Recruiters have a bird's-eye view of job woes

I e-mailed a newsroom recruiter acquaintance. He has worked at a Florida newspaper for over 25 years. The newspaper, which I won't name in order to protect this man's privacy, has always attracted top talent. The publication benefited from the efforts of this recruiter. It's been one of the best papers in the country, winning numerous awards and doing well in terms of circulation.

I discovered this week that the recruiter's job was eliminated last year. Another casualty of the recession. However, the company that he works for let him stay at the paper in a non-managerial editing position. I am sure it isn't ideal, but it's a job. As a senior staffer, at least he was given the option of remaining on the payroll when his recruiting job was eliminated. He didn't have to go on unemployment or relocate in his 50s.

I talked to another recruiter this week. She is at a well-regarded publication in Virginia. She is a couple years older than me. I told her of my situation. She was impressed by my resume. But I noticed a shift in her tone when she learned more about my extensive efforts to find work. She went from professional and complimentary to sounding scared and pessimistic -- scared for herself and her job, seemingly realizing that if I can struggle, so could she.

I figure my story scares a lot of people. Folks look at my credentials and can't believe I was laid off, let alone unable to find work for more than a year. They then look at their own precarious situations, wondering if they are about to fall through the ice.

The woman from Virginia told me how money is still being made at some newspapers, but that profits aren't going into hiring. Some papers are using revenue to pay down debt. She ended by saying she'd pray for me.

Another recruiter I know in another profession recently had to leave her job. It's not just newspapers that are struggling. Fortunately, she found a new job before being laid off. She saw the writing on the wall. The large company she worked for had lost a lot of employees in the last two years and wasn't hiring. Her position became unnecessary. She got out while the gettin' was good, something I regret not doing when I had the chance.

If you can break through the HR-speak, many recruiters will give you the real scoop on how bad the job situation is in this country. They are very well aware of the millions of very talented, very eager folks waiting in lines for jobs that don't exist. It has to be tough for these recruiting professionals to remain optimistic in the face of certain realities.

Graham does the right thing by not cashing in

The Washington Post Company's CEO, Donald Graham, has been refusing raises and bonuses for himself during the recession.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it upsets me when CEOs of other large businesses, particularly hard-hit newspaper companies, lavish themselves in cash while laying off employees, freezing salaries and forcing furloughs. However, Graham appears to have some scruples and leadership qualities that will benefit him and his newspaper company in a variety of ways in the long run.

The Washington Post is a quality publication. It still practices watchdog journalism despite shrinking newsroom budgets and a thinning staff. It apparently has a CEO with heightened sensitivities, a man who at least understands that you don't show employees the door and then give yourself a raise. I know things are not all rosy at The Post, but at least there is some sense of integrity at the top.

Read more.

Building wealth from the bottom up a good idea

Is there any question that the system is rigged to favor the rich getting richer? Is there any doubt that the middle class is falling off the cliff at a faster rate as a result of the fix being in?

When I learned that the top bosses in my former company got huge bonuses the year after cutting thousands of jobs (including mine), that was pretty much it for me. I don't need anymore convincing that the system needs to radically change.

The salary gap between employees and CEOs has been widening for decades. The trickle-down theory isn't working anymore. These same CEOs who are pulling in disproportionately large salaries are also driving regular folks right to the poor house with layoffs, furloughs and salary reductions. I don't condone a system that rewards the wealthiest people for eliminating the jobs of folks who are just trying to get by. Is that radical of me?

I don't understand the lack of character it must take to accept a million-dollar bonus only weeks or months after laying off thousands of employees, many who may never work in a good job again because of their age. Ronald Reagan's trickle-down principles only worked when there was a sense of fairness at the top -- a willingness to share the wealth. It doesn't work when one guy runs off with all the profits.

Even our tax system, with all the loopholes, favors the wealthy. I can't afford an accountant to find ways for me not to pay my fair share of taxes. But you can bet anyone of certain means isn't doing their tax returns with TurboTax software.

Is it time that the wealthy and powerful chip in a bit more? Certainly. They can do so in a number of ways, starting with hiring people in their businesses where existing employees are stretched thin. Getting people back to work increases the tax base and relieves some of the stress on the current workforce. If a company can afford to give out obscene bonuses, it can afford to hire a few people.

This brings me to the top article in The New York Times today. It talks about President Obama wanting to address wealth inequalities as part of the health-insurance reform bill. Instead of screaming about socialism, the more conservative-minded folks should understand that evening the playing field isn't a crime against capitalism. This country was built on a sense of equality and relative fairness. We've lost our way in recent years. What we have now isn't equal or fair. If the president wants to shift things back to a time where wealth was built from the bottom up, I don't see that as an act of socialism. I see that as a method of preserving and rebuilding the middle class.

Of course, I am speaking mostly to reasonable conservatives here, not people who think Sarah Palin is on an intellectual par with Stephen Hawking or that Rush Limbaugh isn't mostly motivated by protecting his own wealth and ego.

I am not a proponent of handouts. I don't want to see America turned into a welfare nation. But I do back efforts to stop the wealthiest 5 percent from walking all over 95 percent of fellow Americans. Just think how many jobs would have been saved in the last two years if there was more corporate oversight and less personal and institutionalized greed. Instead, the rich and powerful drove us right into a recession while they fattened their bank accounts and landed safely with their golden parachutes. They fired hard-working people in order to be rewarded by their boards of directors. The bankers, the CEOs and everyone who is unethically benefiting from this recession are the ones behaving in a very un-American way.

Health-care bill is a done deal, let's move on

Everyone knew there would be a lot of talk about the new health-care reform bill this morning. What's infuriating is that politicians still don't seem to understand that the economy is the No. 1 concern of most Americans. Our leaders in Washington are still focusing on health-care reform. Unbelievable. Republicans want to repeal it. Democrats want to enhance it. And the battle, which should have ended with last night's vote, continues on as job losses mount, roads crumble, wars rage on and the debt rises.

Generally, I support health-insurance reform, though I must admit that supporting anything that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, backs is difficult for me. It was tough listening to her babble during her victory speech late last night. At times, she seemed downright incoherent.

We need to move on. Health-care reform is a done deal. A lot of what is in the bill will be good for most Americans whether they realize it or not. They should stop listening to "entertainers" like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh -- two guys who are trying to protect their vast wealth -- and start paying attention to what really led to last night's historic vote.

The health insurance companies dug their own graves by exploiting Americans for decades. Greed and arrogance eventually caught up with the big insurers. They probably never imagined the party would end. But it has. And they only have themselves to blame. There should be a lesson in this for all corporations that lose their way. Few people want socialism, but measured governmental regulations seem to be necessary more often than not.

Both political parties would serve America well to shake hands and get on with more important business. If bad feelings linger from the health-care debate, and if the media can't also move on to other subjects of critical importance, we will surely be in far more trouble in the not-so-distant future. It's time for our leaders to start acting like adults and true patriots. Let's put the same energy that went into health-care reform into rebuilding our economy.

Movie touches a nerve or two

I saw "Up in the Air" this weekend. Perhaps not the wisest choice in a DVD rental, particularly a few days after I read that a certain executive at my former company received a million-dollar bonus for essentially laying off thousands of folks like me. Combined with a series of setbacks in my job search in recent weeks, and the harsh reality of how hard it is to find work at 52, the film didn't do a lot to improve my spirits.

So if you are jobless, or fear losing your job, I wouldn't recommend this movie. I appreciate Hollywood making a film that deals with real issues like aging, career and unemployment, but the people who really need to see it the most probably wouldn't fully comprehend the film. The basic plot is simple and the movie can be enjoyed on a couple different levels. But the subplots and messages are a bit meatier and, sadly, speak more to those of us on the outside looking in.