Career dreams don’t always work out the way we envision.

I had visions of someday becoming a foreign correspondent, but after I worked for an apparel magazine covering factories and the workers who toiled in them in the good old USA I discovered a different path.

You never know what you’ll end up doing when you leave high school, or graduate from college. You could be headed for a life as an artist, but end up using your talents for something you never thought of.

Take artist Michelle Killen.

She went to the College of Creative Studies in downtown Detroit and got a B.A. in interior design. She figured she would ultimately work in commercial design, maybe in the hospitality industry designing restaurants and hotels.

She realized pretty quickly that Detroit didn’t have a lot to offer in terms of this type of work but she didn’t want to relocate to New York or California where she probably find more gigs. “I had a good relationship with my family and I was engaged,” so relocating wasn’t a preferable option, she explains.

Everything changed for Killen when General Motors came to her college. Yes, the automaker.

The company was looking to recruit designers to work in their color and trim department.

Ever wonder who comes up with the idea for that faux wood on your dashboard, or the color combinations in your car’s interior? It’s people like Killen.

In June of 2006, she became a color and trim designer for General Motors, a position that can fetch up to $60,000 starting out.

“When I started I didn’t know anything about cars,” she admits.

It’s the type of job that gets a “huh” during cocktail parties. One you have to explain more than once. “Usually you get some laughs,” she says. “People say, ‘they have somebody who does that?’”

Yes, someone does come up with the colors, grains, gloss, etc. in your car. Everything from the seat to the flooring to the radio button to the faceplate.

To do her job, Killen starts by researching the particular vehicle brand she’s designing for, like Cadillac or Chevy, for example. The design team holds so-called clinics where they get feedback from customers. She also scours fashion magazines and attends furniture shows to get ideas from the latest and greatest trends in the clothing and furniture.

For high-end cars like Cadillac, Killen says, they look for ritzy materials like real wood and mother of pearl inlays.

For the Chevy Traverse SUV the design team used a combination of cool and warm colors like gray and cream. “You normally don’t see warm and cool mixed. It’s a little more fashion forward. We were looking more at the woman buyer and what she wants to buy,” she explains.

And remember being told not to wear black and brown together, forget it, she says. You’re seeing the combination more lately in men’s suits and handbags, and it works well in vehicle interiors.

She spends a lot of time researching colors, many of which are part of an existing global GM portfolio of colors so there is little room to really stray from the traditional hues. Hot pinks are probably a no go.

Once she comes up with a palate for a particular vehicle, it goes through review with the marketing department.

If you see yourself becoming a color and trim expert for one of the major automakers, a four-year design degree is a big plus. But GM also employs former tattoo artists.

The company is always looking for talent since they have 11 design centers around the globe, including China and India.

Some day Killen hopes to travel abroad for her job, maybe end up in Korea. It’s a long way from where she started.

At first Killen’s parents were scratching their heads over her career choice, but after she took them to the auto show and showed them the concept cars she helped design they got it.

Killen says she loves her job even though it can take four years before she actually sees her hard work come to fruition. “The biggest satisfaction of my job is actually seeing a design come out on the road that I worked on,” she says. “It’s very cool.”

(Quirky Jobs is part of an ongoing series on CareerDiva.net. Check out the last installment on a woman who is a “Sex and the City” tour guide. If you have an idea for a Quirky Job please email me at telleve@gmail.com.)

It seems one day can’t go by with yet another financial titan collapsing. Today we find out WaMu, aka Washington Mutual Inc., has failed and J.P. Morgan Chase is buying up the bulk of the operations.

Thank goodness for J.P. Morgan that keeps on buying up these failed institutions.

Based on history, J.P. Morgan cuts a huge number of jobs when it takes over. The firm’s acquisition of Bear Stearns saw about 50 percent of that company workforce get slashed.

But what if you’re absorbed into J.P. Morgan or any firm that may end up buying your employer?

I’ve heard from employees in the past who said changes happened quickly after a new buyer came on board. But I have also heard that it can take weeks or even months before anyone notices anything different.

Either way, it’s probably a good idea to come up with a strategy for dealing with your new bosses and keeping your career moving along.

“Leave behind the past and strive to make the future a success,” says Tom McLane, a recruiter and business consultant. “They should continue to perform their jobs at the highest possible level, spend time with their new boss to get a clear sense of expectations, and make every effort to understand the culture of the acquiring firm in order to adapt behavior if necessary to confirm with this culture.”

You should also be proactive and let everyone know how great you are, without coming off as a big-headed jerk.

“You need to become the ‘impossibly perfect employee,’ politically correct, approved of by management, colleagues and direct reports,” advises Sally Haver, senior vice president, Business Development at The Ayers Group/Career Partners International.

Some of her tips:

1. bring more business into the company in any way you can,
and let management know you’ve done it.

2. maximize human capital

3. help make cost-effective decisions regarding every
conceivable item such as vendor choices, personnel
(cross-training, creative management solutions, et al)

4. See where the “holes” are and volunteer to spearhead
projects that should be done, that no one has raised his/her
hand for.

5. Be visible in the very best way. Be seen working hard,
solving problems, partnering with colleagues and senior
management to help the company get through these tough
economic times.

Bottom line, she says, “the company, if it’s still standing, needs outstanding employees. Be one of the best, and you’ll remain standing along with the company.”

My head almost blew off last night when I realized that my husband had spent $35 on a small bottle of antibiotic drops. The nurse practitioner at my doctor’s office prescribed them for me for an ear ailment and I asked my hubby to pick them up.

First off, I want to apologize to my husband for yelling at him. Well, I wasn’t actually yelling at him but I was so mad that this tiny bottle cost $35 it was hard to hold in my anger.

Usually we pay $20 so why the heck had the fee gone up?

I called the company that handles our insurance coverage, which we get through my husband’s employer, and the guy on the phone told me as of Aug. 1 the medication we bought was no longer considered a preferred drug under our plan.

Unfortunately, no one told us that.

This scenario is indicative of how the insurance industry and employers are putting the squeeze on working families who are lucky enough to have insurance.

More and more working Americans who have insurance are seeing their health-care tabs escalate, and many are finding they can’t afford it.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust, workers are being asked to pay out more for their medical care, not just more in insurance premiums but also more for deductibles.

This from U.S. News & World Reports Michelle Andrews:

The survey found that in 2008, 18 percent of workers in employer-sponsored plans have a deductible of at least $1,000, a sharp increase over the 12 percent with a deductible of that size last year. “We may be seeing the tip of the iceberg of a trend toward less comprehensive, skimpier benefits for people, with higher deductibles and higher out-of pocket-costs,” said Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman at a press conference announcing the survey findings.

That means workers have to be on the look out for stealthy changes in their insurance plans, especially during open enrollment season, which is soon upon us.

Please folks, take a night to pour over the plans and the fine print. One of the big surprises I hear from workers is that they never expected to have to cover any of their expenses when they go to a hospital beyond the initial deductible. But more and more plans are forcing members to pay a percentage of the tab. And given how high care in the hospital can go, even 5 percent could send someone with a moderate income into financial ruin.

Andrews has some good advice on how to help keep your costs down:

Make your health plan pay its share. This sounds obvious, but too often people don’t demand their due. When they get a notice saying their claim has been rejected, or that the insurer will cover only a portion of the cost, they simply pay up instead of questioning the charge. Don’t do that. If you disagree with the insurer’s determination, contest it first through the plan’s internal appeals process. If you can’t make headway there, contact your state health department or attorney general’s office. They often have ombudsmen or other staffers who work with consumers on health insurance claim problems.

Check out government programs. If you qualify, enroll yourself or your children in public programs like Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. Eligibility standards vary by state, but several states cover children in families with income up to 300 percent of the poverty level, or more than $63,000 for a family of four. Added incentive: You may be able to get retroactive coverage though these programs for medical care received before you enrolled.

Negotiate with your providers. Don’t be shy: Ask your doctor or hospital if you can get a discount and/or arrange a payment plan. You may be able to reduce your bill by as much as 40 percent or eliminate it entirely. Although many charity care and other assistance programs are income-based, providers also offer discounts to patients who have means but are facing hefty bills for expensive treatment.

Consider prompt payment discounts carefully . Some providers will shave as much as 30 percent off your bill if you pay at the time the service is provided. That’s great if you have the money, but think twice before putting it on a credit card. Your savings may evaporate into interest charges.

And call your plan provider before you head to the pharmacy with that prescription. You never know what changes they may have made right under your nose.

Here are the first paragraphs of two different newspaper stories from this week. Try to guess what they have in common:

Sallie L. Krawcheck, the most prominent woman on Wall Street, was pushed out at Citigroup on Monday after months of friction with its chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit. New York Times.

The DuPont Co. tapped Ellen J. Kullman as its next chief executive Tuesday, giving the company its first woman at the top spot in its 206-year history and a new leader to push forward an institution reshaped under Charles O. Holliday Jr. Wilmington News Journal.

In both these cases the reporters felt compelled to mention that the executives making news in these stories were women.

The most prominent woman to get dumped by Wall Street.

The first woman CEO at a stodgy chemical company.

Do we need to have this information in the lead of every news story involving female leaders? It’s almost like, “Wow, a woman made it to this level. Wow.”

I was having lunch with a business reporter I know and she’s sick of the media focusing on the gender of leaders … well, when it’s a woman. “Next they’ll be asking her if she has kids,” she laments. “They don’t ask that of male CEOs.”

It got me thinking whether or not it is indeed time to focus on a female leader’s qualifications first and her gender second, if at all.

Saying someone was the first female CEO was a big deal years ago. But today, even though women only make up a small percentage of the corner office jobs, should we still be beating the she’s-the-first-woman horse?

Maybe it’s women and men of a certain age that keep making a big thing about gender.

Interestingly enough, my 21 year old intern Katherine, who writes the Real Career News section to the right of this post, didn’t even mention in her brief about the DuPont executive change the fact that Kullman was a woman.

I asked Katherine why she didn’t include a reference to Kullman’s gender and she said: “I guess I didn’t realize that she was the first woman to take over a chemical giant. I assumed there would have been at least one woman before her to make it that far. I seriously can’t believe she is the first. what are we women, chop liver.”

One expert believes we should be pointing out women in leadership as often as we can.

Nell Merlino, president of Count Me In, a non profit that helps women entrepreneurs, just told me, “I see what you’re saying but identifying them as women isn’t a bad thing. Given how few women leaders there are it’s helpful for us to know that they are women and also to see their images.”

The other day, she says, she was reading about how nearly 50 percent of Rwanda’s parliament is now female. That’s something women need to know, she stresses.

“The more women know our ranks are growing in leadership the better,” she adds.

I could see what’s she’s saying, but when will this end?

“When women are 50 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies, 50 percent of Congress. When it’s 50/50,” she explains.

Man, that’s a long time away I fear.

So, what’s your take? Should women leaders be simply known as leaders, or should we keep pointing out that they are female CEOs, or female Senators, or female Principals, etc.?

There’s been a lot written on the impending labor shortage in this country that’s expected as the Baby Boomers barrel towards retirement. I’ve even done my share of these stories.

But more and more I’m starting to think there is going to be a surplus of workers in the years ahead. Why? Because people can’t afford to retire.

The crummy U.S. savings rate, the death of pensions and the growth of 401(k)s, many of which are now in the toilet because of Wall Street’s stupidity, are all conspiring to create a class of workers heading for their golden years that won’t be able to afford retirement.

Already we’re seeing a growing number of the 65-plus crowd continuing to punch a clock. About 15.4 percent of people aged 65 and older were still in the labor force in 2006, a jump from 12.1 percent in 1996, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent figures.

There are two scary story in major newspapers this morning related to this problem.

One in the New York Times about older Americans who are faced with the diminishing value of their 401(k)s and are terrified about what the future holds:

“There’s a terrified older population out there,” said Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. “If you’re 45 and the market goes down, it bothers you, but it comes back. But if you’re retired or about to retire, you might have to sell your assets before they have a chance to recover. And people don’t have the luxury of being in bonds because they don’t yield enough for how long we live.”

Today’s retirees have less money in savings, longer life expectancies and greater exposure to market risk than any retirees since World War II. Even before the last week of turmoil, 39 percent of retirees said they expected to outlive their savings, up from 29 percent in 2007, according to a survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, an industry-sponsored group in Washington.

“This really highlights the new world of retirement,” said Richard Johnson, a principal research associate at the Urban Institute in Washington. “It’s a much riskier world for retirees, because people don’t have defined-benefit plans. They have pots of money and they have to worry about making it last.”

And a story in the Wall Street Journal on how retirees are being forced to take money out of their 401 (k)s to pay for living expenses because of the struggling economy:

With stocks falling, credit tightening and unemployment rising, small investors have been raiding their 401(k) accounts or slashing contributions to the popular retirement plans, according to the latest tallies of plan administrators. Others, eager to shield their portfolios from further damage, are reducing their exposure to stock mutual funds to near record lows.

The behavior — described by some market watchers as panicky in the past week — has led to worries that the retirement prospects are dimming further for Americans, most of whom no longer have private-sector pensions to rely on.

Recent 401(k) winnowing is coming in the form of “hardship withdrawals” — removing cash from the fund, with a 10% tax penalty, for exigencies such as job loss, the prospect of losing your home to foreclosure or a big medical expense.

It’s a sad state of affairs for the individuals that have worked all their lives to provide for their families and also keep this nation running.

This week, Congress is debating whether to bail out Wall Street’s elite who, by their own greed-inspired stupidity, have brought down the financial system in the United States.

Everyone saw the markets as the economy’s savor. The Bush Administration even considered pinning Social Security to the stock market during the heydays just a few years ago.

And businesses didn’t want the burden of pensions, opting instead to push their workers into the riskier 401 (k) options. But now it seems pretty clear — the traditional pension system wasn’t such a stupid idea after all.

Can we bring pensions back? Some of that $700 billion that Congress is considering sending to Wall Street might be better served shoring up a new national pension system, or infusing Social Security with some much needed funds. No?

“I am the worker messiah.”

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are using workers in their ads and rhetoric. They are both claiming to be advocates of the working stiff.

With so much information for all of us to digest every day, I’ve decided it might be a good idea to take a good look at the endless assertions the presidential candidates are spewing and offer some background on exactly what they’re talking about.

So, I’ll be dissecting ads and speeches from time to time. I also want to hear from you guys. Email me your questions about the candidates. Anything specific you want to know about what they say, or their voting records as it relates to workers. (TellEve@gmail.com)

For my first dissection I’ve decided to take a look at Obama’s new ad on equal pay for women. Here he tells us what we all probably know — women make 77 cents on the dollar of what men make. He points to McCain’s voting record, saying the senator from Arizona was opposed to the Equal Pay law that would have leveled the playing field.

Here’s the ad:

So what the heck is the Equal Pay Act anyway?

In 1998, Lilly Ledbetter, a long-time employee of a Goodyear Tire plant in Alabama, filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint after she realized she had been paid less than her male counterparts for decades, but in 2007 the Supreme Court justices ruled that she missed her window to file the complaint. The justices interpreted existing labor laws, which include a 180 day window to file, as starting when the first payroll decision was made to pay an employee less. That means, even though Ledbetter was unaware of the pay discrimination going on for decades, she was out of luck.

Many Democrats vowed to pass legislation that would give employees two years to file a complaint, and that’s why the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was born to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The bill passed in the House, but a Senate version, co-sponsored by Obama failed.

Before the vote, Obama was quoted as saying:

“Passing this bill is an important step in closing the pay gap, something I helped to do in Illinois, and something I’ve fought to do since I arrived in the Senate. I’ve co-sponsored legislation to ensure that women receive equal pay for equivalent work and to require that employers disclose their pay scales for various kinds of jobs. This information will allow women to determine whether they are being discriminated against - information they often lack right now.”

As for Obama’s claims in the ad, it turns out McCain never actually voted against the bill. He skipped a vote on the bill this past April while he was campaigning for the Republican nomination. But he did make it clear that he wasn’t big on that particular piece of legislation.

This from an Associated Press story in April:

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems. This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

An ominous quote I know given the government is now contemplating the biggest bailout of private enterprises in history, but McCain stressed that it was provisions in this bill that gave him pause.

The ad also negatively points to McCain’s belief that more education and training would help boost women’s wages.

I do think there is something to McCain’s claims. Often times women I speak with who are working in the corporate sector find themselves competing with men who have MBAs or some sort of higher degree. Many believe if they had another degree or two then they’d end up bringing home as much bacon as their male counterparts.

And you all know how strongly I believe women have to be their own advocates when it comes to demanding more money. In the training camp, if women could be mentored to be more aggressive when it comes to going after what they want, that pay gap would definitely shrink a bit.

Unfortunately, education and training is not enough. Clearly there’s discrimination out there when it comes to women’s pay. In the Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court didn’t dispute her claims she was screwed out of money she was owned.

Too often supervisors decide to pay men more because, rightly or wrongly, they believe the men are the main breadwinners in most families, or they just don’t think women deserve comparable salaries.

And there are professions like teaching and nursing that are predominately female and have lower overall pay scales despite the fact that these professionals are typically highly trained and educated. The only way to get salaries in these areas to rise is for society to start really valuing these jobs. How you do that without legislating and regulating a bit I don’t know.

While the bill would have gone a long way in helping women seek justice after being victims of pay discrimination, it’s unclear how much bills like these do to really change a disparity that has almost become institutionalized. With so few women in leadership positions across industries, we’ll still be relying on a male-dominated work world to start divvying up some of the spoils more fairly.

Is anyone having a duh moment?

Politicians in this country, and I’m talking Republicans and Democrats, removed a lot of hefty regulations on the financial sector over the years. “Let businesses police themselves,” so many of these so-called free-market types kept telling us.

Well, surprise, surprise. The financial system is in ruin. Why? Because when money is involved common sense and ethics go flying out the window. Greed can not police itself. We all know this, right?

Thousands of financial sector employees are suffering this week because they don’t know how they’re going to make ends meet having lost their jobs.

A friend asked me the other day, that if someone is already rich, why would they engage in unethical or even illegal behavior to get more money? Unfortunately, we see this time and time again. It’s never enough.

No matter how much money we make we typically end up living beyond it. That’s just human nature and we need laws and enforcement in place to keep an eye on this.

Regulators need to keep an on eye not only on financial executives, but also the big wigs in industries beyond Wall Street, especially those that put workers at risk like construction, mining, or factory work. The greed factor here could mean more than layoffs, it could mean death for a worker because someone decided to take a short cut in order to save money.

That’s why I’m happy to report that the federal government has gotten off its fat ass after decades of inaction and finally released regulations that includes a host of new safety rules including requiring crane operators to pass a certification test before they’re allowed to get into that dangerous machine and kill themselves and others. (This story didn’t get much attention yesterday because of the financial frenzy.)

I know, you guys are in shock, right? It doesn’t make sense that such a requirement has taken so long to come to pass. But that’s the way it goes folks. Businesses fight regulations and government, too often, caves.

Well, so many crane operators have fallen to their deaths lately that even the Department of Labor had to finally do something.

I’ve written extensively in this blog and in my column on MSNBC.com about the worker safety issues in this country, and I haven’t hidden my frustration with the government’s slow and inept response to many of the tragedies.

But there is a regulation fever in the air.

You’ve got the federal government bailing out large financial institutions and talk from both sides of the aisle on beefing up regulations to curtail such a Wall Street orgy in the future.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson just spoke to the nation and it’s not good. He pretty much says taxpayers will have to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up the mess that the fat cats on Wall Street made when they decided to swim with the subprime mortgage fishes and drowned. Yeap, we have to pay for someone else’s greed folks. How will this help? I’m not quite sure.

During his brief press conference, he also brought out the nun with the ruler threat. “Our financial regulatory structure is suboptimal,” he says. While the government has more pressing issues to deal with right now, he says, change to the regulatory — or should he say non regulatory — structure will come.

You would think, instead of bailing out the very institutions that started this whole mess, Paulson would be calling for new regulations now to kick the fox off of chicken coop protection duty.

Look, I love our capitalistic system. My dad and mom were both entrepreneurs and they were able to provide a good life for their family and even send their three knuckle head daughters to college.

But my parents also taught us to be smart. Because of their history growing up as Greeks living in Turkey at a tumultuous time, they saw the underbelly of human nature in its rawest form — the good and the bad.

The lesson we learned is that people can do great things, but don’t always expect human beings to do the right thing.

The financial sector meltdown might make some of you wonder if there is a career future for people who work in the world of finance or are in school right now studying to some day become a heavy hitter on Wall Street.

I know, thousands of jobs have already been lost — 10,000 in New York City alone last month — and thousands more layoffs are happening as I write this post at once Wall Street titans such as now bankrupt Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, just bought by Bank of America.

If you listen to the howls of desperation we’ve all been hearing from the media, pundits, and an array of so-called experts, you’d think Wall Street’s entire workforce is headed for the unemployment line.

I decided to get some insights from individuals who have seen and studied major financial sector downturns, and according to most of them Wall Street will continue to be a solid career option for many individuals.

I spoke with Paul A. Wachtel, professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, this week, and his insights seemed a lot more level-headed.

Wachtel’s take:

“There’s probably going to be a downturn in jobs in the New York financial community and that’s already taken place and will continue. Whether it is an enormous change in the job situation depends upon the resilience of the financial community. The face of industry is changing dramatically as we speak — names that have been around for a 150 years are disappearing off the face of the earth. Other financial institutions are changing dramatically. But it doesn’t mean that grass is going to grow on Wall Street.”

Finance, as a profession, will continue. It might take a year or two for things to calm down, but the jobs will still be there.

Wachtel believes the kinds of jobs that we’ll see on Wall Street will remain fairly similar, other than a reduction in jobs like derivatives trading. But what he believes will change considerably in the next year or so will be the compensation structure of Wall Street jobs that will begin to more closely mirror compensation models in traditional banking.

“The kind of bonus-driven jobs found in investment banking are quite different than the traditional structure in commercial banking where they tend to be more secure and salary driven.”

Basically, with big commercial banks like Bank of America gobbling up so many of these investment banking firms, the workers will have to get used to the little-to-no bonus model.

Tom McLane, RSR Partners, a recruitment and corporate governance consulting firm, points to some job areas that will see some weakness and some strength.

“While investment management is almost dead, there is still some merger and acquisition activity going on requiring investment banker’s advice, but I don’t see any growth in this area for some time. However the areas of wealth management (private bankers) and asset management should be quite strong throughout the next year to five year period. With regard to the jobs landscape over the long-term, the financial services sector always overdoes mass firings, wiping out whole tiers.”

So, there will be career life for the Wall Street working stiff and Wall Street wannabes after this financial storm. Let’s just hope the next generation learns to play by the rules and doesn’t let greed cloud common sense yet again.

I just got an email from an angry reader taking issue with my MSNBC.com column this week on how workers should NOT seek revenge when they’re fired.

I know, there are a lot of upset people out there who are struggling to deal with job loss, for whatever reason, but an eye for an eye is a dumb idea.

Basically, the reader, Mike, was a tech guy for a company in Oregon and he uncovered dirty business practices going on at the firm. He asked to speak with the CEO about the issue and was subsequently fired. When he went to the state to get them to look into the problems at his former employer, government officials never pursued the matter.

He’s pissed off about it and my column this week advising people not to sabotage an employer’s computer system, or take their anger out on property or people at the old company, got him fuming.

Here’s some of his email:

The people in your story, seeking justice were correct, courageous,
and did exactly what everyone should get use to doing. Your
employers, especially if you work for something like Microsoft, does
not have your best interests at heart. They will outsource your job,
displace you with a cheap guest worker, work you into the ground,
commit all manner of unethical or even illegal activities and expect
you to go along. The government, even supposedly “clean” governments
like the states of Oregon or Washington, don’t care, wont do a thing.
So seek revenge yourself. Create a back door in the computer system,
take home records, tape record meetings and make notes from them.
Someday, I don’t much care who you are, some day, you will want
revenge. Take it!

Oh man, he’s mad, and I don’t blame him. But revenge will not only hurt your career or possibly land you in jail, it can’t be good for your inner peace. I told him that in an email response. I haven’t heard back yet.

I know, many people believe revenge is sweet. I admit it, I’ve wanted revenge as well. But that sweet taste is only temporary folks. It will end up souring fast. Trust me.

What’s your take? If you could do something to sabotage a former employer that screwed you and not be found out, would you do it?

UPDATE

The photographs of workers carrying boxes of their stuff leaving Lehman Brothers building in New York City yesterday were heart wrenching.

It’s one of the worse feelings to have a job one day and be out of work the next.

I remember when I was laid off from a magazine job in Manhattan many years ago. The editor was such a sweetheart about it. He even cried when he told me and a bunch of other reporters that we were part of massive cutbacks to help the publication get back into the black.

At first, the events seemed surreal. I was like a zombie walking out of the building with my box of stuff. But when I got on the subway heading for Astoria where I lived in a tiny apartment over a Ravioli shop, it hit me. I still have to pay rent. I got a sinking feeling in my stomach and the overwhelming thought I had was that I had lost control. Control over my life, my career, my finances.

I probably ended up at the greasy souvlaki restaurant near my home, meeting a friend to bitch about how bad life sucks.

I was in my early twenties and didn’t really think about getting my butt into gear fast. Until that editor called me to check up on me. He offered me a bunch of his contacts and had this sense of urgency in his voice, not for himself but for me. The editor was probably in his 50s and probably realized I was going to do the twenty-something, unemployment-check, hang out for a while. But the world of journalism and the workforce in general, rewarded those who were quick on the trigger.

At least that’s what I took away from our conversation.

OK, why am I sharing this event. Because I learned something back then and it served me well throughout my career. You can hang out a bit and have a greasy souvlaki or two, but it’s best to get right back into the game, especially if you want to become successful in a particular career, or if you’re worried about paying rent or a mortgage.

Today, 25,000 workers at Lehman don’t know what the future holds for them. That’s also the case for the 60,000 workers at Merrill Lynch, that will be gobbled up by banking behemoth, Bank of America. And also, outside of Wall Street, the loss of 25,000 jobs at Hewlett Packard was announced yesterday.

It’s definitely a bloodbath out there, but you all need to remain strong.

So it’s time to get your career armor on and figure out how you can best fight your way through the job battle ahead.

If you’ve been laid off from a job you thought paid well and you can’t find something comparable, it might be a good time to go back to school in order to learn something new so you can transfer your skills to another industry. There may be state or federal money available for retraining, so it’s a good idea to check with local community colleges.

With a mechanical background you could be a hot commodity in a hot industry like green manufacturing where companies are looking to make environmentally friendly products, says Chuck Pappalardo, managing director of recruiting firm Trilogy Search.

Now more than ever, you have to be clear on what you can bring to a prospective employer because there are going to be more people applying for that job you want.

“They need to develop an elevator pitch for why someone would want to hire them for a particular job,” Pappalardo advises. “Candidates want to be very targeted. I don’t mean get one or two targets, but really target your career and who you are. What sets you apart and makes you more qualified for a certain job than others.”

To target your search, you have to do a lot of research up front into a company and the job you’re applying for. Sending out hundreds of resumes without knowing exactly what you want is going to get you no where, especially in a weak job market.

So, get some comfort food and find comfort in knowing it always works out in the end. I’m serious folks. Almost everyone I’ve know who’s gotten laid off always ended up better off.

UPDATE:

Here are some great tips from Deborah Brown-Volkman, a career coach and author of Coach Yourself To A New Career: A Guide For Discovering Your Ultimate Profession:

1. Recognize That Losing Your Job Was Not Your Fault

Yes, there is some relief knowing that the inevitable
has finally happened vs. the waiting to see if you
will go next. But there is still a little part deep
inside you that wonders if it was your fault. Maybe
if you worked harder, then this would not have
happened. Maybe if you worked weekends, evenings,
etc, it would have been some else that was cut.
Maybe if you participated in office polices more,
you would still have a job. All these thoughts drain
your energy and take away from the contributions you
made when you were there. Your company was not doing
well. They had to cut costs, and you were one of the
people they cut. This is all there is to it.
Period. Stop making it mean something more.

2. Decide What’s Important To You

You probably have put YOU on hold for years as you
have been spending all your time figuring out how to
mold yourself to be someone else. You worried about
what your boss thought of you, what his or her boss
thought of you, and what your co-workers thought of
you. You spent many evenings trying to calm down or
figure out what to do with a co-worker or boss that
was driving you crazy. All of this is gone (if only
temporarily) and now you get to decide what is
important to you. What makes you happy? What gets
you excited? These are questions that you can answer
because you have been given the gift of time to do
so.

3. Recognize That The Time Off Is A Blessing

Things in life happen for a reason. There was some
purpose for you to stop and reassess how you have
been living your life at this point. Why do you
think this happened now? Were you working too hard?
Were you neglecting yourself? Was your family
screaming for you to spend more time with them?
Now is the time to see if your former lifestyle will
fit your future one. Use the time wisely because an
opportunity like this one may never come again.

4. Decide What You Will Do Next:

Will you stay in the same career? Will you do
something different? Will you start your own
business? Or, will you decide to scale down your
lifestyle so you can stretch out the time before you
go back to work? There is no right or wrong choice,
only what calls to you. Trust your instinct.
The answer is inside you. It is up to you if you
will take the time to listen.

5. Put An Action Plan In Place:

Now that you have free time, how will you make it as
productive as it can be? How many resumes will you
send out each week? How many hours each day will you
spend searching for jobs online and in the paper?
How may people will you talk to, and how e-mail’s
will you send out? Your job search does not have to
consume you, but having a daily plan, will keep you
from sitting in front of the TV saying “I really
should be looking for another job.”

6. Get Support:

Enlist the help of a friend, spouse, coach,
colleague, etc. Someone who will listen and support
you through this transitional period in your life.
Looking for a job can be frustrating, time consuming,
and disappointing. Remember that you do not have to
do it alone.

7. Reward Yourself:

Yes, the final reward is finding a new job, but there
are milestones that can be rewarded along the way.
Sent your resume to five employers? Reward. Went on
one job interview this week? Reward. When you look
back, you will know that you are not the same person
you were before this happened. And, you will smile
to yourself because you know that this is a good
thing.