So I checked the comments on my blog this morning and I came across one by Robert Graham, a long time reader of CareerDiva and one who, although I don’t always agree, makes me think.

At first I could feel the anger bubbling up in me, but I gave myself a moment to let it sink in.

Here’s an excerpt:

You are a parent 24/7. If you are not, then you are not a good parent.

Women most assuredly belong in our government at every level. However, a childless or unmarried woman would do a far better job.

The comment came at an interesting time. Yesterday evening my husband and I had a melt down over how difficult it is to raise two young kids, keep the household running, and keep our careers moving forward.

And today Robert hits me with this whammy.

His thoughts are not new. Late last year, Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell pretty much said the same thing about Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano.

“Janet’s perfect for that job,” Rendell says. “Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19, 20 hours a day to it.”

Many working moms, and working dads for that matter, often complain to me about the struggles they face balancing it all. It seems close-minded to say these people just aren’t as good at their jobs during the years when their raising the little buggers.

But I think it’s fair to include this opinion in the discussion.

That said, the biggest hole in the argument that working parents can’t cut it is this — you can not plan exactly how your life goes.

I’m old enough now to realize that sometimes life has a plan for you you never expected. I’ve lost family members, had friends die or fall ill. We never know what will happen to us or when.

Saying you will wait 10 or 20 years until your children can take care of themselves creates a huge gap in what could have been great achievements. Maybe you were meant to teach a generation of children in your community, or run a company that develops a life saving drug.

George Bailey got to see what the world would be like without him in “It’s a Wonderful Life” and you know what, the world sucked.

Society has to be more open, and the workplace more flexible, or we risk losing out on individuals that could have made a difference. We’ve already lost out on so many women that sacrificed their entire working lives for their children. I wonder what they would have done if they were able to balance it all and were encouraged by people, not put down. I’m sure my mother would have made a difference.

Robert is right, you’re a parent 24/7 and that’s both great and difficult. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be whole, contributing members of society. Clearly society needs these mothers.

I’d even argue that parents who just pour all their energies into their children are doing their families and society a disservice.

What’s your take?

Everyone is going to be talking about President Obama’s first 100 days today. I figured we needed to look back on what his moving into the White House has meant for employees.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Obama is the magic president. One hundred days is not enough time for any president to really make a significant impact.

That said, I do think it can only help the dialogue going forward if we stop to digest what he’s done thus far to impact the American workplace.

To that end, I asked a bunch of labor experts from both a pro-worker and pro-business perspective to offer their thoughts.

As you can imagine, I got some pretty divergent opinions:

“Undoubtedly, President Obama’s first 100 days have resulted in key changes for U.S. workers. There have been vital changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

As his first law, Obama signed The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expanded the time to bring wage discrimination claims. The Stimulus Bill has brought its own changes, with expansive new COBRA subsidies and whistleblower protections for non-federal employees who report misuse of stimulus funds.

In addition, the much debated Employee Free Choice Act is before Congress and other measures are expected within the coming months that are sure to considerably alter the labor and employment landscape.”
– Kimya S.P. Johnson, labor and employment attorney with Cozen O’Connor

“I think President Obama has done very well by workers during his first 100 days. The first piece of legislation he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is designed to ‘fight pay discrimination and ensure fundamental fairness to American workers.’ It amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADEA, the ADA, and the RHA, protecting workers covered by those acts from discrimination in compensation and extending the statute of limitations when discrimination occurs. The president also nominated Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor. Solis is known for being a champion for workers’ rights.

From the ‘Making Work Pay’ tax relief, to expanding access to jobs for the poor, to raising the minimum wage, and many other actions in the first 100 days, Mr. Obama has demonstrated his commitment to workers. As in his work prior to being elected president, many of the efforts will help people who have often been disadvantaged.”
– Myrtle P. Bell, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Management, Department of Management, University of Texas at Arlington

“It will have some good short-term effects, but if successful, their long-term effects will be beneficial first and foremost to financial firms. A response more beneficial to workers would require fundamental change that includes such things as redesigned cities, mass public transportation and job training in local “sustainable” work (e.g., retrofitting public buildings and individual homes for energy self-sufficiency–not simply energy efficiency).”
– Vincent Serravallo, professor of sociology at Rochester Institute of Technology

“In review of President Obama’s first 100 days in office, I believe his administration’s priorities are correct in that they focus on investment in areas critical to the global competitiveness of our nation and the ability to create productive employment for our citizens. The three priorities are energy (independence), health care (cost control and universal coverage) and education.

The shift to investment is a political and cultural shift that deviates dramatically from the high debt leveraging of the American consumer predominant over the last several decades. Those consumption and political priorities of the recent past supported heavy borrowings for consumption rather than investment in the future of the nation.

I share Mr. Warren Buffett’s concern that these initiatives, along with all of the other social and economic programs recently announced, create a significant complexity to the management of the White House and the leadership of the nation.”
– Michael E. Echols, Ph.D., Director of Bellevue University’s Human Capital Lab

“Obama-mania has created a significant interest in public service among the emerging workforce. According to a poll we conducted last week, 65% of those surveyed said they are more likely to pursue a career in public service given the current administration. As one of the largest internship organizations in the country, we believe this poll and our recent uptick in enrollment demonstrates a shared desire to answer President Obama’s call to service.”

Two thirds of students and recent graduates surveyed felt that Obama was going in the right direction as far as energy (77%), education (79%) and healthcare (66%), but there was much lower percentage of approval regarding the direction of the economy (52%). This is reflective of the country as the whole, which feels unsure of the right way to jumpstart the economy.”
– Mike Smith, president of The Washington Center

“On the positive side, so many areas that benefit workers have been addressed by the new administration. The largest is the stimulus package. Its direct effects are just starting to have an impact and the indirect effects will be felt later. The primary purpose of the stimulus is to slow down the increase in unemployment, which is hard to measure.

However, we can see the direct employment caused by the effort. The major construction of infrastructure will be noticed in the coming months. The multiplier effect (secondary and tertiary jobs) will also take hold in the future. On the negative side, the increase in the national debt will be a major constraint on future federal budgets.”
– Robert Trumble, professor of management and director of the Virginia Labor Studies Center at Virginia Commonwealth University

“The economic downturn has cost literally millions of American jobs – and the Obama administration has done little to curb employer fears that over-taxation and over-regulation will hurt American business – causing employers to be very cautious in making future hiring decisions or expansion plans. Furthermore, while extending unemployment compensation and COBRA benefits may provide a ‘feel good’ fix in the short run, extending those entitlements is more costly for employers and effectively creates incentives for employees not to seek new employment opportunities.

Moreover, the economic downturn and stock-market plunge have devastated most American’s retirement accounts – forcing many older workers back in to the job market and causing more senior employees to delay retirement plans. This trend will have a decidedly negative impact on younger and inexperienced workers, who will likely find it difficult to find even short-term and summer employment as those jobs are filled with older more experienced workers trying to supplement their income and retirement.

Despite the President’s strong rhetoric regarding his support for the Employee Free Choice Act, the administration has been absolutely silent in recent weeks as many Democrats who previously supported the bill have expressed serious reservations and concerns and have even withdrawn their support of the controversial legislation. This must be incredibly frustrating for organized labor, which spent millions of dollars to help the President and other pro-labor Senators get elected last November. The EFCA is unquestionably organized labor’s top legislative priority and labor was counting on a big payback from President Obama to help secure its passage. Now, many pro-labor lawmakers are talking about proposing compromise legislation and some have even indicated that labor may need to wait until after the mid-term elections in 2010 to see if they can pick up the needed additional support to get the EFCA passed.

While organized labor’s most important piece of legislation has languished, the Obama administration has been clearly pre-occupied with other legitimate priorities, including the economy and world events. Nevertheless, there is no other way for unions to view the stalling of the EFCA than as a tremendous set back for organized labor. With a decidedly pro-labor Congress and a pro-labor President, organized labor was counting on achieving significant success with its aggressive legislative agenda. They are still waiting for that success and are not receiving much help from the White House.”
– John Bowen, a partner in Ford & Harrison’s Minneapolis office.

“President Obama has made it clear from day one that we will not be able to rebuild our economy stronger than it was without a greater voice, and greater prosperity, for American workers. That faith has inspired the kind of broad participation during these past 100 days that’s key to turning the promise of change into reality. The fact that so many Americans are optimistic and involved despite tough times – that’s the hidden news in Obama’s first 100 days and that holds such great promise for our country.

• Pass economic stimulus plan that includes balanced tax relief for working people and investments in jobs, education, healthcare, roads and bridges – DONE
• Strengthen the voice of Americans to fight discrimination with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - DONE
• Pass a budget that puts a real down payment toward guaranteeing the quality, affordable healthcare Americans deserve – DONE
• Provide a significant investment in green jobs as a pathway to a strong middle class and a sustainable future - DONE
• Fill Cabinet positions with nominees that working families can count on to stand up and fight for them – Secretary Hilda Solis confirmed to Department of Labor; Governor Kathleen Sebelius awaiting final confirmation as Health and Human Services Secretary.
• Provide a pathway to legal status for young people who were brought to the U.S. as undocumented immigrant children – DREAM Act, introduced March 26
• Give workers a choice, free from intimidation and harassment, to bargain for job security, better wages and health care - Employee Free Choice Act, introduced March 10
• Keep an open dialogue between top White House official and labor, business, community, faith and constituent leaders – Multiple roundtables, town halls, White House Forum on Health Reform, Middle Class Task Force, White House Fiscal Responsibility Summit”
– Anna Burger, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer

“The tangibles remain to be seen, but the intangibles are clear — most workers are expressing more hope as a result of Obama’s presence.

At this early juncture, however, what may be more relevant are the lessons every worker can heed from Obama’s playbook.

Topping the list are the importance of managing expectations, asking the right questions and listening for the answers, being open to dialogue with both friends and enemies, and recognizing the difficulty of undoing a negative first impression.

Workers would also be wise to take note of Obama’s ‘quiet’ strength. His more introverted tendencies — from projecting a calm confidence to preferring to ‘think first, talk later’ — are a critical asset in these extraordinarily challenging times.”
– Jennifer Kahnweiler, an Atlanta-based workplace expert and author of the forthcoming book “The Introverted Leader: Building on Your Quiet Strength”

“Actions taken in President Obama’s first 100 days have sent a clear message to U.S. workers that they are an essential part of the national fabric. Equally important is the authenticity that management and core workers could emulate to improve business results. His management style is transparent communication and an emphasis on collaboration.

The importance of U.S. workers was also highlighted in the President’s radio/Internet address last week [April 25], when he announced a plan for federal workers to make proposals to help trim their agencies’ budgets. He made it clear that getting input from the core workers was a key part of chipping away at the federal deficit.”
– Maren Showkeir, workplace consultant and co-author of “Authentic Conversations: Moving from Manipulation to Truth and Commitment”

What do all you working stiffs think? How’s Obama doing so far?

The government has been encouraging people to stay home from work if they have any flu-like symptoms just in case it turns out to be the swine flu.

It makes sense. They don’t want the flu to spread. But unfortunately, the politicians are encouraging the wrong people.

If you want workers to stay home when they’re sick you should be talking to employers not employees. Hellloooooo!

First off, I can’t tell you how many people are working their butts off right now, putting aside vacation plans or illnesses, because they’re being asked to do more by their bosses and they’re in fear of losing their jobs.

Employers are also cutting the number of paid sick days they provide.

And, let’s not forget the poor saps with nada. A huge number of Americans do not get paid sick time even though almost every labor and business expert in the country thinks it makes economic sense.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, nearly half the work force has no paid sick days. For low-income workers, that figure is three out of four. It’s seven out of eight for food service workers.

There are many states contemplating mandatory paid sick time laws, but in this economy it’s going to be a tough legislative sell.

So, let’s think before we talk all you people in government who for some reason lose touch with reality when you go to Washington. If you’re going to give workers a wag of the finger if they don’t stay home when they start coughing up a lung, make sure you wag at employers too.

UPDATE — Maybe great minds think alike. I just got this statement on paid time off from Debra L. Ness, President, National Partnership for Women & Families:

“We all fervently hope that officials are able to quickly bring the swine flu outbreak under control in the United States, Mexico and around the world. But that will happen more quickly if people can follow the advice of the health experts and government officials who are trying to contain this potential pandemic. Unfortunately, in the United States today, too many cannot.

Yesterday, officials at the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention said: ‘This is a serious event… If you have a fever and you’re sick or your children are sick, don’t go to work and don’t go to school.’

That’s good advice but, unfortunately, nearly half of private sector workers in the United States don’t have a single paid sick day. The same is true for nearly four in five low wage workers. And nearly 100 million workers don’t have a paid sick day they can use to care for a sick child. For them, staying home means losing pay and, perhaps, losing their job. In this economy, that’s a terrible choice to have to make.

We can do better by passing the Healthy Families Act, a modest bill that would let workers accrue up to seven paid sick days a year that they could use to recover from illness or care for a sick family member. It’s simple, it’s smart, and it’s a basic workplace standard. But in the past, the Healthy Families Act has been the subject of specious attacks by organized business interests.

The legislation will be re-introduced shortly. It deserves support from every Member of Congress, now more than ever.”

ALSO ON CAREERDIVA’S AGENDA TODAY: Equal pay.

Today is national Equal Pay Day, put together by women’s groups.

It’s a time for us to reflect on how screwed women and minorities still are when it comes to equal pay. Well, maybe that’s not exactly what the day is supposed to be about, but what the heck.

The gap is shrinking a bit, according to a government report out today.

Here’s an excerpt of a New York Times blog post written today by Nancy Folbre, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, on the topic:

Among those who usually worked full time during the first quarter of 2009, women’s median weekly earnings were 79 percent those of men. That implies that the catch-up clock for them rings at about 10:38 a.m. on Tuesdays (assuming a standard five-day week and eight-hour day starting at 8 a.m.).

Some women earn less than men because they choose less lucrative occupations or take more time out from employment. But a 2003 Government Accountability Office study controlling statistically for these factors showed that women’s average pay between 1983 and 2000 flat-lined at about 80 percent of men’s over the entire period.

This glum trend conceals some interesting variations. In a new study being released Tuesday, the G.A.O. (Government Accountability Office) reports that women working for the federal government have improved their relative position. In 2007, they earned 89 percent of what their male counterparts did (compared with 72 percent in 1988). Controlling statistically for occupation and employment experience increases that estimate to 93 percent of men’s earnings.

This implies that the catch-up clock for them rings on Monday at 2 p.m. (assuming they take an hour off for lunch).

The GAO findings will be part of a Congressional hearing today by the Joint Economic Committee.

I’ll update this blog if anything of substance comes out of it. Don’t hold your breath though.

UPDATE — Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from IOWA, just “introduced the Fair Pay Act of 2009 to address the wage gap for jobs of equal value among men and women. This legislation would address the historic pattern of undervaluing and underpaying so-called ‘women’s’ jobs, by calling for similar wages for similar working conditions regardless of gender.”

AND COMING WEDNESDAY ON CAREERDIVA: The Obama Administrations first 100 days — What the heck have they meant for the average working stiff?

I’ll have labor experts from around the country weigh in, so tune in tomorrow.

I know I’m throwing a lot of stuff at you today, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on one or all of these topics:

Do you take time off when you’re sick, especially now?
Do you think women and minorities will ever close the pay gap?
And, what, if anything, do you think Obama has done for working people thus far?

Leadership.

Do white men want it more than anyone else?

In some ways, that’s at the heart of a lawsuit involving white firefighters that ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

In 2003, the New Haven Fire Department had a number of open lieutenant and captain positions. Firefighters applying for the promotions were given three months to prepare for oral and written exams.

When the results of the tests came it it turned out that no black firefighters scored high enough for the promotion. As a result, the city threw out the tests because they determined they were bias.

As you can imagine, the predominately white firefighters who passed the test were pissed off. They sued, claiming that they’re civil rights had been violated.

In news reports last week, many of the white firefighters stressed how they studied long and hard, inferring that their colleagues may not have been as diligent.

The Supreme Court justices seemed divided over the case, but one comment from conservative Justice Antonin Scalia really made me think:

“You had some applicants who were winners and their promotion was set aside.”

Winners?

Did the white men who passed the exams want to win more than the black men? Or were these biased tests?

That’s the dispute in a nutshell.

It got me thinking more globally about why we continue to see a lack of minorities and women in leadership roles.

What if it’s because we don’t want it as much?

I neighbor asked me something this weekend that got me thinking about the firefighters.

She’s researching a paper about women and equality for school and she wondered why despite the Women’s Movement and affirmative action programs, women still have not achieved universal equality.

How much do we blame ourselves?

Recently several women from my teen years friended me on Facebook. I was disheartened to see how many of them never pursued any type of career or vocation, and were proud to write about how they spent their days shopping.

And I’ve often heard women say they don’t think women make good leaders.

I’m not being naive here. I know the system has been skewed against women and minorities for a long time. I know there are tests out there that favor certain groups over others.

But should there be some thought given to personal responsibility, to whether or not we want it enough?

While we spend endless hours reading leadership books and attending leadership conferences, maybe part of the discussion should be about desire.

If suddenly the playing field were even for everyone involved would we all be ready to take the field?

– Katherine Guiney contributed research to this post

I’ve been thinking lately about the legacies we’re all leaving behind on the social media sites we’re all rushing to be a part of, everything from LinkedIn to Twitter.

Here’s a self-written summary from the LinkedIn account of a supposed successful individual:

Financial services executive with close to 20 years of experience, starting with the day-to-day line valuation, trading, and investing of complex mortgage-backed instruments, debt, and interest-rate derivatives, including swaps, swaptions, options, and futures. With that critical experience, I have succeeded at an ever-increasing level of responsibility in managing a Company with $1 + trillion balance sheet.

My definition of success is the full utilization of my experience and abilities, and those of a carefully chosen and trained team along the lines of excellence.

And here’s some information from another individual’s LinkedIn profile:

15+ years of experience in IT, 10+ years of which is in Business Intelligence, Data Warehousing, OLAP and Web Analytics.

Architected, built and managed more than one multi-tera byte data warehouse solution in each of Oracle, SQL Server and Red Brick.

The first summary is from David Kellermann, the Freddie Mac CFO who hung himself this week.

And the second was from Devan Kalathat, the Yahoo engineer who recently killed his two young children, three other relatives, and left his wife in critical condition before killing himself.(This photo of Kalathat and his family is from his Flickr page, yet another social networking site he used.)

I found their profiles when I was researching the two men. I wondered what would drive individuals, many of us would think of as lucky, to commit such horrible acts.

When I came across their LinkedIn profiles I realized how much social media has changed our lives, the way we disseminate information, and potentially the legacies we leave behind.

Each of these men probably thought little of this when they were participating in the social media craze.

Just last month, Kellermann offered a recommendation on LinkedIn for an accountant that worked for him in the past, Jonathan Castro, a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Jonathan is a detail-oriented and engaged member of the external audit team that has focused on information technology security and project governance at my Company. I have found Jonathan to be thorough, articulate, and value-added in his interactions with the Firm.

I wonder what Castro is thinking right now.

In the past, recommendations like this one, and the summaries above would have been hidden somewhere in a HR file. Today, little is hidden.

Is that a good or bad thing? I’m not sure.

LinkedIn and Facebook accounts will rarely let us know what their authors are really thinking. But reading the long list of accomplishments of two men who committed suicide makes you wonder how meaningful rat racing and corporate climbing really are.

Let’s say you take time off from work to care for an aging parent; or you’ve applied for a job and the hiring manager knows you have a disabled child at home.

What would happen if you were denied a promotion; or didn’t get a job because of your family caregiving responsibilities or perceived responsibilities?

Not a lot.

There are no federal laws that explicitly protect family caregivers from discrimination. Alaska and Washington DC are the only places that prohibit some forms of such behavior.

You could go after your employer by filing a discrimination charge if you can prove the reason you were disciplined or fired had to do with you being a woman, or a minority. You could also make a case for yourself under state laws that govern leave time.

But actually suing a company because they dogged you for being a Florence Nightingale is largely a no go.

This is a bad thing right now because this type of discrimination is on the rise, according to a Sloan Work and Family Research report on the issue.

Workplace discrimination against mothers and others based on their family caregiving responsibilities is a rapidly growing problem.

There may be some teeny, tiny hope.

More states are looking at adopting so called, “family responsibilities discrimination” (FRD) laws, but for now, many of you are on your own.

And just this week the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted new employer “best practices to avoid discrimination
against workers with caregiving responsibilities.”

Some highlights:
* Be aware of, and train managers about, the legal obligations that may impact decisions about treatment of workers with caregiving responsibilities.
* Develop, disseminate, and enforce a strong EEO policy that clearly addresses the types of conduct that might constitute unlawful discrimination against care-givers based on characteristics protected by federal anti-discrimination laws.
* Respond to complaints of caregiver discrimination efficiently and effectively.

All this is well and good, but I’m always dubious of government “best practices” guidelines that really do nothing to tackle a growing problem.

Alaska took the unusual step to add the work “parenthood” to its protected class of workers in its laws.

It’s unlawful for an employer to refuse employment to a person, or to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the person’s race, religion, color or national origin, or because of the person’s age, physical or mental disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood when the reasonable demands of the position do not require distinction on the basis of age, physical or mental disability, sex, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood.

But even this law says nothing about adult children who have to now care for their parents.

Do we as a nation decide to finally put in laws to protect against FDR discrimination for all citizens in all states, or is it too much of a burden on businesses?

Workers are increasingly finding it hard to brush aside their family responsibilities, especially with so many homes where both parents work; and with the aging of the population that has led to more working children having to care for their parents. Employees who want to keep their jobs and see their careers flourish need understanding employers.

But, companies are increasingly being asked to take on the burden of our changing society. If a growing portion of their workforce is facing family caregiver duties, how do employers keep their businesses operating efficiently, especially in this economy?

What’s your take? We don’t live in Sweden for God’s sake!

Are we supposed to bleed green today or something?

I’m all for celebrating the Earth, but turning off the lights is probably not going to lead to jobs for the millions of Americans who are unemployed right now.

We’ve heard so much about all the green collar jobs that will be generated by a renewed focus on the environment by this administration, but unfortunately the big environmentally friendly job explosion has not yet started.

There is a lot of hype though:

“The good news is that we can beat this global recession and global warming at the same time.”

This statement was made by the Obama administration’s new “green czar” Van Jones during a speech at a leadership conference in Massachusetts, and he’s been going around the country lately singing the praises of so-called green jobs.

Alas, there is a debate over how many news jobs will actually be created.

The green investments Obama has proposed in his March budget could translate into 1.1 million new jobs, according to a report released earlier this month by the Economic Policy Institute.

But a study, funding by a pro-business group called the Institute for Energy Research, says all the job hype is a myth.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.

It’s hard to know who’s right, and it’s bugging me. I’m sort of having trouble celebrating Earth Day because of it.

I wrote about this debate in my MSNBC.com column before Obama even took office, and it seems that there is still no hard data on what American workers can expect.

Some experts project an explosion of such jobs, but no one really knows how many green-collar jobs there are today because the government doesn’t even have such a category.

Even the meaning of the word “green collar” is up for debate. Many experts lump together green industry manufacturing positions and office jobs under the same green-collar umbrella, although Raquel Pinderhughes, a professor at San Francisco State University who says she coined the term “green collar,” says it originally referred to only blue-collar type positions.

Green collar, blue collar, freaking rainbow collar — all I can say is the growing ranks of the jobless are hot under the collar.

Maybe if we turn the lights off we won’t be able to see them.

You think it’s hard to find a job in this economy, try having a record.

Lately I’ve been getting desperate emails from ex-prisoners, and family members of ex-prisoners, wanting help to find a job, any job.

my name is bernard and i am an ex-con desperately searching for employment. i live in fort myers fla. i got released from prison in 2001, never been in trouble before or since. the charge was aggravated battery i served 24 months. i have already reinstated my voting rights i have a class b commercial with driving license with 0 points. also an honorable discharge from the military. is there a job site that is willing to give second chances.

I know, many of you are thinking: “who the heck cares about an ex-con? They chose to screw up and landed in jail.”

But that doesn’t mean they should be denied the opportunity for employment, especially if they want to turn their lives around. How do you do that without being able to do a hard day’s work?

That said, it’s hard as hell for job seekers with a record to get work now, and even in a good economy. Many hiring managers and even rank-and-file workers I’ve talked to say they just don’t feel comfortable having someone who has committed a crime, especially a criminal act, in their office or factory.

Realizing this big problem, states and the federal government have taken steps recently to deal with the high number of inmates that end up back in jail, often because they can’t find work. (About 700,000 people are released from prisons every year, and about two-thirds of those are expected to be back in prison within three years, according to the Department of Justice.)

The Second Chance Act was passed was passed last year, authorizing nearly $200 million, a big chunk of which is supposed to go to training ex-cons for jobs. From what I can tell, states are just now starting to tap into these funds so it’s unclear how the monies will impact ex-cons in the job hunt right now.

There are also federal and state dollars available for employers that hire ex-offenders. Philadelphia announced a program last year that would offer a $10,000 tax incentive to companies that took a chance on an ex-con. But alas, it seems no companies have taken the city up on the offer, yet, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I know this sounds depressing but ex-cons need to realize that in many ways they’re on their own when it comes to finding work.

So let’s get proactive pronto!

First off, get a copy of Colorado’s prisoner re-entry guide. You don’t have to live in Colorado to get this. The only reason I suggest it is because it’s one of the best overviews on what to expect when you get out of the big house. It’s called “Go: Getting on After Getting Out.” (You can order it online here.)

You should also call your parole officer and the officials at your local prison and find out what’s available to ex-cons as far as job training. And Google “jobs” and “ex-cons”, “prisoners”, “inmates”, etc. in your state or town and see what comes up as far as opportunities for you.

NPR did a story on a Los Angeles program that is teaching ex-cons to install solar panels:

I also wrote a story about ex-cons and job hunting for MSNBC.com last year and it offers some advice from experts on this issue. It also includes names of some employers that have been open to hiring ex-cons.

Peter Cove, the founder of America Works, suggest parolees move quickly to land a job, any job, right out of prison so they’re not dragged into the criminal world yet again.

Experts suggest former inmates find an agency in their town that focuses on finding jobs for hard-to-place candidates and take advantage of whatever skills training they can get from the government, nonprofit groups and employment agencies with parolee experience.

America Works has locations throughout the U.S. that can be located on their Web site.

Uggen also suggests checking out the following Web sites for help: The Sentencing Project, The Legal Action Center, and The Prisoner Reentry Institute.

The key to getting a job — especially for an ex-con — is references, experts say. To that end, some former inmates may have to take a low-level job, work their tails off, and use that employer for recommendations for the next gig.

It’s going to be hard right now, no way around it. But the bottom line is, many ex-cons do overcome the odds and find great careers for themselves. The ones that give up don’t make it.

This weekend I stayed at my mother’s house in New York for Greek Easter and I was unlucky enough to take a walk down memory lane.

When I was a teenager I had a horrible case of acne. This reality was made even more unbearable by the fact that I had two beautiful sisters with perfect skin.

I was reminded of this episode of my life when my sister Mary found her yearbook Saturday and we all went through it; my sister, me, and our two daughters. She came to the page with her head shot and there was this gorgeous teenager. She told my daughter and her daughter about all the guys that had crushes on her and the girls that hated her, and I sat there nodding.

You see, my youth was very different from hers, and there was no high school year book for me at my mom’s house because I threw it out, or maybe burned it many years ago.

I hated the way I looked and it will always be a raw piece of my history.

I thought about this last week, when Susan Boyle, the British singing show phenomenon was making the rounds on the nation’s talk shows.

You know, the only reason she’s become so famous is because people think she’s ugly. Come on, we all know that. How could such a homely woman sing so beautifully? We were all shocked.

This mentality also finds its way into the workplace, unfortunately.

What do you think happens to the Susan Boyles of the world when they apply for a gig?

An ugly person can’t file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if they’re told they didn’t get a job because they’re not attractive enough.

Looks are everything, especially now. I write today about the importance of your appearance in this tough economy on MSNBC.com.

I know, it’s disheartening to hear that you won’t be judged solely on experience and background but also by the way you look.

Unfortunately, that’s just part of human nature, and the tough economy is only making image more important, said David Sarwer, associate professor of psychology for the Center for Human Appearance at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

“For hiring managers, it’s clearly a buyer’s market,” he said. “They can be more selective … not only hold out for the most qualified but the person who’s the most physically attractive.”

It’s a harsh reality.

Yeah, yeah, I know all the bull about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But sorry folks, I lived through some of the harshest behavior as a young girl because of the way I looked. So I’m not naive enough to think the world has suddenly changed.

Coincidentally, Miss USA was crowned over the weekend.

“It feels really natural,” said Miss North Carolina USA Kristen Dalton, who was crowned Miss USA 2009, beating out 50 other beauty queens.

Nature can be cruel. But people can be even crueler.

I’m just saying.

Take some time to watch this video clip all the way through. It will fill you with joy and make you feel anything is possible.

Susan Boyle.