Should Criminals Host TV Shows?

Criminal record checks have become all too common as part of the hiring process. Employers want to know that you won’t steal their pencils.

But in some jobs, a criminal record check really does prevent problems for both employer and employee down the road.

Last thing a major television network wants, is to have it’s top rated morning show host taken away in handcuffs.

But if you’ve done the time for your crime, should you be allowed on television?

Television’s perfect home body, Martha Stewart is back on the TV, after doing time for securities fraud.

In Canada, media baron Conrad Black may be following the home body’s lead, as there is talk that he may get his own talk show on a cable channel available across the nation.

Conrad Black served time for fraud as well, just a different kind. His was to do with his newspaper empire, and made headlines in some of those papers, as he continued to write columns while in prison.

Now he may be on the airwaves, broadcasting his thoughts on television.

Which raises the question – should convicted criminals be hosting television shows?

We all make mistakes, and both Stewart and Black have paid for those mistakes by serving out their criminal sentences in prison.

But millions of people are denied even the most entry level of jobs, because of their criminal past.

Such as the teenage mom, that can’t get a job working in a retail store, because her criminal background check shows she was charged with theft. What it doesn’t show is she stole a loaf of bread to feed her kid.

There are other reasons why criminals don’t usually get put on the tube. The last thing any network president wants, is to turn on his station, to see someone telling the world how to break the law.

It’s unlikely Black or Stewart would publicly tell others to do something illegal. But the possibility is always there.

And our television personalities are role models for us all. We get hooked on their energy and drive, and often mimic them.

So putting criminals on television is bad for our kids, and ourselves.

Do we want others to follow Lance Armstrong?

Before the cyclist came forward with confessions of “doping” while competing he was a role model to many.

Now that he’s come out and spoken publicly about his drug-laden past, he’s on television even more – explaining himself and what he did.

Fair enough, television does provide a forum for public debate, and all sides should be allowed to participate.

But if someone were to offer Armstrong his own television show, I’d question that person’s motives.

And you should too.

Good-Bye 2012 – You Were Quite the Year

As the end of one year ends, and another begins, many of us reflect on the past, as we look towards the future.

For me, 2012 was a challenging, trying and at times epic year of life altering experiences.

As our economy continues to teeter on the brink of collapse, and business and political leaders continue to apply outdated, old school, band-aid solutions in a rush to keep us all from falling over the fiscal cliff, it’s time for us to re-think our world, and our way of living in it.

The fiscal cliff isn't just an American catchphrase for economic pot holes – it’s a good way of describing the new economy of an ever more frightening world in which to live.

Major corporations, once the cornerstone for economic prosperity and security in most of the world are no longer that stable or secure employer they once were.

One used to graduate from high school, get an entry level gig at one of these big major corporations, such as General Motors, General Electric, IBM, Proctor & Gamble, American Express, even McDonald’s, and over time, work one’s way to the top.

Not anymore.

A job for life at a big American company, with benefits, and regular salary increases to keep pace with the cost of living isn't the American Dream – it’s just a dream.

Although the economy is growing globally, it’s actually shrinking in the process. Companies may offer their products and services all over the world now, but few of them are hiring people at decent wages with quality benefits anymore.

Gone are the days when you could get a job where your employer actually gave a damn about your quality of life. All they care about is their own bottom line – regardless of the fact that a staff constantly worried about paying their bills, doesn't do their jobs as effectively.

When I worked at one of the largest financial institutions – one of the top five banks in Canada – I saw just how employee loyalty does not go both ways.

My team’s Project Manager had been with the bank for over 35 years – for some that is a lifetime. She was exceptional at what she did, I considered myself very lucky to have her on my team. At the end of a bank-wide project, her boss told her that her services were no longer required, and they’d give her six-months to find another role within the bank, and then they’d just give her a severance package and send her on her way.

This was the way the bank forced people that cost too much out. Obviously my Project Manager wasn't going to find another role at the same pay scale she was used to – when have you ever seen a job posting requiring 35 years of experience?

And even if she bit the bullet, and was willing to accept a lower pay just to keep a job for a thankless employer, hiring managers would look down at her, and wonder how loyal she would remain, doing the same thing for a fraction of what she previously was being paid.

This was how one of the largest banks in Canada, retired my team’s Project Manager. And its how many big businesses force long-term employees to retire.

Loyalty.

That’s a tricky word in today’s business world.

Used to be if you worked hard, went the extra mile to impress your boss, then over time, you’d get promoted, not retired.

I've known many people that had dedicated most of their adult lives to one big corporate employer, only in the end to be let go, simply because they got promoted too often and became too expensive to keep.

2012 was the year that I learned the hard way just how hard work, dedication and loyalty to your employer doesn't matter. In the end, you really are just a dollar figure to your boss.

The bean counters think it’s only a matter of dollars to replace someone with years of experience, contacts, and know-how with a recent college graduate.

And that’s why our economy is really falling apart. Studies show wages continue to fall, while the costs of living continue to rise.

Especially as our population ages, and more of those long-term, dedicated and loyal employees find themselves dumped by their disloyal employers.

The new kids they replace long-term employees with don’t make enough to make major purchases to keep the wheels of the economy moving.

How many twenty-something’s do you know have their own mortgage?

In order to get over the fiscal cliff, big businesses need to get over their fear of paying people what they are worth. They need to stop seeing their staff as numerical figures on a balance sheet, and start seeing them for what they really are.

The very same people that keep the economy moving – earning a decent living, and spending that living – well – living. 

Has Our Digital World Destroyed the Next Generation?

As I grow my new business, I’m talking to all sorts of folks who are looking for work, and want to join my fledgling new venture.

But I’m noticing a disturbing trend with many of the young adults I’m talking too – sort of a lacklustre aloofness. It’s as if they are just floating through life, without a care in the world.

I’m not unsympathetic, when I was in my early twenties I was still very much discovering myself. 

But at least I was trying different things, taking on the adventures the world tossed my way openly, as I feasted on all the new things I was learning about the world around me, and myself.

But kids today seem to lack that sense of self-exploration which my generation had. They are too tied to their mobile devices, their tech toys, and their small circles of close friends which are also tied to their mobile tech toys.

Has our digital world destroyed the next generation?

Are kids today so enveloped in technology, they have forgotten the world around them?

I’m building an on-demand television network, so when someone tells me they've always wanted to be on television, shoot a camera, edit a video, or just work within a television production, and I ask them why, I expect a long-winded answer.

Usually when someone is really interested in something, you can’t shut them up. If someone asks you about something you are passionate about, you should be able to go on, and on, and on – like the Energizer Bunny. 

But when I ask young adults why they've always wanted to be a TV reporter, host, producer or any other role we have, I usually get a deadpan answer more fitting for someone about to have a root canal than talk about their life-long dream.

When I ask them what they watch, read or listen to for inspiration in their self-admitted life-long dream, they usually tell me they don’t watch, read or listen to anything of the sort.

Even before I did my graduate work in broadcast journalism, while I was doing my undergraduate degree in a completely different field, I watched every major newscast, listened to various radio news shows, read all the daily papers, numerous magazines, and biographies of all the big name reporters, news anchors, publishers and producers.

If someone asked me why I wanted to be a journalist, I’d light up like a tree at Christmas, talking up a storm about the business which fuelled the fire of my soul.

These days, the only thing apparently igniting the souls of our future generations are their tech toys.

They are nose-deep buried in their mobile devices, texting tweeting and updating their social networks.

Although to a degree, I’m also buried in my mobile tech toys, I still have a passion, an interest – hell – a life – outside and away from my digital world.

Although I’m starting a digital media company, I know there is more to it than just being immersed in the digital world – as with any technology-based company.

No matter how dependent upon technology we all become, end of the day, it’s not iPhones, BlackBerry phones, laptops or tablets which make the world work – it’s people.

There’s an old saying, that those who are exceptionally good at what they do, have a real passion for what they do. They don’t just go to work, they go to play.

I've always believed in that – and hoped my passion for my work shone through in my work’s quality.

However, I’m concerned that future generations are so digitally distracted, they lack any passion for what they do.

Not just because the quality of their work suffers, but ultimately their lives suffer too.

How a Union Killed the Twinkie

Unionized labour in North America is strong. Too strong. So strong it’s putting the very employees its supposed to protect in harms way.

Thanks to the unions at Twinkie maker, Hostess, the American giant in the junk food industry is closing it’s doors – forever – putting the company’s employees out of work.

Hostess, founded as Interstate Bakeries Limited in 1930, is one of the largest bakeries in North America, baking up Wonder Bread, Twinkies, Ho-Hos, Ding-Dongs, Dolly Madison, and other well known baked goods.

Now these products may disappear off of store shelves, as the company was forced into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy today, because of an on-going dispute with the Bakery, Confectionery  Tobacco Workers and Grain Miller’s International Union (a Teamster’s Union) and company management.

The union represents most of the 6,600 Hostess employees, and was supposed to ultimately protect those employees from job loss.

However, as with all disputes involving terrorists, common sense doesn't prevail. And unions do act more like terrorist organizations of late, instead of collective bargaining units.

We've seen this with the auto industry and their unions. The world’s largest automaker, General Motors was almost put out of business because the unions kept insisting the employees deserve more money to build cars. If federal governments in Canada and the United States didn’t provide bail-out funding to General Motors, to offset the outrageous demands of the terrorists – we mean the union – then the world’s largest automaker would be no more, and thousands of people would be out of work.

Granted, the union movement grew out of a real need to protect employees from unsafe and even inhumane working conditions.

Early in the 1900’s, at the start of the industrial revolution, as companies grew richer, their power-hungry owners began making uncivilized demands on their staffs. From forcing them to work overtime without paying for that overtime, to providing unrealistic deadlines, even limiting the amount of bathroom breaks employees could take throughout the day.

Labour unions originally solved many of these problems in unionized shops around the world. 

Although in a consistently declining North American economy, many non-unionized office jobs are starting to revert back to the dark ages, as many crazy bosses are restricting employee bathroom and lunch breaks today.

Getting a job at a union shop meant getting a decent paying gig, with an employer that treated you right. The labour movement had succeeded in making these workplaces safe and secure.

However, now that the workplace was safe and secure, what could unions do? What role did a union have in the company?

It should be to advocate on behalf of employees, and ensure that the safe and secure workplace continues. And labour unions did this, but they took it upon themselves to push for constant increases in benefits, pay, and job security.

Job security always has – and always will be – a false notion which was conjured up by the labour movement.

No one’s job is any more or less secure – as we've seen with Hostess today. If a company can’t fiscally function any more, it doesn't matter what a bunch of thugs in the labour union say or do, once the company goes out of business, usually that means the jobs which were supposed to be secure forever, just don’t exist anymore.

Union battles to increase benefits and pay constantly over time drive away the potential for this fictitious notion of job security – which ironically they themselves created. The more benefits afforded employees, the greater the cost to the employer. The more pay given to workers, the greater cost to the employer.

Not that employees don’t deserve better pay and benefits – we all want to work for someone that cares enough about their staffs to pay them well, and treat them well.

But labour unions fight tooth and nail to secure more pay and benefits for the employees they represent, despite constant claims from companies that they can’t afford it, putting the company in danger.

Unions always claim the companies aren't telling the whole story, and say they don’t have the money for increased benefits and pay as a tactic to avoid doing it. They threaten to walk out and go on strike, which means the company can’t produce what it makes, and loses even more money.

So companies gave in to these outrageous demands – just like law enforcement has had to do with terrorists in some situations.

Eventually, if the business turns around, and the company starts to make more, it survives, and can absorb the outrageous costs the unions place on it’s operating budgets. OR, as we've seen today, things don’t get better for the company, and it’s forced out of business, because of increased operating costs – often brought about by the union.

Unions were once needed, to bring about better working conditions, which they did do. Then they got greedy, and today they are forcing companies to shut their doors, like Twinkie giant Hostess.

So, say good-bye to your Twinkies, thanks to the union.

Not An Equal Opportunity Employer – Despite Saying We Are

Workplaces should be an equal representation of the general population. No one should ever be discriminated against based on the colour of their skin, their age, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

That’s not only the right thing to do – it’s the law.

So how come whenever I see a job posting with “We are anequal opportunity employer,” plastered somewhere within it, I know they are looking for everyone except white men?

White technically is the absence of colour, and black – again technically – is the combination of all colours. However when we’re talking human beings, we come in white, black, brown, olive and many other skin colours.

So again, why are employers that claim to be non-discriminatory, being extremely discriminating in their hiring selections when it comes to men, and specifically white men?

This isn't some rant just because I fall into this category – which I do. Rather, it’s something I've noticed over the past decade, and I've read objective research papers on too.

At the turn of the century, when the industrial revolution started, workplaces were frightful places to be. There weren't any employee protection laws, and employers more interested in getting rich than your welfare would force their employees to work in unsavoury  often dangerous conditions, for little or no pay.

Labour unions formed, strikes happened, governments created labour laws to protect workers and the world was a better place.

Nope. It was still a man’s world. A white man’s world – especially in white collar office jobs. All the higher ups running the show were white men, and they hired white men to work along side them.

Women worked too, but often at substantially lower wages, and in dead-end administrative jobs.

Throughout the decade of rebellion – the 1960’s – the women’s movement took steam, and made great strides in improving working conditions, pay and job opportunities for women.

It’s taken a while, but now there are many female executives running some of the largest corporations in the world. Yahoo’s president is a woman – they stole this high powered female executive from Google – another mega-large, well respected and branded international corporation.

But now the tables of turned completely the other way. As more women are running the show, they are hiring more women.

Over the past decade, I've been in senior roles reporting to female executives and senior managers, often being one of the few men on the team.

I've been on many teams, where I felt isolated and alone, being the only white man on a predominantly female team of mixed races.

Yet when I travel around my city, my province and my country, that’s not an equal representation of the population that I see.

I see white men and women, black men and women, brown men and women, and various combinations.

But I don’t see these various combinations in the workplace of today – especially in corporations boldly bragging “we are an equalopportunity employer.”

Funny how political-correct speak can be used to do just what it was initially created NOT to do – and discriminate against fellow human beings. 

What’s the Value of Human Resources Anyway?

As I build the next big thing in digital media, and I plan the departments, teams and people, I’m forced to put value judgments on those bodies in cubicles.

Although none of us wants to be just a number, end of the day in business, often that’s what we are.

I've never had great experiences with any Human Resources team. Personally, I've met some really nice, friendly and creative people on those teams. Unfortunately, when it comes to actually doing their jobs, they aren't very nice, friendly or creative – or worse – they use those attributes to their personal advantage.

Isn't it odd, that when major Fortune 500 corporations do mass lay-offs, you rarely, if ever, hear about anyone from Human Resources getting a pink slip?

Note that I've never been laid off from a Fortune 500 company, so this isn't sour grapes – I’m merely stating the facts.

Headlines scream about thousands of front office (that means administrative, secretary-type gigs) getting the boot, middle management, even the occasional C-Level executive, but I can’t remember when I've heard of anyone in the Human Resources department being let go.

It makes some sense, naturally we’ll all do whatever we can to protect our income, and if you happen to have an inside scoop on a massive hiring or firing phase within a company – which Human Resources does – you’ll use that to your advantage.

Though Human Resources is supposed to manage the most valuable resources any company has – it’s people.

However, they don’t do that very well. Most people I've worked with in Human Resources are not people persons. They don’t communicate well with others, lead people on, and are horrible at managing time leaving things – often really important things – to the last minute or after-the-fact.

There was one company which I worked at for quite a while, and from the moment they offered me the job, I just knew their Human Resources department was a pickle of problems.

When I was first offered the job, the hiring manager offered me the gig, and said human resources would be in touch over the next day or so with the paperwork. A week passed and I hadn't heard back from anyone, so I called the hiring manager, asking if there was a problem?

She was notably upset with the Human Resources team, said they should have called me by now, and said she’d get someone to call me by the end of the day.

Another couple of days pass, no call from Human Resources, but the hiring manager did call to confirm my start date.

I explained I still hadn't heard anything from Human Resources, she apologized, and said let’s clear this up now. The hiring manager conference called us all together. Right there on the other side of the phone, the director of Human Resources, the highest member of the Human Resources team for that company, promised to email me the paperwork before the end of the day.

The end of the day came, and went. I waited until mid-day the following day before following up. Again I called the hiring manager, explained I hadn't received anything, and asked her for advice.

She must have stood over the Human Resources director’s shoulders, because within 10 minutes, I had received the email.

It was a standard offer of employment template, welcome package and employment contract. I know it was a standard template, because none of it was completed. It said NEW HIRE NAME where my name presumably was to go, and NEW HIRE ADDRESS where presumably my address was to go, and NEW HIRE this and NEW HIRE that in all the other fields.

Sheesh – over a week’s worth of waiting for a standard templated new employee on-boarding package, and it wasn't even filled in – at all.

Although I was asked just to read it over,  print it out and sign it, I did the lazy Human Resources director’s job, and filled in the NEW HIRE fields with my information. Then I scanned and emailed the completed documents to my hiring manager. I didn't want to email Human Resources, because I didn't trust their team – and this was a company I hadn't even started to work for yet.

My first day on the job went smoothly, so too did my second. Then on the third day someone from Human Resources popped over to my office, to welcome me and say hi.

In all the years I've been in the workforce, no one from Human Resources pops over just to say “hi.”

We chatted for a moment, usual small talk about the job, how I was finding it, and my team. Then he asked me if I had a moment, to create a profile for their online employment tracking system, used by people outside of the company, who are applying to jobs.

He said because I heard about the job through someone else, and emailed my resume, they didn't have me on file, but wanted to update the database.

I was a little concerned, thinking maybe my job was on the line after only a couple of days. He re-assured me that everything was fine, but they like to have everyone who’s applied to work at the company in the same database.

“Just to confirm, I work here, right?” I asked.

He agreed – but still said I should be in the job applicant system.

I don’t know what Human Resources departments do, but I’m pretty sure it’s not people management, because shouldn't they be entering all their information into their own systems and forms?

I know they are supposed to be experts at employee/employer relations, employment law, and employee retention and recruitment.

But in all my experiences with them – and the story I've told in this post is just one of many horrid examples – they don’t do their jobs well – if at all.

So, as I build a digital media company from the ground up, I’m forced to ask myself – do I really need a Human Resources department? 

Why Human Resources Departments Get a Bad Rap

The mere thought of having to deal with a person from the Human Resources – or Talent Management Team as they are now anointing themselves – often sends a cold chill down most spines.

Why?

Originally, those in Human Resources did just that – manage the staffing needs of a company. But back in the day, those staffing needs were simple, there weren't big recruitment firms, online job boards, contractors/consultants, term employees, temps and the constant fear of being sued if ya messed up.

These days, Human Resources (HR) departments have become too tenacious for their own good. They have seeded themselves too deeply in the basic functioning of the workplace to be any good. Their reach has grown, but their knowledge, skill and ability has not.

Today, HR is often responsible for all hiring, firings, lay-offs, employee rules and regulations, and sets the tone for the corporate culture.

Many in HR are so overwhelmed with the enormous tasks they are expected to perform daily, they just don’t take the time to do the things which really matter.

And when HR stops doing the things that matter – or any department, team, or individual stops this – they frustrate, anger and offend those they were working with or for.

That’s why people think so poorly of their HR departments, and why so many potential employees hate dealing with anyone in an HR role.

Human Resources does the bare minimum, because that’s all they have the time and people resources themselves to do.

So, asking hiring managers what they mean by key terms and concepts in their job requirements doesn't happen. This leads to HR constantly short-listing the wrong people for the same position, which angers and frustrates not only the hiring manager and his team that really need a body in that role, but also all those potential employees, that end up thinking the company is so disorganized that they’d never want to work for it.

And that’s the real caveat when HR screws up. Although it may have short-term consequences for the teams and departments looking for people in key roles, in the long-term, HR’s lacking generates negative messaging in professional circles, which can and does cost businesses good, quality employees and contractors.

Every professional association event I've ever been too has had at least one or more “horror stories” from someone that is great at what they do, highly respected by their peers and colleagues, and involves a company’s HR team failing them so much, they feel the need to warn everyone never to work for or do business with that company.

Executives need to real-in their HR departments, cutting off their deep-routed roles to limit them, so they can do the role an HR team does best – recruitment and retention of employees.

That’s it. That’s all. That’s what HR departments do best – and when you let your teams and departments do what they do best, your company does what it does best, and you grow your business.

And ultimately people in and outside of the company won’t have as many –or if done right – any – negative experiences with HR. So the reputation and respect of the HR team increases, instead of decreases.

It Doesn’t Matter Whether Obama or Romney Get In, The World of Work Has Changed for the Worse

Every election, at all levels, and in both Canada and the States, the “j” word crops up as one of the key election issues.

That “j” word is “jobs.”

As Americans gear up for November’s presidential elections, more hype surrounding jobs and job creation creeps into the campaign, as both candidates claim they have a magical method to give the growing unemployed ranks of angry voters a gig.

Every election it’s the same political bullcrap, as global economies continue to falter, amid economic uncertain times.

It doesn't matter if you support President Barack Obama, or his opponent Mitt Romney, neither of their job platforms will work. They both are based on traditional means to stimulating the economy, which in turn usually creates job growth.

Stimulating the economy is important and need be done. But that’s NOT why America – and Canada – isn't working.

It’s because of recruitment firms stealing a piece of the employment pie, as they convince companies large and small that it’s better to hire consultants on a per-project-basis, rather than full-time, salaried, staff employees.

Of course it’s good – for the recruitment firms, which earn their keep by providing these temporary contract consultants. But it’s bad for the consultants, who eventually find themselves out of work and unemployed again when their contracts end.

And all contracts end – that’s the whole nature of contracting. Hiring permanent, salaried, staff employees have no end date to their jobs. However a contractual, temporary, or “term employee” is hired from a specific start date to a specific end date.

Contracts do get renewed, extended, even occasionally renegotiated. But none last forever. And most contractors don’t get complimentary benefits which are granted to salaried staff employees.

That’s part of the sales job which these recruitment firms pull over employer’s eyes to get them to do business with them.

Why pay someone benefits, through the good and the bad times, when you can hire someone hourly, without having to fork out benefits, just for the work that needs to be done?

It’s this lack of job security which has killed the middle class in North America. As the economy sours, and companies terminate or fail to extend or renew their contracted consultants, a mega-huge segment of the population suddenly finds themselves, unemployed, and without any means of providing a roof overhead, food in their tummies, and clothes on their backs.

And because this is such a mega-huge segment of our North American workforce – thanks to greedy recruitment firms more interested in making profits off the backs of hourly contractors than putting people into permanent work situations – as companies axe consultants, they no longer have any money to spend in the economy.

So it doesn't matter how many new products or services are introduced through government incentive programs for business innovation – no one is buying those new products or services. So the economy continues to spiral out of control.

It’s a catch-22 situation which politicians are aware of, but turn a blind eye towards because they don’t want to interfere in the rights of one company to make a buck.

However, they should be concerned, because these recruitment firms have a very negative impact on the economic engines of Canada and the States. Already both countries are less competitive internationally because of the shift in the economy from salaried, permanent staff towards hourly, contracted consultants.

For the past five years, there has been talk in economic circles of changing the international currency used to compare all other currencies. Since the start of the industrial revolution at the turn of the 1900’s, that currency has always been the American “Greenback” Dollar.

As America’s economy slumps lower with every full-time, salaried staff job lost to a recruitment firm’s contracted out consultant, the talk in economic circles is to replace the American dollar with an Asian currency as the new standard for measuring the currencies of the world, as many Asian countries economies are growing.

So wake up Obama, Romney and the rest of you politicos trying to sell voters on the “j” word with useless outdated and ineffective stimulus programs that don’t work.

We need government intervention and incentive programs to encourage companies to hire salaried, staff employees to grow and develop for the long-term. Not casual, contracted out consultants that are here one day, gone the next.

Or else one day, we all will be looking for work.

International Day of the Girl? What About Gender Equity?

Today is International Day of the Girl – a day set aside to advocate for girl’s rights and raise issues of gender bias – according to those women running this annual event.

Isn't it interesting how in this world of equal rights, women are the only ones advocating for and raising issues about “gender bias?”

So it isn't any wonder that the only gender they advocate for is their own.

It takes both men and women to keep the world going – at least if we as a species want to continue to exist. As modern as science has advanced, the miracle of life occurs when a woman’s eggs are fertilized by a man’s sperm. The physical act of sex no longer need take place, thanks to test tubes, in vitro fertilization and other medical marvels, but so far, to continue on as a species, it takes both sexes.

So why do gender equity discussions only focus on one of our sexes – those with mammary glands?

Granted, over half a century ago, women and visible minorities in North America were treated as second-class citizens. They were given the low paying jobs the men in charge didn’t want. Often women – back then – were treated as sex objects, objectified, and poorly treated.

A lot has changed in the 50-plus years of the women’s movement, and the other politically-correct movements throughout our society, including just about every race, sexual orientation, religion, and anything else which makes us different from one another.

Employment equity programs have changed the face of the working world – now more than ever those that were discriminated against decades ago are now doing the discriminating.

Every time I see “we are an equal opportunity employer” at the bottom of a company’s tagline, I read that as “we’ll hire you, so long as you are not a white man.”

Employment equity programs were originally brought in to level the playing field, so that women and visible minorities were no longer discriminated against. Essentially the original idea behind them were if you have two equal candidates vying for the same position at a company, as a last resort, you’d hire the one that was either a woman, or a visible minority.

Problem is, as we see today, those employment equity policies have essentially created a workplace where white men are no longer welcome. No one should ever be hired based on their race, sex, or anything OTHER than their skills and experiences.

So the whole employment equity movement was flawed from the start, and here we are today, where on average white men are dropping out ofthe work force, because they can’t find work. They are just giving up.

You’d give up to if you saw everyone working at the places you were applying too didn’t have anyone like you.

I've worked for some of the biggest companies in the financial sector – including American Express, KPMG, and BMO Bank of Montreal and all of these I was shocked – no horrified to see how they all had wrongly used employment equity policies to create workplaces which were anything BUT equal.

American Express’ team I was on of about 200 people was 90 percent Chinese, and 10 percent other. That does NOT reflect the population of Canada, or even America.

When I was working for one of the largest banks in Canada, BMO Bank of Montreal, the team I was on had two white men on staff, while the rest of the female-led team was all women.

The business unit for that team, The Institute for Learning, which ironically fell under the Human Resources department, was about 90 percent women, and 10 percent men.

Yes, in North America, there are more women than men proportionately in our society. However, what I experienced at BMO Bank of Montreal was hardly representative of the Canadian society which it serves.

Clearly women don’t need a gender equity day all their own. Though the real point I’m trying to make is no one should have a day to promote their own gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, religion or anything else unique to them, or their own group.

If we are to really achieve full equality for all, no one group should ever be celebrated outside of the whole.

That was and still is the major flaw in all politically correct movements, and corporate job equity programs. By creating policies, procedures and practices which advocate any one group above all else, you discriminate against anyone that falls outside that group.

That’s why the pendulum has swung the other way – now women and visible minorities no longer suffer discrimination in corporate North America – which is good -- however everyone that is not a woman or a visible minority suffers discrimination.

That’s why the tagline “XYZ company is an equal opportunity employer” means “white men need not apply.”

And that’s as wrong as wrong can be. 

Is Your HR Dept Damaging Your Company’s Credibility?

Who’s the face of your business?

Think about that for a sec . . . most would quickly answer the receptionist, customer service representatives, sales representatives or other customer-facing staff.

Although people in those roles do interact with your customers first, what about everyone else?

For most companies, anyone who isn’t a customer is – rightly or wrongly – directed to human resources.

And – rightly or wrongly – most human resources departments are ill equipped to handle first-contact situations.

They usually brush people off, tell you they’ll get back to you (and never do) or worse, they build people up, only to suddenly drop off the face of the Earth.

Can’t blame them entirely – the global economic meltdown has meant there are more people looking for work, than there is work. So human resources departments often bear the brunt of frustrated job seekers.

However, when human resources talks to someone – especially when they’ve reached out to a potential employee – the stakes are higher than they think. Regardless of whether or not the potential employee joins the company, in this day of social networking and instant, always on communications, all it takes is one bad experience and a company’s reputation will suffer.

There’s even a website where current, past and potential employees can go to rant and rave about their experiences – Glass Door. These days, it’s not only the potential employer researching prospective employees prior to contacting them -- potential employees can do a lot of background research ahead of time too.

One bad review from someone with sour grapes about not getting their dream job probably won’t harm a business’s bottom line. But several could mean the end of quality qualified candidates applying for the positions needed to keep the business running.

And remember – once something is posted online, it’s usually there forever. In today’s digital world, no matter what you do to correct problems in the past, you’ll never fully recover from a really bad “rap sheet.” The key then is always providing exceptional first contact experiences with everyone – customers and job seekers – to avoid getting into trouble later.

So what can human resources do?

Here are five tips to keep those very precious first contact situations from showing up as negative feedback online:

1. Avoid those auto-responder emails – no one likes talking to a robot. Remember the last time your cable or phone went out, and you called the company only to have to go through a plethora of menu options just to talk to a live person? Didn’t like it uh? That’s how people feel when they receive automated replies – only worse, they have no means to reach a real living, breathing person.
2. If a potential candidate is very qualified, but mentions one or two things that you know just won’t fly, don’t call them to discuss. I had this situation where I was recruiting people for a contract role, and the person clearly stated on their resume they were looking for a permanent staff gig. Still, for whatever bizarre reason, the HR person I was working with called this person, and tried to convince her that taking the contract would be a great career move. Needless to say, this person was not amused, and both her and HR person that made this error just got into an argument about the role of contracts, and how they are the reason there aren’t any “good” jobs anymore. If a candidate clearly states something on their resume, but you’re looking for the opposite, don’t try to twist their arm.
3. Don’t call someone up expecting them to drop everything for you right now. I get approached by recruiters all the time, and they always have a long list of questions. Most ask if now is a good time to talk, some don’t. Instead, they start firing away question after question, expecting me to take the 15-20 minutes or more necessary to answer them, even though I most likely was in the middle of something else. We all lead busy lives. Asking when a good time to talk, or even better, booking a time with them that is mutually agreed to, will make you shine in their good graces.
4. If you make an appointment, in person or over the phone – don’t be late, and don’t break it. When I was younger, fresh out of university, an HR person called me 25-minutes late, and I answered. Now if someone – even a friend – doesn’t call or show up within 15-minutes, I leave and go about my own business. I call it the 15-minute rule – I’m always early or on time, because I value and respect other people’s busy lives. Anyone who doesn’t value or respect my time, is not worth my time.
5. Don’t get people’s hopes up. Anything can happen during the recruitment process, so don’t go on and tell someone they are the top person on the list. I was working at a company notorious for nepotism. We were interviewing for a developer, and had a final list of candidates lined up which we were starting to schedule interviews with. Next day, I see a resume on my chair – it’s the vice-president’s kid. Not the most qualified candidate, but we knew none of our shortlisted candidates mattered anymore, as the vice-present’s kid became our only candidate. A member of my team had mentioned to one of the shortlisted candidates he was our top pick. I had to diffuse an already bad situation, when he angrily called asking why he didn’t get the job. Way I see it, nothing is done until the ink is dry – and even then I’d wait a bit before considering all things final.

One last bit of advice which we’ve all heard before – treat others as you want to be treated. All is fair in love and war, until someone steps on your foot and doesn’t say “sorry,” then the gloves are off. So if you do make a mistake, forget to call someone, or do anything else on this list, admit your mistake, apologize, and you’ll keep your employer from getting slammed in the digital world.