I think I may be a bully because this Wall Street Journal article, to me, borders on the absurd.

New research highlights the prevalence and dangers of workplace bullying. In a 2007 survey of 1,000 U.S. workers, 44% said they had worked for a boss they considered abusive. The survey was sponsored by the Employment Law Alliance, an association of 3,000 employment lawyers.

In a 2004 survey by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Heath, 25% of companies reported bullying incidents in the previous year. More incidents were attributed to co-workers than to supervisors. The study was part of the institute’s research on work-related stress.

This year, two Canadian professors concluded bullying can take a more severe emotional and physical toll than sexual harassment, perhaps because companies provide greater support for victims of the latter.

“Abusive” is a completely-loaded word that is difficult to define in this context.  I’m also thinking this bullying movement could spell some trouble for High D managers.

However, I think this paragraph sums up the motivation situation:

Some business groups and lawmakers say workplace bullying is too difficult to define, and a poorly worded law would expose businesses to unnecessary lawsuits.

I think there would be a flood of frivolous lawsuits if this idea became law.

Comments(2)

If you think of the obstacles that have been thrown at our economy over the past few years (oil prices, housing market, credit crunch, ongoing war, etc.), you start to appreciate just how resilient it is.

When you work in the recruiting space, you pay close attention to the economic trends, especially the leading indicators, since hiring is a lagging indicator.

This ERE.net post caught my attention as it deals with an insightful excerpt from Jonathan R. Hefferlin regarding the latest jobs report:

There is renewed economic clatter with unemployment up by 0.2 to 5.7%, like there was a couple of months ago when it rose from 5 to 5.5%. We know the real number is higher, not counting folks whose benefits ran out before then found a job (an estimated + 4 million), which makes the true figure closer around 8%.

Betcha didn’t know that government stats only count those who are currently collecting unemployment and looking – a reported 1.6 million last month. 570,000 more, forced into part time work against their will, aren’t counted.

For all these shortcomings, you could at least use the 5.7% as an indication, until recent months. The entire rise from 5% can be attributed to the extension of unemployment benefits by three months, earlier this year. Had this not happened, the number we have learned to watch and love would be still 5% or less, as folks who used to be dropped off the rolls after six months are still counted.

Clarification might be found in lost jobs – 85,000 a month in Q1 vs. a recessionary 180,000 rate in 2001; 59,000 during Q2, and only 51,000 jobs lost in July, which was the 1st month in eight previous numbers weren’t revised downward. So the economy, which grew at a 1.9% rate in Q2 (0.5% of that $78 billion in stimilus (sic) checks thru June) vs 1% in Q1, proved amazingly resilient to $4.50 gas, $5 diesel, the credit implosion, and housing bubble.

If the plunge in oil prices continues, coupled with a weak dollar and the surge in bargain repoed home buying, the employment picture should continue to show some signs of hope.

Comments(0)

You just knew this was going to happen – companies are using technology to monitor remote employees.  The Wall Street Journal provides this article that illustrates what approaches are used by employers:

They’re taking photos of workers’ computer screens at random, counting keystrokes and mouse clicks and snapping photos of them at their computers. They’re plying sophisticated technology to instantaneously detect anger, raised voices or children crying in the background on workers’ home-office calls.

That seems quite invasive, but it appears telecommuters are generally willing to trade the invasiveness for the work-at-home option.  I’m not certain I would be so eager to allow this type of monitoring into my computer.  However, many companies do monitor employees in the office both electronically and directly (manager).

Sales is a bit simpler in that it is easy to know how well a salesperson is performing based on their revenue production.  Monitoring could be beneficial in ramping new hires, but success is still easily measured.

Comments(0)