It never ceases to amaze me how many employers feel they have a right to know incredibly personal information such as that sought by the questions in this post. Be a smart employee and know your rights, so that when the conversation veers into impermissible territory, you can (nicely, of course) educate your interviewer.

Of course, that raises another red flag for many: not getting the job simply because you refused to answer the question or pointed out (however nicely) that the question wasn’t permitted under the law. To that, I can only state: do you really want to work for an employer that plays fast and loose with your rights before they even know you?

Who’s the least likely in the working world to suffer from long term depression? Engineers, architects, and surveyors - proving once again that your 9th grade algebra teacher was in fact right and math does help you after high school.

The survey was conducted using data from 2004 through 2006; it focused on 21 major occupational groups or categories to analyze the data, and came to the conclusion that yearly costs due to worker depression range upwards of $30 billion. That’s billion - with a “B.”

“Most Depressing Jobs Ranked” - MSNBC.com

If you aren’t familiar with the story behind his ouster, here’s a pretty good recap from The Times (London) Online:

The report claimed that during Mr Bush’s time in the Texas Air National Guard – a posting which spared him from service in Vietnam – he shirked duties and disobeyed orders, relying on his political connections to avoid punishment. The explosive story, based on documents supposedly written by the former commander who covered for his transgressions, was immediately seized upon by Democrats, who had long pointed to his avoidance of Vietnam service as evidence he was a “chickenhawk” – belligerent but in reality less equipped to command the troops than his rival John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran. Critics, however, suggested the documents had been forged. A CBS review was set up, which failed to confirm or deny the authenticity of the papers and concluded that the story had been neither fair nor accurate. The producer responsible was fired and three executives asked to resign, while Rather, despite his limited role in the story, was forced to apologise on air, a move that he claims all but destroyed his career.

Rather’s complaint (which I have not read, so take this as second-hand, which it is) claims the content of the story was actually true, but that if it wasn’t, it wasn’t Rather’s fault that the erroneous parts made it on air. I don’t think he will prevail on these counts. First of all, the story has been all but totally discredited due to the analysis of the typeface of the documents (proven to have originated much later than the time frame in question). Second, Rather’s conduct strikes many as “much ado about nothing.”

It’s that latter point that I find fascinating. It seems that, even with the most meritorious employment complaints, there’s a danger in perception. Plaintiffs often come across as whiny, unable to “let it go” and “move on.” It’s a disappointing phenomenon, to be sure. One would hope that the perception of someone who was willing to fight for their rights - to stand up against those who had wronged them (putting aside merits of the case, for now) - would be one of strength, of excellent character and courage.

Unfortunately, it’s not always that way, and it can devastate a plaintiff who isn’t prepared for it. That’s why one of the first things I discuss with my clients is always, “Are you really ready for this?” We talk about the emotional impact of litigation - especially in the employment context, which can dredge up some pretty knotty feelings for most of us, and especially on interpersonal relationships. But the biggest impact is almost always on the plaintiff’s perception of him- or herself. It’s for that reason that I talk with my clients about “what it’s really like” - how the whole process can demoralize and deflate even the strongest, healthiest senses of self.

For more information, see AP’s “Rather Lawsuit Says He Was ‘Scapegoat’“

An excerpt:

1. Pride

Despite any help they received along the way, time and again, people take full credit for their accomplishments in the office, thinking that personal success will fast-track their career.

The sin: “What often goes unrecognized is that people around, and especially below, the serially solo-successful resent the ego-centricity, and may actually begin to actively undermine that person’s efforts in the future.”

The salvation: “A dose of acknowledgment of and appreciation for one’s peers and subordinates, so they may share in some of the glory, can go a long way to foster one’s long-term success.”

While it might be a bit odd to think of your workplace this way, it’s a creative way to look at office politics!

Leanna points out that as more and more of us live in a paper-less (if not quite paperless) world, this creates potential hardships on our relatives and children when we become catastrophically injured or sick, or when we die. How can assets be located if there’s no paper trail?

There are solutions, and Leanna has them, together with a special discount for readers of her blog on a terrific resource that I often recommend to my own estate planning clients and those who inquire about wills and related matters - a workbook that will help you sort it all out, if not painlessly, at least with less pain!

Read Leanna’s post here.

Check out the whole post for some other excellent ideas.

Technorati Tags: self-promotion, job satisfaction

Rachel Weingarten, the marketing consultant profiled in the piece, seems like a poster child for the evils of workaholism. She says it’s been “over eight years” since her last vacation; she regularly works ten hour days, seven days a week; and doesn’t “know how to relax.” It doesn’t take a brilliant doctor to figure out what that sort of lifestyle will do to the human body over time.

But more than physical debilitation is at stake; the very act of working long hours itself can backfire on your work reputation. Seems paradoxical but as the article points out, that sort of schedule cuts both ways - are you addicted to work? Or are you just inefficient? Factor in the reduced productivity level and it’s easy to figure out why so many in corporate America are heading for burnout or worse.

So think about the flip side before your next late stay at the office! Try working in some stretch breaks during the day; take a yoga or fitness class after work or during lunch; and make a pact with the family or yourself to be home by a certain time every day. Whatever it takes to get you out the door, with work left squarely behind you.

Technorati Tags: workaholism, career burnout

• Understand how you’ll be evaluated. That includes not only formal evaluation procedures but also your boss’s more informal expectations.
• Project positive energy. That’s a no-brainer in my book, but I’m constantly surprised how many people think they can wear their unhappiness like an armor and their boss won’t notice or care. But would you enjoy working with someone who’s always miserable? Why would your supervisor be any different?

Jimmie Reaves sued his employer alleging employment discrimination under Title VII. He represented himself. The district court dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. Mr. Reaves failed to address that fact in his informal brief on appeal. And thus, the Court of Appeals had no choice but to affirm the dismissal. Result: Mr. Reaves is out of luck, completely.

Did he have a cause of action? Should he have prevailed? Did the District Court make a mistake? Maybe; possible; it’s been known to happen. But we’ll never know because Mr. Reaves, pro se, won’t get a shot to argue it.

Note that the court calls it his “informal brief” - a court won’t ignore a filing from a pro se litigant just because it’s not in proper formal format according to the appellate rules. Pro se litigants, in fact, get a lot of leeway. But that leeway never extends to basic legal requirements such as the requirement that an appellant address a grounds for the court’s decision below, or be deemed to have waived the argument. And the requirement that a jurisdictional flaw will end the case pretty darned quickly.

Lawyers get a lot of flak for high fees but remember, they earn them - this law stuff isn’t easy.

Technorati Tags: title vii, pro se litigants

Powered by ScribeFire.

Title VII serves as the legal underpinning of most employment discrimination suits in the U.S. (or as one of the underpinnings). The employer often defends its actions by citing violation of its policies as the reason for the employee’s termination, demotion, or other complained-of action; that’s what Wal-Mart did here, claiming Haddad actually was fired for failing to keep the pharmacy secure. When the employer presents such a defense, it’s then up to the employee to present evidence showing that this offered excuse is just a pretext that serves to mask the real reason - discrimination. This is called “McDonnell Douglas burden shifting”, so named after the case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, a Supreme Court case you can read here at Findlaw (HTML format).

Technorati Tags: title vii, gender discrimination, haddad v walmart

Powered by ScribeFire.