It’s the ATM’s 40th birthday everyone.

The first one was installed in London on June 27, 1967 by Barclays Bank.

I remember when the ATMs became prevalent in the 1970s. I was aghast at the idea of it. A machine replacing a human being! They are AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES. Teller machines. Not tellers, but teller machines.

It creeped me out a bit. I thought, “Man, what will the poor tellers do when they are replaced by machines.” Humans obsolete.

I refused to use the ATMs because I didn’t want yet another well paying job to be replaced by technology. And also, I lived on the Lower East Side of Manhattan at the time and ATMs, housed in small glass vestibules in front of banks, became mugging nooks.

Anyway, I sort of felt about ATMs the way I feel about automatic checkout lines at supermarkets today. I boycott those. Mainly because I don’t want people to lose their jobs, but also, these machines have a long way to go before they’re as fast as the seasoned checkouts that speed through the order and actually know what arugula is.
Okay, not every checkout gal or guy knows that. I actually had a young kid ask me what strawberries were once. No kidding. (Hello obese America.)

Maybe I’m fighting a losing battle at banks where I still look for that human interaction. Maybe some day I won’t be able to talk to a real person, hand them my check and have them deposit it. (Yes, I don’t get direct deposit on many of my checks. Come on folks, I’m a freelancer, we’re lucky to get our paychecks at all.)

Even if I’m a relic, I think I’m doing my little part to help the American workforce keep at least a handful of jobs that pay a descent wage.

Come on people. Go into the bank. Celebrate the ATM’s birthday by talking to a live teller. I dare you.

We know it’s tough out there folks, but even in this economy people need to find their true career callings and support themselves as best they can.

My column today on MSNBC.com is a response to some important letters I got from readers. Many say the job market for new grads is horrible, and they’re right when it comes to many different fields. But do we wallow or bring out the I’m-not-giving-up fighting gloves?

On another note.

Is it bring your dog to work week? I’ve got my new puppy with me today. He wants attention and is distracting me a bit already and it’s not even 8:30 a.m. I put him in the back room where there is little he can chew up and destroy, but I want him hanging with me, under my desk. Like my dog Henry used to do.

Oh Henry. We used to joke that he wasn’t a dog at all, but two little old Greek men in a dog suit. Henry was the definition of a mellow dog.

Will I ever mellow this little black lab/saint bernard doggie?

I covered the auto industry for a long time back in the 1990s in Wilmington, Delaware, where there was a Chrysler and GM plant employing thousands of people. One of the things that stayed with me was how hard and tedious their jobs were. It was a tough life but the main factor that kept many individuals punching in everyday was the fact that they were paid a good wage, enough to support themselves, their families, and the promise of a solid retirement income.

Slowly but surely this is changing.

GM is seeking concessions from the United Auto Workers regarding the company’s bankrupt Delphi auto parts business. Word is the workers are close to accepting a slash in pay, about half of their hourly wage. Half!

It blows the mind what has happened to the manufacturing jobs in this country. The workers feel they have no choice but to accept the crummy pay or risk losing their jobs if the unit goes belly up. Already about 20,000 employees took buyouts last year as part of an overall restructuring at Delphi.

It’s hard to imagine why a person would chose to take a job in manufacturing these days.

The latest presidential campaign news is how Democratic candidates are courting unions, but what about Republicans?

I could see Mitt Romney and John McCain getting chummy with John Sweeney, the head of the AFL-CIO. Well, I’m sort of kidding about that. I met Sweeney and he never stuck me as a guy you could chummy up with.

Anyway, why is it always left to the Democrats to toot labor’s horn. And I mean not just when it comes to organized unions. Why don’t Republicans stand up and yell for more worker rights?

Is it all about the almighty dollar. Any support of an employee is a lack of support for corporations, the free market?

I don’t see it that way. There has to be a balance between bolstering capitalistic ideals and the good of the working stiff.

Come on Elephants get to a picket line pronto!!

I have been surprised how surprised workers are when they hear their employer can dock their pay for a host of reasons.

Just because you have an agreement with your boss/company that you’ll be paid a certain amount each week, or every two weeks, that doesn’t mean an employer can’t take some of your pay away. Many employers use conduct as a reason to dock pay, and others do it when the company is having financial trouble.

There are a host of reasons when docking pay runs afoul of labor laws. Check out my Your Career column today at MSNBC.com. It addresses the issue.

But I just want to go on the record as saying if your employer does this I probably would rethink working for the guy or gal. Just because it may be legal doesn’t make it right.

How the heck do you balance a career and motherhood? It’s definitely doable, but everyone needs a bit of help now and then.

That’s why I’m soliciting tips from all of you out there..moms and dads… I want to know how you guys are able to balance work and family.

Did you change your career to find something more flexible? How do you prepare healthy meals for the kids? How do you keep the magic going in your marriage when you’re juggling work and kids? How do you get your boss to give you the flexibility you need? When do you help with homework?

These are just a few questions I have. Being a Career Diva Mom myself I have a bunch of tips I use everyday. But I want to hear from you all. Come on. Something small you do might help women across the country.

What I find here will possibly become part of my Your Career column on MSNBC.com.

American workers can’t catch a break.

Whether you make minimum wage or you’re considered middle class, pay checks are not keeping up with productivity growth among the rank and file, and compared to the top corporate honchos your wallets are anorexic.

Here’s the latest from the Associated Press:

If 6,694 people earning minimum wage worked for one year, they collectively would have made as much as the highest-paid CEO last year of a Standard & Poor’s 500 company.

When the minimum wage rises from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, it will take 4,755.

That’s roughly the equivalent of 1,434 people earning $50,000; or 574 people earning $125,000 a year.

And there was more disheartening news from a group called the Economic Mobility Project. Turns out American men in their 30s are among the first generation to be worse off than their fathers financially, and family income just can’t catch up to the productivity gains made by workers and companies since 2000. That means any profits that came from such productivity improvements did not go in the pockets of the poor saps that did most of the running.

The study stated that “the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well.”

The escalator may someday end up going down. Just look at recent examples of how wages have been squashed.

Circuit City recently announced it would be laying off a bunch of sales associates and replacing them with lower wage workers. See my recent story. How can workers be expected to move forward, beyond their parents’ generation if things like this happen?

My column this week is on how many young adults are still living with their parents. I got a lot of letters from people in their early 20s after the column appeared, many angry letters telling me how I just don’t realize how hard it is out there for them to find jobs and get their lives started on their own.

While I think it’s never easy for people starting out in their careers, I must admit it may be tougher for this generation than generations before.

UPDATE: Talk about timing. The New York Times magazine today has devoted almost the entire issue to the income gap between the rich and poor. I just started reading it and there are some eye-opening articles, especially the piece on an island in Florida filled with some of the richest people on earth, and the underclass of individuals being paid next to nothing for maintaining their Shangri-La.

Remember how simple life used to be. When you wanted a job you picked up your local newspaper and looked through the help wanted section. Sometimes you might hear about a job through a friend, or see a sign up at a business in town.

Today, the Internet has changed all that. Online job boards are a dime a dozen and they’re free to anyone who wants to peruse the job listings. Well, they’re not all free.

A growing number of websites are charging job seekers to view job listings. The thinking is they can weed out applicants that are less qualified or less serious about finding a job. Check out story in the New York Times business section today on page C5 by Bob Tedeschi.
For the most part, these fee-based virtual classifieds are for jobs that bring in the big bucks, $100,000 and up. But some analysts believe more and more companies will pick up this model in the months and years ahead for jobs the rest of us are seeking.

It sort of goes against the whole idea behind help wanted ads. You’re looking for a job because A: You are unemployed, so why the heck would any one expect you to pony up cash to look at what gigs are out there. Or B: You hate your present gig so much you’re looking for new horizons. Either way I think it’s odd to charge people to look at jobs available at multi million, or even billion dollar corporations.

Help wanted ads should be free to anyone interested in taking a look. What next? They’re going to start charging job applicants for the pleasure of being interviewed by a hiring manager.