“I’m fighting for my life here,” said William Parker a 74 year old, former General Motors employee.

Yesterday, GM pulled the rug out from under him when the auto giant announced it would eliminate health benefits for retired, salaried workers over 65.

I’m not kidding folks. Just like that, he lost his GM health care benefits that he has relied on. It’s horrible timing because Parker has cancer and a new cancer drug he’s been taking will now cost him $2,700 a month, not the $50 he was paying thanks to his GM coverage, according to an article in the New York Times today.

GM’s move is part of an overall cost cutting effort to help the financially troubled automaker, and it’s the latest in the type of worker screwing that’s been going on in this country.

“Yes we promised you health benefits Mr. Parker,” said the company. “Sike! We had our fingers crossed.”

That’s really the bottom line. There are no guarantees you’ll have health benefits, a pension. It’s all just a house of cards ready to collapse.

Health care coverage has been the target of many companies in the United States. Many younger workers are lucky if they get bare-bones plans, and older workers who are retired and those who are struggling with illnesses are at risk of losing it altogether.

There is Medicare of course, but according to Fidelity Investments, even with that coverage, the out of pocket costs for a 65 year old couple can top $200,000.

So, the way I see it, we’re dooming this population of hard workers to a life of money woes in their supposed Golden Years.

That is, of course, the workers who were not members of the corner office. Those top dogs are golden when it comes to their health upon retirement thanks to lucrative packages they’ve secured for themselves, on top of the obscene pay these executives have pocketed.

I’m assuming GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner will hold on to his benefits when he heads for the rocking chair.

It seemed like things were getting better Rick. After a pay cut, the executive got a 33 percent pay hike this year for a grand total of $2.2 million a year, not including benefits.

I guess it wasn’t rosy for every one, especially not for people like Parker:

“G.M was good to me and I hate to be bitter. But I don’t know what the hell I’m going to do.”

Indeed, this nation has to figure out what it’s going to do.

If you’re looking for a town where there’s major job opportunities you should check out Fishers, Indiana, or Round Rock, Texas.

Money Magazine just released its list of top small cities to live in and these two have the highest job-growth rates among the top ten.

Fishers and Round Rock are indeed small towns, with populations of 61,800 and 92,300 respectively, but if you don’t mind that it’s an option.

I’m pointing out some U.S. cities to consider right now because my column this week on MSNBC.com is about how many readers have been asking me about job opportunities abroad. Making a move overseas is a difficult proposition so maybe many of you may want to consider something in the good old USA before you start taking French lessons.

Whether you make the move abroad, or stay closer to home, here’s a great resource list from Quint Careers if you’re even considering relocating.

Someone asked me this weekend if I had a wanderlust problem because I’ve moved a lot and had many, many jobs. New York, Delaware, Florida. UPI, Women’s Wear Daily, St. Petersburg Times, etc. It never really seemed like a lot to me, but this guy seemed to think I had trouble staying in one place.

I guess I’m not tied to one place, never have been. I could pack up and move my family overseas tomorrow and be happy as a clam. That’s just how I’ve always been.

You have to make the best of your life where ever you are. That’s how I was brought up. Maybe it’s because my parents felt forced to leave their homeland, Istanbul, Turkey. Maybe they just drummed into my head how no matter where you’re forced to go you make the best of it. They did.

I know, right now, a lot of people may be making moves across country, or to other lands, because they feel compelled to do so in this economy. You have to do what’s right for your economic health and your family. I’m here to tell you it can be great experience if you make the most of it. Go out and make friends, get to know the area, participate in community events. You make it great. Great doesn’t just happen.

I interviewed Bernd Beetz, the chief executive officer of Coty Inc., a fragrance and cosmetics producer, a while back for the New York Times, and he was one of those constant travelers, changing careers and countries often in his career.

He shared a great story with me about moving around from country to country when he was with Proctor & Gamble starting out on the management track and how he learned to adapt.

Here’s an excerpt from the story I wrote:

My career has been very international, and in some ways my father influenced that as well. I started in Germany with Proctor & Gamble, then moved to Paris, then Geneva, then Rome, then Milan, then Istanbul, then briefly in Cincinnati, then to Frankfort. I stayed in most places about two and a half years and was mainly the general manager.

At the end of the 1980s, I was brought in to help our Turkish operations. Procter & Gamble had bought one of the biggest local companies making detergent, toothpaste, shampoos. It was called Mintax. At the time, Turkey was called the Vietnam of Procter & Gamble because the operations were in a downspin. I was in my early 40s and Turkey was a totally different experience. The workforce, suppliers, unions. It was a country where the government changed the rules every other week. The initial team couldn’t control the situation, inflation was 80, 90 percent, and turnover was high. The plant looked not anything close to standard, which we had in the U.S. or Western Europe. It was obvious a lot of things needed to be done.

I immediately realized it was the way they produced, it was the way of thinking. There was a huge workforce, about 3,000 from Mintax, and the work was very manual, not very structured. They were basically living day by day.

The workers and management received me with open arms. First of all, I became part of them. Soccer is big in Turkey so I played soccer on what was the Mintax soccer team. I got close to their habits and got close to them outside, the managers, workers on the floor. I went to their homes for dinner. You go to their homes, take your shoes off, have tea. Most of the time they cooked in front of me and I saw how the meals were prepared. You got to know the whole family; the whole clan comes around. I became very visible.

Is it as easy as joining a soccer team? Maybe not. But we can all adapt if we put our hearts into it.

Bon Voyage.

Everyone is celebrating now that Congress passed a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, on top of the 26 weeks already provided.

But many of you shouldn’t be breaking out the champagne.

If you get laid off tomorrow will you get an unemployment check?

Maybe not.

Have you checked your state lately to find out how long you’re supposed to be working for an employer before you’re eligible for jobless benefits?

In many states, you have to be working full time for a company for a few years and make a certain threshold income before you qualify.

“Most people who lose their jobs these days don’t qualify for any unemployment at all,” said Robert Reich, the former U.S. Labor Secretary under Clinton, on the Marketplace Morning Report this morning. Here’s an audio of the piece:

The economic world has changed a lot since the federal government encouraged states to adopt unemployment insurance in 1935, but no one seemed to notice.

The unemployment system made sense decades ago, Reich says, when people were in the same full-time job for years and one breadwinner could sustain a whole family.

But today, he adds, when people are going from job to job, and a growing number of individuals have several part time jobs or are contractors, a gigantic economic black hole is left for a huge number of working Americans to fall into.

“It’s a disgrace that most Americans that loose their jobs don’t qualify,” Reich maintains. “Congress should expand coverage in these perilous times.”

Expanding the benefits by 13 weeks was a good thing. I’m not knocking it. But it will do little to help American workers if they can’t even qualify for one day.

It seems almost everyone has a “sky-is-falling” attitude toward the economy these days.

You know we’re in trouble when long-time NPR commentator Daniel Schorr starts singing depression era songs.

“I have found myself reflecting on the recession, no depression, that I experienced in my youth,” said 92-year-old Schorr in his analysis yesterday of our present economy. After describing the horrific economic tragedy of the Depression, he then was asked by Liane Hansen, the host of NPR’s Weekend Edition, about the music of the era. He said there was one song he remembered, “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime.”

It’s a haunting song about the Great Depression written by Yip Harburg.

They used to tell me I was building a dream, and so I followed the mob,
When there was earth to plow, or guns to bear, I was always there right on the job.
They used to tell me I was building a dream, with peace and glory ahead,
Why should I be standing in line, just waiting for bread?

Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad; now it’s done. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower, up to the sun, brick, and rivet, and lime;
Once I built a tower, now it’s done. Brother, can you spare a dime?

Here’s a more updated version by George Michael I love:

While it was a great radio moment, hearing Schorr sing the old tune a cappella, I couldn’t help but think these type of comparisons are hurting all of us.

I know, Starbucks is closing 600 stores and with that 12,000 jobs will be lost. And the U.S. auto industry is in a tail spin. Not to mention banking and the brokerage industry. Thousands of jobs among hourly workers, and even among the mansion set have been hacked and slashed.

But are we really talking economic collapse? There’s been so much shrill in the media lately and among politicians that it got me wondering if we really should be making any analogies to the Depression.

Since I didn’t live through that time I figured I had to ask a historian if our present economic state mirrors the Depression, or have we all lost our minds?

“I’d be happy to offer my two cents though you ask quite the large question,” says Peter Cole, an associate professor and labor historian from Western Illinois University.

“My short answer is no, we are nowhere near the economic conditions of the Great Depression, fortunately,” he maintains.

Phew!

“While foreclosures are at the level that they were then, seeing that unemployment is SO much lower that there’s really no comparison,” he adds.

You all might be wondering why I’m making such a big deal out of this. Why I care that some people equate our present situation to something much more dire.

The reason is simple, if we think the sky is falling we may be apt to make rash career decisions right now. We may be convinced to accept less pay or benefits because everything is falling apart, and oh, aren’t we lucky that an employer has offered us a job at all.

This is never a good way to navigate through your work life, with a sense of panic.

Look, it is bad out there right now. We’re all struggling with higher prices and many of our jobs could be up on the chopping block, but we have to resist this crowd mentality of fear. There are still jobs to be had and many companies are stilling turning in profits.

So, take a deep breath and concentrate, with a level head, on your own situation and your own job opportunities.

Clearly, there are economic problems, but our worries may be feeding the flames.

Here are some more of Cole’s insights:

The tremendous anxiousness of most US workers and the powerlessness most feel, the ever-dwindling number of folks with employer-based health and retirement benefits, the very real fear that globalization will result in more jobs lost (not just in manufacturing), the seemingly-endless decline of US organized labor (essential, I believe, for a healthy society and economy with a large middle class) all suggest real issues that dramatically affect the lives of us workers as well as the entire economy. Just look at the stats on number of strikes today compared to previous decades; SO much lower. That, too, is a result of not just Bush’s anti-worker National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor but longer trends of corporations cavalierly ignoring US labor law because they know no enforcement is happening.

I wouldn’t say that the problems we are facing our trivial, not by a long shot, but I wouldn’t say that they have risen (or, perhaps, I should say fallen) to the level of the 1930s. Of course, it was the economic crisis of the 30s that produced many of the programs that ALL Americans have benefited from for almost a century as well as a revitalized labor movement that greatly democratized workplaces and our nation. Americans are more individualistic today but I believe that a dose of collective action would be quite beneficial. But Americans and US workers are scared and individualistic and unions are weak, if attempting to rectify that.

Now I understand being spurred to take “collective action”. But that can only be spurred by anger and disgust on the part of workers who believe they’re getting the shaft, and not because pundits, journalists and politicians pull a Chicken Little on us and have everyone running scared.

It seems like a job blood bath out there. A broad range of companies, everything from car makers to latte makers, are slashing their workforces.

It’s time to start thinking about what your options are, updating that resume, and maybe even calling that recruiter who left you a couple of messages months ago.

I know, many of you think recruiters are useless. My husband compares many of them to car salesmen.

One anonymous writer on a message board where the topic was “recruiters are useless” summed it up best:

The good recruiters call you back and follow up. The idiots are three inches up your ass when they see your resume and then you never hear back if you aren’t ideal for the company that minute.

And that’s the reality of life, some good, some bad.

That said, how do you get the most out of the good ones?

*First off, you have to figure out if they’re good at what they do. There is nothing wrong with asking these recruiters about their credentials. Ask them, “tell me about the last person you placed. What kind of job did he or she get? Did they get the salary they wanted?” If a recruiter refuses to answer these questions DO NOT WORK WITH THEM.

*Look for expertise, especially if you are looking for a job in a technical field. If a recruiter has no idea what Java or PHP is, then you probably don’t want them trying to place you in a web applications gig. The big problem with working with a non expert is they won’t be able to do a great job singing your praises because they don’t understand what your praises really are.

*Beware the email written in broken English. Look, both my parents came to this country from Istanbul and struggled with learning English, so I’m not anti foreigner. But a lot of recruiting work is being outsourced to places like India, especially contract jobs, and that means you’ll get spotty results, if any results at all. One job seeker told me he got a call from someone calling himself “Bob” who had a think Indian accent, and the job lead went no where.

*You also have to do your part when connecting with a recruiter. “Recruiters can end up seeing hundreds of resumes a day,” says executive search experts Ron Bates in an article about recruitnig. “Did I mention your resume should be ‘pin sharp’? Did I mention you should always attach a resume even in a follow up email to an unresponsive recruiter? Even if a recruiter took the time to respond to your email or voicemail there is still a very good chance they have not actually seen/read let alone - saved - your resume.”

*And think about packaging yourself well. “Give them your 30-Second Elevator Pitch. Don’t tell them your life story,” Bates writes. “Ask them what if anything they’d like to know more. Ask them the best way and when to follow-up, or if they’d like to schedule some time.”

*Stick to your guns when it comes to money and benefits. These recruiters want to get you on the cheap so they have little incentive making sure you get the salary you need. If you’ve done your research and figured out what a fair salary for the job you’re looking for is, don’t let a recruiter low ball you. Make it clear that you’re not willing to compromise.

Here’s a great resource from career website Quintessential Careers for finding a recruiter in your field.

If your not going to ask these men and women the tough questions and do you homework when it comes to figuring out what you want out of a job, then forget about using a recruiter. These people will do more harm than good to your ego at a time when you might be fragile. You don’t need anyone telling you your not worth the money, or your skills are lacking if they really aren’t. And that’s just what could happen if you end up with a recruiting bozo that’s just trying to fill a quota and doesn’t no anything about your industry.

And who needs yet another person not calling you back or answering your emails.

“Frankly Eve, I’m worried about your bandwidth.”

This statement came from my editor at MSNBC.com recently. He told me this after I asked him to give me two or three additional assignments each month. With gas and prices for just about everything else so high, I’ve been feeling pressure to make some extra money lately.

When he made his “bandwidth” statement I didn’t know what the heck he was talking about. I said, “What do you mean?”

He went on to tell me he was worried that maybe I was taking on too much work and didn’t know if I could handle more. With a weekly column and small business blog at MSNBC.com, and all the other freelance work he knows that I do for BusinessWeek’s SmallBiz magazine and New York Times, plus working on a proposal for my next book, he was reluctant to give me more.

I insisted and he eventually relented.

When I got off the phone I thought: “Great. More work.”

But a day or two later I was working on a freelance assignment, and I couldn’t remember where I put a critical report I had printed out just hours earlier. My desk has become a sea of clutter lately and I was pulling my hair out trying to find it. Then I realized I had forgotten to RSVP for a six-year-old pool birthday party that my son Cheiron was invited to. And, even though it was midday, I was yawning so much I had to have a second cup of coffee. (My limit is usually one.)

Just as I was making another cup of Joe I heard the words of my editor: “I’m worried about your bandwidth.” And suddenly that statement became crystal clear in my head.

I was indeed using up my bandwidth, a bandwidth I always thought was limitless.

There are some issues here. I decided to take on more work at a time when I’ve become rather unorganized. I have no real system for tracking my work and my desk looks like a bomb went off. There’s a bag of nuts on my desk from 2004.

Any way, I ‘m getting some help with my desk. I will be writing about this for a MSNBC.com column in two weeks.

As for surpassing my bandwidth reserve, I’m still not sure that’s really happened.

I decided to ask Cali Williams Yost, fellow blogger and founder of Work+Life Fit, and author of “Work+Life: Finding the Fit That’s Right for You” what the working-to-much warning signs are. Here’s her list:

1. Consistently missing deadlines for priority work.
2. Noticing that you are making more mistakes than usual (we all make mistakes but the rate is higher).
3. You find you don’t have enough time to concentrate, and focus in order to do your job well.
4. You are feeling more tired at the end of the day.
5. This doesn’t seem to be a discrete period of extra work, it seems to have no end.

She also had some interesting insights on what exactly is too much work.

“I find many people still define it as whether or not they are able to get everything done on their ‘to do’ list,” she explains. “I’m not sure how realistic that definition is in a 24/7, high-tech, global work reality where emails keep coming in day and night and business is conducted across the global.”

A more “realistic gauge,” she adds, “is whether or not you are able to get the priority tasks and responsibilities done in a quality, non-frantic way. How you know you are taking on too much work is when too many things become a priority and the pace at which you need to work to complete those tasks is unmanageable, exhausting and jeopardizing the quality of the work.”

And I didn’t ask her for tips but thank goodness she offered them anyway:

* Sit down with you manager and team (or with yourself if you are an entrepreneur) and ask for help reprioritizing. I’ve found oftentimes managers and team members are unaware when a colleague’s plate becomes too full. Putting your head-down and just toughing it out no longer works today’s world. You need to say something.
* Rethink your planning and technology management system. Are you letting email and voicemail control you, or are you controlling it so you aren’t distracted and can focus? Are you taking the time either daily or weekly to think about what you need to a want to accomplish at work and in your personal life? Gone are the days when we can just let the day “happen.”

Boy, she’s not kidding.

Are you guys doing too much? Have you checked your bandwidth lately?

There’s an essay in the New York Times magazine today on how the “New Deal” is never coming back.

The author, a Democrat, puts out a challenge to his party — Come up with a plan to replace the “New Deal”.

The New Deal, which spawned Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a pact between business and government: “Business, you provide a living wage and benefits, and government, you fill in the gaps with programs to help those who fall through the gaps.”

The author, Dalton Conley, puts it more eloquently:

Government and big business had an understanding, famously embodied by the line, “What’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” Employers, in turn, agreed to pay their (male) employees a living wage and provide generous benefits. Men, in turn, had an obligation to provide for their dependents. To complete the sequence, the state would step in if any of these links broke down by providing a minimal level of support in the case of unemployment, death, desertion or disability.

Conley makes some good points about providing new systems where people can become part of a pool and buy affordable health insurance, and creating savings incentives.

But alas Conley does not tackle what is probably the biggest problem in our economic structure today, the demise of a living wage.

Wages in this country have been stagnant. Jobs that once paid a good wage, where workers could have a solid middle class life and send their kids to college are disappearing. All the major U.S. automakers are laying off or offering buyouts to huge chucks of their workforces so they can replace them with employees who will work for half the money. And large retailers, such as Circuit City, a recent example, are showing veteran workers the door so they can also fill their jobs with people that will take less.

Last night, I was talking with my neighbor who told us his dad — who without a college education, worked for AT&T as a telephone repair man — and his mom — who was a stay-at-home mom — where able to raise seven kids and provide for them without ever getting help from the government.

Is that possible today?

Paying someone a fair salary will go a long way in providing for the nation’s middle class. We can have endless programs to fill in the gaps, but how will they work if the gaps are like black holes able to consume a whole segment of the population that once hoped it could fend for itself if only they were paid enough.

Workers in the private sector should be crossing their fingers right about now. A bill just passed in the House to give federal employees four weeks off paid when they have a child or adopt.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), and Tom Davis (R-VA), and it now goes to the Senate where Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), much talked about as a possible running mate for Obama, is sponsoring the bill.

If enacted it could become a template for the nation’s workforce at large.

“The federal government may refer to its leave policies as ‘family-friendly,’ but the reality is that it’s forcing many of its employees to choose between their paycheck and their new child,” says Rep. Maloney. “As the nation’s largest employer, the federal government should be setting a national standard with workplace policies that are truly family-friendly. If President Bush supports family values, he will reevaluate his misguided veto threat of this important legislation.”

I’ve written about the paid family leave debate going on right now in this country. As you can imagine, many businesses are fighting these proposals because they fear it will impact there businesses negatively.

I’m admittedly torn about this issue. Paid leave would be a great benefit for workers who are struggling to care for family and stay productive at work. But businesses, small firms in particular, could find themselves short handed when workers take advantage of what could be a future perk. I write about this conflict today in my MSNBC.com smallbiz blog.

Unfortunately, the realities of life come and bite us on the ass too often. Where family is concerned, we have to give all our priorities. I’m not talking about being there for a soccer game, or having tea with a parent. I’m talking about needing time to care for a loved one who’s sick, or who has just come into the world.

Too many workers don’t have the luxury of taking time off unpaid, or quitting their jobs to become stay-at-home parents. Some workers would face financial ruin at a time when they need to be strong and help a family member.

I wonder if Ed McMahon asked American Family Publishers for an advance on his pitchman pay. He’s been fighting foreclosure on his mansion in Beverly Hills.

You guys might think I’m crazy even suggesting he ask his employer for financial help but maybe I’m not that wacky.

Turns out some employers are actually helping their financially strapped workers. There was a great story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that talks about how some companies are offering financial aid to employees who face foreclosure and a host of other financial problems.

At a time when corporate boards are paying out big bucks to dead CEOs, it’s nice to hear the working stiffs are being given a helping hand now and then:

In the wake of the mortgage crisis, a small but growing number of workers are getting help avoiding or coping with foreclosure from an unlikely source: their employers. So far, a handful of companies — from small manufacturers to large companies like home-financing behemoth Fannie Mae — are offering assistance, such as interest-free loans, grants and support in securing rental properties. They’re also beefing up their employee-assistance programs, or EAPs, and adding more educational seminars on personal finance.

A January survey of 329 human-resource professionals showed that in 2007, 20% of employers said they received more requests from workers for pay advances than the year before, reports from the Society of Human Resource Management. Thirty-nine percent of respondents also saw an uptick in withdrawals from retirement savings — widely seen as an indicator of financial woes.

Folks, what do you have to lose. Check out what your company has to offer. Many firms have always offered a host of services through EAPs that range from emotional help to credit counseling. It has always perplexed me that many employees never take advantage of such services. These programs are there for workers. Your employer counts the money laid out for such offerings as part of your compensation people.

And I’ve written recently on how many bosses are more open to allowing their workers to telecommute because of skyrocketing gas prices.

Obviously, you can pull money out of your retirement fund, and some employers are offering hardship withdrawals as an option. But most financial planning experts say this can come back to haunt you in the long run. It’s for retirement stupid!

My husband and I tapped into a 401K many years ago to help pay for a home and when he left that employer we got nailed with a huge tax bill and unreal penalties. It wasn’t worth it in hindsight.

Asking for a raise is probably a smarter idea.

I know, I know, it’s a tough economy and many employers are putting the clamp down on increases. But that’s what every employee thinks, so they may not be pressuring their managers for a pay hike, opening up the door for you. Supervisors usually have a pool of money they can divvy up among workers, and the managers I’ve talked to all say “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

So start squeaking people.

I’m not naive here. I know there will be lots of supervisors who couldn’t care less if you’re struggling to keep your home, or fighting off personal bankruptcy. But before you go groveling to a rich sibling, or generous friend, check out what your company has to offer.

There’s this insane idea that women can do it all on their own.

You know what I’m talking about moms out there. You keep piling on the responsibilities at work and at home and then you wonder what the “F” is going on.

Recently a friend of mine lost it because she was so overwhelmed.

Why? Because she got home from work and no one had picked up groceries. It doesn’t seem like a tragedy? BUT IT WAS DAMN IT! That’s the whole point. Women do too much and we suck at expecting others to help out. Since she usually does most of the things around the house, plus work like a dog at her career, they expected her to do it all.

A study I recently came across shows how much we suck at this.

The survey, by staffing company Adecco USA, asked working parents a host of work-life balance questions, and I was shocked to see that men expect their firms to be doing more to help them achieve that balance. Fifty five percent of the dads polled said they thought their firms could be doing more, compared to 49 percent of moms. And 45 percent of fathers thought becoming a parent impacted there careers, versus 41 percent of mothers who thought so.

For both these questions I would have expected closer to 100 percent of working moms to answer “yes, yes, yes”.

Come on gals out there. We have to stop thinking, without us the world will stop spinning. How come moms everywhere aren’t ranting and raving about how today’s workplace does not accommodate working parents? And hello!!!! Every woman I speak with knows becoming a mom did a number on their careers in some way.

But here we are telling a pollster that it’s not that bad.

“The perception that the work/life balancing act is mainly a female struggle no longer holds up in today’s workplace,” says Rich Thompson, Vice President of Training & Development for Adecco Group North America.

Sorry Rich. I agree that men are picking up more of the slack, but alas, it still is largely a “female struggle.”

But what I find most disturbing about this survey is that women don’t expect more, not just at home, but of their employers. Maybe that’s why work-life balance perks have not become widespread in the work world, because the people that need them the most aren’t outraged or demanding enough. Maybe it will take more men struggling with this balancing act to finally transform the workplace.