I’m sure many of you all have been inundated with emails from distance learning schools lately; and you may have noticed more commercials for online degrees.

It’s a tempting proposition, especially if you lost your job in a dying industry and are considering reinventing yourself. And what’s easier than taking classes from the comfort of your own home?

Some schools are seeing record interest from individuals looking to reeducate themselves.

I just got an email from a PR person at a distance learning school called Excelsior College and they’ve seen a 30 percent jump in online course registration from July 2008 to March 2009, compared to the year ago period. The average age of the school’s students is 40.

Educating yourself is a great thing, no way around it. But you need to do your research before you run out and enroll for a cyberdiploma program.

First off, beware of anything you get unsolicited via email from an organization you’ve never heard of. Many of these so-called academic institutions are bogus.

You’ll have to do your own research and make sure these schools are accredited and have a good reputation. You should contact The Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Also, distance learning still has a long way to go before it garners the credibility of traditional college programs.

That said, these programs are way better than they were just ten years ago. Advances in web-based teaching tools, streaming video and cyber worlds have made online courses more like a real class room experience, creating a growing demand on the part of students. And colleges, including public, for profit and no- profit institutions, are jumping on the bandwagon increasing their online offerings.

Nearly, 3.5 million students were taking online courses in the fall of 2006, the most recent data available. That’s a 9.7 percent increase from the previous year, and has doubled over the past four years. And more than two-thirds of all higher education institutions now have some form of online offerings.

Having such a degree will definitely enhance your resume, but traditional college degrees are still preferred among hiring managers I’ve spoken with, if they had to choose.

In a MSNBC.com column I wrote on the topic, Excelsior College shared a study they commissioned of CEOs and small business owners that showed the long road ahead for cyber programs.

Only 45 percent thought online programs were as credible as traditional college campus courses. But among those familiar with online colleges, 83 percent found the programs just as credible.

“Right now, pound for pound, I don’t think it carries the same weight,” says Warren Arbogast, a higher education and technology consultant, when asked about an online degree vs. a degree from a traditional college.

Also, instructors and the experience at such cyber schools are considered by some to be subpar. This from a story I wrote for the New York Times on the topic:

Stephen Ruth, professor of public policy and technology management at George Mason University, said that while online classes could be very effective, they were “not on par, in my opinion, with traditional classes at top-tier universities.” One reason is that “the general ambience of the class provides a better experience,” he said.

Some in academia also say that online learning has created a second tier of instructors who work hard but are paid less than traditional professors.

While some colleges report paying teachers up to $4,000 a course, that’s not the norm.

“A great number of teachers who do distance learning tend to be part-timers, and they typically get paid $1,000 to $1,500 to teach a course,” Professor Ruth said. “A full-time professor gets maybe 10 times more to teach a course.”

Something to keep in mind when you’re deciding on where to get your degree.

If you’re planning on entering a profession where you know you’ll be up against applicants who have degrees from the top universities, it’s going to be hard to compete with a degree from a lessor known online institution.

If you need a degree to fulfill certain requirements for a job, then e-learning may be for you.

Don’t just jump because you get a tempting email. Do your homework before you don your slippers and start doing homework.

Everyone seems shocked that President Obama would dare send the CEO of General Motors Corp. a pink slip.

After nearly a decade of bad management that led to the fall of one of the biggest corporations in the United States, GM’s head cheese Rick Wagoner got the boot. Obviously the members of GM’s own board weren’t going to show the guy the door. Wagoner was the chairman of the board for god’s sake.

Michigan’s Governor, Jennifer Granholm, actually called Wagoner a “sacrificial lamb” on the Today Show this morning.

Hello Governor! This is the meaning of sacrificial lamb:

sacrificial lamb (sacrificial lambs plural ) If you refer to someone as a sacrificial lamb, you mean that they have been blamed unfairly for something they did not do, usually in order to protect another more powerful person or group. n-count (=scapegoat)

As far as I could tell, the CEO and Chairman of a company is the most powerful person at a company.

And a Wall Street Journal story today actually blames the workers for Wagoner’s failures:

Mr. Wagoner’s tenure came amidst extraordinary challenges that weren’t entirely of his own making — including costly retiree benefits and union contracts that predate him and the recent deep recession.

This perception, that it was the money and benefits autoworkers have enjoyed that killed GM is pervasive in this country. It’s a convenient excuse for the failing of the nation’s auto sector, but folks, these middle-class employees have worked long and hard for what they get. I fear many are being duped in this country into taking their anger out on the wrong people.

CEOs in the auto industry, the banking industry, and on Wall Street, have led our nation’s corporations into the dire straits we find ourselves in now. You would think these leaders would be the first to get pink slips, not the poor, sucker workers that had nothing to do with the mess.

Where was all the shock and outrage when President Ronald Reagan decided to fire more than 10,000 air traffic controllers who were on strike in 1981? He also banned the controllers for life from the profession; something that President Bill Clinton reversed years later. Many of those individuals were never able to return to the job they love, and many ended up suffering economic hardships.

I’m going to guess GM’s Wagoner has a pretty sweet golden parachute, more than $30 million, according to initial reports; something I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot about in the days ahead.

There’s a reason Michael Sarver, a mediocre singer, lasted as long as he did on American Idol. People love his story.

There is nothing more inspiring than a guy who one day is doing a dirty and dangerous job, and the next is following his dream — to be a singer.

If you guys don’t watch American Idol, let me tell you about Sarver.

He’s a big, thick-necked guy who was born in Sulphur, LA. He lives with his wife Tiffany with their two kids in Jaspur, TX, where he works as a roughneck.

The oil roughneck or floorman is a member of the oil drilling crew.

The oil roughneck carry out a variety of general laboring duties and operate equipment to assist in the drilling and servicing of oil and gas wells. The oil roughnecks are employed by drilling and well servicing contractors and by petroleum producing companies.
Oil roughneck work conditions

The oil roughneck usually work long hours in all weather conditions on extended roster systems, usually as member of a drilling crew. The oil roughneck usually performs semiskilled and unskilled manual labor that requires continual hard work in difficult conditions for many hours.

Not only is it difficult work, but it’s dangerous, among the most dangerous jobs to have.

So suddenly this roughneck, Sarver, is on the stage of one of the most popular shows ever following his dream.

It’s the great American story. You can do anything you put your mind to.

That’s been the theme of many of the stories I’ve been writing lately for MSNBC.com as part of a team effort to chronicle how Americans are reinventing themselves in this economy.

My piece this week is on how some laid off workers are turning to franchising as a career option, and other pieces looked at the different generations, Boomers and Gen X.

One of the themes that I keep coming across in my reporting is that the individuals who do reinvent themselves had that moment when they had to get off their butts and go for it.

If you want to embark on a new career, or follow a life long dream, getting off your butt is key. Look at the Roughneck turned Crooner.

I know what you’re thinking. American Idol isn’t real life.

But folks, one day Sarver woke up and got enough nerve to head over to Phoenix, AZ, to try out for the show.

How much guts do you think that took? The whole world would be watching as he succeeded or failed.

No matter what happens when you embark on a new career journey, it probably won’t be that high pressure, right?

What are you afraid of?

I’ve interviewed tons of women executives and entrepreneurs over the years and I have a long list of personality traits I found many of these women have in common.

I’ll be talking about four main ones next week when I go to Omaha to give a talk about women and leadership to a great group called the Institute for Career Advancement Needs, or ICAN.

One key trait is not in my Power Point presentation because I thought it was a pretty obvious one. All the female leaders, and male leaders for that matter, I’ve had the pleasure to interview and meet over the years were ambitious.

I know, that can be a bad word coming from women. Women aren’t supposed to be ambitious, right?

Well, sorry folks, without ambition you don’t make it to the top of your career. That’s just the reality.

That’s why I was soooo happy to read the findings of a workplace attitude study out today by the Families and Work Institute showing that women are picking up some slack in the ambition department.

For the first time, young women want just as much to advance to jobs with more responsibility as young men. Moreover, being a mother does not significantly change young women’s career ambitions.

Amen sistas!

It’s about time that women realize that they need a strong desire, dare I say, ambition, to advance themselves, and the world. Yes, the world. How do you think this screwed up world is going to change if women don’t stand up and try to change it. You change things by taking on leadership roles people. Whether that’s in Corporate American, charities or government.

There is so much great info in this report I want to burst. But I’ll try to boil it down. Here are some of the highlights:

# Women in dual-earner couples are contributing more to family income. In 1997 women contributed an average of 39% of annual family income. That figure rose to 44% in 2008. In 2008, 26% of women living in dual-earner couples had annual earnings at least 10 percentage points higher than that of spouses/partners, up from 15% in 1997.
# Among Millennials (under 29 years old), women are just as likely as men to want jobs with greater responsibility. In 1992, 80% of men and 72% of women under the age of 29 wanted jobs with greater responsibility. Today the figure is 67% of men and 66% of women. The figure reached its low point for both genders in 1997.
# Today, there is no difference between young women with and without children in their desire to move to jobs with more responsibility. Whereas 60% of women under 29 with children and 78% of women without children wanted jobs with more responsibility in 1992, today the percentages are 69% (with children) and 66% (without children).
# Men and women are both less likely to embrace traditional gender roles. Only 41% of employees in 2008 believe it is better “if the man earns the money and the woman takes care of the home and children,” down from 64% in 1977. The drop is even more pronounced among men (74% to 42% versus 52% to 39% of women). Now there is no statistical difference between men and women in their views.

And this one:

# Greater proportions of both men and women agree that employed women can be good mothers. In 1977, 49% of men agreed (strongly or somewhat) that a mother who works outside the home can have just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work. Today, 67% agree. From 1977 to 2008, the percentage of women agreeing moved from 71% in to 80%. Both men and women who grew up with employed mothers exhibit greater acceptance of working mothers than those whose mothers did not work outside the home.

First off, forgive me for saying this, but anyone who ever thought working women couldn’t be great moms needs to get stuffed. A job isn’t what separates the crappy moms from the good moms.

That said, it is a good thing that those nutcases who thought this are coming around.

The study also shows it’s getting tougher for men out there. They are taking on more of the responsibilities at home and are finding, like so many women before them, that it’s hard to balance work and family in this work world we live in.

Men’s work-life conflict has increased significantly from 34% in 1977 to 45% in 2008, while women’s work-life conflict has risen less dramatically and not significantly from 34% to 39%.

Alas, the conflict isn’t going anywhere soon. But knowing that both genders are feeling the pain may help speed up long overdue changes in how work is structured in this country.

What do you think? Does this survey ring true for you? Are you ambitious? You should be. Don’t be afraid to admit it.

I’ll end this post with, what else, a video from my favorite ambitious female leader. This is from Madonna’s Blond Ambition tour:

UPDATE BELOW For much of my career as a workplace journalist I’ve been informing readers about their rights and often recommending that they seek help from the Department of Labor.

Well, many of you who may have taken me up on the offer may have ended up with a big zero.

Turns out the labor department’s wage and hour division, the unit that’s supposed to help workers who aren’t paid in accordance with the nation’s labor laws, has dropped the ball, big time!

The Government Accountability Office conducted undercover investigations of this unit and found the agency screwed up in nine out of 10 of the cases.

Basically, undercover investigators from the GAO called the labor department’s wage and hour division posing as workers and employers. These investigators clearly informed labor department enforcers of illegal activity such as not paying overtime, not paying minimum wage, not paying someone’s earned income, and these enforcers didn’t do what they are paid to do — enforce.

They actually told workers to file lawsuits and didn’t make it clear to them what steps they could take to fight wage and hour injustices through the agency, which is what they’re supposed to do.

This from the Associated Press today:

When the nation’s most vulnerable workers try to find justice at the Labor Department, they are often met with inadequate responses, delays and slipshod work.

That’s the finding of an undercover investigation into the agency’s wage and hour division.

The Government Accountability Office says agency officials often responded too slowly to complaints, failed to record them and in one instance lied about investigative work that wasn’t performed.

GAO investigators posed as 10 workers and companies to test the agency, which handled just one of the 10 fake complaints properly.

Here’s a link to some of the calls on ABC News.

One labor department enforcer actually tells a worker that they should line up a new job first before pursuing any recourse through the agency because she couldn’t guarantee that he wouldn’t get fired.

Hello, the law is supposed to protect workers from being retaliated against for seeking what they are rightfully owed under the law.

This is a disgrace, and I want to apologize to all the workers out there who got little to no help from an agency with a supposed mission to help you all.

Right now more than ever workers are illegally being taken advantage of. Employers are pressuring employees into not filing for overtime even though they are working extra hours; salaried employees are being forced to take ongoing furloughs, something that’s a no no under labor laws; and many aren’t even being paid minimum wage.

All this in the name of a bad economy. Workers feel pressured to accept these practices because they are threatened by employers that if they don’t submit they may end up on the unemployment line.

With no one to turn to in government where do workers go? Employees may have to take matters into their own hands, band together with other workers, and protest unfair wage and hour practices in the workplace.

Congress is holding hearings today on this very subject and we should all pay attention and push our legislators to put the screws to a labor department that seems to have abdicated its enforcement responsibilities.

The House Education and Labor Committee is conducting the hearing into what is being called “wage theft” and it will review the GAO findings.

Enough rolling over. Right? Just because companies are struggling doesn’t mean they should be allowed to break the law.

UPDATE:
Here’s a statement released by the new Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis today in reaction to the GAO report:

As secretary of labor, I am committed to ensuring that every worker is paid at least the minimum wage, that those who work overtime are properly compensated, that child labor laws are strictly enforced and that every worker is provided a safe and healthful environment.

The department’s Wage and Hour Division has already begun the process of adding 150 new investigators to its field offices to refocus the agency on these enforcement responsibilities. In addition, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the agency will hire 100 investigators to ensure that contractors on stimulus projects are in compliance with the applicable laws. The addition of these 250 new field investigators, a staff increase of more than a third, will reinvigorate the work of this important agency, which has suffered a loss of experienced personnel over the last several years.

When I was expecting my first child I told my good friend Robyn that I was disappointed I had never finished Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.”

The way I saw it, I was just not smart enough to bring kids into the world even though I was in my thirties.

Looking back, I realize what an idiot I was.

Reading Tolstoy should have been at the bottom of my list of things I had to do before having kids.

I should have trained to be a marathon runner. Taught myself how to survive on no sleep, like the Green Berets do. And become a master yogi so I would be able to summon the calmness of all the earth.

This my friends is what it really takes to handle being a working parent.

I’m a little punchy this morning because I’ve had about 6 hours sleep total since Friday because my six year old was battling a fever and severe cold, and just when it looked like we were out of the woods, my daughter woke up before midnight last night with the same sickness.

The timing of this couldn’t be worse. But kids are all about no timing.

This week, MSN is scheduled to launch a new small business section I’m writing the start up columns for. I’m having a tough time finding just the right sources for my MSNBC.com column. And I have two Power Point presentations to prepare for a speaking engagement I have in Omaha next week for a great group called ICAN. (Find out more here.)

Yes, the Career Diva is complaining this morning, and I’m sorry for that.

I even found myself searching “work-life balance” on Google at 7 a.m. this morning and ended up casting a vote in a work-life survey on Forbes.com. (OK, I’m delirious.)

It asked, “My own work-life balance is?”

*All work and no play
*A little too heavy on the work side
*Not bad
*OK, except that my job is boring
*I don’t have enough to do at work
*Great–I’m out of work
*Terrible–I’m out of work

So far, 49 percent of those polled picked the top two. Guess which one I chose? Well, this morning I went with “all work and no play.”

That’s how I feel today. But, in all honesty, I do play sometimes. It just seems I’m not playing enough.

The pressure is on during tough times, and I’m feeling it big time lately. I’m saying “yes” to any assignments that come my way and bending over backwards for the editors I work for. Not that I don’t always do that, but right now no one wants to be seen as a slacker.

Turns out many workers are even bypassing flexible programs they’re offered at work so they don’t look like slackers too.

This from the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch site:

The fear of layoffs is pushing many U.S. workers to silently cut back on some of their fringe benefits, concerned that the ax could fall, worker advocates said.

Joanne Brundage, executive director of Mothers & More, said the workplace environment was driven by a “silent fear,” causing workers to quietly forgo such items as flexible schedules, telecommuting and using policy-approved sick days, The Washington Post reported Monday.

A silent fear?

I’m not sure it’s fear. I just think during tough times people get tougher.

And it can be pretty tough on working parents.

One of the topics I’ll be discussing in Omaha next week is why there aren’t more women in leadership positions. I’ve got a bunch of points I plan on making, and a key one will be that women often have to pick up more of the slack at home.

That doesn’t mean women can’t be leaders. Many of the women CEOs and top managers I’ve interviewed over the years had kids but they to struggled with work-life balance.

How did they do it? I discovered there is no formula to follow, much to my chagrin. Each of these successful women found ways to make it work. Ways that worked for them.

The only common theme among most of them was that no matter how hard it got, no matter how many sleepless nights, failure was not an option for these women who often play down their struggles. “You just make it work,” one female senior vice president told me a while ago.

OK, I get that. But can’t we complain a little bit?

How do you all make it work? Was the concept of work-life balance made up by some single guy with a mental imbalance?

And, will I ever finish War and Peace?

No way around it, one of the toughest jobs in America right now is Treasury Secretary.

Timothy Geithner has the horrifically huge task of overseeing the government’s plan to shore up the nation’s banks, and today he’s expected to introduce a detailed plan.

Now comes the hard part — selling the plan, something Geithner and the administration started doing over the weekend.

But there’s one problem.

The front guy on this effort is Geithner, and he has a confidence problem. Even people in the Democratic party are having trouble getting behind the secretary, and unfortunately, Saturday Night Live is already parodying him.

The former labor secretary under Clinton, Robert Reich, is also getting in on the bash-Geithner act. In his blog, which was picked up by the national media, Reich offers advice to President Obama: “You may not want to hear this, but your Treasury Secretary is making things worse. His dithering on what to do about Wall Street, and his incapacity to speak clearly to the Street and to the public about what needs to be done, is spooking everyone.”

My favorite comedian, Bill Maher, even compared Geithner to a deer in headlights last week:

If President Obama really wants to be transparent and level with the American people, he must replace Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner with an actual deer caught in the headlights. Interesting what makes them clap versus boo. It’s like Geithner could learn a thing or two about economic stimulus from the deer. For example, if you want to make a couple of bucks, you need a little dough up front.

Not a good comparison if you’re trying to infuse confidence into a financial system that is in desperate need of some confidence.

No one is even talking about this man’s credentials, which are incredible:

He served as president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and worked in three administrations for five Secretaries of the Treasury. He served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. He was director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund and worked for Kissinger Associates, Inc. He’s a graduate of Secretary Geithner Dartmouth College nad has a master’s in International Economics from Johns Hopkins School.

Despite this resume, it’s his demeanor, his mettle that are questioned.

But right now, it’s not just Geithner that’s in trouble for his inability to garner faith.

If you’re looking for work or you’re worried about losing your job, and you consider yourself a bit wimpy, it’s time to stiffen your upper lip. It may even be time to run out and take an assertiveness training class.

Many of the job seekers and hiring managers I’ve been talking are seeing the importance of confidence.

One woman that will be in my MSNBC.com “Your Career” column next week told me she didn’t get a job because one of the many managers she interviewed with thought she was nervous even though she was perfect for the position.

Hiring managers and human resource professionals have also been singing the praises of more experienced workers and job applicants lately. They want someone who is confident and can keep a level head during these tough times.

Experience and training are all important, but just looking good on paper isn’t going to cut it folks, especially during a recession.

Time to do some role playing with friends before those interviews so you don’t come off as unnerved or intimidated. And, if you’re struggling to keep your gig you may want to take some chances right about now and show people how great and confident you are. Don’t hide under your desk.

The one thing Geithner has going for him, which many of you don’t, is a boss who’s got blind faith in him. Some have called for Geithner’s resignation, but President Obama has said even if Geithner was to hand in his resignation he wouldn’t accept it.

If you’ve got a boss like this, go head, hide under your desk. If not, it’s time to strengthen that backbone pronto.

What do you all think? How important is confidence in this economy?

There is no reason workers in high-risk industries should not be wearing their required safety gear. That’s not just a dumb move, it can also be a death sentence.

A construction worker in New York fell to his death this week and building authorities said he wasn’t wearing his safety harness.

This from Newsday:

Anthony Paino, 28, of Staten Island, fell at 11:15 a.m. from the 10th floor of 420 Park Ave. S., where the 19-story hotel is under construction.

Paino was not wearing a safety harness, officials said. Buildings department officials said it was not clear if the worker was required to wear a harness or if there were other safety measures in place that allowed him to work without wearing one.

The building officials fined the builder and sub contractors at the site, but after the fact is always too late.

Paino is dead.

That’s why I’m happy to hear the new U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is coming out of the gate swinging when it comes to worker safety.

Under the Bush administration, safety regulations and OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, lost their teeth and Solis has promised to bring the bite back big time.

This week she decided to tackle an issue that has been plaguing workers at certain food processing plants. About eight years ago, it was discovered that an additive used when making microwave popcorn was harmful to employees exposed to it. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found that the additive, diactyl, was indeed harmful, but OSHA dragged its feet on forming rules to protect workers.

Solis wants to put an end to the foot dragging.

“I am alarmed that workers exposed to food flavorings containing diacetyl may continue to be at risk of developing a potentially fatal lung disease. Exposure to this harmful chemical already has been linked to the deaths of three workers,” said Secretary Solis in a DOL statement. “These deaths are preventable, and it is imperative that the Labor Department move quickly to address exposure to food flavorings containing diacetyl and eliminate unnecessary steps without affecting the public’s ability to comment on the rulemaking process.”

It’s inexcusable when workers die on the job. We need regulators to do their jobs, no? Can businesses police themselves?

Most of you have probably heard about the state tests that kids around the country are taking from third grade to eight grade. It’s a big deal for schools because a piece of their funding is based on how well the kids do on these tests, as part of the No Child Left Behind law.

As you can imagine there’s a lot of stress involved, mainly for the teachers and the administrators. If you ask a third grader about the tests, they’re sort of clueless.

That is, until the school staff goes crazy.

Weeks of preparing for the tests ensue and everyone keeps telling kids how important the tests are over and over again. Notes come home scaring over-worked parents, and students put aside regular school work to take endless practice tests.

The worse happens right before the actual tests begin, when the notes get personal and start attacking your parenting. “Make sure you feed them a good breakfast.” “Make sure they sleep 8 hours.” Stuff like that. Stuff we’re not doing at home because we’re parents from hell.

Anyway, there was a story in my local Delaware paper today about the tests, which are almost done throughout the state, and it includes a photo on the front page of kids wearing slippers.

No, it’s not a photo of kids at home. It’s a photo of kids at a local high school. Why are they wearing slippers?

This from the principal of the school:

Responding to results from a student survey asking for additional snacks during testing, [the principal] purchased Nutri-Grain Bars, water bottles, fruit and cheese sticks. Stress balls and wrist bracelets were given to students, and each testing day was given a different theme, such as pajama-bottom day, slipper day and college wear day.

I don’t know about you guys, but no educators surveyed me to find out how I felt about tests and what I wanted when I was in school. I probably would have asked for Devil Dogs myself.

Why are we surveying kids and why on earth are we letting them wear slippers to take an important test? How does that really help test results. Don’t crazy people in insane asylums wear slippers.

I guess it’s calming, or at least sleep inducing. But how is this preparing kids for the real stressors they’re going to encounter in the real world?

Last time I checked, you weren’t allowed to wear slippers in the office, on a factory floor, or a construction site.

And your boss isn’t going to care if you get a good nights sleep or if you eat a healthy snack.

This isn’t just a Delaware thing folks. I’ve asked a few friends about this from other states and I did a Google search. It seems educators in every state are trying to take the stress off of students taking these tests.

These tips from a Colorado notice sent to third graders’ homes:

*Make sure your child eats a good breakfast on testing days.

*Many schools ask children to bring a snack during test-
ing week. Provide your child with a healthy snack, such
as juice or a piece of fruit, cheese and crackers, a tortilla,
a sandwich, or a granola bar. Avoid sugary snacks,
such as candy and cookies.

*Make your child’s life as stress-free as possible during
test week.

OMG, how the heck do you make a kid’s life stress free?

Should we not make our nine-year-olds set the table for dinner? If they balk at fixing their beds should we just say, “no problem dear. I’m your maidservant this week.”

I know our educators are under pressure. I love them all dearly for breaking their backs to educate our darling/spoiled kids. But I wonder about the message we’re sending to our children.

I’ve written a lot about how early challenges in life, especially tough work, make for stronger more resilient individuals. The majority of CEOs I interviewed in my book, “From the Sandbox to the Corner Office”, all had to bust their butts at tough jobs in their early teens while going to school.

One CEO wanted to work at Yankee stadium, so at age 13 he took a two-hour train trip to the Bronx from his home in Brooklyn to sell peanuts.

This from an interview with Harris Diamond, the CEO of public relations giant Weber Shandwick Worldwide:

The job was no walk to home base. “I never sweated at a job but here I lost weight and came home with my shirt yellow with sweat. I was a mess,” he says. However, he got some of his best pieces of advice early on in his peanut-selling career from another vendor who was in his twenties. He saw Diamond watching the game on one occasion instead of selling his wares. “He said, and I’ll never forget this: ‘there are two types of guys that come here. Those who watch the ball game and those who work. If you came here to watch the game go get a ticket. It’s cheap and easy. If you came here to work understand why you’re here.’”

We seem to be imposing our own stress upon our kids today, and I mean me as well. And I’m not sure about the fluffy tools we’re arming them with to deal with our anxieties.

OK, got to put on my slippers and get back to work.

If you were to come up with a dream employer it would be one that pays you lavish bonuses even when you screw up big time.

Say hello to American International Group, or AIG, a company that is now surviving thanks to taxpayer dollars. Maybe we should all be sending our resumes over there now.

The company paid out multimillion dollar bonuses to employees that ran the very division that destroyed the company, and in many ways our entire economic system.

This from the Associate Press:

AIG has paid $220 million in retention awards to its financial products employees; it distributed $55 million in December and $165 million had to be paid by Friday. Documents provided by AIG to the Treasury Department said the awards ranged from $1,000 to nearly $6.5 million. Seven employees were to receive more than $3 million. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said AIG last week paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work there.

You can’t fault the poor inept employees, right? (How bad must of the guy who was awarded only a $1,000 bonus have screwed up?)

This got me wondering about how most of American employees are treated. Most just get their basic wages and benefits, if they’re lucky. In most cases, when they do a poor job they get reprimanded or fired.

That’s how it is out here in the real world. You hear that Edward Liddy, CEO of AIG?

He’s going before Congress today to defend the obscene bonuses paid to these employees.

Many have claimed it’s the only way to keep workers on the job because without the money they’d go over to another company. OK, do the bigwigs at AIG know there’s a recession going on? Where the heck are these workers going to go on Wall Street, or anywhere else in the battered financial markets to get employment. Last I heard, thousands of desperate jobless finance guys were looking for work. I bet there would be a long line of men and women eager to take those AIG jobs for just the salaries and no bonuses.

Hopefully Liddy will read my blog and realize that indeed there’s a huge pool of folks waiting to send him their resumes.

I’ll update this blog today with news from Liddy’s testimony to Congress. Let’s hope it’s not just another dog and pony show where elected officials pound their chests and end up doing nothing.

It’s a strange stand for me to take, I know. I’m usually defending workers in this column. But it’s hard for me to do so in this case.

What’s your take? Did you ever get a bonus for a job not well done?