Neem contact op: (+31) (0)6 521 599 29   Mail Ons

Why You Probably Won’t Move for a Job

Geplaatst op mei 24, 2014 in News

Leaving on a Jet Plane (but Just for the Week)

Don’t Get Around Much Anymore

Human Resource Executive

Fewer people are moving for jobs today — and when people do move, not many are citing work as the reason. Wharton’s Peter Cappelli is inclined to believe that the reason for this “has something to do with employment practices,” and he lists a couple. One: Long-distance commuting is on the rise – people are taking new jobs without uprooting their families. Two: There’s no such thing as lifetime employment anymore; when companies rebalance their workforces, adding employees at one site and cutting back at another, “it’s easier to let people go in the down location and hire new ones in the up location. And they do that a lot.” Most workers, he posits, understand the new dynamics: “If you were offered a new job in another city where you have no ties or networks, and you suspected that the job would probably not last more than three years (which is a good guess), how much of a raise would they have to give you to get you to move? … I suspect it would be a lot more than most employers are willing to pay.”




Moral and Financial

The Case for Reparations

The Atlantic

This is the most important thing you will read this week (if not this decade, written without hyperbole), particularly if you live in or do business in the United States. An excerpt:

“Having been enslaved for 250 years, black people were not left to their own devices. They were terrorized. In the Deep South, a second slavery ruled. In the North, legislatures, mayors, civic associations, banks, and citizens all colluded to pin black people into ghettos, where they were overcrowded, overcharged, and undereducated. Businesses discriminated against them, awarding them the worst jobs and the worst wages. Police brutalized them in the streets. And the notion that black lives, black bodies, and black wealth were rightful targets remained deeply rooted in the broader society. Now we have half-stepped away from our long centuries of despoilment, promising, ‘Never again.’ But still we are haunted. It is as though we have run up a credit-card bill and, having pledged to charge no more, remain befuddled that the balance does not disappear. The effects of that balance, interest accruing daily, are all around us.”




Look Busy

No Time: How Did We Get So Busy?

The New Yorker

It’s the norm in many of America’s elite professions — management, consulting, medicine, the law, certainly journalism — to work and work until you can’t see straight, then to go to bed and get up and work some more, day after day, even weekend after weekend. Are we nuts? Wasn’t the whole point of entering an elite profession that you wouldn’t have to work like a dog? John Maynard Keynes thought so. In 1928 he predicted that in a couple of generations, when capitalism matured, people in developed countries would need to work only about three hours per day.

In a new book, Overwhelmed, Brigid Schulte looks at why Keynes turned out to have been so wrong, and she finds unexpected nuances. As Elizabeth Kolbert writes in a review in The New Yorker, lower-wage workers have indeed experienced increased leisure time, while high earners have reported intense time pressure. Maybe it’s all about money: At the top of the wage scale, putting in more hours can mean getting a lot more pay. Or maybe we’re too susceptible to the hard-work mystique — to the “busier than thou” attitude that’s so pervasive these days. Or, as The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson rebuts, maybe we’re not as busy as we think we are. —Andy O’Connell




Fine by Me

Kill the Cover Letter and Résumé

New York Magazine

If I had a dollar for every time a friend delivered an impassioned rant about the loathsome act of writing a cover letter, I would have so much money that I would never need another job and thus would never have to write a cover letter again. Exaggeration aside (and, you know, I quite like my work), Jesse Singal does a splendid job of rounding up the research-backed evidence against “the packet” — the résumé and cover letter. One of the most important criticisms is that companies’ traditional system of basing decisions on packets, while designed to be objective, is fraught with bias. And then there’s the question of whether packets are a good predictor of the skills a potential employee brings to the table. Singal outlines alternatives companies are turning to; but unless — or until — business makes a major shift, let me suggest reading this.




Give It Up

How Warren Buffett Made Me Smarter About Charity

Forbes

We give a few bucks to this charity and a few to that, but are we really helping to make the world a better place? Richard Eisenberg writes in Forbes about a six-week online course he took on charitable giving and how it changed his thinking. Don’t be misled by the article title: Warren Buffett had nothing to do with it, though his sister did. Doris Buffett’s Learning by Giving Foundation partnered with Northeastern University to offer the course, which taught students how to evaluate nonprofits according to, among other things, their management and operational excellence.

But good luck trying to get that kind of information from nonprofits. Eisenberg was “surprised — no, disappointed — by how few provided the kind of specifics about their financials and staffing that would let prospective donors make informed decisions.” One important lesson: Don’t discount a charity simply because it pays its executives well. Another: If you’re going to give, be a sustained giver, making repeated donations to the same organizations. That helps ensure a steadier, more predictable income stream. —Andy O’Connell




BONUS BITS

A Little Privacy, Please

Why Companies Should Compete for Your Privacy (Working Knowledge)
Welcome to the New, Monetized Internet, Where Privacy Is Going to Cost You (Pacific Standard)
Fine Line Seen in U.S. Spying on Companies (The New York Times)




Laat een Reactie Achter