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.

Readers often ask me to help them figure out what type of job or profession they should pursue. Lately, this question has come up even more frequently as people lose their jobs, or feel the ax is near, and figure this is a good time to go into a career they can really love.

I wish I had a career crystal ball so I could tell all of you what path you should follow when you’re ready to change careers, or just out of school wondering what to do with the rest of your life.

I don’t.

While individuals have to do this career homework themselves, there are tools out there to help you narrow your search.

I’m not adverse to personality and career tests. There are pitfalls, and I’ve written about those in the past. But overall, they can give you a good starting off point.

Today, I decided to take a couple of tests myself to see what type of job may suit my personality. Don’t worry, I’m not giving up my day job. I was just curious and figured it might help all of you to see if my results are on target or not. I’ve also asked my intern, Katherine, to take both tests. This will give us a good gauge of what these tests come up with for two people at very different points in their careers, one established, the other trying to figure out what the heck she should do.

I decided to Google “career test”.

The first site I came up with was something called SimilarMinds.

The test was short and sweet and here’s what it came up with for me:

You are an Inspirer, possible professions include - conference planner, speech pathologist, HR development trainer, ombudsman, clergy, journalist, newscaster, career counselor, housing director, character actor, marketing consultant, musician/composer, artist, information-graphics designer, human resource manager, merchandise planner, advertising account manager, dietitian/nutritionist, speech pathologist, massage therapist, editor/art director.

You all probably noticed that “journalist” is included it the types of jobs that would work for my personality. But so are “speech pathologist” and “clergy.”

Here’s Katherine’s results:

Guardian, possible professions include - counseling, ministry, library work, nursing , secretarial, curators, bookkeepers, dental hygienists, computer operator, personnel administrator, paralegal, real estate agent, artist, interior decorator, retail owner, musician, elementary school teacher, physical therapist, nurse, social worker, personnel counselor, alcohol/drug counselor.

This tests seems to me to be a bit like what you’d get from a fortune teller at a carnival. They usually tell you things that a broad and far reaching, and hope you jump on one something they say that applies to your life.

I’m not sure what you really get out of something like this.

I decided to do another test that had a bit more meat behind it, so I asked Juliet Wehr Jones of career counseling website CareerKey what she suggested, and she sent me The Career Key test.

This test costs about $10 to take and it’s much more elaborate and includes many more questions.

I scored highest on in the “Artistic” category with “Social” right behind. And I was able to be a bit more proactive with this test picking the types of jobs I would like so “poet,” “editorial writer,” and “bartender” were all on my list. That works for me.

Katherine scored highest in the “Social” category and these are the jobs that were most suited for her, according to the test:

Clinical or Counseling Psychologist
Counselor
Social Worker
Licensed Practical Nurse
College Teacher
Fitness Worker

So, what did we get out of these tests. I pretty much figured out I’m doing what I should be doing. But if I ever decide to make a change, I may open up a bar.

Katherine says she got more out of the Career Key test. “That technically I should be some kind of counselor. I think there’s a little bit to it.”

But, she adds, “real estate agent. Never. Just no.”

And, “if I was a nurse I’d probably kill somebody or something. Like ‘oops, wrong medicine. Sorry.’”

The one thing I would caution is that a bad test could actually do more harm than good at a time when you might be vulnerable and trying to figure out what your next step should be.

Lawrence K. Jones and Juliet Wehr Jones, both of Career Key, offered these tips for people wondering how to choose the right test:

* Consider taking a high quality career interest inventory. The best valid interest inventory will do four things: help you understand yourself better, match you with careers that are likely to lead to satisfaction and success, suggest careers you had not thought of, and give you comprehensive information about each one. Through this process, you learn about yourself, the pros and cons of each job option, which helps you make a successful career decision.

* For a serious career decision, choose a serious, valid test. Quizzes, games, sorters, profilers, and finders that assess and match you with jobs are all career tests. To be helpful, they must be valid measures. But few of them are. For a test to be “valid,” there must be published, scientific evidence that it measures, in fact, what the author claims it measures. If you want accurate information about yourself and job options that fit you, take a valid test.

* Make sure the test website contains information about the test’s validity. It should mention specific studies or offer a professional manual you can see. A manual will describe validity studies. If no such information is available, avoid using it.

* Look beyond credentials, links, and endorsements. A Ph.D.’s endorsement or authorship does not make a test valid; anyone, with or without a Ph.D. can create an invalid career test. Links from schools, government and professional organizations are well-intentioned, but often unreliable.

* Seek the help of a professionally trained career counselor who recognizes the importance of test validity. They can help you choose the right test and help you interpret your results. The National Career Development Association, www.ncda.org, provides helpful consumer guidelines on selecting a counselor and CounselorFind of the National Board of Certified Counselors, www.nbcc.org, can help you find a certified counselor near you.

But the bottom line is, no test will ever tell you what you should be doing with your life.

If you rely on any one test, or any one person to make such decisions you might as well just invest in a crystal ball.

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.

Well, I can’t say I didn’t look at email on my iPhone at all this past weekend. But I did limit my e-glances to only one or two a day.

And guess what? The headache I had for two weeks has disappeared.

I wonder how much my little mobile menace was contributing to my head pain.

We decided to take a mini vacation and take Monday off. I spent a few lazy days with my husband, kids and friends on the sandy beach, while listening to the intoxicating sounds of the waves crashing on the surf. That must have done a bit to help. But not sitting in front of a computer or constantly checking email must have also done the trick.

It’s hard for me to unhook myself. I admit it.

For a moment this weekend I wondered what was life like before email and the Internet. Could you survive today without it?

Yes. It is possible.

About 20 million Americans have never sent an email. I’m not kidding folks.

These are the findings of a technology survey by research company Park Associates.

It’s hard to imagine never having sent an email. It sort of sounds liberating, no?

Anyway, this technological abyss exposed in the survey has a lot to do with the digital divide in this country. Age and income levels play a big role in the reason these individuals haven’t sent email, or surfed the Web for that matter.

“Internet connections have slowly increased in U.S. households, but getting the disconnected minority online will continue to be difficult,” says John Barrett, director of research at Parks Associates. “Age and economics are important factors, but the heart of the challenge is deeper. Many people just don’t see a reason to use computers and do not associate technology with the needs and demands of their daily lives.”

I can’t help but think, for a second, that ignorance is bliss in this regard.

I know, we need email, right? But, surely, we can go through a day or two cyber free.

It’s easy to identify someone who has a disability if they’re in a wheel chair or walking around with a seeing eye dog.

But what about a worker who wears a hearing aid or an employee who has epilepsy?

Can a manager fire someone with a hearing aid because they use a hearing aid? Can a boss demote a worker who has an epileptic fit?

Today, the answer is pretty much “yes.”

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act the law is pretty clear on those easy to spot disabilities. You can’t fire someone because they’re blind or unable to walk.

For all those other disabled employees out there who have what seems like less constraining physical issues or for those who are able to deal with their ailments through the use of medicines or prosthetics, for example, they are not typically covered under the ADA.

All that may change soon. The House passed a bill this week that would expand the ADA to cover disabilities that didn’t come under the really disabled umbrella.

This from the Washington Post this week:

WASHINGTON — People who take medicine to control epilepsy, diabetes or cancer or use prosthetic limbs or hearing aids could use the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight workplace discrimination under legislation the House passed Wednesday.

Lawmakers said the Supreme Court has limited the ADA’s reach since it was signed into law by the first President Bush in 1990. “For some the ADA is failing to live up to its promise,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.

The bill, passed 402-17, is designed to bring people back under the ADA’s protection. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Under the ADA today, a disability would have to “substantially” impact a person daily activities. Under the new legislation the wording would be changed to “materially restricts”, opening up the door for many disabled individuals who are challenged by their disability but can do many day-do-day functions we all do.

So what will this mean for the American workforce? Simply, more people will be considered disabled under the ADA.

“This means more employees will be able to ask for an accommodation even when the medication they take or the device they use (such as a hearing aid) makes them fully capable to do their job,” says David Ritter, an expert on employment law and chair of Neal Gerber Eisenberg’s Labor & Employment Group. “Employers will have to grant accommodations and engage in an interactive process with many more employees.”

It’s unfortunate that we need a law to force employers to “engage in an interactive process” with their workers.

“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?

Since I wrote my book, “From the Sandbox to the Corner Office”, I’m often asked — What makes successful CEOs and entrepreneurs different from the rest of us?

I’ve already talked a lot about how many of these overachievers were spanked as children. That seemed to get those most interest from the mass media.

But Jennifer Remling wanted to get beyond that. She started a project called “Carve Your Own Road” and has been traveling around the country trying to understand the entrepreneurial spirit. Her book on her journey comes out next year.

She asked me recently to do a webinar for her website, and the main theme was what successful people seem to have in common when it comes to their career approach.

Risk. Risk. Risk. That’s basically the overriding theme I’ve found when interviewing top executives and heavy weight entrepreneurs.

They weren’t afraid to take risks, even though they often had butterflies in their stomachs when it came to making career leaps.

Here’s a link to the webinar

One of the key discussion points was about asking for help. Yes. Many of these successful men and women asked for a lot of help on their climb to the top. The majority talked about the mentors they were lucky enough to be mentored by along the way. And I’m not talking about formalized mentoring programs that are now so prevalent in Corporate America. These were organically grown relationships.

A CEO for a major bank told me she used to pull up her chair to her manager’s desk and watch him work, asking him questions along the way. The CEO of a major retailer told me he stopped his retail idol in a fancy restaurant to introduce himself, and ended up in a long-term mentoring relationship with him.

It’s all about taking risks and learning from people that are smarter than you. Pretty simple.

There are lots of women studying to become doctors. And tons wanting to be lawyers. But, for some reason, women are not breaking down the doors of MBA programs dying to enroll.

Based on recent data, women made up nearly 50 percent of enrollment at law and medical schools, but only 27 percent of the pie in MBA programs.

Now, I want to preface this whole blog post by saying I’m not advocating women run out and get MBAs. I have written in the past about how an MBA isn’t always a guaranteed ticket to career success. But I think it is curious that more women are not pursuing this higher business degree, and in turn not ending up in the upper echelon of the business world, or the corporate world for that matter.

So what the heck is going on? Why aren’t more women pursuing an MBA?

I spoke with Elissa Ellis Sangster, executive director of the Forté Foundation, a group that promotes MBA and other forms of business education for women, and she had an earful to say about the matter.

“Young women really don’t understand what options there are in business,” she explains. It’s not all about Wall Street, she says, there are tons of options for savvy women who hold an MBA in their hands, everything from working for non profits to entrepreneurship.

The people in women’s “influencer set” - including family, friends, career counselors - tend not to steer females toward business, especially women who are initially all about liberal arts in college.

“For women,” she adds, “there’s a disconnect between the nurture idea and wanting to do something good, and the message they get from business. They see negative imagery out there. They see it as not contributing to society.”

HELLO GALS OUT THERE!!

Is anyone paying attention to the news? There’s a mortgage crisis going on in this country that was perpetuated by people in the business world, Wall Streeters and bankers, and, they were mainly men at the helm of this. I’m not bashing men here, it’s just the reality of who runs these organizations.

Tell me this mortgage mess has not impacted society profoundly.

OK, sorry, got off track a bit. Back to Ellis Sangster.

While she says an MBA or a career in business isn’t all about money, it is also all about money.

And what’s wrong with that? Money isn’t dirty. It can be used for great good if we want it to. But we won’t have any say in it being used for great good if we’re not in the business driver’s seat with men.

How come we think it’s odd for women to want money or to have control over money? This goes to the heart of why women are still making 75 cents on the dollar compared to men and why our numbers are dwindling in the corner office.

Look, an MBA is no guarantee that you’ll make it to the top, and Ellis Sangster agrees with that, but it will give you a boost of confidence in the workplace and it will shut up some of those lunkheads in the business world that already think you have a strike against you because you don’t have a penis.

I don’t want to sound cynical here, but there still is bias in the workplace and every female executive I’ve interviewed has experienced it. When you walk in the door of a new organization or a new division, an MBA will definitely give you that little boost of credibility because naysayers will at least know you committed yourself in some way to the business cause.

To help women think a bit harder about MBAs and business, the Forte Foundation holds forums with successful female MBA holders around the country, and they’ve also started going to campuses to talk to young girls about careers in business.

Parents also need to get involved and talk to their daughters about all types of careers without excluding the potential of a job in business, advises Ellis Sangster.

Interestingly enough, she often gets calls from dads wanting information on how their daughters can pursue an MBA. But the moms never call, she says.

Man, we have a long way to go.

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.