maybe even on a manual typewriter. If you know the words "pica" and "elite", you know what I am talking about. The tools have been changing your entire career and each time, you acclimated. Here's the bottom line answer to that objection: "Communicating with people is about ideas, not about the means through which ideas are transmitted. People can learn gadgets quickly; it takes a lot longer to learn to think. (Besides, all of these tools that your generation takes for granted? My generation invented most of them.")
Tough economic times have made for a much competitive workplace. Graduate schools have enrolled a goodly number of older students who find that their experience alone is not enough. And, it is difficult to blame organizations. When hundreds of people apply for an opening, there is no way a human is going to sift through every resume. So, screening parameters are designed to cull the resume herd; "Masters" is one of the words used to narrow the field of prospects.
You cannot change your age but you don't have to run away from it either. Experience matters, perhaps more so today than in fatter times. But be aware; you are going to face one or more of the bullet items if you are of a certain age and on the job hunt. Be ready with answers.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
America is NOT other countries, part II
Whenever you hear someone use "but other countries do it" as the rationalization for why the US should do anything, that is a red flag. What will follow is a false argument based on emotion rather than logic, numbers that are virtually meaningless, and policy desires focused on intentions rather than outcomes.
The most obvious example is health care. Set aside the Supreme Court's decisions to a key argument surrounding support for govt running the health care delivery system: "other democratic nations do it and they spend much less than America does." On its face, that claims is absolutely true; the US spends far more on a per-capita basis on health care than does any other country. What is left out of the argument is a key reason behind that fact - all of those other countries say NO to spending that the US routinely approves.
I can use my own parents as examples. My father died from leukemia at age 83. One of his last medical statements included a $12,000 bill, and insurance payment, for chemotherapy. In his native Europe, that would have been 12K saved because a govt-run system would not spend that sort of money on a person of his age. And there is my mother, whose coverage repeatedly paid for $500 prescriptions refills for a drug that, as best I can tell, did nothing to either extend her life or improve its quality. Again, in her native land, this expense would have been a no-go.
That is an unpleasant truth too many Americans refuse to acknowledge. Those dastardly death panels that Sarah Palin mentioned, the ones that liberals used as a cudgel with which to beat her, exist. No, they are not actually called death panels but they are the functional equivalent. When a bureaucracy decides that it will NOT pay for a particular course of treatment, the outcome is no different. And Obamacare includes a panel that will be making such decisions.
Whether these panels are good or not is immaterial; the point is that they exist in all the other democracies that advocates of govt-run health care point to as the example we follow. As it is, no one disputes that health care dollars are disproportionately spent in the last few years of an individual's life. In actuarial terms, this makes no sense. The taxpayer is forced to spend hundreds, if not thousands and tens of thousands, so that grandpa can have an additional three weeks, often three weeks that are going to be miserable. That spending comes at the expense of people who are much younger and whose potential for quality life is much greater. Fair? Maybe, maybe not, but few things in life are.
The argument that the US should do something because someone else does - without explaining all of what someone else does - is sure as hell unfair. But, it strikes at emotion, a powerful weapon. Few things are easier than using emotion as the basis for spending someone else's money; it gets a bit harder when folks eventually realize that "someone else" is them. In her lucid moments, my mother repeatedly asked for a pill, but it was one that would have ended her life, not added several months of dubious quality where she was unable to do something as simple as brush her own teeth. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that you should participate in something "because everyone else is doing it." Ironic, isn't it? We tell our kids to NOT do things based on that logic; why is it okay to use public funds to do the opposite?
The most obvious example is health care. Set aside the Supreme Court's decisions to a key argument surrounding support for govt running the health care delivery system: "other democratic nations do it and they spend much less than America does." On its face, that claims is absolutely true; the US spends far more on a per-capita basis on health care than does any other country. What is left out of the argument is a key reason behind that fact - all of those other countries say NO to spending that the US routinely approves.
I can use my own parents as examples. My father died from leukemia at age 83. One of his last medical statements included a $12,000 bill, and insurance payment, for chemotherapy. In his native Europe, that would have been 12K saved because a govt-run system would not spend that sort of money on a person of his age. And there is my mother, whose coverage repeatedly paid for $500 prescriptions refills for a drug that, as best I can tell, did nothing to either extend her life or improve its quality. Again, in her native land, this expense would have been a no-go.
That is an unpleasant truth too many Americans refuse to acknowledge. Those dastardly death panels that Sarah Palin mentioned, the ones that liberals used as a cudgel with which to beat her, exist. No, they are not actually called death panels but they are the functional equivalent. When a bureaucracy decides that it will NOT pay for a particular course of treatment, the outcome is no different. And Obamacare includes a panel that will be making such decisions.
Whether these panels are good or not is immaterial; the point is that they exist in all the other democracies that advocates of govt-run health care point to as the example we follow. As it is, no one disputes that health care dollars are disproportionately spent in the last few years of an individual's life. In actuarial terms, this makes no sense. The taxpayer is forced to spend hundreds, if not thousands and tens of thousands, so that grandpa can have an additional three weeks, often three weeks that are going to be miserable. That spending comes at the expense of people who are much younger and whose potential for quality life is much greater. Fair? Maybe, maybe not, but few things in life are.
The argument that the US should do something because someone else does - without explaining all of what someone else does - is sure as hell unfair. But, it strikes at emotion, a powerful weapon. Few things are easier than using emotion as the basis for spending someone else's money; it gets a bit harder when folks eventually realize that "someone else" is them. In her lucid moments, my mother repeatedly asked for a pill, but it was one that would have ended her life, not added several months of dubious quality where she was unable to do something as simple as brush her own teeth. Keep that in mind next time someone suggests that you should participate in something "because everyone else is doing it." Ironic, isn't it? We tell our kids to NOT do things based on that logic; why is it okay to use public funds to do the opposite?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)