A Texas Lowe's Store Hires Two New Employees. Both Doing Great

Clay Luthy and his service dog
hard at work in an Abilene, Texas Lowe's

A Lowe's store in Abilene Texas recently made a new hire for a sales associate.

Turns out the hire was a twofer.

The human resources department had several applicants for a part time job at the Abilene Lowe's and it turns out Clay Luthy, a disabled Air Force veteran, was the best person for the job.

The catch is Luthy needs has service dog, Charlotte, to be with him. So Lowe's hired Charlotte, too, says television station KRBC in Abilene.

The pair have been working at Lowe's for the past two months and they are a hit with staff and customers.

Lowe's does make minor accommodations for Luthy and Charlotte, such as scheduling them to work in the paint department so that Charlotte has a place to sit.

Like all Lowe's employees both Luthy and Charlotte wear red vests with the corporate logo on them. That helps customers understand when Charlotte is working. You can't pet her while she's on the job, so the vest is a polite "hands off" signal.

Good job, Lowe's, for knowing a good hire when they see one, and for being willing to make some minor but nice accommodations for the employee.

I wish all employers could be that understanding.

Worst Boss Ever Seeks Advice, Wants To Make Things Worse

I work for an employee owned company called Gardener's Supply in Vermont.

One of the worst bosses in the world just wrote
in for advice. My advice to her? Quit. 

I genuinely like to work there, and I'm not saying that to win Brownie Points from my supervisors.

Among my tasks is handling customer service issues and dealing with telephone sales.

We're expected to work hard there and be on top of things, but everybody from the CEO on down is totally fair about what they expect out of us, and it's a good atmosphere.

The supervisors are great.

I bring this up because I read about another call center/customer service operation that couldn't be more polar opposite than where I work.

There's a web site called Ask The Manager where people seek advice with workplace issues.

One manager wrote in with this note about an employee quit on the spot with no notice. Read what the manager writes and I'll bet you'll think the employee did the right thing, even though quitting without advance notice is almost always a no-no:

Here's a good chunk of what this manager wrote:

"One employee asked to come in two hours after start time due to her college graduation ceremony being that same day. (she was taking night classes part time in order to earn her degree.)

I was unable to grant her request because she was the employee with the lowest seniority and we need coverage for that day."

The manager told the employee if she could find somebody to sub for her, then coming in two hours late would be OK. Otherwise, no dice.

The manager said she could not make an exception for this employee, but admitted to making an exception for another employee because they had concert tickets and that involves a monetary cost.

And college doesn't involve a cost?

Anyway, the manager writes on:

"I told this team member that she could not start two hours late and that she would have to skip the ceremony. An hour later, she handed me her work ID and a list of all the times she had worked late/come in early/worked overtime for each and every one of her coworkers. Then she quit on the spot."

Hurray for that employee!

Especially when we learn the employee's back story from what turns out to be this hideous manager.

"She was raised in a few dozen foster homes and has no living family. She was homeless for a bit after she turned 18 and besides us she doesn't have anyone in her life that has ever had professional employment. This is the only job she had."

The manager tells us this not out of empathy, but because she's miffed this hard-working employee would leave like that and the manager would like to reach out and "counsel" the former employee that it's not cool to quit on the spot.

She writes:

"I'm a bit upset because she was my best employee by far. Her work was excellent, she never missed a day of work in the six years she worked here, and she was my go-to person for weekends and holidays.

Even though she doesn't work here any longer, I want to reach out and tell her that quitting without notice because she didn't get her way isn't exactly professional"

Frankly, I don't think the former employee needs much in the way of advice. The former employee's only mistake was not leaving that hideous workplace long before she did.

I hope that woman, with her college degree in hand, becomes the supervisor for the manager in this story.

Because karma's a bitch.

George Orwell Should Have Worried More About Business Than Government

A California woman is suing her former
employer because she said her boss
monitored her 24/7 through the
workplace management app Xora. 

Talk about an overbearing boss! And a creepy one, if a story about a lawsuit that recently appeared in Ars Technica is true. 

The woman sying, Myma Arias, was fired from her job for the money transfer service Intermex, after disabling an app called Xora from her company-issued iPhone because it traced her every move.

It could tell where her car was going, how fast she was driving, how long she was at a given location, pretty much everything.

Arias said she had no problem with the app running while she was on duty working as a sales executive for the company.

After all, it's pretty reasonable for a boss to make sure the employee is meeting with the people she's supposed to meet with, was driving safely and working,  and not just hanging out at the nail spa or something like that.

The problem Arias said she had is that her boss, John Stubits, monitored Arias and coworkers while they were not on the job.  He could spy on her 24 hours a day.

Part of her lawsuit reads as follows, says Ars Technica. "Plantiff expressed that she had no problem with the app's GPS function during work hrs but she objected to the monitoring of her location during non-work hours and complained to Stubits tht this was an invasion of her privacy. She likened the app to a prisoner's ankle bracelet and informed Stubits that his actions were illegal. Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegal intrusion."

You have to wonder why Stubits, the boss, was so interested in his employees' off work activities. Was it away to make them feel like they should be working when they are off the clock? Or is Stubits a creepy pervert who wants to know everything about his workers?

Whatever is going on, I think we should all be rebelling against this kind of corporate spying on its employees, just as we should rebel against blanket spying by the government against its own citizens.

Of course, employers have the right to fire employees whose activities on personal time are way over the line.

In Toronto recently, an engineer with a firm was fired after he enthusiastically supported, on camera, another bro who participated in a vulgar, misogynistic insult against a female television reporter, a quote, unquote joke that's gotten popular on social media.

Where I live in Vermont, a Vermont State Police trooper was forced to resign after his superiors caught wind of offensive posts he put up on Facebook.

So yes, there are circumstances where your private life, which isn't so private nowadays, can get you fired. Often justifiably so.

But where does the boss cross the line? Certainly, they shouldnt have the right to spy on your every move. Why should bossman care if you kick back with a beer while watching the game on Saturday afternoon? Or get randy with your spouse on Friday night?

I'm hoping the boss that was monitoring his employees' every move, and is the subject of that lawsuit, gets fired himself.

I Hate Welfare Queens. You Know, Like Walmart and McDonald's

Are low wage employers the new welfare queens?
If we are using tax dollars to subsidize
the workers who don't make enough to sustain
themselves, they probably are the queens.  

Like pretty much everyone else, I don't like my tax dollars going to welfare cheats.

You know the type. These are the people who get public assistance when they shouldn't. They've found a way to receive government largess even though they already make tons of money.

The latest incarnation of the proverbial Welfare Queen some companies, like Walmart and McDonald's and all kinds of other major firms that pay minimum wage or just barely above.

They pay their workers to enhance their corporate bottom lines. The pay is so low many of the employees are on public assistance.

They can't get by on their meager salaries. So they live in subsidized housing. They're collecting SNAP benefits to put food on the table. (SNAP is the latest federal incarnation of what is commonly known as food stamps.)

This arrangement benefits the corporations, since they don't have to pay their employees adequately. Let the government do it. Your taxes and mine.

The University of California/Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education says us taxpayers are really, really subsidizing companies like Walmart and McDonald's.

It turns out us American taxpayers are subsidizing these corporations to the tune of $153 billion, yes that's billion a year.

Here's what the University of California/Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education says:

"Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of enrollees in Amerca's major public support programs are members of working familiies. The taxpayers bear a significant portion of the hidden costs of low wage work in America."

Or, to put it in more explicit terms, here's how Gawker described the situation in an article about the Berkeley study:

"It is one thing to say 'Fast food workers don't deserve $15 per hour.' But realize that what you are saying really amounts to, 'I prefer to pay the difference between what fast food workers earn and what they need to live myself, rather than making their employers pay it.' 

Yep. Your tax dollars at work. The corporate executives and shareholders, many of whom already have tons of money, are welfare queens. By paying such low wages, the government keeps these employees out of homelesseness and hunger, or at least we hope.

Shouldn't the employers be paying the workers enough money to live on, rather than making us tax payers do it? Sure, that would mean the price of some goods and services from places like Walmart and McDonald's would go up.

But either way, we're already paying.  Plus, those of us who don't even like going to Walmart and McDonald's are subsidizing the rich executives and the (often somewhat rich) shareholders in these
companies.

I know the argument. The burger flipper jobs are said to go to teenagers trying to make an extra buck for their weekend partying.

Some teenagers do work low wage jobs for that reason, or as a means of saving money for something more worthwhile.  However, most of the employees are trying to make a living on money that's not enough to live on. So they're on public assistance. On us taxpayers' dime, I will remind you again.

Or, I suppose we could be completely heartless and end government assistance to these working poor. That's one way to get rid of the problem. Starve 'em to death.

I still like the idea of pay increases more, though.

A lot of low wage workers get this. And they don't want to be on public assistance. They'd rather just collect an adequate paycheck and go on with their lives. Protests are ongoing around the country fighting for a $15 an hour wage.

I don't think that wage level will happen anytime soon, but I'd like to see some serious pay increases. Even if I have to pay more for a Big Mac to get there.

Some companies pay their workers more and do just fine. Costco is widely cited as having higher wages than most retailers and the warehouse store chain is doing just fine. It doesn't hurt that the higher wages helps Costco retain employees, who become proficient at their job, which leads to better customer service, which leads to more customers, and more profits for the company.

Well, why don't these people in low wage jobs look for other jobs, or get some education or training to obtain a higher paying job?

A lot of them probably would if they could.

A big trend among low wage employers is helping to prevent worker mobility, or their ability to seek training and education elsewhere.

It's hard enough that education is expensive, but now it's even harder because employers are preventing workers from having a set schedule so they go to classes, obtain reliable daycare for kids, or have a specific time of day to get things done.

The New Republic explains it:

"Just-in-time scheduling, as the practice is known, allows employers to efficiently allocate resources. Scheduling software offers real time analysis for staffing needs.

When customers flock to a store, managers bring in on-all workers. When business is slowk managers don't call those workers in - or they turn they away.

In some cases, these workers will have already commuted to work, paid for child are and arranged their lives around a shift that evaporates, leaving them no recompense for their troubles.

The unpredictable schedules interfere with such basic daily activities as grocery shopping, doctor's appointments and looking for a better job."

I suppose there are people who like these flexible schedules and it works for them. But what of the employees who can't manage it? They're still forced to live this way without relying on a steady paycheck.

I noticed yesterday that the New York Attorney General is looking into this practice to see if it is even legal in that state.

With all this going on, yeah, it's definitely time to put a stop to the new breed of Welfare Queens. I'd love it if Walmart and those other companies reimburse me and the millions of other taxpayers that subsidizes them.

I mean, what benefit is society as a whole getting by having our tax dollars subsidize big corporations like this.

The arrangement needs to change. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Dogs Earn Their Keep: Working To Help Young Readers

Dogs help a young reader with a book
in Hendersonville, North Carolina.  

Dogs are fun, of course, but sometimes we want them to earn their keep. And they want to do the same.

So we're always looking for employment opportunities for them. One good idea I've been seeing is therapy dogs are helping kids who are having trouble reading make progress in that department.

Think about it. Part of the problem with getting kids who are struggling to read is we make them try in front of people - classmates, teachers, parents, friends.

That makes struggling readers nervous. What if the audience laughs? Judges them? The nervousness this causes all but guarantees the kid trying to read won't do as well as if he or she were in calmer surroundings.

Enter therapy dogs.

Libraries like The Fletcher Library in Hendersonville, North Carolina have hired therapy dogs to help young readers hone their skills.

Says the Associated Press:

"Enter Springer, a 7-year old spitz mix who has worked at hospitals, colleges and high schools as a certified therapy dog, offering calming reassurance for students who are anxious about testing or medical procedures.

"When owner Rachelle Sher offered Springer's services to Fletcher's branch last October, Library Assistant Elizabeth Koontz jumped at the opportunity. Klontz knew that therapy dos help reluctant readers by providing a non-judgemental audience, as well as soothing stressed adults."

The kids read to dogs like Springer, who would never criticized a mispronounced word or a grammar error. They just sit there as a loving, eager audience, hanging on every word, mangled or not.

One eight year old named John Paul Torres read "Why Do Tigers Have Stripes" to Springer, who listened with rapt attention.

Again, from the AP via Blueridgenow.com:

"'I don't know, he's just a really fun dog to read to,' Torres said when asked about Springer's best qualities. 'Like, when I first saw his poster, I never thought that dogs could understand that much. And then when I started reading to him, that just surprised me.'"

The dogs help people who aren't young readers, too, said the library's branch manager, Cindy Fisher. "Adults who are trying to get jobs and they're using our computers to fill out resumes, they're so stressed out that it's just a nice change of pace for them," according to the AP article.

This idea of having dogs come in to libraries to help kids read is apparently spreading to lots of other libraries, which is a great trend.

It seems dogs do help you focus. Yes, the two that live with us, Jackson and Tonks, sometimes distract me when I'm working from home as they demand (nicely!) to go outside or play.

But just as often, while I'm typing away at my laptop, Jackson and Tonks will be curled up on the floor right near me, sometimes with Tonks resting her nose on my foot, and Jackson lying down on the floor next to my chair, his tail wagging when I turn to look at him.

This scene somehow focuses me, puts me in a better mood, and I find I'm getting work done, in part because they are there.

So yes, let's bring more dogs into libraries, and other work and learning places. At least the ones that aren't dangerous to dogs with wagging tails, or places that dogs might create dangers to them or humans.

When you treat them right, it seems dogs become very loyal, effective employees.

   

Therapy dogs are motivating kids who have trouble reading to hit the books.

The Fletcher Library in Hendersonville, North Carolina, is home to a program which allows kids to read to therapy dogs, according to the Associated Press. Every week, a child can schedule an appointment at the library to read to one of the pups from Therapy Dogs International. The initiative provides a safe space where children who have difficulty reading or those with learning disabilities or anxiety disorders can exercise their reading skills.

"They bring this calmness and this peace to the children," Michelle Sheppard, whose 8-year-old daughter, Adriana, participates in the program, told the Associated Press. "It’s just amazing. Just a short amount of time has such an impact in those moments that they share."

The program began last October when Rachelle Sher offered her therapy dog's services to the library. The library assistant, Elizabeth Klontz, implemented the program in hopes it would get children who struggle with reading to gain confidence in their abilities.

Therapy Dogs International explains that many children who have difficulty reading may be afraid of the judgment they receive while practicing the skill. But a reading program involving a dog as a listener has the potential to change that. 

"They are often self-conscious when reading aloud in front of other classmates," the organization's website notes. "By sitting down next to a dog and reading to the dog, all threats of being judged are put aside. The child relaxes, pats the attentive dog and focuses on the reading."

Since the initiative's introduction at Fletcher Library, many of the the young readers say they feel comfortable and driven with their reading pal. The Associated Press reported that Adriana missed so much last year due to chronic migraines, that her mom decided to start home-schooling her. The child said she enjoys reading to therapy pup Springer, who's a patient listener. 

"Being with him, it’s like reading to a friend," the 8-year-old told the Associated Press. 

Similar programs have proven successful elsewhere. 

The Reading Paws program, for example, pairs elementary school children with a therapy dog in an effort to help them improve their literacy skills. 

"I thought reading was the hardest thing in the world," Jordan Piper, a Reading Paws participant said back in 2012 of his experience prior to starting the program. "[The therapy dog] helped me sound out hard words and motivated me. He never barked."

Another program Paws to Read in Alexandria, Virginia, offers children with learning disabilities or children who are learning English, the opportunity to practice reading to dogs in a judgment-free environment. The children told the Washington Post in 2012 that they don't feel self-conscious around them. 

"If you're reading aloud in school to a whole class, you might be nervous," Sean Sullivan, a then-8-year-old told the Washington Post. "But the dogs are really here to listen."

Your Tax Dollars At Work: You're Not Getting The Bargain You Think You Are at McDonald's, Walmart

I'm like the conservatives: If you're able to work you should at least try to find a job and well, work.   I don't want my tax dollars going to able bodied people so they can get food stamps and other benefits.

Worker demonstrate for higher wages
at McDonald's in New York recently  

Which is why I'm pissed off at outfits like McDonald's and Walmart.

Wuh, what?

It turns out there are a bunch of able bodied people out there collecting food stamps, Medicaid and such. These people are working, so you'd think they shouldn't get such benefits. But their wages are so low, they qualify.

So to some extent, our tax dollars are not propping up some lazy, shiftless would-be workers who should just get off their duff and well, work.  Our tax dollars are already going to already insanely rich corporate executivesso they can pay low wages and let the government, i.e. us taxpayers, foot the bill for the living expenses these workers can't meet on their low wages.

Bottom line: Your Big Mac or the so-called bargain you find at Walmart might be costing you more than you think.

 McDonald's actually advised a worker, Nancy Salgado, who couldn't get by on her fast food wages to apply for food stamps and Medicaid. 

The nation's minimum wage over the past decade or two hasn't kept up with inflation. Many employees at fast food joints and discount stores make minimum wage or just a little above that.

I'd love to find a way to figure out how much my Big Mac would cost if I factored in the money I'm paying for people's food stamps and such.

 To be fair, Salgado is an activist advocating for higher wages for fast food workers.  And it's true some employees of fast food places and discounters like Walmart are just teenagers or whatever trying to make an extra buck.

But still, why are we subsidizing the very, very rich owners of these outfits by using our tax dollars to let them pay employees low, low, wages. We clearly aren't getting the bargain they've advertised.

According to the National Employment Labor Project, McDonald's alone costs taxpayers $1.2 billion annually because employees need public assistance because their wages are so low.

Yes, I know this is a complicated issue. I'm no economist, so I'm not sure how a living wage for everyone would affect the overall economy.

But when something doesn't seem fair, like this situation, there really needs to be a fix. I'm certainly willing to pay a bit more for a Big Mac rather than pay for somebody's food stamps so a corporate executive can get even richer.

Here's an (edited) YouTube recording of Saldago's McDonald's call

"Fire Me" Twitter Site Finds People Who Want to Lose Their Jobs

Here's a handy dandy, or at least vaguely entertaining site to waste time on. A Twitter feed called Fire Me is up, which searches and displays Tweets from people who talk about how much they hate their jobs, hate the boss, want to kill the boss.

A screen grab from "Fire Me"

In other words, these Tweeters are daring someone to fire them.

Since everything you post online is fair game to employers (it is public, you know) no wonder the unemployment rate is so high.

There are an amazing number of people who post, with their names, how much they detest their jobs, their co-workers, their bosses, the companies they work for.

There's going to be a lot of people looking for jobs soon because of this site. Let's hope they find something they like more than their current employment. They probably also need to hope potential new bosses don't stumble upon the Fire Me site

Be forwarned, there are a a LOT of Tweets on Fire Me with foul language.

Fire Me is divided into four sections: "Haters" which has people saying they hate their jobs; "Horrible Bosses," which gathers all the Tweets from people who say their bosses are jerks; "Sexual Intercourse" which consists of Tweets from people who use the F bomb to describe their job or their bosses, and "Potential Killers" which is all the Tweets from people who say they intend to murder their bosses and/or coworkers.

There's even a useful tab on which you can check yourself, to see if you Tweeted anything that can get you fired. (

I think the Fire Me site's days are numbered, however. A number of Tweets that popped up on Fire Me from late yesterday on warn others  that Fire Me exists, and their bosses are probably reading all these negative Tweets.

Perhaps it would be a good time to work for a resume writing service. A lot of people will be looking for jobs, and demand will be high.

Personality Test For Convenience Store Job Stinks and Is Bizarre

I was fascinated, in a horrified way, of a story in Gawker of the hoops people have to go through to get a job at a convenience store chain called Twice Daily. 

First of all, these aren't cushy, complicated jobs that could endanger a whole city if done incorrectly So why the extensive on line psychological examination?

The psychological exam involves statements and you have to say whether you agree or disagree with them. They're yes or no questions.  But when I checked the statements out, all my answers were "It depends."

Getting a job at this convenience store chain involves
surviving a too-complicated psychological test.

They all seem like trick questions. I guess I'll never get a job at Twice Daily. Oh well.

Let's unpack some of these psychological test questions, shall we?  If Gawker can put snarky comments next to the questions, I can go overboard doing the same.

"Too much planning on the job can get in the way of enjoying things."  What do you mean by "enjoying things?" You spend all your day planning so you don't get your work done so you have to work when you're supposed to be off for the day? I guess that would get in the way of enjoying things.

"I have never told a lie on purpose at work."  How else do you tell a lie, other than on purpose? If you say something that's not true, but you believe it to be true, you're not lying. Just wrong. And maybe stupid.

And isn't it OK to lie at work sometimes?  What if, for some odd reason, a woman came into the store and asked "Does this dress make me look fat?"  If it does make her look fat, are you supposed to say "Yeah, you look like a fricken' whale." I'd just say she looks fine. Would telling our insecure, sonewhat overweight woman she looks fine get me in trouble or fired if  I worked at Twice Daily?

"Trying new things at work is more important that following the rules." If trying a new thing means smashing all the beer bottles on the floor because you've never done it before, then yeah, it would be better to follow the rules instead. But if some guy comes in and drops from a heart attack, and you try to give him CPR even though you've never done it before, I think that's better than standing at the cash register like a dope, just following the rules.

"On the job, I am not a very creative person."  Well, shouldn't you be sometimes? And not creative at other times, depending upon the situation?  If somebody comes in to a Twice Daily and asks for help creating the ingredients for a dinner party just from the beer, potato chips, crackers and Diet Mountain Dew on sale there, and you come up with an ingenious plan worthy of a five star restaurant, then maybe creativity is a good thing.

But if you make up numbers when adding up the day's receipts, creativity pocketing some extra money, maybe creativity isn't such a good idea.

"Trusting others on the job can be dangerous."  If a masked man with a gun comes in and offers to staff the cash register while you go on break, maybe trusting isn't the best plan.   But refusing to stock the cans of Hormel Chili on the shelves because you don't trust the chili to stay in the cans, and you don't trust the manager because she might make you restock again is just plain weird.

"Variety is the spice of life."  Of course it is. There's a variety of junk food for sale at Twice Daily, no?

"I always complete a job, no matter what else is happening around me."  Yeah, I know the gas tanks just exploded outside, the roof is collapsing, the place is on fire, the nuclear plant next door just sprung a leak and I'm in the cross hairs of the most violent shootout since the Wild West, but I have to finish counting the change in the register before I leave. Rules are rules.

"Most modern art is not really art." Huh? So a miminum wage convenience store employee is supposed to have the expertise of an art critic on the MOMA beat?  Since when are convenience stores art galleries? How does an appreciation, or lack thereof, of art make a person better at making a Slurpee. Is a Slurpee modern art?

"I never run out of energy." Are you supposed to tell Twice Daily HR that you never run out of energy so you get the job? Then what happens if they schedule you to work 1,000 consecutive hours, and you do get tired by hour 900. Do you then get fired?

The bottom line is, the questions are too ambiguous, too hard for me.  Maybe I should feel bad that the questions Twice Daily asks are so complicated I don't even qualify for a job at a convenience store.

Or maybe I should thank my lucky stars I don't have a job in which a shrink had to psychoanalyze me before I set foot in the building.

Monitoring Workers To Death?

Apparently, at an Irish grocery chain called Tesco, workers now have monitoring devices strapped to them that examines their every move, making sure they do their work at a frantically fast pace, or else!

For example, they face potential penalties for taking a bathroom break or a sip of water.

Every company has to monitor employees.
But when does it go too far?  

Well, if machines don't take bathroom breaks, why should humans?

Reports The Independent of Ireland:

"A former staff member has claimed employees are given marks based on how efficiently they work in a bid to improve productivity and can be called in front of management if they take unscheduled toilet breaks."

Tesco said the armband devices eliminate the need for workers to carry around pens and paper when logging deliveries or shipments, according to the Independent article.

But former employees say the devices are more sinister than that. According to the Independent:

One former employee said the device provided an order to collect from the warehouse and a set amount of time to complete it. If workers met that target, they were awarded a 100 per cent score, but that would rise to 200 per cent if they worked twice as quickly. The score would fall if they did not meet the target.

If, however, workers did not log a break when they went to the toilet, the score would be “surprisingly lower”, according to the former staff member, who did not want to be named but worked in an Irish branch of Tesco. He said that some would be called before management if they were not deemed to be working hard enough. “The guys who made the scores were sweating buckets and throwing stuff around the place,” he said." 

 According to Salon, which picked up the Independent article, this micro-monitoring of employees has been building steam for some time now. Keystrokes are monitored in the customer service department. Call center conversations have time limits, and at some places, if employees take too long, watch out!

All this might end up backfiring on companies which are trying to boost productivity.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a report on job stress, has this to say:

"Some employers assume that stressful working conditions are a necessary evil-that companies must turn up the pressure on workers and set aside health concerns to remain productive and profitable in today's economy. But research findings challenge this belief. Studies show that stressful working conditions are actually associated with increased absenteeism, tardiness, and intentions by workers to quit their jobs-all of which have a negative effect on the bottom line."

It also affects the product or service we the consumer get:

Citing research by John Gillion and Torin Monahan, Salon notes:

"For example, nurses are no longer taking the time to get to know their patients because hospitals make more money when more people are hustled through. In the past, nurses had ways to circumvent hospital pressure. Now, electronic tracking of patient movement means that medical profressionals will spend far less time with you when you are sick."

Obviously, we all want to be productive. There are lazy people out there that need to be prodded, but generally most workers do want to get things done and have a sense of accomplishment.

I also think it's more than OK to encourage and push employees into better productivity where possible. But I worry a few companies just think of employees, especially the low level, poorly paid ones, as little more than draft animals or machines that can be goosed and revved up to beyond maximum capacity.

And then, when these overworked and overheated human employees burn out, toss them in the Dumpster with the rest of the broken machines and get a new one, then repeat the process.

Seems to me this rather inhumane business model is great for short term profits, but not long term viability. Who wants to work for a company that treats you like a slave, and who wants to buy stuff from a company that treats people like that? Not only because of the ethics involved, but can we really trust hyper-exhaustive, resentful employees to make a quality product or service?

666: Tennessee Man Finds His Job, Taxes Way, Way Too Devilish

Anything to do with taxes really feels like the devil's work, We all know that.

But things went to an extreme for a Tennessee man when the number "666" came up and freaked him out enough so that he quit his job, according to the Tennessean newspaper

In this image from the Tennessean newspaper
Walter Slonopas confronts a tax form with the
dreaded number "666" on it.

Seems Walter Slonopas, 52, got his W-2 tax form from the company where he'd worked, Contech Castings LLC in Clarksville Tennessee. There, on the form was the number "666"

Slonopas, who describes himself as a born again Christian, said any connection with the mark of the devil, and 666 being a principal connection, means he has to avoid it at all costs. So he took the big step of just quitting his job.

The paper explains the problem:

"The number 666 first appears in Chapter 13 of the New Testament book of Revelation, which describes a Satanic figure called the beast or Antichrist who takes over the world and stamps everyone with a mark bearing 666. According to Revelation, no one will be able to buy or sell anything without that number stamped on them."

As far as I know, things aren't that dire yet. It appears if you want to do business with Contech Castings LLC, there is no need to have any involvement with 666 or the Antichrist.

Far be it for me to interfere with someone's religious beliefs, but if I were in his shoes, maybe I wouldn't go so overboard with this. Especially since the company says the 666 refers to the order in which the W-2 went out in the mail.

And what can this guy do, since 666 crops up everywhere. What if he gets lunch and the bill comes to $6.66? Or his town gets 6.66 inches of rain. Or he goes into a building with a 6X6X6 window?

Still, I can see why Slonopos is a little freaked out, given he was twice accidentally assigned the number "666" as the one to use when he used the time clock. Both times, the company quickly gave him a new number.

But 666 has cropped up again, and Slonopos has had enough. A spokesman for Contech says they're really sorry, that Slonopos is a nice guy and a great worker, and they would love to rehire him, according to the Tennessean.

I think God needs to intervene to sort this out. But the devil can stay out of it, thanks.

A New Take on Bad Employment News

They say the economy is recoverying and I suppose it is, but it's still not great out there. Unemployment is too high, layoffs continue, wages are still stagnating. I know, deal with it.

But a couple news items that came out in the past couple of days offer two examples of how a few employers have sunk to new lows in dealing with this difficult economic picture.

First we go to the Kansas City Star, a major Missouri newspaper. With everything going to the Internet and mobile devices, these are tough times in the newspaper business. People are getting laid off left and right, and the Kansas City Star found it had to lay off two reporters. Bummer, but these things happen.

How the HR people handled this situation is, well, creative, but Geez!. They called the two reporters into the office, said one of them had to go, and told them to leave and decide between the two of them which one lost her job, according to jimromenesko.com

I saw a lot of comparisons to The Hunger Games with this bonehead idea.

If they're interested, I've got a better approach for the Kansas City Star. If they have to shed employees, why not let the HR director go. The HR director is the one who is supposed to make the difficult decisions on which employees to let go when it's not financially feasible to keep all of them on board.

Instead, the Kansas City Star HR person punted. He or she did not do their job. So why not let this person go, and keep both reporters on?

But don't believe me. Let's go to the experts. Here's something from NBC News/Business:

"......  pitting one person against another is not the way to go, said Nan Russell, host of the “Work Matters” radio show and author of “The Titleless Leader.”

“Personally, I think it’s very appalling that individuals would be in that kind of situation -- not only from the emotional standpoint for them to have to make that decision, but also for what happens to the people who are left behind and their now lack of respect for the leaders in that organization,” she said.

Russell went on to say in the NBC News/Business article: " Employees, in turn, expect that their leaders will make fair, tough decisions, and when they do, they earn workers’ respect and trust."

But making two people choose who will be the one to leave indicates someone lacked the courage to make the choice"   

What Russell says seems obvious, but apparently not.

Elsewhere,  a publisher is hiring! Yay! But before sending off your resume to Dalkey Archive Press   (Warning: If you click on the link to Dalkey, be prepared for an assault on the eyes. The Web site is incredibly poorly designed and inartful. But I digress.)

According to Salon, they don't want anybody who would ever have any personal commitments, who isn't willing to come in at a drop of a hat nights and weekends, who never gossped, or came in late for whatever reason or offered unsolicited advice on how to run things.

Quoting directly from Dalkey, you get this:

"Are willing to start off at a low-level salary and work their way upwards; possess multi-dimensional skills that will be applied to work at the Press; look forward to undergoing a rigorous and challenging probationary period either as an intern or employee; want to work at Dalkey Archive Press doing whatever is required of them to make the Press succeed; do not have any other commitments (personal or professional) that will interfere with their work at the Press (family obligations, writing, involvement with other organizations, degrees to be finished, holidays to be taken, weddings to attend in Rio, etc.); know how to act and behave in a professional office environment with high standards of performance; and who have a commitment to excellence that can be demonstrated on a day-to-day basis. DO NOT APPLY IF ALL OF THE ABOVE DOES NOT DESCRIBE YOU."   

Hmm, no pay, no time off, no life, what could possibly be wrong with this job? I'm sure people are stampeding Dalkey with resumes as we speak.