Download the full text of Justice Scalia writing for the majority and including the minority dissenting opinions right here:
Taking a break from work related matters today. Those who prefer less government intrusion and greater individual freedom and responsibility received a long-overdue assist from the Supreme Court. This decision is a fascinating and worthwhile read.
Job Hunting Is there a job listing site for free market, conservative and libertarian organizations? Career Planning Resume Writing Storing & organizing resumes without a dedicated program
Resume FAQ, Job Hunting & Interview FAQ:
How do I find a management job after being self-employed for 20 years?
How do I get recruiters to look at my resume?
What is the most common mistake job seekers make?
Why don’t recruiters state the name of the employer in job postings?
What is the risk in changing careers, self-employment, going back to college, lateral moves, or a dead end job?
Are employees at nonprofits paid less?
Working from home; finding a work-from-home job
What simple advice would you give to someone starting their career?
Negotiating Compensation
Negotiating salary: overstating your current income or desired salary can cost you
Blunders, gaffes and boners, oh my!
Should an older worker list early positions on a resume?
Should I omit the graduation date on my resume?
What should I say in my resume cover letter?
What one thing will most improve my resume?Hiring FAQ and Management FAQ:
Interviewing Candidates
What do you look for when you review resumes? How do you avoid overlooking a “golden nugget”?
Why is reference checking more important than interviewing?
Recruiting
How to write an effective job posting
Something Different:
Post a Question:
Unlike career related questions, which tend to be complex, this question is easily answered: No, we cannot save the Earth.
The Earth’s proximity to the Sun is essentially a “good news, bad news” situation; the good news is that our Sun provides light, heat and energy. The bad news is that the Sun will exhaust its hydrogen fuel within the next 5 billion years or so, causing it to grow to 250 times its current size and increase in brightness a thousand times over.
It goes without saying that the Sun’s personality change will render much of our technology obsolete, including sunscreen–regardless of spf rating. The Sun’s life change will produce hot flashes capable of melting any planet foolish enough to loiter closer than the orbit of Mars.
Unless we forestall the Sun’s transformation into a galactic bonfire, the Earth is destined to become an orbital version of a flaming marshmallow, slipping from its axis to be immolated by a morbidly obese Sun. It’s obvious, therefore, that efforts to “save the Earth” or “save the planet” are preempted by nature and our energies will be better spent figuring out how to migrate to a more youthful solar system.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal appears to endorse the idea that those who work for nonprofits, particularly libertarian advocacy organizations, earn less than those who “sell out” and work for “corporate America.” In “The Tragic Irony of Beltway Libertarianism” (May 21, 2008) Thomas Frank maintains that individuals can either work for an ideologically compatible, but low-paying, nonprofit, or “forsake, say, the Cato Institute and instead help ExxonMobil pile up the pelf”.
Frank appears to be making the claim that what might (or might not) be true of a sector of the economy (e.g. nonprofit organizations pay less than corporations) is also true for each employee within it. He also points out that, from time to time, individuals leave the nonprofit sector to earn a larger paycheck in the private sector. While true, this implies nothing about the relative pay in either sector, especially considering counter-examples where a private sector job is left for a higher-paying position at a nonprofit.
All employees have preferences about the type of employer they will work for, where they wish to live, length of commute, willingness to travel, and openness to relocation. Exercising any of these preferences potentially impacts income by reducing the number of acceptable employers. An engineer, for example, who prefers to design automobiles, will likely earn less than an engineer who has no preference and is free to take whatever job pays the most. Does this imply that automobile engineers earn less than non-automotive engineers? No. It implies only that those who have few, or no, work preferences have more positions to choose from and sacrifice nothing by taking the most lucrative job.
Generalizations about what “someone” might make at a nonprofit compared to what they might make in the private sector are meaningless. Nonprofits, like any employer, require workers with certain skills and abilities; they pay whatever it takes to get them (or get by without employees). Characteristics such as leadership ability, self-motivation, and critical thinking skills are sought by these organizations, while corporations often seek just the opposite in their employees. A self-motivated leader with critical thinking skills might very well earn much more working for a nonprofit than working in the private sector.
Over time, the likely result of sorting employees in the marketplace according to the skills required by employers is that each worker ends up in the field that most highly values that particular worker’s innate skills, and each worker has maximized income, within the confines of their personal preferences.
Another consideration is that, for the most part, nonprofits of the libertarian type Mr. Frank discusses, are tiny compared with the average business. The Cato Institute—with annual revenue of less than $25 million—is the “ExxonMobil” of the libertarian movement; by comparison, ExxonMobil’s annual revenue exceeds $400 Billion.
There are many types of skills and employee characteristics that may be more highly compensated in one sector of the economy or another, but the private sector, since it is so much larger and complex than the nonprofit sector, simply has more different types of jobs and, therefore, more opportunities for high income. But it is a mistake to average out the incomes from each sector, compare the average, and then conclude that each individual employee earns less in one sector than another. It’s entirely possible for the nonprofit sector to have lower average wages than the private sector, yet each employee in the nonprofit sector is earning more than if they worked for “corporate America.”
“Early Retirement, The website for people who used to work for a living”
Sounds good, except this site’s author applied for a full-time job.
“Thank you for inviting me to dialogue with you about any/all appropriate positions; I believe my experiences and skill sets closely match the position announcement.”
Always have a trusted friend read your proposed cover letter in order to avoid a first line fiasco.
“The under mentioned are the highlights of the experience that I can offer.”
Grammatically correct? I have no idea, but it reads like hell, and that’s why you should have someone read your cover letter.
Job candidates sometimes outsmart themselves when discussing compensation with a prospective employer. Forget what you may have learned about negotiating tactics, as you may sabotage the job offer.
Here’s what can happen: if you stretch the truth about how much you currently earn, or provide an inflated “minimum” amount of compensation you are willing to accept, the prospective employer may offer the job to another candidate who has asked for less.
Say, for example, you tell a prospective employer that you wish to earn $100,000, figuring you can then “negotiate” down to $90,000, an amount with which you would be pleased. The other candidate, however, may ask for $90,000, which is the number he or she really wants. Naturally, the employer takes both candidates at their word and proceeds to offer the job to the employee who will cost less (assuming, of course, both candidates have roughly equal skills).
Suppose you give the employer an honest, minimum compensation number and they then make an offer that is lower? This is not a problem; it doesn’t make a bit of difference what amount you ask for, or what amount they offer, since you alone control whether you accept the offer or not. If the offer is too low, turn it down and reiterate that the number you provided earlier–your minimum compensation amount–is truly the minimum offer you will accept.
If the employer is unwilling to come back with an offer at, or above your minimum, then either the employer has another candidate that is not quite as desirable as you, but somewhat less expensive, or the amount the employer offered is simply the most they are able to spend.
In my experience, employers do not typically reduce the amount of compensation they plan to offer when they learn the candidate is willing to accept less. Surprised? Think about it; if the employer decides that, for a variety of reasons, salary “X” is the right amount to pay for a certain quality of employee doing a particular job, then why pay a different amount? If money had been the most important consideration, then the employer could easily have sought out a less expensive employee.
I have also found that it is much better for the employer to find out before the offer is made that the compensation amount is not acceptable to the candidate. It is usually easier for the hiring manager to secure approval for higher compensation during the process of preparing the offer, especially if the request is based on specific information provided by the candidate. Once the offer is made and rejected, though, the manager’s harried effort to secure more money will likely be seen as an attempt to salvage a bungled hire.
Question: Are there employers hiring “remote” or e-commuting team members in the area of web production, content management or web editing?
I have read a lot of articles about this growing trend, and some envious examples of people working from the beach. But, in reality, are American companies willing to trust and hire someone for their talents and ability to produce without their regular presence at an office (not contractor or self-employed)? I’m looking for perspective and insight from both management with employees working from home, and from individuals who work from home.
- Is e-commuting a benefit that is offered upfront and detailed in job listings, or is it something that is usually negotiated?
- If you work from home in a tech-related, full-time job (not contractor or self-employed), could you share some tips on how you did it?
- What are some ways to “sell” the idea of working from home to your boss?
I’m not looking for a new job, but more wanting to understand the HR and Management related issues around this topic.
Josue Sierra
Marketing Lead at JPMorgan Chase
Answer
From the employer’s point of view, e-commuting is not viable for most jobs and as a result, some employers are hesitant to open the door to that option. Nearly all management positions require the manager to be on site in order to mentor their staff and direct their activities. By the same token, less experienced employees who wish to develop management skills and eventually become managers themselves cannot expect to do so if they work off site.
From a quality of life perspective, working from home appears to offer advantages—flexibility in regard to work hours, less micro-management, and lower commuting costs. However, individuals who have worked from home or in a one-person office are aware of the disadvantages of this arrangement— loneliness (no social interaction with office peers), difficulty in getting motivated, and lack of real-time information flows that may affect the direction of the project you may be working on.
Taking these considerations into account, there are certain types of work where the trade-offs are worthwhile. By foregoing the requirement that an employee work on site, an organization can gain access to a larger pool of qualified candidates and possibly lower their costs as well. In fact, this is exactly what outsourcing is, since there isn’t really much difference between having an off site employee and an off site vendor—the considerations underlying the decision-making process are much the same.
To answer your last question first, selling the idea of working from home is tough, since your boss already has the preferred situation and is not likely to settle for less. The only real leverage you have is if you offer to work from home instead of quitting. This may appear to contradict what I’ve just said above, but keep in mind that you’ve already been hired and so the employer has already considered the question of hiring someone to work off site. The reasons for hiring someone off site—access to a larger candidate pool and potentially lower cost—don’t apply to you as an existing employee.
From the employer’s perspective, converting an onsite employee to an off site one has few advantages (your office or cubicle becomes available to another employee, yet only if you never work in the office), but many disadvantages (less accountability, and more difficult and slower communication). Unless the employer is faced with losing the employee and having to find a replacement, there is no advantage to the employer in agreeing to your proposal.
As for job listings, sometimes the employer will state upfront that the position can be performed from home. If the employer does not mention that in a job posting, you should raise that point during the first conversation with an interested employer and see how they respond.
