Recently in business Category

There are times when I simply shake my head after reading an article in the newspaper. This is one of them. In a (short-sighted) discussion about the State of Wisconsin's projected (perhaps, better said, guaranteed) budget shortfall, one of the areas where spending is being evaluated is with regards to state workers receiving pay for overtime hours. Notice I say receiving pay for overtime hours and not working overtime hours.

"The Journal Sentinel reported last year that eight of the 20 top-paid correctional officers in 2006 called in sick for a shift and then worked the immediate next shift at least once. Those employees earned eight hours of regular pay for the time they were off and eight hours of time-and-a-half pay for the shifts they worked."

What is being described here is not working overtime. This type of scheme makes my head spin. How does someone who hasn't even worked their normal shift receive overtime hours for showing up to the next shift (forget the idea of having to reach 40 hours before receiving overtime because many places - including our company - you receive overtime pay for working beyond your shift)?

In the end, I think the focus on overtime in it and of itself is completely misguided. Already trained workers being paid time and a half for overtime hours are likely to be more efficient and conscientious than someone who has been hired solely because too many overtime hours have been worked by the current staff. When we look at the details, however, of how overtime is defined, the question that needs to be asked is, "what is the state thinking?" And, if this type of financial behavior exists with something as simple as defining overtime, imagine what other types of ridiculous indiscretions take place.

via 25 State Workers Earned More than $50,000 in Overtime in '08 - JSOnline

The most disturbing thing that got my blood boiling was the following comment on the actual YouTube page where the video is on display:"If you pay crap wages...you get crap work...period. These 2 where clearly acting on disrespect,and boredom. Had they better incentives, better pay they would have respected their jobs and responsibilties more." (From Wickedpainz) Are you serious? Do you really think this way? If people are unhappy with their wages, no one is holding a gun to their heads making them do anything - including work. The economy is currently in the tank, yes, but using that as an excuse to pull a prank that damages the reputation of any person or company and puts at risk the jobs of tens of thousands of people is unwarranted at any level. This is a sad commentary on the attitude that some people have towards others and shows that excuses are like assholes. Everyone has them [apparently].

I met the other day with a group of individuals on a project to better the state of politics in Wisconsin and perhaps the national agenda in some small way. One of the persons was concerned with anonymous participation in the group and this got me thinking this evening. The person was concerned with what I assume to be a connection between a strong stance in politics and the potential repercussions such a stance can have. I can relate. Until recently, I was very cautious about voicing specific opinions because I didn't want to ruin the possibility of being able to receive the necessary permission to do something business related from such and such bureaucracy just because the person in charge heard or found out what I said and decided to use it against me. I know this is a very real possibility and becomes more onerous the more one must work with regulatory agencies to achieve their goals. (It is sad but true that there is very little we can pursue today in the US that doesn't involve getting permission in some sort or other. I know it is better than many other places, but it is still worse than it once was.)

I started reading economic and political rags around the time I turned 12. It was an early interest in a wide range of topics that eventually landed me in the hands of Dr. Thomas Sowell over 18 years ago. The first article of his that I read was published in Forbes Magazine (and I still have a copy somewhere buried in my basement). From the first paragraph on, I have been fascinated with Dr. Sowell's insight and narrative style. I wish more people would read his works... Even if you were limited to two articles a year, you would be much more educated and wise from heeding his commentary.

I realized that while it would be illegal for me to try to post his articles in whole on my weblog (besides screw him out of the deserved royalties from his work), I realized that I can do something. One of his more recent books, Ever Wonder Why? And Other Controversial Essays, (click the link to go to Amazon and see what it is about) is an quick and easy read - and is really a compilation of a bunch of articles that made me look forward to his articles so many years ago. So, here's the deal. I know there are all of four of you who read my blog... but perhaps we can start a mini reading revolution at that. I want to give away 100 copies of Dr. Sowell's book. In order to get your free (shipping and all) copy, all you need to do is write me at snfettig@gmail.com with "Free Sowell Book" in the subject line and your FULL address in the body of the email. That is all you need to do. You don't even need to say hi. Just send me an email with that information. (Oh... and I sincerely promise that I will NOT give away any of your address information. Frankly, I don't have the time nor energy to do anything with it other than send out the books.)

If this works out, I'll give away 500 more copies over the course of the remaining portion of this year and next year. I will keep track of the numbers given away here. I might be embarrassed and find that no one requests a copy. How unfortunate would that be? We'll see.

I don't understand Jarvis's statement:

"I believe in the market but I also believe that the government must decide when to regulate it just enough. (That is the essence of why I am a Democrat.)" (The moral imbalance of bailouts)

My personal understanding of a general Democrats' opinion is that there is rarely a reason not to involve the government in our lives as long as it passes the litmus test of "helping" a given segment of the population. And this is exactly what makes me not a Democrat (and these days, less and less of a Republican).

The past few days have been so depressing for me. Every time I opened a browser to peruse the news, my heart sank deeper and deeper. Article after article has been written about the current financial turmoil and a very, very small minority have shown the author to have any understanding of basic economics and the interaction between markets and government regulations. I haven't been over to the Wall Street Journal for some time. No reason in particular... I sometimes lose interest in writing in the WSJ because it has slowly degraded in quality over the past two decades. (I started reading the WSJ and Economist when I was twelve. Soon after, I added a number of university review magazines that I found at Barnes and Noble and other financial mags that I was able to get my hands on. I have continued to read many of these over the years and the only publication that seems to have kept up the quality of writing and reporting - i.e. how good the writing itself is and how thorough the reporting is - is the Economist. I guess I should add that I started reading Reason Magazine 10 years ago and [thankfully] haven't seen a decline there, either.)

At times I feel like there are eyes on me wondering why I don't walk away from a business that will (obviously and/or likely) never make me rich or famous. Besides the various hobbies I try to enjoy (photography, writing and training for triathlons), spending time with my wife, and the time required behind my desk at work, you would think that pursuing a business venture that has many limitations and a number of responsibilities would be senseless. I argue that sometimes none of this matters when you really enjoy a given pursuit. Sure, I like to complain about the costs of doing business, the customer whose expectations are unreasonable, the fact that I have better things to do with my time, and the possibility that I may find myself financially on the hook for expenses not covered by what is charged. At the end of the day, though, I have learned things through my side business activities that I never would have learned by focusing solely on my day job. Sometimes you do things because you like them. Sometimes you do things because you have to. Sometimes you do things, though, because you can learn from them. Here is what I have learned so far:

Walter Ferguson's editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from September 6, 2008, The state must be willing to take risks to be 'great' fails on so many levels to develop a cogent argument for state intervention, it took me three tries to read the entire piece. My absolute favorite piece is the ridiculously misleading portion of the article that mentions Denmark as a leader:

"Looking for a role model? You’d do worse than Denmark. Forbes named that country the best in the world for business. According to the magazine, Denmark has public policies that foster low inflation, low unemployment, low taxes, free trade, innovation, protection of intellectual property and the development of technology. In operating their businesses, it is worth noting the Danes are energy independent through wind power for electricity and technologies that convert pig blubber to heating oil."

No, Mr. Ferguson, it would be hard to make the United States or any State more inept and bureaucratically rigid as Denmark. Stagnant population growth (0.295%), low immigration (a measure of a country's desirability for finding new opportunities), and marginal tax rates for middle income (by US standards) reaching over 63% make Denmark a very, very poor example, indeed. I lived south of Denmark for over a year and every Dane I had ever met, whether in Germany or Denmark directly, complained about the ridiculous tax structure that afforded little upward movement for the average citizen, which limited their ability to pursue individual, productive desires and interests. Think of it this way, until mid July of each year, you will have spent the previous months paying your dues to the State. It is only after July that the money you have worked hard earning is actually yours. The motivation to work harder and/or be more creative is nullified by the fact that whatever extras you do earn, most of that will go to the State.

"Sorensen, who graduated from business school in Copenhagen, found himself earning the equivalent of more than $100,000 before he was 30 - and paying 63 percent of it in taxes...'When you are at 63 percent tax, you don't look forward to the evaluation with the boss to get a raise," Sorensen said. "You look for more vacation or a training course in the tropics - something that you get the full benefit of.'" (High income taxes in Denmark worsens a labor shortage - International Herald Tribune)

Denmark's low poverty level and unemployment is masked by the fact that the State doles out money and "jobs" to persons by earmarking huge portions of the working class's income towards those people. It is similar to the idea that there were no unemployed in the socialist/communist Soviet Union. While statistically true, as they say, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Mr. Ferguson should have stopped writing there. His idea that, "Wisconsin must seek to define those industries or technologies that are crucial for future economic development. The state should then push development of those industries or technologies through the full benefit of public policy instruments and expedient action..." is absolute nonsense. The government - i.e. no governing body, nor State institution - has ever been successful at guessing which ideas will become the next commercial hits. There have been cases where state fostered development of technologies has eventually reached the public and been the catalyst for new opportunities. GPS and Cellular Telephony are two examples. The state was working for a solution to a logistical problem in both of these cases and hadn't foreseen the possibility that your average citizen would find a use for these products - vis a vis mobile phones and in-car navigation systems. This is very different than saying the State should decide which new ideas/technologies are desirable and subsidize them. Let me put it this way: a product was developed because there was a specific, tangible need. Said product was then applied to unknown or unforeseen needs. This is not the same as saying we don't know what the need is for technology xyz, but we're going to subsidize it anyway.

It is surprising that as a consultant and former executive at two Silicon Valley companies, Mr. Ferguson is confused that infrastructure and legal consistencies - i.e. safe and reliable transportation, communication, legible/understandable laws etc. - are the same as providing bureaucratically driven "vision" to business development. Let me say this as a businessperson: leave me alone. Give me a consistent low tax burden and easy-to-navigate rules and regulations and I will provide the success you and your visionaries think the State is there to provide. Furthermore, the State does nothing more than muddle the playing field and cannot be held accountable for the inevitable mistakes it will make. The markets I and my business colleagues serve are very swift at telling us whether or not we are heading in the right direction. A measure of responsibility is handed down by way of business growth or shrinkage. We don't need more "help" from the State. Sure, there are plenty of us that wish for handouts and I believe those of us who do are not only lazy, but ignorant of the long term damage handouts do to any free market system. Socialism in its grand form - i.e. central planning - has had its day in the Soviet Union and modern day China. It lost the battle and will continue to lose the battle because markets and people's desires cannot be planned and they cannot be foretold by some any visionary - from the State or elsewhere.

By the way, all of the "subsidized employee training, property tax concessions, low or interest-free loans..." are patently unfair. Why are we being slapped with the financial responsibility for supporting your new wave of innovation just because our companies and our staff have been successful and providing a product to the market that is of obvious desire? Where do we stand when it comes to fostering growth and success? In your scheme of investing in future technologies, nowhere. You seem to forget that those new industries you wish to "help along" will not only stand on the shoulders of those who have already succeeded, but trample them to the ground through the process of recklessly transferring away from them what they have rightfully earned for themselves and need for future investment. Shame on you for suggesting such a thing.

A coworker came into my office yesterday afternoon and asked what I knew and/or thought of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae being taken over by the government. Oh god... here we go again, and I was gonna' get mad. I hate - as much as anyone can hate anything - when the government steps into a situation and cleans up a mess of someone else's making. Except in the case of Freddie and Fannie, the idea that the government was "stepping in" wasn't so clear. So, I took a deep breath, tried to tell him what I knew of the history of both organizations (i.e. that they were created to give out and/or support people who would have trouble getting loans for homes from private institutions) and what seems to have been the reason why the Treasury Department decided to step in and "seize" their business operations. (I was and am angry because yet again, the average taxpayer is going to be financially responsible for devastatingly inept fiscal management and no one will be truly held accountable for making poor choices - i.e. let financial ruin of many of those involved ensue.)

This morning, I open up my news reader (these days, Google Reader) and see a blog entry over at Cafe Hayek from Russell Roberts on this very issue. Here is a taste:

"Once upon a time, Fannie and Freddie were partners in a business. Well, it wasn’t exactly a business. It was almost a charity. Not quite. It was sort of a government agency. Or maybe it was all three together. When Fannie and Freddie talked to investors, they acted like a business. When they talked to the government regulators, they acted like a government agency." (Who is to blame? by Russell Roberts)

Russell nails it better than I could have. Thanks to him to not only explaining a few details of the Freddie/Fannie debacle, but also for making the topic entertaining.

This morning, I had the opportunity to interview a seemingly wonderful young lady. Lately, the interview routine has been a bit stifled with the requisite can't wait to start work and the inevitable it's Monday and I'm sick follow up. We are seeing a lot of good people these days, but at the end of the day, people will be people and interviewing is like playing paintball - the object of the game is to not get painted (too much, that is). So, we dance and lie and sprinkle in some truth to present a picture of promise.
Years ago, I ditched the traditional interview routine for one that assumes the person in front of me is not going to tell me everything I want to know and it would be best to simply try to learn a bit about the person in front of me. (We use staffing agencies to do the background and work history heavy lifting, so people should have already gone through some type of vetting process.) My hope is not only to put a story and face with a name, but get a feel for the person's personality, including likes, dislikes and general attitude.
I guess it could be argued that such types of interviews are unlikely to tell you whether or not to start a person. There must be psychological and statistical testing that you can apply to a series of questions to know whether or not someone is going to work out for a given position. Perhaps... Perhaps. I would argue that your rate of success - i.e. finding the right person - is going to be no better than following a basic background check process and throwing darts at the names of the resultant applicants. Given time, I would love to do the experiment and see what the success rate is (although, then we would also have to ask, what scenario implies success?).
In the mean-time, I have chosen to ask the question, do I want to work with you - why and why not? The way I answer this question is to ask people about themselves and what they do. What about you makes you, you? Some people naturally open up and others are quiet. Some keep me laughing and others make me look at my watch hoping for a quick end to this painful experience (by the way, usually a personnel/HR manager sees people all the time and going beyond one or two word answers can really help endear yourself towards that person). If the method is not successful (I really don't know, as I haven't tracked the statistics and I would venture that my gut reaction is going to be in my favor), it is at least interesting and even entertaining.
Today, however, was one of those days where the positive mannerisms and initial responses of the interviewee were not enough to overcome a grave issue that creates a negative undercurrent in our job market. The woman's primary language was obviously not English, as her thick accent gave that away. Not a problem. I actually like accents and it is likely that someone with one has an interesting story to tell as to how they ended up here, in southeastern Wisconsin. The problem is that besides the accent, there was a gulf in understanding between what I was asking and the responses I received.
What did you do in your last job? Was met with, yes...
No... um, what I'm asking you is what you did before you worked for ___? Smile... pause... yes...
Okaaayyy. Moving on.
I tried to find another way of phrasing the question and approached the question a few different ways a few sentences later. Sometimes by not getting a sensible response you find that there are other, easier ways of phrasing a question. We are not looking for PhDs here. A basic, I would guess, 3rd grade level of English is all that is needed. Where did you last work? definitely falls within that expectation.
The communication litmus test - a subtle component of my interview - was failed miserably. Despite having the positive mannerisms and cogent responses to my first series of questions, a simple question tipped the balance negative - and quickly. In my eyes, people who have been in the US for a short period of time, say less than a year, get a pass on not understanding a question like where do you work? If you have been here for longer, though, and don't understand, there is a problem There is a big problem. Basic communication skills - i.e. talking to your community member - forms the foundation of a successful life. (This is assuming you don't wish to live like a hermit in the mountains.) Too many people are content with the idea that there is no primary language in the US and to each his own. As far as what you do in your free time is concerned, I agree. The moment, however, you wish to engage in society, you need to be able to communicate. You cannot ever expect to progress without doing so. Perhaps you will get by, but progress towards something greater (which is why I assume you made the effort to come here in the first place), you will not. I feel sorry for people in this situation. Either they are there because someone lied to them and told them it was not important or they are too naive to realize the damage they cause themselves by not realizing how important basic language skills are to succeeding. There will always be those around who are biased or don't like you because of who you are, the way you dress, or how you talk. Bigots and idiots abound. But, without the ability to talk back and defend yourself, you can never hope to overcome this. Never. That is an opportunity dashed, among many others.