It's the Stupid Economy: Job Discrimination Rules

You've heard the jokes over and over regarding an old political comment which went, very simply, "It's the economy, stupid." And it has been quite obvious that the economic condition has been poor for the past four years. Despite what you may read on today's USA TODAY about the recession having been over in June of 2009, there's not reason to believe that for most Americans. Come on and be honest about it, don't be stupid about it - the economic condition has not become dramatically better, no matter how many figures get thrown at the news media. Hey, I'm a member of the news media and I really don't think I can believe that the positive numbers are outweighing the negative numbers because I still have been getting the same feedback that I've seen for the past four years: jobs which can improve your life's standing are not there for the majority of Americans.

There is evidence on Yahoo! today - a story from the New York Times. Here's a link to this story here. It discusses something which I have posted about in the past: that Americans over 35 are increasingly not allowed to compete for the jobs allegedly available. Job discrimination is not only happening, but it is happening for an extended period of time.

Not telling the truth is simply the way "around" violations of trust, violations of rules and ethics, violations of understanding. What do you think of these violations? Apparently you either completely agree or you find fault with my findings because you're the boss who lies or the Human Resources person who MUST lie in order to keep your own job these days.

What happened to "The Golden Rule" when it comes to business and honesty?

Is it now a "new business-only Golden Rule" which completely dominates the world of business and economics?

Do unto others as you are going to be done unto by others when you are doing your job in business.

Read that again. Does this sound like the way corporations do business on a regular business? IF it is NOT, then I encourage you to tell me which corporation does not or companies do not follow this new "recipe" for business dealings. Overall for this particular writing, the way business is conducted with other business isn't necessarily the target of my critical thinking, but more the way these companies handle one-on-one dealings with potential employees. This is not to say that B2B is staying out of these bad situations. We occasionally read the stories about certain businesses becoming the targets of investigations or allegations of potential wrongdoing within a business transaction. These include some notorious gaffes such as that of Arthur Anderson's mismanagement, numerous banks which took it on the chin for making two-sided deals in which they caused their own downfall, and manufacturing companies which sold-out their businesses to others who were larger only to find themselves the target of an investigation into the "new owners" when they were only a subsidiary of that group for months. It can cut both ways in B2B - good or bad. But in one-on-one employment situations, where is the "control" that is supposed to be exercised by the "good" companies in good faith with potential hired hands?

Reviewing the New York Times article which appeared on Yahoo!, it shows a woman who has a good work history but cannot find a job with similar earnings largely because she is older than Generation X. Frankly, if I am reading this right (and I am no legal expert), this particular case could be one in which the woman could potentially file as part of a class-action suit against someone to which she applied for work IF there were dozens or hundreds of others in her age range who applied for open positions and did not get them because of their age and income history. IF those jobs went to someone who is just out of college or university and holds a similar degree but is 30 years her junior there is age discrimination. Unfortunately, she's not necessarily going to be looking for an attorney to file such a suit because she does not want to be labeled a troublemaker. And --- here's the interesting part to esquires around the country --- I am not a proponent of filing lawsuits as a general rule. I believe in forgiveness. Moreover, most of us believe in not attempting to make another wrong. The vernacular has been "two wrongs don't make a right" for good reason. We don't necessarily gain anything out of bringing down another. BUT, if it's obvious that such a thing will be best-served for the overall good of the public which is being unwillingly the target of unethical business practices, then I think filing suits is clearly the way to refocus the target to the party which is being unethical time and again.

This economy sucks. And if you missed this key piece to that article, I'd like to point it out now:
Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.

This doesn't sound good in its tenor and tone. This not only signals what I was saying months ago about job discrimination against Generation X, but it comes to show one thing that I did not want to believe was happening then:

Age discrimination has extended its ugly range WELL PAST Gen-X to those who rightfully can file suits against those who have been practicing such discrimination. It's criminal, folks, not petty or nitpicky.

If the rules against age discrimination aren't being utilized against the companies and corporations that have been so doing for the 50 or older crowd --- what do you think that means for those between 35 and 50?

Radio Broadcasting, Media & Business

I've been a media member since...well that depends on my "real roots". I suppose it goes back to when I was a young child who, like so many Americans, loved listening to the radio personalities up and down the dial (when it really was a dial). Times were great for listeners: personalities were plentiful, and radio station owners paid those personalities enough to make a decent living, for the most part. It stayed that way up until perhaps the late 1980s or early 1990s before the dying breed --- the local owner --- could no longer afford to continue paying the "developmental personalities" at the smaller stations. The economy was not very good.

Consolidation laws FIRST forced the radio broadcasting (TV, too) industry to change - to accept larger allowable ownership groups. It had the potential to help, we were told. Then we watched as "deregulation" was forced through the FCC and Congress. Along the way, computers helped us out, giving us new ways of making "radio magic"...unfortunately, that was followed by brutally harming the program hosts with "voicetracking". Sure, it made it possible for us to do a break ahead of time so we could take a lunch break, but it also allowed station management to think "we can cut payroll with this feature". And cut payroll they did, except for their own pay. They took away the livlihood of hundreds of thousands of radio personalities, opting to show a "profit" for their quarterly or yearly earnings. Then they took the shareholders' money and ran to the bank with their bonuses.

Broadcast industry job cuts even made news this week. How about the way Westwood One CEO Rod Sherwood as well as Executive VP/Business Affairs and General Counsel David Hillman ordered mandatory five-day employee furloughs in Q4 2009, then "schedules" further salary cuts for 2010? The employees weren't very happy about these moves. You wonder how much Hillman will get as a reward for this kind of change --- Hillman's been specializing in this move for more than five years, before he was a VP. Ahh, the "esquire" must be entitled. Right? Keep combing through the press releases and watch for his "bonus" in 2010. It will happen.

With just only 25-year-long career in broadcasting, I have come to realize that the only place where radio's "personalities" will soon reside is where people are listening to them. That may not simply be a radio station: it will be a particular online "channel" as well as on your cellphones, media devices such as mp3 players, etc.

I'll boldly predict that such days are coming as soon as by the fall of 2010.
By fall of 2010 --- your favorite air personalities will be available for listeners on MANY media platforms. I should add this word: again. Many of these personalities have been out of the spotlight or unemployed for too long.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to this because of all the media applications where we will see this personality-driven "channel" exist...it'll be numerous platforms and the applications where they will be featured will be widespread, thus leading the various listeners/viewers (some will want the personalities on video, too) to seek them out.

I'll admit I am looking forward to this new "channel" because I will take part in its existence and shaping.
Q: Why?
A: Because I want to...and because someone has to get "radio" back on track, even if it's not always or only on the radio airwaves of AM and FM.

The good news is: the air-personalities will band together.

These men and women are already picking up on the fact that this is one development coming, as we/broadcasters who are personalities either shake our heads or laugh in disgust at the idiots currently running and ruining "radio as we know it".

Frankly, I am not a household name today.
Ahhh...but wait until "tomorrow" and see/hear what happens.

"Buzz"
buzzmusicmedia

A sincere thanks to all those who want to participate in this new chapter of radio broadcasting.
+++++++++++++++++++

RANDOM ramblings about "business".
----------
"I'll give him/her 'the business'."
"That's nobody's business but their's."
"I own my business...built it from the ground up!"
"In Business News..."

When one wonders about the economy...it's often because the "regular" news and the "business" news become closely related, or even the same.

"New Auto Production Down As Mexican Plants Begin Sending Inventory North"
"Fewer Americans Filing For Unemployment As Part-Time Jobs Are Filled"

Hooboy, to be an economics pundit in 2007 and predict the economic collapse (the way some actually did). Wow...someone could make fortunes off the writing of that history book.

Here's the question: What business can suck the life out of some and make others wealthy at the same time?

Unfortunately, the answer is: ANY business in 2009.

-------------

Who else thinks the business climate in 2010 will look mighty good for some compared to 2009?