What gets your blood boiling at work?

Is it a nasty coworker? The pervert in the cube next to you? Not getting a raise?

Turns out gossip is at the top of the list.

A survey by staffing firm Ranstad USA found that among the Top 7 Pet Peeves in the Workplace, workers talking about other workers is worse than anything else.

Being a journalist, gossip has always seemed to be pervasive in the offices I’ve worked in, and you know something, gossip really never bothered me. I usually tried to stay out of the latest news about love affairs and potential firings. Part of me figured it was a natural human tendency to pay attention to what other people were doing because you thought your life couldn’t be as exciting as theirs.

Eric Buntin, Randstad’s managing director of marketing and operations says:

“Gossip will always be a mainstay of the workplace, especially because office floor plans have become more open and communal.  Though, hopefully the 60 percent of workers who are annoyed by it aren’t gossiping themselves!”

I do get lots of letters from readers about how gossip impacts their lives. Some employees have felt nasty rumors spread about them actually contributed to their lack of career advancement. I could definitely see that happening if there’s someone at work out to get you, or someone that wants your job.

The best way to combat that: stay out of the fray people. Don’t gossip at lunch or by the water cooler no matter how much you want to. Gossip always comes back to bite the gossipers on their butts.

If you’re already the subject of a nasty rumor, or someone is spreading news about something embarrassing in your life, don’t address it unless you’re sure the higher ups are now wondering about you.

Once that happens, and you truly believe the gossip is derailing your career, sit down with your manager and put the cards on the table. Let your boss know whether the rumor is untrue. If it turns out there is some truth to the gossip, explain yourself simply, and without going into details.

But again, do this only if you’re 100 percent sure the stories being spread are damaging your day job.

There are other pet peeves besides gossip, according to the study.

Here’s how the peeves stake up:

1. Gossip 60%
2. Others’ poor time management skills 54%
3. Messiness in communal spaces 45%
4. Potent scents 42%
5. Loud noises 41%
6. Overuse of electronic personal communications devices in meetings 28%
7. Misuse of email 22%

Talk about gossip. Why are workers watching what other workers do on email?

It’s none of your business people. Who cares if your coworkers watch the latest funny YouTube video. ((check out the rotting pumpkin video or the video of a pumpkin that carves itself. Come on, piss off your coworker!! ))

When someone in power says something totally ridiculous I think it’s our duty as bloggers to point it out.

The CEO of Chrysler, Robert Nardelli, recently called the labor contract workers signed under duress “revolutionary” and “a major step forward for us”.

It’s odd that now the top dogs at companies don’t even look at these concessions workers make as sacrifices. CEOs of days gone by used to have their tails between their legs, thanking employees for making painful cuts, even though they may not have felt it. It was the civilized thing to do, no?

The deal, narrowly signed into life by about 56 percent of assembly line workers, creates a new pay structure that basically translates into as much as a 50 percent cut in pay for new hires. Many auto veterans balked at signing such an agreement because they saw it as turning back the clock on all the advances the union and workers made.

Believe it or not, many of these men and women see the job as a great way to live the American dream. Many of their own children may decide to follow in their footsteps. Some have chosen that route. But cuts in wages, many say, was a slap in the face.

Nardelli seems to brush aside the workers’ concerns. The New York Times quoted him today about whether he was worried that so many employees didn’t sign the agreement:

“I would suspect some of it is just an uneasiness about change.”

Indeed, there’s an uneasiness. But it’s not about change Bob. It’s about going backwards economically in America. That’s revolutionary.

(UPDATE)

We all have seen it, out of control pay and bonus packages for the executives of almost every Fortune 500 company.

The top-level executives just keep getting showered with money. It definitely irks workers and even investors, but is it a good or a bad thing?

This is a scary question at a time when public pension funds are starting to do just that. Pay their bigwigs big bucks.

It’s scary because public pension funds are the funds that many of the nation’s state and local workers rely on for their long-term benefits. If something happens to these funds taxpayers will have to bail them out, or else workers that have toiled hard, knowing that they’d have basic benefits in retirement, will be out of luck.

These funds have been struggling in many ways, not the least of which has been attracting cutting edge investment gurus to their employee ranks. So, many fund operators are thinking, let’s take a page from Corporate America and pay these guys obscene amounts of money.

The Wall Street Journal today says one of the nation’s biggest funds, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, is considering paying its top dog nearly $1 million this year once his bonus is paid out.

“The escalating salaries don’t always sit well with government officials, who object that some pension-fund managers are among the highest-paid public-sector employees in the country.”

Should it sit well? Maybe not.

Money, especially ridiculous amounts of money, doesn’t always translate into big gains for the institutions they run or the workers of those institutions. Remember the late Kenneth Lay from Enron? He had more money than god, and as many condos, but he was at the helm of one of the biggest Corporate disasters. And we all know there are tons of other such stories.

Let’s look at one recent example that is coming to a head today.

Merrill Lynch and its head honcho, Stanley O’Neal.

OK, ready for this? In 2006, he got $48 million.

And, what does the company have to show for all the money it dished out?

An $8 billion write off against the largest U.S. brokerage firm’s profits. People, that’s very bad and could end up leading to…what else? Layoffs. He was overseeing some of the riskiest investments in the firm’s history and it came back to bite everyone on their fat and skinny asses.
O’Neal is expected to resign today. Big deal. He’s already done the damage and all those slumps working for Merrill, making way less than O’Neal, will end up suffering.

The New York Times today called O’Neal fall from grace “stunning in its speed and ferocity.”

I say, what the heck is stunning about it. These guys are thrown so much money that they come to believe they are omnipotent. Wouldn’t you?

They are drowning in their riches, realizing they’ll probably never have to worry about money again, other than spending it.

A study — mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article a while back — written by David Yermack, a finance professor at New York University, looked at CEOs and the like and the homes they bought.

“It found that on average, the stocks of companies run by leaders who buy or build megamansions sharply underperform the market. The researchers don’t claim to know why. They theorize that some of these executives might be focused more on enjoying their wealth and less on working hard.”

There is nothing wrong with slightly overweight paychecks for the people that run the show, but it seems we have a pay obesity epidemic, and it’s doing little for the health of the nation’s corporations. Time will tell what it will mean for our nation’s pension funds.

UPDATE:

I asked Stephen D’Arcy, professor of finance at the College of Business, University of Illinois, what his take was on the movement to pay pension fund manager more. Here’s his response:

Public pension plans have historically paid their investment managers salaries well below what the private sector pays, and as a result most of the top talent in investing has gone to Wall Street or private industry.  This is not necessarily bad, as public pension plans tend to invest in fairly straightforward investments, stocks, bonds, index funds, etc., which do not require a highly paid professional to manage.  Since the key stakeholders in public pension plans are taxpayers, a basic investment strategy makes sense.  The taxpayers, and their representatives, are not qualified to oversee more complex investments.  If public pension plans wanted to invest a portion of their funds in more complex securities, they can place some of their funds in the hands of these highly paid private investment professionals.  As the boards of most public pension funds are not filled by investment professionals, they would be moving beyond their comfort zone (and knowledge zone) to have esoteric investments in their plans. No one should invest in something they don’t understand.  This definitely applies to public pension plans.

Some investment professionals are worth very high compensation, as they can provide a return to their employers well in excess of the compensation.  Other investment professionals would not justify such a high level of compensation.  There is no way the boards of public pension plans can differentiate and hire someone who, going forward, will provide returns to justify that high a level of compensation.  Therefore, they will likely hire high priced investment managers who are not worth the compensation.  On Wall Street and in private industry, investment managers perform or are replaced.  That by itself can justify a high compensation figure, as they have little job security.  Public pension plans are not likely to replace their investment staff when their investment preformance suffers.  Thus, if public pension fund investment managers gain the high pay of industry, they will likely have both the high pay and job security, which means the public plan would be overpaying for talent.

Thus, I would oppose paying public pension investment professionals top dollar to try to attract talent from the competition.

I’m torn.

There has been a lot of talk and debate these days, about employers constantly coming up with ways to make their employees healthier, free gym memberships, on-site diet and smoking cessation programs. They have even begun offering workers cash incentives for their good behavior.

On the one hand, it’s a great thing because the healthier we are the happier we’ll be. I really believe that.

That said, it makes me uncomfortable when company officials create an environment where they’re pressuring workers to be good.

It’s all about the bottom line. If we’re fat or have lung problems from smoking they end up paying for a big chunk of the health care we’ll need. It makes sense that bosses would want to curb our bad habits.

But employers sign on to pay us a weekly wage and provide us health care benefits when we join their companies. That’s the agreement. No one disputes that. So, when they start trying to push us up on a tread mill and end up penalizing us, monetarily, if we’re not running fast enough, or losing weight fast enough, then they’re starting to go back on the promises they made to us when we were hired…No?

There’s no way around this. The issue is a Catch 22.

Looking back, I wish my father worked for an employer that forced him to stop smoking. He was an entrepreneur. Did what he wanted. And smoked for many years, until three little girls begged him to quit.

Alas, it was too late. He ended up dying from lung cancer in his early 70s.

You know. My dad would have gone ballistic if any boss he had got involved in his personal life and his personal habits.

How do we deal with this issue? Any thoughts?

It seems the ghost of union leaders past may be haunting the union halls of many U.S. automakers.

Something happened on the way to get a union contract at Chrysler. The unexpected.

Everyone thought workers would just jump in line and agree to a host of concessions because the union leadership wanted it that way.

Well, many of the workers around the country are saying “no”, and that’s making local union presidents on up a bit pissed off.

Many years ago, I met Stephen Yokich, a tough talking, hard-ass, and president of the UAW. (United Auto Workers). He didn’t take any guff from no one, and auto executives knew they’d face a tough battle whenever they sat at the bargaining table with the guy.

Yokich was at the helm of the UAW in the late 1990s when GM workers walked off the job for seven weeks, crippling the auto giant but winning concessions for assembly employees.

He wasn’t a stupid man. I remember my first encounter with the guy when I was covering a story on a local Delaware plant. Even though he oversaw tons of plants nationwide, he knew who I was, having read many of the stories I had written. He took time to do research on a lowly reporter from a small newspaper in a small town where two of auto plants were based.

That made me realize he probably knew his stuff when it came to his perceived enemies…you know, management.

Recently, I called one of my favorite auto analysts David Cole with the Center for Automotive Research. I wanted to know, since he knew Yokich well, whether he thought the late UAW leader would be turning over in his grave if he saw how much the present UAW chief, Ron Gettelfinger, was giving away in union concessions.

“I don’t think Yokich could have done what Gettelfinger did. He didn’t have the personality or relationships to allow him to do this. He was more confrontational,” Cole says.

I asked Cole if he thought Gettelfinger has given up too much.

“If they didn’t do it it would have killed at least one of the companies,” he explains about the Big Three automakers that are struggling because they’ve been unable to compete with their foreign counterparts.

It’s about jobs, he adds. “They’re trying to hold onto something or end up losing everything.”

The U.S. automakers have been dying for a few years now, and no help from government, workers or fancy car commercials appears to be helping them get that one foot out of the grave. Now, they’re handing over to the union their responsibilities to provide healthcare to retirees, and they’re cutting wages for those employees at the bottom rung of the rank and file. Will this be enough already?

There’s a bigger issue here than just the auto industry folks.

Other unions, in other industries have handed over their heads on a platter when it came to negotiation time because of fears they companies they worked for were heading for the toilet. Airline workers are the most recent example. Many of them are now crying foul because as their airlines come back from the brink the money is not being spread among those who sacrificed. And top executives appear to be more concerned with lining their own pockets than giving their employees back a bit of what they gave up.

Analysts say this is a different world today. How different is it really?

It’s definitely not the 70s or 80s when unions and workers had more power, and wages and benefits slowly rose instead of declining as they are today, a time when we have the biggest disparity in history between the rich and poor.

Is Yokich rolling over in his grave?

Remember my quest to get more fathers to take on more of the day to day kid duties? Often working women are designated “snack moms” when it comes to school activities and home responsibilities, but you never hear about “snack dads”.

So, I will point out examples of things dads do that would designate them “snack daddies.” This is not because what they do is any better than what a working mom would do. But because it is a rarity, I believe we should be pointing this stuff out.

OK, the latest example. In today’s Wall Street Journal the includes an excerpt from the newspaper’s law blog called “Home for the Holidays”:

Overworked lawyers rarely air their work/family woes in court. But that’s what happened recently in the high-stakes bankruptcy case of Calpine Corp.

Lawyers at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP recently objected to a bankruptcy judge’s setting Dec. 18, 19, 20 and 27 as dates for a set of crucial hearings. Wrote Martin Bienenstock, co-head of Weil Gotshal’s vaunted bankruptcy practice and the lawyer for a group of bondholders: “These dates are smack in the middle of our children’s winter breaks, which are sometimes the only times to be with our children.”

You go Martin!

If men step up and ask for things like this it will only pave the way for a real work/life balance movement in the workplace.

Martin did face some challenges.

Responding to the motion: Rick Cieri at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, who said an $8 billion financing could be jeopardized were the hearing delayed. Mr. Cieri called Weil’s reason for requesting a delay “woefully inadequate” given the risk to the company’s financing deal. “The personal needs of a handful of professionals, unfortunately must be balanced against the thousands of employees, creditors and other parties in interest…whose livelihoods and/or recoveries are dependent on (Calpine’s) successful emergence from Chapter 11.”

Cieri takes a shot at the “personal needs” of the lawyers. I hear from lots of women trying to balance work and personal needs and such a comment is the reason many of them don’t ask for things like this.

But guess what folks, they gave in to the “personal needs”.

A happy ending was reached, it seems. The court added a Dec. 17 dates, which may obviate the need for a post-Christmas hearing.

Happy Holidays Martin, the uber Snack Daddy.

Please send me your Snack Dad stories.

Many of us career writers constantly tell people to find what they’re good at. I’ve said it a few times in my column.

But sometimes people take this a bit too literally. Just because you’re good at sex, for example, doesn’t mean you should find a job where you could use those talents. I’ll admit, there are some lucrative professions you could consider but they may be a bit unsavory, and ILLEGAL.

You see what I mean, right?

There are many things we’re good at but that doesn’t mean we can find a profession that fits our talents. Let’s think logically folks.

Sometimes, however, your likes or talents could translate into some sort of business. Maybe you like scrapbooking. There aren’t a lot of corporate jobs that could use that kind of skill. But maybe you want to start an Internet based company selling supplies, or offering advice to other scrapbookers.

But sometimes your talents are just talents you can enjoy, on your own, and forget about making a living from them.

I can eat lemons without making a sour face, but to date, I haven’t gotten anyone to pay me to do this. Well, many moons ago, I did make 25 cents off of a kid who didn’t think I could do it. But a quarter won’t even buy you a bag of chips these days.
Here’s something that is a great example of the point I’m trying to make. I just got the cutest email from reader in Hong Kong who misinterpreted the thoughts behind the “find-what-you’re-good-at” advice.

“Dear Eve,

I’m very good at guessing a movie’s storyline and my husband agrees that any movie that keeps me guessing to the end is one of the best movies we’ve ever seen (”The Game” is certainly one of them!).

Are there any jobs out there that can utilize this “talent” of mine?

Thanks and best regards,
Karina, Hong Kong”

I was getting ready to answer her but then I thought I would share it with my readers to see if they can actually come up with some ideas for the career path based on this “talent”.

Now, if you’re part of the Gen Y group, no matter what your talents, it seems employers will throw opportunities at you. Check out my column today on the subject.

A friend of mine, Emmanuel Conde, who’s involved in the recruiting world emailed me today about a bizarre virtual phenomenon.

I wrote about something called Second Life a while back for MSNBC.com. It’s a virtual world, owned by Linden Labs, where virtual people, called avatars, get together to shop, play games, and even apply for jobs. Many large companies, including Microsoft and Verizon, have virtual buildings in Second Life where job applicants — actually, their avatars — can come and be interviewed during virtual job fairs.

Turns out applicants have more to fear than just screwing up the virtual interview. Now they’re having to dodge virtual gangs.
My friend wrote early this morning:

“Did you know that there are now gangs that will attack your booth in SL(Second Life)? Cisco is going to provide security to prevent this during the 2 hour job fair in November. There have been instances of vandalism where furniture is turned over and other destruction has been documented.“

It’s a wacky world, even in the virtual world.

I’ll update you once I get more info from Second Life and my buddy. (BTW, check out my friend’s career enhancing stories. He likes to write as well and is a Cisco networking recruiting god with great tips for job seekers)
Update: I did some initial Web research and the gang problem may just be the tip of the iceberg.

This from a blog called MetaSecurity –

“While Second Life may have started as a utopian world where gamers, geeks, and technophiles could gather and immerse themselves into the pure and innocent escapism of a genuine second life, the rocketing popularity of Linden Lab’s online world has now begun attracting the attentions of those intent on destruction, and even violence, reports the Concorde Monitor.

While anti-capitalist and pro-democracy movements continue to virtually ‘bomb’ real-world business locations in Second Life (last week saw the Australian broadcaster ABC have its luxury island turned into a crater by angry hackers), worrying reports of rape and child abuse have started to gather around the supposedly idyllic and rather laidback bohemian existence to be ‘enjoyed’ in Second Life.”

Another UPDATE:

From the company:

“This kind of behavior in a virtual world is known as ‘griefing’. Linden Lab asks all residents to follow a code of conduct and if they repeatedly do not abide by it, they can be banned from Second Life.”

Does anyone else think this is funny?

To be honest, I don’t know what I’d do if I wasn’t a journalist. I’ve done it for more than 20 years and spent most of my time before that dreaming about becoming a reporter. I’m not sure where I’d even begin if I had to leave my beloved profession.

I guess I would consider starting my own business, maybe a cafe or a book store. I always thought it would be great to start a little shop where people come in and I help them write letters. You know, old-fashioned letters, with paper and an envelope and a stamp. I would also offer coffee and a well stocked library where we could find great quotes and poems to include in those letters. The way I envision it would be people coming in needing my help. Maybe they’d need a love letter written or a note of apology.

Anyway, what got me thinking about this was all the layoffs in the mortgage industry. I’ve gotten quite a few letters from long-time mortgage employees who were either let go or hanging onto their jobs by a thin thread.

Many of them wondered what they would do next. Few had any clue.

I address the issue in my MSNBC.com column today.

It’s painful starting anew in your career but it also can be liberating. I say that only if you’re not teetering on financial ruin as a result of loosing your job. But if you got a nice chunk of change to leave the place, it might be a good time to go to the limits of your imagination and start something totally new, something you always dreamed you would do.

Remember those Utah miners? The ones that were trapped and no one could reach them. Then rescuers went in and died as well. Turns out, the mine had issues for some time but there was no oversight.

(AP) Bureau of Land Management inspectors noted serious structural problems at Utah’s Crandall Canyon Mine at least three years before two roof collapses killed nine people in August, Congress was told Tuesday.

Yet the government’s mine safety agency at the Labor Department didn’t know of the concerns about Crandall Canyon until after the accident, Kevin Stricklin, a coal mine safety and health administrator for Labor, told a Senate hearing on the accident.

The Labor Department had approved a plan to mine there.

Senate documents showed, according to the AP, that in November 2004 a BLM inspector noted that pillars of coal, which were holding up the mine’s roof, were failing. The inspector, Stephen Falk, said that further mining by pulling out the pillars would be “untenable.”

That the mine operators “had thoughts and plans to try pillar recovery was wishful thinking and was more wanting to extend mine life,” Falk wrote.Under questioning, Stricklin said the report would have been helpful and could have shaped the agency’s decision to allow mining at Crandall Canyon.

Who’s overseeing this government agency. Well, for a long time, no one. For about two years, no one headed up the Mine Safety and Health Administration, a division of the Labor Department. Finally, Bush decided on Stricklin, a mine industry insider, to take the helm.
After Bush sidetracked opposition to Stricklin in 2006 by appointing him while Congress was in recess, a New York Times article stated:

The lawmakers and the mine workers’ union said Mr. Stickler had spent too many years as a mining executive and had failed to demonstrate adequate concern for safety in the mining industry.

The families of the dead miners are now at their wits end.

From the AP today:

Surrounded by family photos, relatives of the nine victims of Utah’s Crandall Canyon Mine collapse told lawmakers Wednesday they blame the government and mine owners for the fatal cave-in.

Who should they blame?

Remember this guy? Robert Murray, the CEO of the company that operates the mine, had insisted after the collapse that the cause was an earthquake.