Monday, October 29, 2012

Need Help? Hire Someone!

There's a lot of stuff on internet bulletin boards and in business magazines about how there really are jobs out there. There are scads of ads for schools to get you educated (and more in debt than ever) for jobs.

There are jobs out there, they insist. Companies are begging for workers.

Until you are ready to apply.

Then you are given the list of qualifications and conditions of employment. These terms usually involve higher education.

Companies are whining and crying -- and sometimes losing profits and shareholders -- because they can't fill the jobs.
Can't.
Applicants don't meet their standards.

If you ask me, it's their own faults. They have set their standards too high. If a job needs done, it needs done.   Pieces of paper accumulated don't make anyone more employable, yet companies are insisting that they "need" employees with more degrees, more education.

More education, at least to me, has made people less employable. They no longer know  (if they ever did) how to work as a team member. They can't follow orders. They won't follow a chain of command. They don't know how to ask subordinates for help; to get the job done; to be on their team.

Most of them don't know how to fill out a job application or write a personal resume -- they hire someone else, or order a before-mentioned subordinate to do it for them. And, by God, that person had better get it right!

Listen, people.
If you need help, you need help. Paper isn't going to help you -- people are.

If you want the work done, you need working people, not someone who has studied how "Star Trek Changed the World," and "Ghosts in the Bible." It doesn't matter how brilliant the essays or how deep the understanding of these topics. Unless you're exploring the final frontier or Ghost-busting haunted lands in the Middle East, those are not the skills that will move your product.

If there is special training needed, provide it yourself. That way your workers won't be distracted by how Jack and Joe do it, or what the professor told them was right or wrong. If you need specialised training: provide it.

Schools provide students.
Employers provide employees.

You need working people to do the work.

Forget the educated idiots. If that's your criteria, your product isn't a necessity. It's a luxury, and that is reason enough why your business is going down in troubled times.

If you desperately need workers -- hire some. We're out here.


Thursday, October 25, 2012

Fall is Coming

An old favorite of mine, from when my little ones were little ones. Caught myself singing a version of this to the grandbaby last week.


Fall Is Coming

Fall is coming, oh me, oh my 

Fall is coming, the leaves will die 

Fall is coming, and winter soon 

Fall is coming, and the harvest moon 



Fall is coming, the year's most gone 

Fall is coming, summer soon gone 

Fall is coming, and will soon be here 

Fall is coming, the end of the year 



Fall is here, the leaves have turned 

Fall is here, summer is yearned 

Fall is here, and life slows down 

Fall is here, Summer's crown 



Fall is here, and winter is coming 

Fall is here, the harvesters are running 

Fall is here, let's get everything in 

Before winter comes in, cold as sin. 


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Officially silly Road Signs.

Governing organizations are always looking for ways to cut costs. One way for the Departments of Transportation (DOT), whether state, county, township, or town, might be to take a look at some of the silly and unnecessary road signs they
1) have manufactured
2)have installed  (temporarily or permanently) and
3)pay maintenance for.

The first such sign that comes to mind is one that proclaims "Limited sight distance."
Huh?
Bet that sign is a real treat for ESL drivers. Or the illiterate. We draw pictures of stopsigns and deer and curvy tire marks in the rain, and post "limited sight distance" for the non English readers.
That sign is a poser for intelligent English speakers.

But, never fear -- if you're still driving, you've probably figured it out.
It means that you can't see very far.
Since my eyes are connected to my brain -- a rudimentary necessity for driving, one would think -- I can SEE that I can't see very far. You don't have to tell me that.

Then there are the ever-popular "No Edge Lines".

Duh!
You think I need a sign to tell me that the white line isn't there anymore? I had to pass a vision test to get my license, ya know. Most drivers do. And a white line on a black road is usually obvious, so when it isn't there -- most people notice it. No signage needed.

I saw a new one last night. "Pass With Care." Okay, that's fine, but what I want to know is -- where are the roads where it's acceptable to pass without care?

I'm not sure if I want to know so I can avoid those areas or so I can drive them. I suppose it will depend on how suicidal I'm feeling when I leave my driveway. Or maybe after I've been driving roads where I can't see very far, and the white lines at the side are wearing cloaks of invisibility.

I might want to Pass Without Care after that ordeal.


Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Nick Mom? Are you kidding me?

Please say you are kidding me!
 Please say this is a tryout or a special session or something.
Please, please don't say you are seriously depriving the sleep deprived mothers of junior insomniacs the presence of Nick jr 24 hours around the clock.

And for what?
Momedies? Tearjerkers?
No!
The kids are being booted off for stand up comedians!
You have to be kidding me.

Moms all over the world are being punished for all the moms who tried the comedy gig back when Nickelodeon did the funny mom contest. Now we all have to watch all the not-quite winners while our children or grandchildren scream and howl instead of going to sleep with familiar friends luring them into slumber.

I didn't know of this horrid desecration until my granddaughter came to stay for a week. Her favorite shows, just before bedtime, have been Pocoyo and Ni Hao Kai-Lan. They come on at ten o'clock, and signal bedtime, lights out, sit down and shut up time.

That is, they did come on at ten o'clock.

Now, ten o'clock heralds the beginning of Nick Mom.

Some person (or committee -- I neither know nor care) at Nick jr decided that children go to bed by ten o'clock, and that the Moms are going to be watching tv. And instead of watching a good murder, or a good-cry movie, these moms, who have their obedient little angels all tucked in -- these women want to watch stand up comedians.

Not me. When I got my teeny tots tucked in (or should I say stuck in? Sometimes it seemed I needed strait jackets and restraints.) I had to finish dishes, fold laundry, things of that sort.

When I did get to watch tv, I wanted something that  would offer escape from the day to day being a mom -- not something that would plunge me into other mom's woes. Yes, I have stories, too. Yes, I could make them funny or dramatic. Yes, my kids are more funny/messy/silly/noisy/fussy. Let me tell you... .

But when I'm done being Mom, I want to be someone and somewhere else. Not watching endless reflections of myself  on a kiddie channel on the tv.

I don't advocate watching tv as anything but a tool to use with consideration and deliberation when raising children. But when used properly, it is useful.

As a bedtime cool down or as entertainment for a wakeful child, I guess that we, as parents and grandparents, will be turning, turning, turning away from Nick jr at night. Our children may soon find the Disney jr or Sprout characters even more endearing. Then we will no longer have to bother with Nickelodeon at all.

And their Moms can all entertain one another with one-liners all night long.


Bethel residents angry over shoddy contractor work | Clermont County - WLWT Home

Bethel residents angry over shoddy contractor work | Clermont County - WLWT Home

Friday, October 5, 2012

Discussing "THE" Debate

from Dictionary.com

de·bate  (d-bt)
v. de·bat·edde·bat·ingde·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms atdiscuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.






I'm beginning with the formal definition of debate here. Seems like there are many who have no comprehension of what the word means. Sadly,it is supposedly intelligent people who lack this understanding of the definition. Newscasters, reporters, editors.

There was a Presidential Debate the other night.

Not, as the name implies, a debate between presidents. Nor was it a debate about presidents, except tangentially. It is a pre-election debate for presidential candidates. One of the candidates is the current president.

A debate, as you can see from the definition, is basically a discussion -- just like the one we're having here. (Not exactly, since you lack the ability to respond as I'm speaking.)

Discussion of this, of that -- it can even be considered an argument, but that usage has, until now, meant in a formal sense. Not petty kindergarten squabbling.

This is important, at least to me, because there was very little attention paid to or reported on any actual debate topics. The debates had barely started when the media morons began trumpeting "Romney is winning!"


How the Blankety-blank blank does anyone win a discussion?

How do they win a discussion when that discussion has barely begun?


It didn't get any better, folks. I don't know what the debates were about. I don't know what subjects were introduced, what answers either candidate had, or whether either had a solution that was markedly different from the other guys.

As a matter of fact, I don't know if there were any other candidates present or if it was just the two Mr. BigBucks BigMouths running. They were the only two mentioned. There are other candidates, voters. Some of them have great ideas and reasonable policies. Look them up.


I don't know because no one reported on this. No one cared to do straight reporting for those who couldn't/didn't watch the live event.

And if it were a matter of winning -- so what? If winning a discussion means anything at all, I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean winning the election, although Mainstream Media would like you to think it's in the bag now for their guy.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he could beat Obama -- not on issues, performance, promises, or politics -- just because he breathes higher class air, I suppose. I have yet to figure that logic. See previous blog:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7971544013891065437#editor/target=post;postID=8130718494167114723

Now he has 'won' a debate -- what does that mean?

It means he talks faster ?

There's the solution to our problems! A slick fast-talker. He must be made to be President! He out-talked the man who was actually working at running the country (possibly badly, but trying) while he was rehearsing his party lines and preening in his mirror.

I'm saving my vote for the election. That's the only WIN that counts.















Tuesday, October 2, 2012

FYI: A caftan is a DRESS

I recently bought myself a caftan. A nice, long, floaty, silky new dress. I haven't really had any new clothes for a long time -- in my size, they are hard to find. Once found, even harder to afford. So I was really happy to find this dress in a catalogue of inexpensive stuff.

The long flowy lines are a favorite of mine, and were before I got so very fat. Probably something to do with growing up during the hippie era. It should, properly, have a sash of scarves or a belt made of lamp pulls or swing chains, I suppose. And feather earrings and headbands, too, I suppose.

I have been choosing to wear mine plain, to enjoy the freedom of something that fits on me, that moves freely, and is slinky soft sliding across my skin.

That decision is going to have to change, though. I'm going to have to wear a belt. If I had any dress shoes, I supposed I'd have to wear them, too. I do have sandals that hurt my hips after twelve steps and my back after a dozen. I'll pass on the headbands -- my head comes with a built in headband, especially on stormy days.

Everyone thinks I am wearing a nightgown. Even the people in my own home think I am wearing a nightgown.

It's a DRESS, people! A fat lady dress, a hippie dress, but still a dress.


Tuesday, September 25, 2012

What is a Cashier?

I've been trying to find work, like most of America. There are jobs out there, but the hoops we must jump through get stranger and stranger. More and more places are accepting online applications only , or online primarily. Translation: your paper in-store application and your written resume are dropped into the trash can as soon as you are out of sight.

It would be nice if there was some standard form or procedures for online applications. Or a way to copy your filled out application to multiple store locations, for places like McDonald's. For now, you have to fill out the same forms over and over again for jobs under the same corporate umbrella. Please, why can't we just CC the applications? Or better yet, why must we select one location only? Why not allow an applicant to apply at multiple stores with one application? Isn't that the sort of thing computerized applications are supposed to do for both employer and hopeful employee? Eliminate repetition and sort by keywords (keywords being the locations)?

Some sites you have to 'create an account' and log in and out of complete with password and your secret identity  Really? I just want a job, not an account. And you'll know who I am as soon as I start the application process. My name IS the first thing you'll ask for, isn't it?

Once we get to the application (if we're lucky) we'll be asked what position we'll be applying for.
 'Any' is not one of the options.
Do we want to be a BOU? A QST? A CRR? Aren't there any two or four initial jobs?  How about a store team member? Well, since I want to work at your store, I want to be a member of the store team. I'm pretty sure that's a minimum requirement.

What kind of team member? Which spoonful of alphabet soup would we like to be? The better sites have a what-is-this drop down menu that will explain what the initials are. Many won't. I always figure that if I don't know what the letters are, I'm probably not qualified for the job.

But wait -- that means these stores no longer use cashiers! No floor service people!
I'm pretty sure I am not going to shop there, with no one to help me find things.

After much searching and thinking I find a couple acronyms that may qualify as cashier: Customer Service Specialist and Customer Relations Representative. There's also Customer Service Representative.' Customer Relations' and 'Customer Service' seem to be ways to pretty up the job title. And everyone is expected to be a specialist -- or at least called one  -- these days. It supposedly makes them feel more appreciated. (Please and Thank You are an easier way to achieve that outcome.)

Who cares? Most people looking for cashier's jobs are looking for cashier's jobs. They don't want to be Representatives. They don't want to be specialists. They want to be EMPLOYED.

Online applications are Okay.
If I were an employer,  I'd rather do a walk in so I could see who I'm getting and gather important 'first impression' details, but I can see that online will eliminate a lot of personal prejudice eliminations.

But quit with the initials and the fancy sounding names for common positions! I want to come and help your customers find what they want to buy, and I want to help them buy it and get out so they will come back again. And I want a paycheck. Not an empty  title made of fancier words.

I want to be a cashier and shelf-stocker and coffee-maker. No Representing Specialist or Specialized representative.

I am a lifelong (although currently unemployed) cashier and proud of it. It is you who are missing a good employee because I don't know what you call me.


.


Saturday, September 22, 2012

Lower the numbers; raise the profits

This is the latest strategy of the health industry. Everybody is sick and needs us -- and our products. Whenever the numbers start to decrease, we'll go back into our laboratories and jiggle some statistics around and we can PROVE that a lower number for the same high-number illness is just as bad for you. Therefore, the lower number indicator means you have the higher number illness and you MUST have our medicine to survive.

I've seen this happen with hypertension. It happens every few years. People, I am sorry to tell you this, but no one has normal blood pressure anymore. It is either low or high, according to the professional experts. The parameter for normal has become so narrow as to be nonexistent.

It's been happening about every five years with diabetes. Numbers that were low-normal just a few years ago are now borderline high. Diabetes can now be diagnosed by one high reading in a doctor's office, instead of making a patient undergo that intolerable glucose tolerance test, or instead of tracking the blood sugar levels over an extended period of time.

I read a study yesterday that says that  "over 60% of people are obese"

Now, I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied health. Another thing I am not is a math genius. But I vaguely remember things about averages and norms and suchlike. When something is in the 60% range, that, mathematically, means it's pretty much the average, the norm.

Just because someone educated drew a line on a paper and said everyone above this line is sick doesn't mean they are. 

There are still doctors who go by the older numbers if their patients aren't in distress. They are few and far between and often work in isolated, rural areas. They don't go along to get along with the insurance companies. They ask "Why?"
When they ask "Why?" they become estranged and ostracized.

They generally don't want to practice that kind of medicine anyway, so they go to where they are over-needed and where they are listened to.


What really bothers me about medicine by the numbers is that it leaves out the element of change. Evolution, or mutation, or whatever you want to call it. Humans began as five-foot tall bipeds who could live thirty years.

Science and scientists have had no problem with embracing our growth and evolution from that standard.
Imagine if some nearsighted observer in the Whatever-ithic era said that anyone over 5'2" was an aberration, and had an illness and needed to be treated for it. Maybe had the afflicted eating weeds known to stunt the growth. Would we still be five foot and old at thirty?

No, we would not. Change and growth are not aberrations. At first as those numbers begin to trickle in, they are an anomaly, and yes, worthy of study. Worthy of tracking. Maybe even worthy of treatment, until it reaches the point where there are more 'anomalies' than there are 'normals'.

Once that point is reached, it is the duty of responsible scientists, researchers, and statisticians to take another look at a new definition of normal, a new average. Not to hit the panic button and start name-calling those they are trying to help.

We're not getting sicker -- we're getting different. We're changing, evolving, mutating.

We are growing.