work

FCIC Delays Report Despite Republican Opposition, Citing ‘Very Powerful Interests’ Seeking To Undermine Investigations

November 18, 2010

The bipartisan panel created to investigate the roots of the financial crisis voted Wednesday to delay the Dec. 15 publication of their report despite Republican opposition, foreshadowing disagreements that are sure to arise when the commission attempts to reach a consensus on the causes of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s 6-to-3 vote came after the panel’s four Republicans argued privately against the decision to ignore the statutory deadline set by Congress. One of the Republicans, former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, was unable to participate in the vote, though he made his dissent known. The report will now be released in January. The move comes on the heels of revelations that the nation’s biggest mortgage companies employed possibly-fraudulent tactics in trying to foreclose on distressed homeowners. The recent disclosures by the likes of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial that they used flawed documentation practices sparked inquiries by all 50 state attorneys general, as well as federal prosecutors and federal regulators, among others. Those investigations are ongoing. The crisis commission is also looking into the matter, said Phil Angelides, the panel’s Democratic chairman. The Republicans on the panel are resisting further inquiries, according to people familiar with the matter. Angelides said in an interview that “there are very powerful interests” seeking to undermine the panel’s investigation. “People who have trillions of dollars at stake who have been watching our efforts closely,” Angelides said. “There have been efforts throughout the year to undermine me and my fellow commissioners.” Among other things, Angelides’ panel is probing the documentation practices that federal watchdogs say may be emblematic of the entire mortgage securitization chain, in which lenders may have used bogus documents when originating mortgages and passed them through to other entities before they were sold to investors, ignoring basic due diligence along the way. The discovery of the use of “robo-signers” — employees whose sole job was to rubber-stamp documents without actually reading them or verifying their contents — “may have concealed much deeper problems in the mortgage market,” the Congressional Oversight Panel reported Tuesday. Large lenders and Wall Street banks may be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in unexpected losses, threatening to undermine “the very financial stability that the Troubled Asset Relief Program was designed to protect,” the COP report noted. The information the crisis commission has gathered from its numerous public hearings has added fuel to that fire. During an April hearing, the panel heard from Richard Bowen, former chief underwriter for Citigroup’s consumer-lending unit, who said he discovered in mid-2006 that more than 60 percent of mortgages the bank bought from other firms and sold to investors were “defective.” Investors were not informed, however. In September, the former president of the nation’s leading home-loan due-diligence firm testified that as many as 28 percent of mortgages given to borrowers with poor credit that the firm examined for Wall Street banks failed to meet basic underwriting standards, and that nearly half of them were likely sold to investors anyway. Keith Johnson, formerly of Clayton Holdings, said he was unaware of any disclosure to unwitting investors by the banks. Together, the testimony and accompanying data could bolster pension funds and other investors in their pursuit to force Wall Street banks to buy back the bogus mortgages they peddled. Investors are trying to use the rights prescribed in the agreements from their initial purchases of the mortgage-linked securities. Analysts from Compass Point Research and Trading LLC pegged potential losses for 11 global banks to reach $179.2 billion, the Washington-based firm said in an Aug. 17 report. The crisis panel, though, was expected to be wrapping up its report on the crisis. The law that created the commission says: “On December 15, 2010, the commission shall submit to the President and to the Congress a report containing the findings and conclusions of the commission on the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” In a statement, the four Republicans on the panel — Holtz-Eakin, Vice Chairman Bill Thomas, Keith Hennessey and Peter Wallison — said that the commission is “statutorily required to deliver the report on December 15.” They added that the panel “has had over a year to complete the report” and that the delay was due to a need to “accommodate the publication of a book-length document.” The FCIC hopes to publish a book on its findings, similar to the national best-seller that came from the work of the 9/11 Commission. The crisis panel recently switched publishers. The law allows the panel an additional 60 days “for the purpose of concluding the activities of the commission … and disseminating the final report.” It’s under that additional 60-day authority that Angelides and his fellow Democrats are using to justify their delay by up to six weeks. The panel’s authority formally ends Feb. 13. To date, the commission has interviewed more than 700 people, examined hundreds of thousands of documents and held 19 days of public hearings, Angelides wrote in a Wednesday letter to President Barack Obama. In an interview, Angelides said his team of investigators continue to pursue leads in their “ongoing investigation.” He added that they’re also interviewing new witnesses, in addition to circling back to old ones, indicating that the panel continues to push its investigation further. Congress tasked the panel to deliver its findings on 22 distinct areas, ranging from monetary policy to accounting rules and international capital flows. They also include the role of “fraud and abuse in the financial sector, including fraud and abuse towards consumers in the mortgage sector”; “lending practices and securitization”; and “the quality of due diligence undertaken by financial institutions.” All three of those areas would seem to include the current mortgage and foreclosure documentation issues roiling big banks and the financial sector. However, there may be complications in trying to advance its investigation. Because the law says that the commission’s findings must be sent to the President by Dec. 15, there are open questions regarding the validity of further investigative actions beyond that date, including issuing subpoenas, people familiar with the crisis panel’s efforts said. For example, a firm may have grounds to resist the subpoena, these people said. Hennessey wrote that a vote to delay the report “would violate the law, or at a minimum would be inconsistent with the law,” according to a post on his blog. “The FCIC is a creation of a law, and we must be governed by that law whether we commissioners like it or not,” he wrote. The crisis panel isn’t the first to unilaterally delay the release of its congressionally-mandated report. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism blew past its deadline, as did the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Care Facility Needs in the 21st Century. Those panels, however, didn’t have subpoena authority. And their reports were largely advisory. The FCIC can make criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. Like the FCIC, the 9/11 Commission also had substantial powers, and it, too, extended its own deadline. However, the 9/11 panel got its extension from an act of Congress. Angelides said the extra time will be critical for the panel’s investigation and subsequent report. In a statement, the spokesman for Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Connecticut Democrat supports the panel’s investigation, and was not opposed to the report’s delay. Dodd indicated that a “brief delay to allow the commission to finalize and prepare a more thorough report was not unreasonable,” spokesman Sean Oblack wrote in an email.

Read the full article →

Michael Moore: They Said They Would Push Me "Off a Cliff"

November 17, 2010

Yesterday, on the TV and radio show Democracy Now hosted by Amy Goodman, the former Vice President of CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, revealed that CIGNA met with the other big health insurers to hatch a plan to “push” yours truly “off a cliff.” The interview contains new revelations about just how frightened the health industry was that Sicko might ignite a public wave of support for “socialized medicine.” So the large health insurance companies came together over a common cause: Stop the American people from going to see Sicko — and the way to do that was to cause some form of harm to me (either personally, professionally or… physically?). Take a look at this stunning section of the interview with Wendell Potter: WENDELL POTTER [former executive, CIGNA]: …We were concerned that the movie [ Sicko ] would be as successful as Fahrenheit 9/11 had been. And we knew that if it were, it really would change public opinion about our health care system in ways that would be harmful to the profits of health insurers. So, it was very important for this [attack] campaign to succeed. At one point during a strategy meeting, one of the people from [the insurance companies' public relations firm] APCO said that if our efforts, our initial efforts, were not successful, then we’d have to move to an element of the campaign to push Michael Moore off a cliff. And not meaning to do that literally, but to — AMY GOODMAN: Are you sure? WENDELL POTTER: Well, I’m not sure. To tell you the truth, when I started doing what I’m doing [as a whistleblower], I was concerned about my own health and well-being, maybe just from paranoia. But these companies play to win. And we’re talking about some big bucks at stake here — billions and billions and billions of dollars. AMY GOODMAN: So what were they talking about when they said, “If this doesn’t work, we’re going to push him off the cliff”? WENDELL POTTER: Well, it would be just an incredibly intense PR effort, if necessary, to spend more premium dollars to defame Michael Moore, to discredit him even more as a filmmaker. AMY GOODMAN: So, were you doing research on him? WENDELL POTTER: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. AMY GOODMAN: You were going — personally? WENDELL POTTER: Well, I was a part of the effort. I didn’t — that was part of the reason for hiring APCO and to work with a trade association, is that it relieved me of the responsibility of doing that kind of work. You paid for it to be done by people who were experts in doing that kind of research. AMY GOODMAN: But they were doing an investigation into him personally? WENDELL POTTER: Well, absolutely. We knew as much about him probably as he knows about himself. AMY GOODMAN: About his wife, about his kid, about — WENDELL POTTER: Oh, yeah. You know, it’s important to know everything that you might be able to use in some kind of a campaign against someone, to discredit them professionally and often personally. AMY GOODMAN: And did you use that? WENDELL POTTER: You use it if necessary. The interview goes on as Potter reveals how his front group was able to get its talking points and smears into stories in the New York Times and CNN. It is a chilling look inside how easy it is to manipulate our mainstream media — and just how worried the health insurance companies were that the American people might demand a true universal health care system. In particular, Potter talks about how they may have succeeded in influencing CNN to run a factually untrue story about Sicko by its reporter, Sanjay Gupta (which led to my infamous encounter with Wolf Blitzer and later, an apology from CNN for getting their facts wrong). Potter believes his work to defame Sicko succeeded, as the film didn’t end up posting Fahrenheit 9/11 grosses. To be clear, Sicko went on to become the 3rd largest grossing documentary of all time at that point. And as the release of Sicko in June of 2007 was the first time since the defeat of Hillary Clinton’s healthcare bill in 1994 that the issue of health insurance was brought to the forefront of the national media, I believe it helped to reignite the issue during the 2008 election year by exposing millions of Americans to the truth about the health insurance industry. More than one person on Capitol Hill will admit that Sicko was a big help in rallying public support for the compromise bill that eventually passed earlier this year. But I agree, their smear campaign was effective and did create the dent they were hoping for — single payer and the public option never even made it into the real discussion on the floor of Congress. (There was really only one reason Sicko didn’t sell as many tickets as Fahrenheit and that was because of a felony that was committed — a felony that I will discuss for the first time in the coming weeks or months ahead on my website . Stay tuned.) Please read or watch the entire interview with Wendell Potter. It’s a fascinating peek behind the curtain of how corporate America really runs this country. And how if any of us get in their way, then those people must be stopped. It begs the question: Seeing how there’s more of us than there are of them, how long will we let their takeover of our democracy continue? God Bless the Ruling Class, Michael Moore P.S. Over the next few days I will continue this examination of the Wendell Potter revelations on Democracy Now and in his new book. Please check in at my website .

Read the full article →

Don McNay: All the Devils Are Here: Best Business Book of the Year

November 16, 2010

Please allow me to introduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste – Mick Jagger and Keith Richards When New York Times columnist Joe Nocera told me that he was taking an extended leave to write a book about the financial crisis (with Bethany McLean), I wished my friend well. In the back of my mind I was thinking that the last thing the world needed was another book about the financial crisis. I was wrong. We needed this book. It’s the best business book of 2010, with Gary Rivlin’s Broke USA a close second. McLean and Nocera know how to tell a story. They put numbers and nuances into human drama and wrote a business book as riveting as a novel. After reading books like Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big To Fail , Michael Lewis’ The Big Short , Gregory Zuckerman’s The Greatest Trade Ever and Roger Lowenstein’s The End of Wall Street , I thought that the financial crisis had been covered with great books by great writers and there wasn’t anything else left to say. McLean and Nocera were able to build on the story and trace the crisis back, 30 years ago, to its roots. I had expected the book to be well written. It is. Bethany McLean had been the coauthor of the monster best seller; The Smartest Guys in the Room and her work at Vanity Fair and Fortune have always been first rate. It’s unusual for me to agree with CNBC commentator Jim Cramer but he is correct when he calls Nocera, “the best business writer alive.” Nocera’s 1994 book, A Piece of the Action: How the Middle Class Joined the Money Class , is considered one of the best pieces of business history ever written. What makes All the Devils Are Here my top pick for 2010 is noted in its subtitle. It is truly the hidden history of the financial crisis. It’s easy for us in the media to vilify key players in the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs and Hank Paulson are particular punching bags for me. McLean and Nocera give a “straight down the middle” view of all the players. I got the perception that the authors viewed Paulson as a well-intentioned and possibly heroic figure. I’m not buying a kinder, gentler Hank Paulson but McLean and Nocera don’t argue a viewpoint. They tell a story and let the readers pick their own villains. Some of us want to tie the crisis to Wall Street and Washington. Others want to blame greedy and ill-informed consumers, rouge traders and brokers, out-of-control lenders and people with a Pollyanna view of the world. McLean and Nocera make a convincing argument that it’s all of the above. And more. The authors do an excellent job of taking us to the roots of the financial crisis. Businesses concerned immediate profits with lapdog regulators and friends in Washington. Greed leading to stupidity at every level. It could be a 25-year-old mortgage broker making six figures or the heads of Wall Street firms like AIG and Goldman Sachs. All made mistakes that got us to where we are. The authors show how efforts to boost the housing market at Fannie Mae and the Federal Reserve Board lead to tons of unintended consequences. McLean and Nocera have ferreted out the root causes of the financial crisis. Causes that don’t really show up on the surface. Their unique view of history, research, and detail would make this a great book. The writing style and flow are what make it a masterpiece. Once I received the book, I could not put it down until I hit the ending, 380 pages later. Like The Smartest Guys in the Room or A Piece of the Action , this book will have an impact far beyond the literary world. McLean and Nocera don’t give us an idea as to where to look for angels. But the book is comprehensive, and I feel certain that all the devils are here. Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond Kentucky is an award winning financial columnist and Huffington Post Contributor. You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com McNay founded McNay Settlement Group, a structured settlement and financial consulting firm, in 1983 and Kentucky Guardianship Administrators LLC in 2000. You can read more about both at www.mcnay.com McNay has Master’s Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Eastern Kentucky University Hall of Distinguished Alumni. McNay has written two books. Most recent is Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win The Lottery McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field.

Read the full article →

Alexandra Levit: The Corporate Freshman: If Something Is Needed, Create It

November 10, 2010

Some of you may recall that I was a complete dud in my first corporate PR job. My boss despised me, my colleagues thought I was overeager, and it took me two years to get a promotion that people with half my work ethic achieved in six months. The second company that employed me kindly spent a few thousand dollars sending me to a professional development course that changed my career and my life. I like to think that everything that the course taught me about developing a strong reputation at work, being diplomatic with colleagues, and driving my career forward was a good investment, because I was much more effective after that. The truth is, though, that not every college graduate has access to training like I had, and some really gifted people spend their post-college careers floundering because they aren’t given the chance to learn the skills and strategies that will meet with success. I got tired of waiting for someone else to fix this problem, so I worked with the Business Roundtable , the HR Policy Association , and Accenture to create JobSTART 101 , a free online course that prepares college students to meet and exceed employer expectations when they enter the workforce. It includes video and workbook components covering topics like how to establish your e-brand and how to problem-solve on the job — basically, all the information I wish I’d had in my back pocket when I was just starting out. If you’re a student or recent grad, I hope you’ll check it out for some decent advice, but more importantly, I hope each of you goes into work today and thinks about what’s sorely needed in your company and industry. And then if you can create it, go for it. The world — and your career – will thank you for it.

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: The Louis Berger Group: It May Be a Crook But At Least Its Our Crook

November 6, 2010

Are charges that private military contractors commit egregious acts of fraud overblown? Not according to recent news. McClatchy Newspapers reports that the Louis Berger Group, one of the U.S. government’s highest profile American contractors in Afghanistan has agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars to settle allegations that it overbilled the U.S. government. In return, the Justice Department will end its investigation into allegations that Louis Berger was intentionally overcharging American taxpayers. The settlement, which is just over $69 million, includes civil and criminal penalties. Louis Berger’s alleged overbilling, a practice that dates to at least the mid-1990s, swelled to tens of millions in lost tax dollars. In 2006, a former Louis Berger employee handed the government evidence against the company, two months before the U.S. Agency for International Development tapped Louis Berger to jointly oversee $1.4 billion in reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan. Court documents reveal that the Justice Department has been negotiating a deal that would “aid in preserving the company’s continuing eligibility to participate” in federal contracting in Afghanistan and elsewhere. According to McClatchy Louis Berger is accused of manipulating overhead cost data and overhead rate proposals submitted to the U.S. government and several states including Massachusetts, Nevada and Virginia. In some instances the company is accused of shifting overhead costs from private clients to federal and state contracts, where they were less likely to be noticed. A press conference was held in Newark, NJ today to announce developments in the government’s investigation. According to Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, where the Berger Group is headquartered, Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, and Tony West, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice two former senior LBG employees pleaded guilty this morning to their roles in the scheme. Salvatore Pepe, LBG’s former Chief Financial Officer, and Precy Pellettieri, the former Controller, admitted to conspiring to defraud USAID by obtaining contract payments billed at falsely inflated overhead rates. According to documents filed in these cases and statements made in court: LBG provides engineering and other consulting services to private and public entities, including federal agencies, state agencies, and foreign governments. Several of LBG’s largest contracts were with USAID, an independent federal government agency that advances U.S. foreign policy by supporting economic growth, agriculture, trade, global health, democracy, and humanitarian assistance in developing countries – including countries destabilized by violent conflict. USAID awarded several multimillion-dollar contracts to LBG for rehabilitative and reconstructive work in Iraq and Afghanistan. From at least 1999 through August 2007, LBG, through its former executives and management employees, intentionally overbilled the U.S. government in connection with contracts for work performed overseas. The scheme to defraud the government was carried out by Pepe and Pellettieri, at the direction of a former executive. Pepe directly supervised Pellettieri, who supervised LBG’s general accounting division. Both were responsible for ensuring the integrity of LBG’s cost data with respect to the calculation of overhead rates that LBG charged to USAID and other agencies. LBG charged the federal government these rates on “cost plus” contracts, which enabled contractors to pass on their overhead costs to the agency in general proportion to how much labor LBG devoted to the government contracts. Pepe and Pellettieri admitted that from September 2001 through August 2007, they agreed with each other and others to bill USAID and other federal agencies for LBG’s overhead costs at falsely inflated overhead rates. They agreed to target an overhead rate above 140 – meaning that for every dollar of labor devoted to a USAID contract, LBG would receive an additional $1.40 in overhead expenses and total profits allegedly incurred by LBG. As part of this conspiracy, Pepe and Pellettieri agreed to classify non-federal overhead as federal overhead, which had the effect of increasing the rate charged to the government. For example, Pepe supervised Pellettieri in reclassifying the work hours of LBG’s corporate employees, such as those in the general accounting division, to make it appear as if they worked exclusively on federal projects when they did not. The defendants reclassified these hours without the employees’ knowledge and without investigating whether the employees had correctly accounted for their time. While it is great the U.S. government has investigated and fined the Berger group it is important to note that this came about because of a whistleblower lawsuit under the False Claims Act and not because of the superb auditing capabilities of the feds. And it seems unlikely the Berger Group is the only perp. The sheer number of contracts in Afghanistan makes that unlikely. An October 27 report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) found that DOD, State, and USAID reported more than $17.7 billion in obligations made against contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants for Afghanistan reconstruction during fiscal years 2007-2009. SIGAR identified about 7,000 contractors and other entities, including for-profit and non-profit organizations and multilateral organizations. Given that the Justice Department has been negotiating a deal that would “aid in preserving the company’s continuing eligibility to participate” in federal contracting in Afghanistan and elsewhere it appears that the government regards Louis Berger in the same light as the Bush and Obama administrations regarded Wall Street investment firms, i.e., too big to fail. I wonder how that fits in with the concept of ethical contracting.

Read the full article →

Brigid O’Farrell: Women Want to Work Construction. Let’s Help Them Get Jobs.

November 4, 2010

After the crash, the downturn was dubbed a “mancession.” As the meme continues to circulate, the Roosevelt Institute’s New Deal 2.0 blog asked leading thinkers to help sort fact from fiction. Are men suffering more than women in a weak economy? Is Washington doing enough to address female unemployment? How do we ensure a jobs agenda that’s fair and equitable? In the final part of the series, ” The Myth of the Mancession? Women & the Jobs Crisis “, Brigid O’Farrell calls for a full employment policy that benefits women ready to work in non-traditional trades. In this Great Recession, there is no question that the construction industry has been hard hit. Unemployment for construction occupations was almost 20% last year and reached a record 26% in February 2010, according to the U. S. Department of Labor . But is the laid-off electrician who was earning $856 a week, and is likely a union member with health benefits, suffering more than the home health aid still earning $430 a week, with no benefits and no union? Are men in the higher-paying construction industry suffering more than women in the lower-paying health care sector or women who are more likely to be single parents and living in poverty ? Who is suffering more, however, is the wrong question. Everyone but the very rich are suffering in this recession. In the 21st century, the federal government needs to have both a short-term stimulus program and a long-term economic plan that supports creating good jobs and decent wages for all workers without discrimination based on gender or race. It needs to have a jobs agenda that is fair and equitable. Government policies should not support one group of workers at the expense of others. Stimulus money going to the depressed infrastructure industry needs to create jobs that are equally accessible to men and women, minorities and non-minorities. Stimulus money in the new green energy industry should create jobs and actively recruit workers regardless of gender and race and not reinforce discrimination prohibited by law. Let’s focus more closely on women in the predominantly male, blue collar world of construction trades. Yes, there are women in these jobs. It is important to note that according to the Department of Labor in 2005 , before the recession began, only slightly fewer women had joined the construction trades, about 274,000, than had become lawyers, 290,000. There were slightly more tradeswomen than women physicians, 268,000. Women, however, had become 30% of lawyers and 32% of doctors, but fewer than 5% of the electricians, plumbers or bricklayers. Despite three decades of equal employment policies, job training programs, and thousands of women showing that they are interested in and capable of performing this work, the jobs remain segregated and the women who are there are joining the unemployment lines. Tradeswomen and researchers have identified many of the barriers to women’s employment in skilled trades, including the socialization of young girls, employer discrimination in hiring and promotion, male coworker and union hostility, and lack of enforcement by government regulators. There is also evidence to support the kinds of outreach and training programs, as well as organizational changes, that are needed to recruit more women, end hostile workplace environments and sexual harassment (which can be life threatening in these jobs), reform employer personnel systems, and engage unions and employers in positive changes for hiring, training, promoting, and retaining women. These programs begin with vigorous enforcement of the laws, especially Executive Order 11246 , which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and prohibits gender discrimination by government contractors. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) established the first goals for women in apprenticeship and skilled trades in 1978. The Obama administration and Congress have undertaken several initiatives to address gender segregation in construction trades while increasing employment. Earlier this year, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis met with tradeswomen, advocates, and researchers to discuss the barriers and successes for women in the trades. Patricia Shiu, director of the OFCCP, and Sara Manzano-Diaz, director of the Women’s Bureau, have held hearings around the country. The Engineering News-Record reports that Shiu’s office, which enforces the executive order, is reevaluating what “good-fair effort” means, and she declared that, “In order for the numbers to change, we have to be willing and able to enforce the laws that we implement, and we are.” There are no goals set for women and minorities to receive infrastructure jobs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But the stimulus program does include $20 million for grants in transportation and technology training and includes supportive services for women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups. The Women’s Bureau has again awarded over one million dollars in grants for outreach and training for women in apprenticeship and nontraditional occupations, the WANTO program . Congressman Jared Polis, from Colorado, has introduced H.R. 4830 , the Women & Workforce Investment for Nontraditional Jobs Act. This Women WIN Act would authorize up to $100 million for recruiting, training, and retraining women in nontraditional jobs and establish a national commission to hold hearings and make policy recommendations. Are these actions enough? Not yet. Policies and programs need to be supported with budgets and staff who implement rewards and penalties. It is too early to measure the effects of new initiatives or to predict the outcome of proposed legislation, but the movement is in the right direction. Hard economic times are not a reason to deny women the right to jobs they have shown they are interested in, that they are fully capable of performing, that they need to support their families, and that they have been denied access to in the past because of their gender. Government money must be spent without discrimination against women or people of color. While it is well known that the Roosevelt Administration didn’t solve the problems of employment discrimination, in 1948 Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in providing a human rights framework for achieving equality in the workplace. Written while she was chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies in article 23 that everyone has a right to a decent job, fair working conditions, a living wage, no discrimination, protection from unemployment, and a voice at work. Perhaps we should put more effort into achieving a full employment policy under a human rights framework, instead of arguing about who is suffering more in a recession and how to divide limited resources in ways that reinforce gender stereotypes. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Democrats Vs Republicans on economy, although the Fed is doing all the work

November 2, 2010

Democrats Vs Republicans on economy, although the Fed is doing all the work

Read the full article →

Dylan Ratigan Honors Seth Reams For His Work With The Unemployed (EXCLUSIVE VIDEO)

October 29, 2010

The Huffington Post celebrated its 2010 Game Changers Thursday evening at Skylight Studios in SoHo. Sean Penn, who was named a 2010 Game Changer, was honored by Anderson Cooper for his work in Haiti. And Dylan Ratigan honored Seth Reams and Michelle King for their inspiring work. WATCH:

Read the full article →

Tanya D. Marsh: A Government-Mandated Foreclosure Moratorium Is a Popular (and Bad) Idea

October 27, 2010

A new poll released by the Washington Post shows that just over half of Americans, and two-thirds of Democrats, believe that the government should impose a temporary moratorium on foreclosures. On the eve of an important election, the White House is definitely caught in a bad spot. Someone needs to say it — a government-mandated foreclosure moratorium is a bad idea. It’s a great populist message, but it creates new problems without solving the real underlying issues. What we should be focused on is achieving a balance between protecting individual consumers in the short term and protecting all of us in the long term, by defending the integrity of the law and the stability of the market. Some lenders committed outright fraud. Many lenders engaged in indefensibly sloppy recordkeeping. Some lenders have made serious mistakes, like changing the locks on homeowners who weren’t in default. None of those sins should be forgiven. To the extent those actions violate the law, the guilty lenders should be held accountable. But here’s a key point — every loan wasn’t fraudulent. Every lender wasn’t a crook. Many of the foreclosures currently pending are perfectly legal. A temporary moratorium would not only unfairly hinder lenders who played by the rules, but would damage buyers planning to close on a house in foreclosure, and could result in homes remaining vacant longer. More chillingly, a government-mandated foreclosure, if such an action could be taken legally, would suspend the operation of contract law for political purposes. Such drastic action sends a terrible message to potential investors in the American housing market. If we want the economy to work again, we need capital to flow freely. Undermining the integrity of American contract and mortgage law, even temporarily, will drive up the cost of capital by increasing the perception of risk to investors. That’s just a bad idea. The real question that we should be asking is – in this economy, why are lenders pursuing so many foreclosures? We know that there aren’t buyers for all of those homes. In many cases, it just makes good economic sense to keep a defaulting homeowner in the house until a buyer can be located. An occupied home is less likely to suffer damage, and cause problems for the neighborhood, than a vacant one. What’s going on? Why are lenders acting contrary to their own economic self-interest? One problem is that “lenders” aren’t calling the shots. The real owners of significant numbers of home loans are pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, and the government. The entities that we call the “lenders” — Bank of America, GMAC — are in many cases just the servicers on the loans. They earn a fee based on the services that they provide to the institutional lenders and investors. In plain English — it appears that the servicers (at least in the short term) make more money if they foreclose than if they don’t. Their contractual economic incentives aren’t aligned with what’s best for the true owners of the debt, the homeowners, or the general public. So rather than calling for a foreclosure moratorium, which is an overly-broad solution that creates a cascade of other problems, the government should address these mismatched incentives to servicers and how they can be realigned. We need to protect homeowners. We also need to protect the housing market, neighborhoods, potential homebuyers, and yes, even innocent lenders. Let the courts do their work sorting out the pending foreclosures. Let the attorneys general investigate lender violations of law. Let the government focus on the systemic incentives that cause lenders to pursue foreclosures that don’t make sense for anybody but the servicers.

Read the full article →

Tim Ryan: Regulators Must Get Rules of the Road Right

October 27, 2010

After President Obama signed financial regulatory reform in law, most Americans probably believe financial reform is complete — that the work is done. In reality, the reform process is just getting started. Over a dozen federal regulators must now begin a lengthy rulemaking and implementation process, requiring over 250 new rules to be studied and written. This is an unprecedented undertaking the results of which will impact nearly every American. Americans rely on financial services to help meet their needs: for retirement, education, homeownership and indeed every aspect of their lives. The over $145 trillion in financial assets held in the U.S. will be impacted by these rules, nearly a quarter of which are held in the personal sector. An estimated 34 percent of Americans’ total assets are in financial assets, most of which are in retirement accounts, mutual funds, stocks and bonds. The financial services industry raised nearly $1.6 trillion in equity and debt capital for businesses last year and a further $475 billion for state and local governments and projects. Nearly six percent of U.S. gross domestic product is generated by the financial services industry, which employs 7.6 million people nationwide. As the former Director of both the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Resolution Trust Corporation during the savings and loan crisis and its subsequent clean up, I know firsthand how important the next 18 to 24 months will be to American businesses and families. While no financial reform legislation in recent history compares in terms of scope and complexity, important lessons can be learned from the past. Successful rulemaking is not an isolated process. It is transparent and bipartisan. To craft the best rules possible, regulators should take into account different perspectives from financial industry experts including those from market participants, the legal community, academia, think tanks and consumer advocacy and industry groups. In the end, after reviewing these comments, regulators must reconcile these varied viewpoints to reach a common goal: to agree on a pragmatic set of rules that regulate the financial service industry, prevent future crises and create a strong economy that fosters healthy competition, job creation and growth in our communities. Federal regulatory agencies and their staffs will be faced with the daunting task of sifting through hundreds if not thousands of comment letters from a wide array of stakeholders and deciding which ones are the most important and substantive to consider. Their critical role goes beyond interpreting each part of the legislation and analyzing the technical merits of each comment, but also understanding how the financial rules will impact American businesses, individual investors and families. Will the new rules ensure that the costs of credit remain accessible for businesses and individuals to meet their financing needs? What is the impact of the final rules on companies’ competitiveness when they are tapping the global capital markets? Will the rule raise the price of basic goods and services? Too much is at stake for our financial system and America’s fragile economy not to ensure these final regulations are written the right way. Over the next two years, regulators will be reviewing and writing rules that range from increasing oversight of complex financial instruments such as derivatives to enhancing protections for individual investors and consumers. Then, they will need to enforce the new regulations. The rulemaking process is long and can be complex, but it is also the most open and democratic way of ensuring that the voices of key stakeholders are heard. We in the financial series industry, along with other stakeholders, remain committed to being a thoughtful contributor to this open process. We need to get these regulations right. And, we should never forget the painful crisis and economic recession that made financial reform necessary. Tim Ryan is president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), a leading securities industry trade group representing securities firms, banks, and asset management companies in the U.S. and Hong Kong.

Read the full article →

Tom Fox: Rethinking the Workplace in the 21st Century

October 27, 2010

As the director of the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for Government Leadership, I spend a lot of time interacting with federal leaders about a wide range of management issues. In my discussion with these leaders, there is one topic that consistently comes up: teleworking. Yet with all the talk from federal managers and their employees about the desirability of teleworking in government, it has led to insufficient progress and action. In fact, the federal government who, once a leader in teleworking and other work flexibilities, has lost its momentum with less than six percent of the 1.9 million federal workforce — about 102,900 employees — teleworking at least one day a month. One of the major barriers to implementing telework in federal agencies is the assumption by managers that the physical presence of employees equals strong performance. They believe better performance measures are often not available to them. However, it’s important that federal managers remember that performance is measured by productivity and results, not by face time. When strategically deployed, teleworking and other flexible work arrangements can help improve employee performance, job satisfaction, and work-life balance, and decrease the costs of commuting by getting employees off the road on scheduled days of the week or by allowing for nontraditional hours that can result in shorter commutes. Furthermore, with thousands of federal employees eligible to retire and our government in critical need of specialized professional skills, this is a critical time for federal agencies to change the way flexible work arrangements are viewed. To attract and retain the best talent, federal agencies need to use flexible programs as a strategic tool. The key for federal managers is to design a teleworking policy that makes the most of your employees’ time and efforts. With October marking National Work & Family Month, here are four tips for effective implementation in your office: Forget about the old ways. Before entering the fray of telecommuting, you’ll need to banish thoughts of your employees sitting around in their pajamas watching game shows all day. Quite the contrary. Research shows that telecommuting employees work longer hours because they’ve avoided wasting time sitting in traffic. Establish the rules. The expectations for telecommuting employees and for managers should be crystal clear. At the outset, define employee accessibility during work hours, office coverage, unexpected mission-critical work demands and procedures to deal with abuse. As with leadership in any situation, articulating expectations is critical. Focus on outcomes, not face time. Work output and positive outcomes are the measure of value, not face time. You’ll need to engage in the hard work of ) determining which jobs are appropriate for teleworking and identifying concrete performance measures to ensure that they’re achieving your team’s goals while out of the office. In other words, trust but verify. Show them the money. Reducing the amount of people in the office means reducing the amount of office space and equipment you need, which in turn reduces spending. I don’t know of a boss who wouldn’t be impressed with your ability to cut costs especially when that’s paired with better results. Make sure you build in the cost-benefits into your budget, including the costs of any technology needs. One example of a successful government telework program is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), where 82 percent of eligible employees telework. Or check out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), where one employee moved to Kenya when her husband was transferred there. She has been working remotely from Africa since the move and meeting or exceeding all of her obligations, according to James McDermott, the NRC’s director of human resources.

Read the full article →

Jonathan Bernstein: Product Recalls — Tips for Businesses, Media and Consumers

October 27, 2010

Cribs. Strollers. Tylenol (again). Riding Mowers. Aromatherapy Kits. These are just a few of the recent recalls tracked at the consumer website Recalls.org . Through my work in support of product recalls, both food and consumer products, I have identified trends in both well-done and poorly done recalls that prompted me to offer these ten tips to businesses that may have to go through this process — and it’s also a 10-point system by which consumers and the media can evaluate a business’ performance during a recall. Remember That Rapid Response To A Known Product Problem Minimizes Damage, so the time to examine the systems you have in place for recall is NOW, not when you already have a product needing recall. Have A Product Recall Plan Ready To Use Anytime, one that covers the operational, legal and public relations (internal and external) components of making a recall. Hint: “We’ll wing it when it happens” is not a product recall plan. Have The Core Members Of A Product Recall Team Identified And Trained In Advance. It may be necessary to have one team at a corporate level to direct recall activities overall, and individual teams more focused on the operational aspects of product recall at the sales/marketing and/or manufacturing levels. And you’d be amazed at how some people you think will be cool in a crisis actually aren’t, and vice versa – behavior that often is identified through training that includes simulating a recall. Have Back-ups For Critical People And Recall Systems. Assume that some recall-related lead personnel will not be available when you need them. Assume that the computer system where you maintain your stakeholder contact lists has crashed. Assume other similar worst-case scenarios and make your back-up plans accordingly. Have Contact Lists For All Stakeholders Set Up On Automated notification Systems. This is particularly important for end-users and distributors of your products. You can’t rely on the media alone to reach them. Consider The Use Of Virtual Incident Management. There are a number of Internet-centered systems that allow recall team members to exchange real-time information, access current communications documents, and keep team leaders updated even if the team is geographically scattered. Make Recall-related Decisions That Are Based On Protecting Your Brand/reputation And Not Just On Your Legal Risks. The infamous Bridgestone-Firestone recall started far too late because the company’s leadership was considering risks other than the most important one — the risk of aggravating the court of public opinion. Communicate Internally And Externally. Remember that every employee and, often, dedicated contractors are public relations representatives and crisis managers for your organization, whether you want them to be or not. You must empower them with reassuring messages about the recall suitable for use at their respective levels of the company, and you don’t want them to learn of the recall from external sources before they hear about it from you. Don’t Wait For The CPSC, FDA, Or Other Regulatory Agencies To Protect Your Reputation. While each regulatory agency that can get involved in product recalls has its own process to follow, that process can often delay how much time passes before product consumers and distributors are notified — a delay which, in worst-case scenarios, can cause injuries or deaths. In that event, the court of public opinion may react very negatively to both your organization and the regulator — but you’re the one whose revenue and reputation will be most impacted. Focus Special Communications On Highly Disgruntled Customers And Distributors. In this Age of the Internet, and in a litigious society, a few angry people can make waves completely disproportionate to their numbers or even to the injury suffered (if any). The recall process should include an “Escalated Cases” team to focus on such complaints when they’re received. Businesses: in many industries, recalls are inevitable. But if you don’t want your crisis to become a disaster, learn from the mistakes of others. Reporters: don’t let organizations get away with mediocre recall communications. Consumers: have you been told what you need to know about a recall? If the list above says “no,” then complain, loudly! That’s the only way organizations will start to do it right.

Read the full article →

Ron Ashkenas: When Is Your Midterm Election?

October 27, 2010

Cross-posted from Harvard Business Online Triggered by the upcoming mid-term elections , President Obama is assessing his change strategy, shuffling his leadership team, and getting ready for the next two years of his administration. If we put aside the political cacophony that accompanies this process, and view it strictly through an organizational lens , it’s a constructive set of activities: taking stock of what’s working and what’s not; reading the pulse of customers (citizens) and partners; resetting priorities; injecting new talent; and re-energizing the organization for the work ahead. Most companies are not forced by an election to push the reset button every two years — but imagine if they did. What if all managers had fixed terms and needed to be reappointed based on their performance? Would it lead to more honest feedback from customers and subordinates, and more frequent strategic reviews? Would it make managers more accountable for results and more willing to build strong teams? Or would it encourage managers to play it safe rather than taking risks that might reduce their chances of reappointment? Although not all managers are elected officials, organizations do have electoral rhythms. There are cycles for financial reporting, planning, and budgeting; as well as specific times for capital investment, information technology, and talent decisions. To some extent these activities function much like elections — they give us pause and force thoughtful assessment and planning. Unfortunately in many organizations, the rhythms keep shifting: cycles (such as budgeting) get elongated, different reviews are not well integrated, etc. What was intended to be reflective reevaluation becomes constant background noise, and as a result many managers treat these reviews as “exercises” to fulfill corporate requirements. So how can organizations and individual managers get more payoffs from their assessment rhythms, and accrue the benefits of an election cycle (without the costs of a campaign )? Let me suggest two steps — one for the executive team and one for every manager. If you are part of an executive team, take a holistic look at the various review processes that constitute the rhythm of the company. Can they be better integrated? Does the timing need to be changed? Are they really creating the value that is intended? For example, a few years ago, GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt realized that the company’s strategic planning process was becoming redundant with the budgeting process. The two were calling for much the same data, but during different time frames. To prevent unnecessary and repetitive work (which cascades to thousands of people in such a huge company), Immelt reframed the strategic planning process so that it was squarely focused on growth. He renamed it the Growth Playbook and made sure it came with straightforward instructions about what needed to be included (and what did not). The budgeting process then flowed naturally out of the growth plans with far less confusion. At the same time, the message that growth was the primary focus for strategic planning was hammered home. If you are a manager, take a look at your own personal rhythm. We all start careers, jobs, and assignments at different times — but if we don’t establish personal checkpoints , it’s easy to drift. Then one day you wake up and realize that your career is not progressing, or that you haven’t accomplished some key personal or professional goals. To avoid that kind of disappointment, set up your own rhythm — in advance. Pick a date (your work anniversary or birthday, for example) and use it as an opportunity for self-reflection. Do I need to reset priorities? Am I getting the experiences I need? What do I need to do differently to reach my objectives? Like an electoral cycle, corporate rhythms are important for the organization to periodically and regularly push the reset button ; these need to be made as effective and efficient as possible. However the corporate calendar shouldn’t determine your own reset timing and agenda. Only you can do that.

Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: The difficulties of judging income inequality

October 26, 2010

Last week’s Bloomberg Businessweek opens with a piece by Drake Bennett on how Americans perceive growing income inequalities. The answer, surprising to Businessweek, is that Americans “broadly” favor “the need for a more equal distribution of wealth,” but that they consistently overestimate how equitable American society is — and by rather striking numbers. “On average, those surveyed estimated that the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans own 59 percent of the nation’s wealth; in reality the top quintile owns around 84%. The respondent further estimated that the poorest 20 percent own 3.7 percent, when in reality they own 0.1 percent.” A survey of economists also found they got it wrong too, though by less, which establishes some realism to the cries for economic literacy as the solution for our woes. “In part,” concludes the magazine, “this work fits into a proud tradition of social science research demonstrating the basic ignorance of the average American.” One might add that this fits into another tradition as well: the media eagerly publicizing social scientists pointing out the ignorance of Americans. Indeed, toward the end of the piece, the magazine quotes George Mason University professor Bryan Caplan on the paradoxical claim that it’s good that Americans don’t realize how unequal things are, because “they tend not to understand the ways that wealth inequality is good.” Businessweek fails to tell us that Caplan is the author of the provocative “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” which focuses on the economic illiteracy of the citizenry. So what does all this really mean? Well, it’s not terribly surprising. You can still be economically or financially expert and still be unable to judge the degree of inequality around you. It’s not some symptom of creeping Yahoo-dom. It’s a big country. Wealth is relative and more importantly often invisible. Wealth in Oklahoma or Iowa certainly differs from wealth in Westchester County or Palm Beach. Much of wealth is abstract: You can see the mansion or the shack, the Bentley or the Civic. But you can’t see financial assets in a bank (and you can’t see the debt either). The display of wealth may have more to do with social norms than real, tangible financial assets; conspicuous consumption waxes and wanes. Some of these issues arose recently in the tempest that ensued after University of Chicago law professor Todd Henderson complained about how hard it was to live on $250,000 a year. The difficulties of knowing exactly your relation with the Smith family next door, and with Smiths all across the country, grows even tougher when you try to compare different eras: this age of high inequality versus the so-called golden ages of the ’50s and ’60s. This inherent difficulty of judging inequality speaks to the fallacies of economic doctrines like rational expectations: If you can’t decide where you fit in a complex, shifting economy, how can you generate much more than rough-and-ready expectations about the future of anything, including what you’ll need in retirement? There are several explanations flying around about American attitudes toward income inequality. There’s the notion that Americans have traditionally been “bought off,” both (in a crass way) by the promise of ample credit and consumer goods, which takes the sting from inequality, and (less crass, more patriotic) by the promise of freedom and opportunity. Americans, in this theory, have traditionally not chosen the path of class warfare or socialism (or communism) because at some level they believe they too can be rich (and if they’re not, they can still buy that iPhone). Businessweek seems confused by the fact that Americans underestimate inequality but say they favor broad equality. That may stem from the fact that most people do not see any contradiction between equality and opportunity, which only co-exists happily in a high-growth economy. This core belief appears to be more at home in the U.S. than, say, Europe. Historically, the U.S. had a large continent to fill, ample natural resources and the always-shimmering possibility of reinvention. Today, while physical frontiers are no longer quite as open as they were once, we have another frontier: affluence and its sibling, celebrity. Of course, you can have a highly affluent — relatively affluent — economy and still be highly unequal. (The markets also share some of the virtues of the frontier: You’re on your own, it’s risky, no one cares what you’ve been in the past, and potentially it’s very profitable.) While the U.S. suffers from patches of terrible poverty, both in the cities and in the countryside, not to say historically high unemployment and a national real estate disaster, the presence of once-unheard-of credit (yes, even now) masks impoverishment. You can still buy stuff. Other policies reduce visible poverty as well. The homeless are kept off the streets. There are no wandering armies of train-hopping hobos, no veterans marching on Washington, no apple sellers or widespread famines or epidemics that are apparent for all to see. There is, albeit tattered and frayed, a safety net — and Europe, of course, has a much more extensive welfare system. The visible scandal of inequality, which was apparent in the U.S. during the Great Depression, and in Europe after the war, barely exists, particularly if you choose not to look. (There are exceptions, mostly involving natural disasters: Katrina-devastated New Orleans, for instance, which revealed underlying poverty and despair. But think about Las Vegas, which was hammered by the housing downturn. Blocks of empty houses is a lot different than neighborhoods literally under water, then left to rot away.) Again, this is not to say there’s not poverty and a terrific squeeze on middle-class and lower-class incomes, which is destructive. It’s just that affluence and credit disguise the pain — and allow the extension of hope and the retention of something resembling your former lifestyle (foreclosure delays help too). Implicit in Businessweek’s discussion of inequality is the notion that if people knew the full extent of the problem, they would seek policies to return to the more equal society they seem to want. That might be a stretch. The golden age of the ’50s did arrive in part because of the class warfare of the ’30s. But it was mostly driven by the pent-up demand and high growth of the postwar industrial economy, which no one planned; indeed, most economists anticipated a return to depression or recession when the GIs came home. The key to the ’50s was growth, which then allowed other policies to shape a broad middle class. Our situation is very different. We’ve made any number of policy changes to fuel growth, from deregulation to bailouts. Policies to create greater equality tend to dampen growth, as Businessweek says. While Americans may have all kinds of confused ideas about income inequality, they do seem to know growth, or the lack of growth, when they see it. Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal.

Read the full article →

Inder Sidhu: Clicks and Mortar Integration: Where Retail Excellence and Relevance Come Together

October 25, 2010

No time to shop for tonight’s dinner? It’s not a problem if you live in the Mid-Atlantic or Southeastern part of the United States. Now you can order groceries online at harrristeeter.com and pick them up curbside at dozens of Harris Teeter stores. With the time you save there, you could swing by Nordstrom and indulge yourself in the shoe department. Can’t find your size? No worries. Just go online to Nordstrom.com and search more than 100 company store warehouses with a single click. Isn’t this what shopping convenience is supposed to be? Harris Teeter and Nordstrom think so. And so do a growing number of other companies that are working to make your life easier by integrating their online and on-site shopping experiences. They are investing in new software systems and changing internal policies to reduce any barriers between their “clicks” operations and “mortar” stores. This is something many have tried before but few have mastered until recently. Even at some of the nation’s most successful retailers, a truly integrated experience is still a work in progress. At Best Buy, for example, items purchased online can be returned for store credit. Exchanges, however, are not yet possible. Why the hitch? Blame it on the current gap between business excellence and customer relevance in retail. Like many companies, retailers understand that in order to succeed, they have to produce both year-in and year-out. But they are challenged by ongoing technology changes, economic pressures and evolving customer demands. In recent years, retailers have made great strides improving their business excellence by optimizing their supply chains and rationalizing their store counts, among other things. While these efforts have steadied retailers during the recession, they haven’t yielded much in the way of improved customer relevance. But integrating online and on-site stores is. Unlike other initiatives, this work directly benefits customers, whose demands are constantly evolving. Today, consumers want to shop both online and in person when it suits their needs. Regardless of where they buy things, they want to return them wherever it is most convenient. The only way retailers can provide this type of convenience is by integrating their online and on-site operations. This often requires a software overhaul and an organizational realignment. Any retailer that fails to get this is apt to fall behind. But those who make the effort can benefit handsomely. Take Nordstrom again. In August, Nordstrom Direct President Jamie Nordstrom told The New York Times that integrating the company’s online and on-site warehouses translated into “some pretty meaningful results.” In the 11 months after the integration was complete, same-stores sales jumped 8 percent. Other factors contributed to the increase, but Nordstrom singles out the inventory change as having a significant impact. “We can sell more without having to buy more inventory,” he said. “That plays through to margins and, ultimately, earnings.” Other retailers are making changes with the hopes of achieving similar gains. At Kohl’s stores, for example, shoppers who can’t find items in their size or preferred color can now browse an in-store kiosk and take a peek at what’s inside the warehouse. Instead of leaving disappointed, more and more are walking out satisfied. In a bid to increase customer relevancy, many companies are now taking clicks and mortar integration a step further. Gap, J. Crew and other retailers now rely on Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media to communicate news about store sales and to distribute retail discounts. Then there’s cosmetics retailer Sephora, the division of luxury products giant LVMH. In September, the company released an iPhone app that shoppers can download and use to read product information and consumer reviews while shopping inside its stores. As of late October, nearly half the people who reviewed the app on the Apple iTunes store gave it a five-star rating. “I love how you can scan any product or QR code to see reviews and videos,” said one customer. “Today’s obsession is fresh and fun. Way to go Sephora!” Becoming your customer’s obsession? It’s hard to get more relevant than that. Or more excellent. By increasing both among its customers, Sephora has out-performed its rivals throughout 2010. And so have other retailers who have committed to doing both. Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco , and the author of Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profits and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth . Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu .

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Be Careful What You Ask For

October 25, 2010

Remember those comparatively long ago, rather naïve, days when former Senator Hillary Clinton was running for President and cosponsored legislation calling for the Secretary of State to ban the use of private contractors like Blackwater from guarding State Department employees? One wonders whether Secretary of State thinks of those days now that she is facing an increasingly serious situation concerning the use of private security contractors in Afghanistan; thanks to President Hamid Karzai who back on August 7 during his visit to the Civil Service Institute in Kabul announced that he would ban both national and international Private Security Companies (PSCs) operating in Afghanistan, which is supposed to start in December. President Karzai argued that PSCs have created a parallel security force which competes with the Afghan Security Forces (ASFs). And PSCs are, at times, a cause of instability in Afghanistan as well. Actually, as I have noted previously, he has a point there. And the Senate Armed Services Committee report reinforces that view. Viewed in the long term U.S. officials praise Mr. Karzai’s plan because diplomats say they perpetuate the country’s entrenched militia culture. Thus, on August 17, President Karzai issued an eight article decree disbanding all PSCs operating in Afghanistan within the next four months. This step was taken as part of the President’s plan to hand over security responsibilities to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014. However, it seems that the four month deadline for closure of PSCs is impractical, to put it mildly, since the necessary procedures for transferring responsibilities from PSCs to the Afghan security forces, in addition to ending contracts between international organizations and PSCs would take more than four months. Many think that at the least the Afghan government should dissolve PSCs gradually instead of speedily. And now that we are moving ever closer to December 17, when the ban is expected to take effect, President’s Karzai’s decree is producing significant consequences. Last Friday American and European officials in Afghanistan warned that contractors handling hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of projects to build roads, schools and networks for electricity and irrigation were planning to sharply limit or halt their work here if the Afghan government moves ahead with plans to enforce the PSC ban, Simply put, without protection, many, if not most reconstruction companies cannot function in Afghanistan because their workers, whether foreigners or Afghans associated with foreigners, are targets for insurgents. This month a Scottish aid worker, Linda Norgrove, was kidnapped by the Taliban and later killed in a botched American rescue attempt. The company she worked with, Development Alternatives Inc., has told the United States Agency for International Development that it will have to cancel 330 projects worth $21 million and not start several million dollars in new projects, according to a spokesman. On October 21 the Washington Post reported that U.S.-funded development firms are beginning to shut down massive reconstruction projects because the Afghan government has refused to rescind the ban. One U.S. official said the ban would affect about $1.5 billion in ongoing reconstruction work. More than 20,000 Afghans will lose jobs in road-building and energy projects alone. So much for winning the hearts and minds of the people! Good luck with implementing your counterinsurgency policy Gen. Petraeus. It may still be possible to work out a deal, at least for the short term. On October 14 the Washington Post reported that the United States and its NATO allies, worried about how the Afghan government’s ban on PSC might affect their operations, have asked President Hamid Karzai to sign a letter allowing such companies to continue protecting the foreign aid community. The United States and its NATO allies, worried about how the Afghan government’s ban on private security companies might affect their operations, have asked President Hamid Karzai to sign a letter allowing such companies to continue protecting the foreign aid community, according to Western officials in Kabul. On October 17 CNN reported that the Afghan government clarified the exceptions to a PSC ban, stating that those firms offering protection to embassies and foreign diplomats will be allowed to continue to operate. Sunday’s announcement clarified that private security firms that have the responsibility of guarding the interior of embassies, escorting foreign diplomats, protecting diplomatic accommodations and protecting international military bases and weapons storage, will be allowed to continue their work. Yesterday the AP reported that Secretary Clinton called President Karzai on Saturday to try to persuade his government to modify its PSC ban. Clinton suggested formulating a joint plan to steadily phase out private security companies without disrupting the work of contractors who employ private guards to protect their workers, projects, and facilities, The call was part of intense negotiations that U.S. and other Western diplomats were conducting with Afghan officials this weekend. Also, Karzai’s spokesman Waheed Omer said earlier this month that the ban would not immediately affect companies dealing with the training of national security forces or guards operating inside buildings to provide protection. Will Karzai blink? Will the U.S. cut him a better deal? Stay tuned.

Read the full article →

FDIC Called On To Put Bank Of America Into Receivership

October 22, 2010

Charging that the ongoing foreclosure fraud epidemic is the work of precisely the same unrepentant bank officers whose fraudulent mortgage schemes crashed the financial system in the first place, two leading critics of the financial industry are calling on the FDIC to put some of the nation’s biggest banks into receivership — starting with the Bank of America — and make them clean house. William K. Black, a former regulator and white-collar crime expert who cracked down on massive fraud during the savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and his fellow economics professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, L. Randall Wray, write in the Huffington Post that it’s time to “foreclose on the foreclosure fraudsters”. They write: The lenders, officers, and professional that directed, participated in, and profited from the fraudulent loans and securities should be prevented from causing further damage to the victims of their frauds, through fraudulent foreclosures. They argue that, far from being a coincidence, massive foreclosure fraud “is the necessary outcome of the epidemic of mortgage fraud that began early this decade.” The reason for that: The banks that are foreclosing on fraudulently originated mortgages frequently cannot produce legitimate documents… Now, only fraud will let them take the homes. Many of the required documents do not exist, and those that do exist would provide proof of the fraud that was involved in loan origination, securitization, and marketing. This in turn would allow investors to force the banks to buy-back the fraudulent securities. In other words, to keep the investors at bay the foreclosing banks must manufacture fake documents…. Foreclosure fraud is the only thing standing between the banks and Armageddon.” So the only solution, then, is new management. “We should remove the senior leadership of the banks and replace them with experienced bankers with a reputation for integrity and competence, i.e., the honest officers that quit or were fired because they refused to engage in fraud,” Black and Wray write. They suggest starting with Bank of America, which they call “a ‘vector’ spreading the mortgage fraud epidemic throughout much of the Western world.” Looming large among Bank of America’s sins is its purchase of mortgage giant Countrywide Financial long after it became clear that the company had engaged in massive fraud. Even the extremely slow-to-anger New York Fed, which bought billions of securitized mortgages that Bank of America improperly represented as fully documented and conforming to underwriting standards, is now demanding that it buy some of them back . But far from expressing remorse, Bank of America is going on the offensive, announcing it will end its three-week-old freeze on foreclosures in 23 states on Monday, much earlier than expected. Bank of America officials are claiming they didn’t find evidence of unwarranted foreclosures and are vowing to “defend the interests of Bank of America shareholders,” and hire more lawyers, the New York Times reported . “It’s loan by loan, and we have the resources to deploy in that kind of review,” said the bank’s chief executive. Black and Wray write that Bank of America “is sufficiently large and powerful that its receivership will send the credible signal that America is restoring the rule of law and that even the most elite frauds will be held accountable. ” They note that about a thousand receivers were appointed during the S&L and banking crises of the 1980s and early 1990s under Presidents Reagan and Bush. “Contrary to the scare mongering about ‘nationalizing’ banks, receivers are used to returning failed banks to private ownership,” they write. The new managers would “direct the business operations, find the true facts about the bank’s operations, senior managers, and financial condition, recognize the real losses, and make the appropriate referrals to the FBI and the SEC so that the frauds can be investigated and prosecuted,” they write. “The receiver is also a well-proven device for splitting up banks that are too large and incoherent by selling units of the business to different bidders who most value the operations.” On Wednesday, administration spokesmen declined to endorse any dramatic federal action. They declared that they had found no “systemic” threat to the financial system from the foreclosure problems, spoke of “mistakes” and “errors” rather than pervasive fraud and said the banks and servicers now need to “fix” their “processes.” They “cannot even bring themselves to use the ‘f’ word — fraud,” Black and Wray write. “They substitute euphemisms designed to trivialize elite criminality.” The central problem appears to be that Obama Administration continues to see the mortgage and foreclosure crises primarily through the eyes of the banks — not through the eyes of the regular people who became their victims, or even the taxpayers who bailed out the very fat-cat bankers who are now back to their tricks. Black and Wray write: This nation’s most elite bankers originated and packaged fraudulent nonprime loans that destroyed wealth — and working class families’ savings — at a prodigious rate never seen before in the history of white-collar crime. They created the worst bubble in financial history, echo epidemics of fraud among elite professionals, loan brokers, and loan servicers, and would (if left to their own devices) have caused the Second Great Depression. The two professors call for “[n]othing short of removing all senior officers who directed, committed, or acquiesced in fraud.” For more on William K. Black, read my Oct. 20 story on his blistering critique of the press coverage of the financial crisis: Nine Stories The Press Is Underreporting — Fraud, Fraud And More Fraud . ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to his RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Robert Sutton: Bad Boss: 14 Horror Stories About The World’s Worst Bosses From The Author Of ‘Good Boss, Bad Boss’ (PHOTOS)

October 22, 2010

The best bosses are competent at the work they oversee and are in tune with what it feels like to work for them — that’s a central theme in my new book, “Good Boss, Bad Boss.” I show how the best bosses know when to push their people to work harder, when to praise versus criticize their people, and when the best management is no management at all. They are seen as in charge, but have the wisdom to listen to their people closely and to encourage them challenge the boss’s ideas in civilized and instructive ways. They treat their people with dignity and respect, and serve as “human shields,” who protecting their charges harm, distraction, and idiots and idiocy of every stripe. The good news is that, although no boss is perfect, a recent national survey found that 80% of employees feel respected by their bosses and believe their bosses value their work. But there is also strong evidence that the clueless and incompetent minority does massive damage to employee’s mental and physical health – a longitudinal study of Swedish workers found that those with crummy bosses had a 39% percent greater chance of having a heart attack than those with good bosses. And the evidence that bad bosses hamper productivity keeps growing: a recent survey by University Florida researchers found that people with abusive bosses more likely to arrive late, do less work, and to take days off when they aren’t sick. The hallmark of the worst bosses is that they suffer from power poisoning : They focus on satisfying their own needs and wants, devote little or no attention to the needs and wants of their followers, and they act like the rules don’t apply to them. This cluelessness manifests itself in many ways; for example, one study showed that people in power were more likely to grab more cookies and to eat like pigs. To give Huffington Post readers a sense of the horrific actions of the worst bosses and, to entertain you a bit too, I put out a call on my blog Work Matters for stories about “clueless and comical bosses.” Between comments on the blog and emails from readers, I received approximately about 200 examples; although many were funny, some were just plain sick and even downright cruel. Here are the 14 worst: I would love to hear more stories about clueless bosses from The Huffington Post readers — as well as tips and stories about how bosses can avoid living a fool’s paradise and, instead, stay in tune with what it feels like to work for them. Again, the following stories featured in the slide show were submitted by readers — some are ridiculous, some are scary and some might be downright offensive. But hopefully all are instructive.

Read the full article →

Tony Schwartz: How much are you (really) worth?

October 21, 2010

It’s the most compelling, preoccupying question we measure ourselves by every day, and it has very little to do with money. I’m talking about “worth” as in self-worth and “value,” as in the degree to which we feel valued by others, and valuable in the world. Nothing more powerfully influences our behavior and our effectiveness at work. Because organizations pay so little attention to how people are feeling in the workplace, and because we ourselves are so often unaware of what we’re feeling, we often fail to recognize the effect that our emotions have on us, and on others. We all experience challenges to our value at work every day — demanding and critical bosses, difficult clients and customers, tough assignments, tight deadlines, failure to achieve our goals, or the feeling that we’re being excluded, singled out, overlooked, or not fully appreciated. Think of each of these as a trigger: an event, a behavior, or a circumstance that prompts negative emotions — and more specifically, the experience of fight or flight. We don’t have to worry anymore about being attacked by real lions and tigers, but we’re still vulnerable to threats to our sense of self worth. When we respond in fight or flight, we’re less able to think clearly, less flexible, less resilient, and more impulsive and reactive. It’s a reverse value proposition: the more we feel threatened, the more energy we spend defending, restoring, and asserting our value, and the less energy we have available to create value. Difficult as they are to calculate, the costs to engagement, productivity, and performance are immense. There may be no more alienating and energy-draining experience at work than feeling diminished and devalued. When we worked at a large, well-known hospital, for example, the nurses told us that the single biggest challenge to their satisfaction and effectiveness was the feeling of not being valued by the doctors. Turnover was a huge problem, even though the nurses loved their work with patients. When we asked the doctors to describe their biggest challenge, they were unanimous. It was the feeling of not being appreciated by the hospital’s administrators. The origin of the corrosive culture was clear. The president of the hospital, a former surgeon, was well known for his explosive temper and his abusive behavior with both doctors and nurses. Our core emotional need is to feel valued. Some years ago, the researcher James Gilligan was called into a prison to try to help out with an inmate who kept assaulting guards, even after he was placed in solitary confinement 24 hours a day. “What do you want so badly,” Gilligan asked the inmate, “that you are willing to give up everything else in order to get it?” “Pride, dignity, and self esteem,” the inmate replied, instantly. “And I’m willing to kill any motherf—– in that cell block to get it. If you ain’t got pride, you ain’t got nothing.” Plainly, that’s extreme, but as Daniel Goleman has written. “Threats to our standing in the eyes of others are … almost as powerful as those to our very survival.” Researchers have found that the highest rises in cortisol levels — the most extreme fight or flight response — are prompted by “threats to one’s social self, or threat to one’s social acceptance, esteem, and status.” Just think about the difference between hearing a compliment and a criticism. Which are you more inclined to believe? What do you dwell on longer? The researcher John Gottman has found that among married couples, it takes at least five positive comments to offset one negative one. The first move when you’ve been triggered is the simplest: take a deep breath and exhale slowly. So long as your body is flooded with stress hormones, you literally can’t think straight, so it’s best not to react at all. At The Energy Project , we call this the Golden Rule of Triggers: Whatever you feel compelled to do, don’t. As soon as you’re calm enough, ask yourself, “How am I feeling my value is at risk here?” You’ll make a fascinating discovery. It’s not what the other person said that triggered you; it’s how you interpreted it. The less you can make it about your value, the more control you’ll have over how you respond. When leaders themselves are insecure, the most obvious symptoms are self-aggrandizement, high need for control, poor listening skills and impatience, all of which only make those who work for them feel devalued. The more genuinely you hold the value of someone you manage — even at moments when you must share a concern — the more focus and positive energy that person will bring to the task at hand. Turn your awareness on yourself. It’s a powerful first step. Want to see how well you’re managing the energy of those you lead? Take The Energy Audit for Leaders .

Read the full article →

Britain’s Austerity Movement Will Hurt The Poor Most, Economists Say

October 21, 2010

LONDON — Britain’s poor and powerful clashed Thursday over who will lose out most under austerity measures that will slash benefits, jobs and government services to reduce the country’s crippling debts. Treasury chief George Osborne has announced 81 billion pounds ($128 billion) in spending cuts through 2015 that will cost as many as half a million public sector jobs and trim welfare payments to families and the disabled. Government departments will, on average, have their budgets cut by about 19 percent, forcing them to lay off staff and limit the scope of their work. It means Britain will have fewer police, pay less to those without jobs and send fewer criminals to prison. Embassies will be shuttered, as will courts and military bases. Britons will lose billions in benefit payments, retire later, and pay more for day-to-day items like train tickets. Even the Royal Mint faces cutbacks: It will use cheaper metals in British coins in an attempt to make savings. Osborne had said Wednesday in an address to Parliament that “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden,” saying Britain’s highest earners would be worst affected by the cuts. But economists and the public disagree, believing the measures will cause most hardship for lower-paid government workers and Britons reliant on welfare checks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an economic think tank, said that – aside from the richest 2 percent of people – most of the pain would be inflicted on working families, the sick and the poor. “You’re really picking on the weakest people in society and it’s completely unfair how you’re applying these budget cuts,” Margaret Lynch, 52, told Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, as they defended the plan at a public meeting in Nottingham, in central England. Lynch, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, said outside the event that her government benefits were being cut by about half. Hundreds of Britons demonstrated against the cuts outside Downing Street, the prime minister’s official residence in London, late Wednesday. Police said three people were arrested for breaking into the government’s business ministry. Some legislators worry that women will lose out more than men, as about 65 percent of the public sector work force is female. Pension plans for women are changing more quickly than those of men, standardizing the retirement age at 66 for both genders by 2020. “Women are more likely to work in the public sector, and more likely to use public sector services,” said Stella Creasy, a Labour lawmaker who represents the London district of Walthamstow in Parliament. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said Osborne’s spending cuts are the deepest since World War II, and public services face the harshest budget limits since the mid-1970s. Britain’s opposition Labour Party said the Conservative-led coalition government is exploiting the economic gloom to reduce the size of government, a long-held Conservative ideal. “It is a blueprint for a smaller, meaner and nastier society ,” Labour lawmaker Angela Eagle told the BBC. The opposition says cutting public sector jobs could hamper Britain’s economic growth, favoring instead a slower pace of cuts. Osborne said Wednesday the cuts were an unavoidable remedy for the debts Britain piled up during the global financial crisis. The Labour government spent billions to bail out two major banks – the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group – and took full ownership of mortgage lender Northern Rock. The Labour Party was in office for 13 years, until May of this year, and was responsible for the initial response as the financial crisis began. The Treasury confirmed Thursday there will be a permanent levy on the balance sheets of banks – expected to raise about 2.5 billion pounds ($4 billion) a year by 2014 – and there will be further discussion of measures to curb bankers’ bonuses. ___ Associated Press Writer Benjamin Timmins in London contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Shivani Siroya: Helping Developing Entrepreneurs Lift Their Communities Out Of Poverty

October 19, 2010

Since launching InVenture this past year, one of the questions I’m most often asked is: Why start your own organization? And it’s a pretty good question. Given the magnitude of attempting to develop a new product, service or solution — especially one that boldly promises to address major global social issues — why would any rational person want to start his or her own organization? To be completely honest, when first starting out, I did not fully understand the challenge of running an international organization — which in retrospect probably worked out for the best. After shopping around the idea and getting advice from many friends, colleagues and former professors, my reason for starting InVenture was simple: I had to. There was a clear need for our product — which makes expansion capital available to small and medium enterprises in developing communities — and it seemed to me that either I could do it myself, or just wait to see if someone else did. I had studied microfinance on the ground in India and West Africa, and what I learned was that microfinance, which most often takes the form of micro-credit, wasn’t doing enough to lift people out of poverty or help communities develop sustainably. While micro-credit has been successful in helping many people in underserved communities achieve subsistence — micro-credit, for example, can help a person begin a new business and generate a new source of income — it has done little to expand these small businesses beyond the rudimentary stage of being sole proprietorships. As businesses grow beyond these early stages, they hire more employees and create new economic opportunities in their communities. They help to build more stable local and regional marketplaces in which other businesses can launch and flourish. In high-income countries, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are responsible for producing over 50 percent of GDP and employing over 60 percent of the working population. However, in low-income countries SMEs account for less than half of these amounts: 17 percent of GDP and 30 percent of employment. InVenture is just one answer to the problem of this underserved “missing middle” in developing economies. We try to build SMEs that will eventually help to build their communities. I started InVenture to meet this unmet need, but I quickly discovered that starting an organization isn’t just about coming up with a solution. There’s a lot more in the way of development and management to consider — the less glamorous parts of running your own show. But instead of being daunted by the numerous challenges and speed bumps I’ve faced in starting InVenture, I remind myself — with the help of some amazing teammates and peers — to focus on the reason we began this process: to enable people to come together to do something bigger than just giving money. I return often to something President Kennedy once said: “Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation.” We started InVenture because we wanted to give ordinary people the opportunity to invest in businesses all over the world — businesses that can become engines for economic growth and change the fate of their communities. And we wanted to give developing entrepreneurs the chance to expand, to employ a few more of their neighbors, to help lift their communities out of poverty. Even if this happens in one community, somewhere in the world, as a result of our work — and already it’s starting to — I’ll believe we’ve done our part. And that’s why I work for — and why I started — InVenture.

Read the full article →

Robert Creamer: Wall Street Hopes to Use Republicans to Re-Purchase Congress

October 15, 2010

For many years the “titans” of Wall Street could pretty much have their way with Congress. They — and their huge campaign contributions — had convinced the Republicans, and many of the Democrats — that what was good for Wall Street, was good for the country. Then came the financial collapse in September, 2008, and the sudden realization that the emperor of Wall Street didn’t have any clothes. Turned out that the policies that allowed reckless Wall Street traders to run wild — and gave a tiny number of Wall Streeters the ability to claim a bigger and bigger share of our national income — weren’t actually so smart for the rest of us. Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration turned on Wall Street and — from Wall Street’s point of view — had the “audacity” to pass legislation that reined in the recklessness that had cost eight million Americans their jobs. Many among the Wall Street types — who actually think of themselves as the “masters of the universe” — were shocked. They — and much of the conventional wisdom in Washington — assumed that the Wall Street reform bill would be watered down into thin gruel by the massive army of lobbyists they sent to do battle on the Hill. Wall Street spent almost a half-billion dollars lobbying to stop Wall Street reform. But the bill actually got tougher and tougher as the battle went on. That was because Progressives held political ground so high on the issue that even the most “moderate” members of Congress were terrified to stand up for the Wall Street elite. But this November, the Wall Street Empire plans to strike back. According to Politico : The vilification of bankers, what one bank lobbyist called the ‘show trials’ of congressional hearings and especially the outcome of financial regulatory reform has prompted an all-out effort to wrest Congress from Democratic control, several financial industry insiders told Politico.” Karen Klugh, spokeswoman for the American Financial Services Association, told Politico : “Our target ratio for the 2010 cycle is 80-20 Republicans…” She said this ratio, “reflects our deep concerns with the work of the 111th Congress.” You betcha. And the amount Wall Street is directly investing in campaigns is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. It is likely dwarfed by the massive secret contributions they have made to the various Republican attack groups. And you can bet they are encouraging their partners in the huge outsourcing deals — on which they make billions — to pony up as well through secret contributions to the Chamber of Commerce that can spend unlimited amounts to distort the records of their Democratic targets. Many of those contributions, as ThinkProgress has documented, come from foreign corporations that profit from outsourcing of American jobs. The thing that is especially galling about Wall Street’s approach to politics is that it so brazenly plays upon the fears of the very people who are often the biggest victims of their greed. It is no small irony that the very people whose recklessness caused so many everyday working class families to lose their jobs – who have systematically skimmed off a larger and larger portion of our national product and left smaller and smaller pieces of the pie for everyday Americans – are now stoking the anger caused by their own actions and directing it toward Democrats who have brought them to account. In the Tea Party fantasy world everyday Americans are oppressed by bureaucrats with eyeshades who go to work on the Washington Metro. They are abetted by crunchy academics who spend their days dreaming up “social engineering” schemes in their offices at Yale or Harvard. And their oppressive regime is supported by liberal news anchors and the nihilistic denizens of Hollywood who spend their nights in hot tubs surrounded by Playboy Bunnies. That is the Tea Party version of class warfare; everyday Americans versus these “elites.” This is a very convenient mythology for Wall Street. It ignores the existence of the real “elites” in America. They aren’t the bureaucrats who go to work on the Metro but rather the men and women who go to work in chauffeur-driven limousines, jet around the country in Gulfstream G-Vs, and make more on the first day of the year, before lunch, than a minimum wage worker makes all year long. The gang on Wall Street wants normal Americans to forget that they — and the top one percent of the population — control 34.6% of net assets, compared to only 15% for the bottom 80%. They want you to ignore that 42% of the financial wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population, compared to only 7% controlled by the bottom 80% — or that 62% of the business equity that controls corporations is in the hands of the top 1% compared to only 7% for the bottom 80%. Remember all of the reckless speculation in financial securities that sunk the economy? Well 61% of financial securities are owned by the top 1% — and just 2% by the bottom 80%. And when it comes to income, the share going to the top 1% had grown from 12.8% in 1982 to 21.3% in 2006 while the percent going to the bottom 80% shrunk from 48.1% to 38.6%. When you look at numbers like that, in broad strokes it’s pretty obvious why the economy sunk into recession. The greed of the top 1% sucked the buying power out of the rest of the population who were needed as customers to keep levels of demand high enough so that investors found it profitable to expand employment, create jobs and generate more consumers to demand more goods and services. Their greed killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Of course the latest example of the consequences of Wall Street’s reckless greed is the mortgage foreclosure documentation disaster. Seems that they were in such a hurry to make more and more on their exotic mortgage-backed securities that they simply neglected to properly document the changes in ownership for the mortgages they packaged up and sold on financial markets. Why would the brilliant graduates of some to the finest universities in America make such an obvious mistake? You have to assume it’s because they figured that they would make their millions and pass the risk of their actions on the “the market” at large rather than take the time and expense to do it right. Now that their actions have come to light they may once again threaten the stability of the financial system. And let’s remember that when you fall behind in your credit card payments, these same guys are the first to invoke every provision in the fine print of your credit card agreement so they can charge you a fortune in fees. But when it comes to transferring titles of mortgages correctly, turns out they couldn’t be bothered. One more example of how Wall Street thinks it’s exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us. Now, Wall Street is trying to harness the anger of ordinary people — who are furious because of the economic disaster that Wall Street itself created — to allow them to use the Republicans as a vessel to take back the control of Congress. It’s up to us to stop them. The plain fact is that there are more of us than there are of them. But if we don’t vote, we don’t count. Time for Progressives to get out of a defensive crouch and march — along with everyone we know — to the polls. As the MTV s slogan says: Vote again in 2010. In most jurisdictions early voting has already begun. The time to vote is now. I know a guy who trades on Wall Street, call him George, who is absolutely disdainful of ordinary Americans. He thinks that anyone who can’t get rich, like he is, must be a chump. He’s happy to exploit anyone and anything to make money for himself. Don’t let George make us all into chumps. Don’t let Wall Street use the anger caused by the economic disaster that they themselves caused, to elect Republicans and take back control of Congress. Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com .

Read the full article →

John Salama, Army Corps Worker, Charged In Iraq Contract Bribes

October 13, 2010

NEWARK, N.J. — An employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from a construction company seeking contracts for projects in Iraq worth millions of dollars, according to a criminal complaint filed Wednesday. John Alfy Salama Markus, also known as John Salama, made an initial court appearance Wednesday afternoon, where U.S. Magistrate Mark Falk ordered him released on $500,000 bond secured by property. He did not enter a plea. Markus faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and money laundering. The money laundering count carries a 20-year maximum prison sentence. Also charged in the alleged scheme was Ahmed Nouri, also known as Ahmed Bahjat, vice president of a construction and engineering company seeking work in Iraq. Nouri was still at large Wednesday. Markus’ attorney, Stacy Biancamano, said he was a soldier in Iraq before working for the Army Corps of Engineers and had earned a Purple Heart and Bronze Star. According to the criminal complaint, Markus, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who lived in central New Jersey, monitored contracts as a project engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers in Iraq in 2007 and 2008. It was unclear from the complaint whether Markus was a civilian or military employee, and Biancamano did not immediately return a phone call seeking further comment Wednesday. The complaint alleges Markus took bribes from Nouri in exchange for providing confidential information to Nouri’s company, Iraqi Consultants & Construction Bureau, about bidding negotiations on certain projects. Markus also allegedly steered Army Corps of Engineers projects to Nouri, including a $6.25 million project to enhance security at the Bayji Oil Refinery in central Iraq for which Markus allegedly received at least $200,000 in bribes. Citing Army Corps of Engineers records, the complaint alleges four more contracts were awarded to ICCB in the summer of 2007 totaling approximately $6.3 million. For those projects, Markus allegedly sought $550,000 in bribes. The U.S. attorney’s office alleges Markus deposited the bribes in bank accounts in the Middle East and in the U.S. and used the money to build a $1.1 million house for himself and his wife in Nazareth, Pa. They had previously lived in Belle Mead, N.J. In a November 2007 e-mail, Markus wrote to Nouri, “I saved a lot of money for you guys and I need at least 400K form ICCB for all the work I done for you I made you a lot of profit,” the complaint alleges.

Read the full article →

Katherine Warman Kern: Do Read The Art of Choice

October 12, 2010

In The Art of Choosing , Dr. Sheena Iyengar, business professor at Columbia University, writes about her work in the area of understanding culture, how we make choices, and how those choices impact our lives. I learned, that, if you trust me, you will probably accept my recommendation to read it and be happy about it! Dr. Iyengar is a pioneer. There probably aren’t many blind researchers. Certainly not many who are tenured professors at a school the caliber of Columbia Business School. And the study of culture in the context of business is a relatively new specialty and very relevant to growing businesses in the post-Mass marketing era. From the now famous “Jam” study, which identified that fewer choices featured at retail could increase sales by double-digits, to the study of medical choice which affirms the value of informed consent with a doctor’s recommendation, the book is rich with research. I didn’t always agree with Dr. Iynengar’s conclusions, but every question she pursues and the facts she shares are valuable with insights into future opportunity For example, when studying the differences between Anglo-American and Asian-American kids, she reveals an insight which is key. Both the Anglo-American and Asian-American kids were least motivated when their options were limited by the teacher, Anglo-American kids were most motivated and worked longer when exercising personal choice, and the Asian-American kids, who believed their mothers made the choice for them, were the most productive. This could mean that Anglo-American kids are more motivated by personal choice and Asian American kids are more motivated by pleasing their mothers. But the fact that neither performed well when the teacher made the choice for them suggests that neither is motivated when they think someone who doesn’t care about them personally makes the choice. In other words, when someone else you trust makes the choice for you, you are not haunted with self-doubt about the choice you made or questioning the intent of the untrustworthy authority figure who made the choice for you. You happily plug away productively, believing that someone who knows and cares about you chose the right option for you to pursue. Understanding how we make choices could be a dangerous thing in the hands of people we do not trust. But Dr. Iyengar reveals just how ineffective it can be to try to manipulate choice. The “love on a suspension bridge” study reveals that triggering a negative emotion — fear — could be confused with positive emotions — like love. But when a student of Dr. Iyengar attempts to try it out on a love interest, the result backfires! In today’s marketplace of abundant choices, this is a must read to understand the factors effecting choice.

Read the full article →

Kevin O’Brien: Taking the Career Fair Concept Online

October 11, 2010

We’ve all been told that a college degree guarantees success. With U.S unemployment at 9.6% and college students are facing a 19% jobless rate, college students are facing limited employment opportunities, a mountain of debt and they are being forced to reassess employment options as well as location. In today’s economic climate a college degree does not guarantee a job, but there are many employers out there who are actively and aggressively hiring college level talent. UBM Studios Unicruit understands how difficult it is to find employment and has created a revolutionary approach to career fairs targeted at university recruiting. The Unicruit virtual career fair essentially brings the career fair to the employer and job seeker. Today’s youth live and interact in a virtual world and they rely on an immediacy of information available at their fingertips. They text, Tweet, Facebook, and it only makes sense that employers looking to attract the best and the brightest would adopt an online strategy to meet and interact with students where they live each day, online. In an effort to introduce more students/graduates to more employers, Unicruit is partnering with the Big East Career Consortium to deliver The Big East Virtual Career Fair — a fully interactive, 3D virtual career fair for students of 16 colleges including Cincinnati, Connecticut, DePaul, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Providence, Rutgers, St. John’s, Seton Hall, South Florida, Syracuse, Villanova and West Virginia. This event will take place on November 10 and is FREE of charge for college students and alumni of the Big East schools to attend. The virtual career fair presents an excellent opportunity for participating employers to showcase their organizations to thousands of students and alumni. Each employer will have a customized virtual booth that will include full branding, videos, presentations, job postings, chat, resume exchange and video interviewing. More than 40 employers will participate such as Verizon Wireless, Geico, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Procter & Gamble, Hertz, Aon, Memorial Sloane Kettering, General Electric, Waste Management, Sears, Progressive, Vanguard, ADP and many others. The virtual career fair is just like a traditional career fair, except that it will take place online! It allows students and alumni an opportunity to visit employer booths, view and apply for jobs, upload resumes, chat with recruiters, network with peers and video interview, all from the comfort and convenience of home. Because the career fair is virtual, it is cost effective; time efficient and environmentally friendly -the job seeker will only need a high speed internet connection to participate. And since no travel is required – the virtual fair opens the opportunities for individuals all over the country and provides employers with a wider talent pool to choose from. Imagine being able to recruit at 16 campuses in one day. Now imagine being able to do so without spending one dime on airplanes, rental cars, or hotels. What would that do to your bottom line, your work/life balance, and the environment? That is exactly what the employers who participate in the Unicruit virtual career fairs achieve. Here’s a link to a short video that show you how it works If you are a Big East college student or alumni, you can register for this exciting event at: BigEastCareerFair.com . We hope to see you at one of our upcoming events! If you are an employer wishing to participate in this revolutionary approach to recruiting, simply send an email to kobrien@unicruit.com . Kevin O’Brien is the vice president of business development for UBM Studios. and prior to joining UBM in 2010, Kevin enjoyed a 15 year career in the virtual communications industry.

Read the full article →

Inder Sidhu: Profiles in Doing Both: Clorox Has a New Formula for Cleaning Up in Emerging Markets

October 11, 2010

For nearly 100 years, the name “Clorox” has been synonymous with the words “clean” and “sanitary” in the United Sates. But not in many parts of the emerging world, where its products can help in a myriad of ways. Though the company does business in more than 100 countries, nearly 80 percent of sales come from North America. Company leaders are eager to change this. Brimming with confidence over success achieved recently in Latin America, they believe they can double the amount of business Clorox does outside North America. What makes them so sure? This time, they believe they have the right business formula for growing in established countries and in emerging markets. Here’s some background. Founded in 1913 by a group of California entrepreneurs, Clorox is a Fortune 500 consumer products giant. In addition to its namesake bleach, Clorox makes Hidden Valley Ranch salad dressing, Fresh Step cat litter, Glad trash bags and a host of other products. In fiscal 2010, sales totaled $5.5 billion. Sensing the company was missing some opportunities, company leaders went on a buying spree in the 1990s to jump start international sales. In all, Clorox spent more than $1 billion acquiring overseas companies. They spent the bulk of their money in Latin American. The acquisitions provided Clorox a toehold in key markets, but did not lead to the creation of a true, global strategy. For many years, there was limited coordination between field managers and executives at headquarters, and scant knowledge sharing between different geographies. Then in 2006, incoming CEO Donald Knauss vowed to change the company’s revenue profile. In particular, he wanted to increase the amount of business Clorox did outside the U.S. and Canada. The former president of Coca-Cola North America, he believed Clorox was missing a huge opportunity to sell health and wellness products in geographies where economic growth was creating significant consumer demand. Knauss tasked his lieutenants to create a comprehensive plan for expanding overseas. Unlike previous strategies that relied on acquisitions and partnerships, he wanted Clorox to grow its business in a more holistic manner. That meant judicious acquisitions in specific places, and organic growth in others. In addition, he thought the company could gain from leveraging best practices developed in the U.S. and replicating successes achieved in emerging countries where Clorox had established a leadership position. Doing both would help Clorox reach its full potential, company officials believed. You can see evidence of the strategy at work in many places around the world today. Take the work the company is doing in Peru around disease prevention. Clorox makes a number of surface disinfectants that are ideal for the market. But sales weren’t as high as local companies officials hoped. After some analysis, Clorox managers realized that consumers weren’t fully aware of all the ways germs could spread in a household. So they launched a major consumer education campaign that led to a 60 percent increase in bleach sales between 2007 and 2009. Now the company hopes to replicate this success elsewhere. The same is true of best practices that Clorox first developed in the U.S. that are now being exported to Latin America and Asia. This includes the work done by the company’s Category Advisory Services (CAS) team, which helps retailers leverage consumer data to drive higher-margin sales. CAS has been a big hit with U.S. retailers and is now winning new fans in emerging markets. In one Latin American country where a major retailer teamed with CAS, sales growth significantly outpaced the rest of the market thanks the strategies for shelving and assortment Clorox provided. In a recent interview with McKinsey Quarterly , Clorox Executive Vice President Beth Springer said the company will continue to “apply our functional practices more globally.” This has led to a deeper analysis of local markets and product profitability in individual categories. Armed with this knowledge, Clorox believes it can grow market share, expand into adjacent segments and enter new geographies. To Springer, the company’s game plan is “clearer than it has been in years.” Instead of developing one strategy for domestic markets and another for international ones, Clorox is moving closer to developing a holistic, global strategy that encourages ideas and innovations to flow freely from the established world to the emerging one, and then back again. Each time this occurs, Clorox cross-leverages success achieved in one part of the world with milestones attained in another. Take its three-step Desire, Decide and Delight program. Launched in North America, the initiative aims to increase customer satisfaction during the pre-sales, point-of-sales and post sales experience. After expanding the program to Latin America, the company’s market share grew by 1.8 percent in 2009. That translated into millions of dollars of new business. In another example, Clorox was able to transfer market insights on packaging gleaned in Latin America during the H1N1 flu epidemic back the U.S. where its been put to use to help design more convenient consumables. By increasing its involvement in the emerging world, Clorox is better positioning itself in the established one. Doing both is making the already potent company stronger than before. Inder Sidhu is the Senior Vice President of Strategy & Planning for Worldwide Operations at Cisco , and the author of Doing Both: How Cisco Captures Today’s Profits and Drives Tomorrow’s Growth . Follow Inder on Twitter at @indersidhu .

Read the full article →

Michael Hudson: Boiler Rooms and Foreclosure Mills: A Brief History of America’s Mortgage Industry

October 7, 2010

The news about the nation’s foreclosure scandal has been coming fast and furious, fueled by tales of backdated documents , false affidavits and “rocket dockets” that push families into the street. A former employee with one of the nation’s largest lenders testifies that he signed off on 400 foreclosure documents a day without reading them or verifying the information in them was correct. Ex-employees of a law firm that serves as a “foreclosure mill” for major lenders describe a workplace where speed — not accuracy or justice — trumps all . “Somebody would get a 76-day foreclosure,” one recalled, “and then someone else would say, ‘Oh, I can beat that!’” Shocking stuff. But surprising? Not for anyone who’s been tracking the recent history of the mortgage machine. Just about every corner of America’s mortgage industry has been blemished by significant levels of fraud over the past decade. Forged Signatures, Fake W-2 Forms On the front end of the process, for example, many mortgage pros used “boiler-room” salesmanship to peddle loans to borrowers who didn’t understand what they were getting and couldn’t afford their loans in the long run. To make these deals go through, some workers forged borrowers’ signatures on key disclosure documents, pressured real estate appraisers to inflate home values , and created fake W-2 tax forms that exaggerated loan applicants’ earnings. At Ameriquest Mortgage, one of the companies I focus on in my new book about the subprime mortgage debacle, The Monster , this sort of cut-and-paste document production was so common employees joked that the work was being done in “The Lab” or the “Art Department.” Here’s a snippet from the book, from a passage about Stephen Kuhn, a young Ameriquest salesman who eventually became distraught about the things he had to do to earn his living: The pressure to produce began to get to Kuhn. After he became a branch manager, he saw a bigger picture of how Ameriquest was treating its customers. Many nights, he had to drink a twelve-pack of beer to get to sleep. He asked for a demotion. He wanted to go back to being a salesman. Even that didn’t work for him. He felt trapped. To hang on to his job, he had to put borrowers in deals that sank them deeper into ruin. One of his customers was a veterinarian who was having tax problems. The IRS was threatening to close down his business. Kuhn arranged a loan for the veterinarian that “had no benefit whatsoever. It was a terrible loan.” Another customer was a small businessman, the owner of a Chinese restaurant. Kuhn put the man into a stated-income loan that raised his payments by $200 a month, even though he was struggling to keep up on his existing mortgage. “He was desperate,” Kuhn said. “So I was told to take advantage of him.” Kuhn said a supervisor ordered him to cut and paste documents to make the loan go through, telling him, “It’s a three-hundred-thousand-dollar loan. Get it done.” The borrower was facing foreclosure on his existing mortgage, so Kuhn forged his mortgage history so it looked like he’d never been late on his mortgage. By the summer of 2003 Kuhn couldn’t take it anymore. He told his manager he was having trouble dealing with things, because he thought Ameriquest’s rates, fees, and business ethics were terrible. Soon after, on a day when Kuhn was out sick, his manager left him a cell phone message telling him it would be in everyone’s best interest if Kuhn and Ameriquest parted ways. Kuhn called back and asked why he was being fired. The only answer the manager would give him, Kuhn said, was, “I think you know.” Kuhn was far from alone, at Ameriquest and other lenders around the country. As the Center for Public Integrity documented in its 2009 investigation, ” Economic Meltdown: The Subprime 25 ,” many of the largest financial institutions in America were key players in the subprime market — and many of them had to make payments to settle claims of widespread lending abuses. Little was done to stop the bad practices when they were happening. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan would later explain to CBS’ 60 Minutes : “While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late. I didn’t really get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.” The Fed took no action even when it became aware of the problems, he said, because “it’s very difficult for banking regulators to deal with that.” With federal officials pushing a soft approach to policing the mortgage market, it was left to the states to do what they could to try and rein in the worst practices. A coalition of state authorities dug into Ameriquest’s tactics, eventually forcing the company to agree to a $325 million loan-fraud settlement . States Again Take the Lead Now that a fresh scandal has emerged in the mortgage industry, the states are once again taking the lead in confronting the problem. At least seven states are investigating questionable foreclosures. On Wednesday, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray sued Ally Financial Inc. and its GMAC Mortgage division , claiming that workers at the company had signed and filed false court documents in an effort to “increase its profits at the expense Ohio consumers and Ohio’s system of justice.” Cordray called the alleged misconduct the ” tip of an iceberg of industrywide abuse of the foreclosure process. ” Now the question becomes: How forcefully will federal officials intervene? Key members of Congress are pushing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and current Fed Chair Ben Bernanke to investigate. Holder said at press conference Wednesday that “we are aware of the charges that have surfaced in the newspapers in the last couple of days, and we are looking at them.” The White House announced Thursday afternoon that President Obama would not sign a bill that some consumer advocates worry would make it harder for homeowners to fight fraudulent foreclosures. The legislation would generally require state and federal courts to recognize notarizations made by a notary public in any state — and require courts to recognize electronic notarizations. Congress and other powers in Washington failed to get the facts and act the first time around — when lenders were engaged in a frenzy of predatory lending. The foreclosure scandal is a second chance for lawmakers and bureaucrats to prove that they can ferret out the truth and take action. Michael Hudson is a staff writer with a nonprofit journalism organization, the Center for Public Integrity , and author of The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Wall Street Bankers Fleeced America–and Spawned a Global Crisis (Times Books, October 2010).

Read the full article →

Richard Laermer: It’s October; Let’s Work!

October 7, 2010

Here we are, in one of two months where we are actually supposed to work. Funny, right? No. Not really. This is the true month of our discontent. We have nothing getting in the way of us accomplishing all the goals we have set in front of our faces. Think about this: All the other months (except June, strangely) have something that gets in the way of actually getting something done. You have a holiday here (January, February, March, April, May…), a slowdown here (July, late November to January 1) an urgently “deserved” week away (August) and then the malaise of September when Labor Day seems to be an excuse to wonder whether labor makes sense at all. We used to call that daydreaming. But October, ah the sweet smell of October. That wonderful odor is sweat! It’s what happens when “workers” (me and you) start to buckle down… Hey, who came up with that buckle down saying? What an ass! But I can’t digress per usual because I actually have some work to do and this essay is getting in the way. Remember to accomplish a ton during these 31 days because there are no reasons for us to be anything but working, all the time, every single day, with all our might and with no excuse to stop, no whining, no away days, not a single solitary day of the week that will get in our way. While I have your attention can I have a second to discuss inherent laziness? Lazy is not when you don’t show up for work and instead hang on the couch watching Jeffersons reruns. It’s also found in the language (“Sounds good” is simply stupid) that we use sparingly. After nearly 20 years of cell phone tech I am headshakingly bewildered by a growing number of people who still use speakerphones to have complete and information-filled conversations while standing on line at Coffee Beans, Peets or Starbucks. Is a headset really expensive? Or have we all turned into exhibitionists? I’m back. Let’s remember you now have six-and-a-half glorious weeks until the next four day weekend! Time to work! Have you noticed how much people do little (yes, I see the bad grammar) when what looks like a vacation rears its fabulous head…. I know I sure slow down. I want to take this opportunity to remind those of us who actually work for a living that there is no time like the present to stop volleying the emails back and forth–yes you are popular, fine–and live your life in the style of Comcast NBC Universal GE Microwave’s Brian Roberts. Here’s a conversation he had with a confused colleague who just wanted to know…. Friend: “How come you are so successful?” Roberts: “Ah. My secret? On those days when I am not into work, and I could just respond to emails all day long, that’s when I make myself get on the phone.” Lovely. We do a lot of emailing that accomplishes nothing and a ton of IM-ing that doesn’t say anything that we should have just said to ourselves. Don’t even start with the constant stream of bubbles rising up on our phones –texting–that was what Orwell was sure would crop up to stop us from getting anything done! If we texted one third of the time we’d all be Einsteins. Life is about ATD. Attention to detail is the way to make it in the gibberish-filled marketing industries. That’s why months like October are crucial! You get a whole month to do something without interruption. Start, then finish. Ahhh. Surely someone once said what my Dad told me when I was a whiny kid: “You are where the work ends. Don’t believe anyone will take the time to cover up your mistakes or make it better for you.” Meaning, the work has to be yours and you need to take responsibility for all of it. That’s why I love October, discontentment and all. Work, work, work. You get to spend a full month completing tasks, not depending on grammar check or a supervisor or the guy in the next cube who is nice enough to not tell you how you are making the same mistake over and over. Wonderful, wonderful October. Wait a minute Hold on. I just realized something super fantastic! Monday is Columbus Day–and didn’t he “discover the new world” and shouldn’t we give him a day off to consider what he did for us? I won’t be here Monday the 11th. Maybe Friday the 8th too! I’m exhausted this rant got to me. I need a rest. So don’t forget. October is about work and getting it done. Please update me with your results. Suckers!

Read the full article →

Arielle Ford: The Secret Weapon of Success: Grow Your Profits With Testimonials

October 5, 2010

I am pleased to introduce my good friend, Mike Koenigs, as a guest contributor on my blog this week. Mike is an extraordinary marketing expert who helps authors, experts and speakers build their platforms to achieve higher levels of success. The most important thing that you can do to build your platform, get media attention, score a book deal, and ultimately, sell your product or service, is to gather effective customer testimonials and proof that what you’re offering actually works. Whether your content is about relationships, financial success, weight loss or peak performance, you need great testimonials to prove that your system produces extraordinary results for ordinary people . The power of testimonials lies in our basic human nature, our inclination to seek leaders and solutions to our problems. Simply put, we do things that we see other people doing, particularly when those people demonstrate that they’ve successfully achieved a desirable goal. That’s called “social proof” and it’s an incredibly powerful way to influence people. Exceptional testimonials don’t just prove that what you’re offering produces the results your customers desire, they also turn you and your “ordinary” clients into superstars. Plus, publishers love them! I learned the importance of testimonials the hard way, thanks to a mistake that cost me $10 million over ten years. Throughout my career, I’ve been fortunate to help big brands like Sony, Columbia, Tri-Star, BMW, Warner Brothers, Mazda, Domino’s Pizza, and General Mills take their marketing into the 21st century. Unfortunately, in my early days I forgot to collect client testimonials to prove that my own services delivered the results I was promising. For that I paid a high price, both in time–months spent selling my services to potential new clients — and in countless missed opportunities that could have multiplied my bottom line — with NO EXTRA WORK. Determined to remedy my error and kick my own marketing into high gear, I’ve since spent many hours studying testimonials, watching infomercials, reading books and through years of trial and error, developing a formula for collecting highly effective customer testimonials. That formula has brought me and my clients tremendous success — to the tune of many millions of dollars. In fact, Brian Tracy, the Tony Robbins Companies and many other thought leaders have adapted my formula and continue to use it themselves. I’d like to share it with you so you can avoid the frustration and failure I experienced. Working with authors, it’s clear that the most common mistake they make is not collecting quality testimonials, social proof or setting up an effective marketing system from the start . As I’ve experienced firsthand, it’s a mistake that can literally cost you your career. The step-by-step testimonial formula I use for my business and my clients, which is laid out in detail in the “How To Make A Perfect Testimonial” guide that you can download below, works in any business, any personal development product, any coaching, any spiritual practice, etc. The basic principles behind my formula are simple. Your testimonials should: Focus on ordinary people with ordinary problems who get extraordinary results quickly and easily without adjusting a huge amount of their lifestyle; and Answer three questions: Is it easy? Does it work? Can I do it? (Sound familiar? Those are the same questions cosmetics direct marketer Mary Kay insisted every customer needs to have answered to be persuaded to buy.) My “How To Make A Perfect Testimonial” guide includes everything you need to gather top-notch testimonials, including the ideal length of your testimonials, the three critical components of highly effective testimonials, as well as a template and release form you can quickly adapt to your needs. Download my in-depth testimonial guide free here . Even if you don’t need it for yourself, be sure to pass it along to colleagues and friends. You’ll be the first person they invite to the party after they sign a six-figure book deal! Arielle Ford has launched the careers of many NY Times bestselling authors including Deepak Chopra, Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen, Neale Donald Walsch & Debbie Ford. She is a former book publicist, literary agent and the author of seven books. To learn how to get started writing a book please visit: www.HowToWriteMyBook.com

Read the full article →

Caroline Dowd-Higgins: How a Coach Can Distinguish You in the Workplace

October 4, 2010

Having a personal career coach for C-level executives is expected as part of their continuing professional development and it also makes great business sense. Coaches can also be helpful for non executives in various stages of your career. A coach can help polish your communication skills, develop and implement effective leadership strategies in your workplace, and plan a road map for you to move forward on the promotional ladder. The coaching menu varies greatly and the research is showing that professionals who work with a coach are making great strides in the workplace that positively impact performance and results. Some organizations provide coaching in-house, especially in the upper ranks of the organizational chart. But for those of you who don’t have this as part of your workplace benefits package, seeking out career coaching on your own is a worthwhile investment to consider. A Lesson from Athletes For decades, professional athletes have utilized coaches to help them change behaviors, stretch their physical limits, and achieve performance goals. Career coaches utilize a developmental approach to help an individual reach their objective just as a major league baseball coach leads individual players to work as part of a team and win games. But the professional sports teams take it a step farther and employ specialized coaches to tap into specific skill sets from the physical trainer and the sports psychologist to the pitching coach on a baseball team, each of whom serve a niche function. In the work world, coaches can help you develop new skills, communicate more effectively, and bring individuals on teams together to achieve greater performance potential, for example. Find a coach that specializes in exactly what you need since one size does not fit all. Another added benefit is the opportunity to have someone provide regular feedback and champion your personal cause to optimize your success. But you must choose your coach wisely since this personal relationship is built on trust and will only work with open lines of communication. Check references, ask for referrals, and always test drive since a reputable coach should offer a complimentary consultation. Personal Guru While having a personal career guru may not seem financially feasible for those at beginning or mid level careers, consider utilizing a coach only for very specific workplace challenges. To avoid Laurence J. Peter’s famed principle that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence, you might seek out a coach if you find yourself in a new leadership role without the skills or experience to effectively lead your team. Instead of floundering as a new leader with added responsibilities and no clue how to manage and inspire your flock, seek out a leadership coach who can show you how. Even a seasoned leader can seek the help of a coach to get her team unstuck with behaviors or mind sets that are holding them back and preventing maximum results and performance. Coaches can also help prepare you for a new job opportunity, polishing your professional toolkit from resume and cover letters to your interview skills. While coaches can be very useful in the preparation and execution of a job search plan, most are not recruiters who will help you find actual job opportunities so be clear about what you need and want before entering into this professional relationship. Your Coach is Not Your Shrink A coach should be an effective sounding board for your issues at work and often plays the role of the cheerleader to motivate you to implement your newly honed skills. But, a coach is not a dumping ground for your emotional baggage and should be viewed as a professional resource that can provide an objective perspective about complicated work issues as well as solutions. Although not a substitute for therapy, working with a coach can give you clarity to work through difficult scenarios on the job that may give you peace of mind. Also called executive coaches, these professionals can help you put your goals into practice and effect change that has a powerful impact on your organization and your career. But don’t fret if a coach seems out of your financial grasp since there are many ways to seek out free counsel from experienced professionals in the form of mentorship. Mentors as Coaches Everyone should develop a personal board of directors they can look to for professional advice. The best case scenario is to include professionals from outside of your current organization so they can provide objective wisdom and suggestions. Or, consider going outside of your immediate department at work to utilize the in-house expertise and institutional history within your workplace. Whether you are a rookie employee, a mid level professional, or a seasoned executive, consider how you can pay-it-forward to others who need coaching in your network and serve as a mentor. If you have the wherewithal to hire an executive or career coach to help you achieve your maximum potential you are investing in your future success. Coaching in the workplace is here to stay so take advantage of this any way you can get it! Caroline Dowd-Higgins pens a career transition blog called “This Is Not the Career I Ordered” ( www.notthecareeriordered.com ). She is also the Director of Career & Professional Development at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Read the full article →

Alan Juristovski: Long Live the Music Industry, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Lyrics…

October 4, 2010

Did you know that a staggering 70% of all searches for music on the Internet are related to lyrics? It seems everyone wants to know if Billy Joe Armstrong really sang about “dead skin on trial” in Green Day’s “Good Riddance (Time of Your Life).” While the CD continues its painful death rattle, and as the recorded music business continues to look for ways to eek out a few bucks in the face of declining sales, overall music consumption — via Internet, in live settings, through film, television, gaming and commercial integrations — is bigger than ever, leading people to search out its sources, inspirations and fundamentals, chief among them, lyrics. Moreover, shows like American Idol and Glee have weaned a new generation of fans on song fundamentals and given rise to a new appreciation of lyrics and melody. All of a sudden, there is great demand for the lyrics product. Whether you have a song stuck in your head, want to share lyrics on your MySpace page or challenge your friends at “Rock Band,” everybody, it seems, has looked up lyrics at one time or another, and the Internet has made access to legal lyrics much more readily available. Beforehand, fans were just arguing as to whether Hendrix was saying “‘Scuse Me While I Kiss The Sky” or “‘Scuse Me While I Kiss This Guy.” Now, problem solved! And a business born. In fact, HALF of all Internet users visit at least one music site in any given month. Yes, you read that right … HALF. How do I know? I’m a supplier. The lyric pusher if you will. Every month, more than 40 million unique users visit our site metrolyrics.com to get the most up to date, accurate, and legal lyrics to hundreds of thousands of songs by artists from every genre of music. The music industry is waking up to the fact that lyrics are — and will continue to be — big business, if we can continue to provide an easy, effective and legal product for the user. Lyrics are a potential new revenue stream for an industry looking to monetize their product in as many ways as possible — ringtones, ring tunes, concert tickets and merchandise stakes, etc. I don’t claim to be an expert in applied economics, but I can safely say I’m sure any business would like 40 million monthly customers. And if we play our cards right and work together to spur the curiosity that is bringing all these music aficionados to our site and others in droves, we can collectively make lyrics the next big music industry money-maker. As an industry, we need to learn from our past mistakes and embrace and develop this curiosity in an easy, legal and compelling way. Lets continue to work together to provide fans with the most legal and accurate content, compensate the artists for their work and leverage this unprecedented interest in song construct and lyrics to grow this business. To the intrepid lyric hunters, I say “keep searching!” and in turn, I promise if you’re looking for the right, legal lyrics to say, Beck’s “Loser,” you’ll actually get “Soy Un Perdedor” rather than the more commonly and colloquially misquoted “Sooo… open the door, I am loser baby…”

Read the full article →

David Isenberg: Taliban to PSC: How May We Serve You?

October 2, 2010

Today we have news straight out of Mario Puzo. It seems the Taliban made local Afghan private security contractors an offer they could not refuse. Yesterday the Inspector General’s office at the U.S. Agency for International released a report that found that millions of dollars in American taxpayer funds may have been paid to Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan to provide security for a U.S. development project. The report says subcontractors hired to protect a development project near Jalalabad may have paid more than $5 million to the militants through local authorities. According to news reports the report examined payments for security under a $349-million contract awarded to a U.S. contractor, Development Alternatives Inc. , for a small-scale infrastructure and community development project. Because the Taliban fighters are entrenched in the area and it is deemed too dangerous there for the contractor to visit regularly, Development Alternatives left it to local subcontractors to negotiate security arrangements. The report says local authorities often demand a 20% “protection tax” in such circumstances. Under those deals — along the lines of extortionist protection rackets in the U.S. — the Taliban sends security guards with promises that they won’t attack the subcontractors or their equipment and won’t try to halt the contract work. Often local authorities will try to renegotiate the agreement just before the work begins to further jack up the price, the report says. Officials from the agency and the contractor told the investigators that the development work was not being directly monitored because it was taking place in a war zone, so there was no way they could provide assurances that U.S. taxpayer money paid to subcontractors didn’t end up in the hands of the insurgents. Note that what we are discussing is not an audit but a review report titled ” Review of Security Costs Charged to USAID Projects in Afghanistan .” The actual review provides a more nuanced view of what happened than some of the news reports, although the situation still merits serious concern. The summary says: The Regional Inspector General/Manila conducted a review of Edinburgh International’s security costs charged to the following three USAID-funded projects in Afghanistan implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI): • Afghanistan Small and Medium Enterprises Development (ASMED) • Incentives Driving Economic Alternatives for the North, East, and West (IDEA-NEW) • Local Governance and Community Development (LGCD) The objective of this review was to determine whether there has been any indication that Edinburgh International misused USAID funds to pay the Taliban or others in exchange for protection. The review covered the period from January 1 to December 31, 2009. The review found no indication that Edinburgh International had misused USAID funds to pay the Taliban or others in exchange for protection. However, there were indications that Afghan subcontractors working on the LGCD project had paid insurgents for protection in remote and insecure areas of Afghanistan. The payments were allegedly made as part of a security arrangement with local communities that very likely included the Taliban or groups that support them. We also found indications of pervasive fraud in DAI’s LGCD office in Jalalabad and indications of endemic corruption in Nangarhar Province, where Jalalabad is located. The background to this is that USAID/Afghanistan relies on private security contractors (PSCs) to supply various security services for contractors and grantees that implement USAID-funded projects in Afghanistan. USAID practice has been to delegate responsibility and oversight for security to its implementing partners and factor the cost of security into their program budgets. These implementing partners typically subcontract their security services to PSCs. USAID indirectly pays for PSCs when the implementing partners submit their invoices for payment, which include the cost of security services. In the past year, news reports have said that U.S. Government funds paid to contractors for reconstruction projects were being siphoned off to Taliban insurgents in exchange for “protection” to prevent attacks. For example, one news article reported that USAID funds were ending up in the hands of the Taliban through a protection racket for contractors. Another article said that in southern Afghanistan, no contract can be implemented unless the Taliban takes a cut, sometimes at various steps along the way. Other news reports said that PSCs were involved in the negotiations with insurgents. The good news, according to the report is that: A review of Edinburgh’s accounting system and financial records revealed that the firm had employed a strong system of internal controls over cash transactions. These controls reduced the risk of illicit payments, since such payments are often made in cash. Further, an examination of supporting documentation for expenditures of $3.85 million (34 percent of the total spent by Edinburgh in 2009) revealed no unusual or suspicious payments. Finally, the field staff’s authority to make payments was strictly limited, reducing the possibility that the staff could make extortion payments to the Taliban or other insurgent groups without the knowledge of supervisory staff in Kabul. Edinburgh International provided an armed guard force and security management staff for DAI’s project offices and guest houses, as well as security for moving expatriate staff on the ground. However, Edinburgh International did not provide security for DAI’s project activities, such as road construction, canal rehabilitation, or other construction activities where Taliban insurgent violence was a risk. As a result, Edinburgh International would not be in a position to negotiate with or make payments to Taliban insurgents or others in exchange for protection at these work sites. But, USAID, U.S. intelligence, and DAI officials expressed concerns that insurgents may have extorted protection payments from DAI subcontractors implementing stabilization and community development activities. During the review, the IG also received allegations of fraud involving employees at DAI’s LGCD office in Jalalabad. In October 2006, USAID/Afghanistan awarded DAI a 3-year, $95 million contract to implement the LGCD project. The contract was subsequently increased to $349 million and extended to April 30, 2011. The project was meant to work in partnership with local communities to create a stable environment for medium- and long-term political, economic, and social development. The LGCD project looks for communities in insecure areas who are willing to work with local government authorities to implement small-scale infrastructure and community development activities. The contract states that one important responsibility of the communities is to guarantee security during the implementation phase of development activities. Yet some individuals said that the local communities who were supposed to guarantee security very likely included the Taliban or groups who support the Taliban. The original contract itself stated that dispute mediation and community security are “services” that the Taliban is providing. Interviews with personnel from USAID, U.S. intelligence, and DAI indicated that, for LGCD subprojects, Afghan subcontractors would meet with local community leaders before the implementation phase and negotiate the terms of community support, including employment opportunities and security arrangements. The subcontractors would also negotiate security terms with insurgents either directly or indirectly through community leaders. Insurgents could demand from the subcontractor a “protection tax” of up to 20 percent of the total subcontract value in exchange for protection. “Protection” might include Taliban-provided security guards for the activity site and a promise not to attack the subcontractor’s personnel and equipment and not to halt the activity. Sometimes insurgents would try to renegotiate the terms of the security arrangement shortly after the subcontractor began implementation. Their intent was to extort more money from the subcontractor, and they would threaten violence if the subcontractor did not comply. The report also noted that Afghan subcontractors used several methods to recoup the money paid to insurgents. The most common method was to include the amount in the total cost of the subcontract up front, because subcontractors knew that the tax would have to be paid before implementation. Subcontractors allegedly considered such protection taxes as “mobilization costs” and billed them to DAI through normal invoicing procedures; the costs were then passed on to USAID for payment. Specific line items in the project budget might be inflated, or subcontractors might recoup costs by substituting low-quality, cheap materials for promised high-quality materials. Subcontractors might also stage a security incident at the project site and ask for more money from DAI to pay for security. And what exactly is a security incident? In 2009, DAI suspended or cancelled 27 LGCD subprojects totaling about $1.4 million because of security incidents in the southern, southeastern, and eastern regions of Afghanistan. According to a DAI report, the security incidents mostly involved Taliban insurgent threats and violence around the subproject construction sites. For example, in June 2008, DAI awarded a 6-month, $718,000 subcontract to an Afghan construction company to improve about 7.5 kilometers of gravel road in Kunar Province of eastern Afghanistan, just north of Nangarhar Province along the border with Pakistan. About 2 months after construction started, the subcontractor’s bulldozer was set on fire by unknown arsonists, according to DAI’s account of the security incident. DAI asked the subcontractor to suspend work in October 2008 and informed USAID of the situation. The subproject remained suspended until it was finally canceled in April 2009. Further inquiry by USAID personnel in August 2009 revealed that Taliban insurgents from the local community had been involved with the arson. Apparently, insurgents had been requesting payment for security instead of providing it as part of their community contribution as originally agreed with the subcontractor. According to unclassified information obtained from U.S. intelligence officials, this incident fits the pattern of attempts by insurgents to renegotiate the terms of the security arrangement shortly after the subcontractor begins implementation. Their intent is to extort more money from the subcontractor, and they threaten or commit violence if the subcontractor does not comply. This type of activity is endemic in Taliban stronghold areas, and the LGCD incident in Kunar Province is representative of such occurrences in these areas, the officials said. DAI ended up paying the full amount of the subcontract plus idle-equipment fees amounting to about $740,000–costs that were passed along to USAID. The length of the subcontract was 6 months, yet the subcontractor worked for only about 2 months and, as calculated from the time actually spent at the job site, completed only 33 percent of the construction. We concluded that this subproject was not only a casualty of Taliban insurgent actions and violence but also was a waste of USAID money. One wonders if PMSC trade groups factor that in when making their usual claims about the inherent cost effectiveness of PSC use?

Read the full article →

Aron Cramer: Streamlining the Millennium Development Goals for More Impact

September 29, 2010

In New York City last week, government, civil society, and business leaders converged to assess progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and raise additional funds at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) to meet them. Despite a still sluggish economy, CGI managed to generate an impressive $2.5 billion in pledges from its participants. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon added to this with a pledge of $40 billion over the next 5 years to catapult progress toward the 2015 finish line, particularly targeting aid for women and girls. Great work, Bill! At the halfway mark towards the deadline for meeting the MDGs in 2015, progress is being made, but it is likely that most of the goals will go unmet. Progress on MDG-5, for example, focused on improving maternal health, has been strong,, yet achievement of the goal, a two-thirds reduction in maternal mortality by 2015, is unlikely at this point. With five years to go, it is clear that the MDGs have played a powerful catalytic role in reducing poverty, by providing a powerful (and previously absent) way to measure progress on many of the most important development challenges. It is equally clear that there is no overarching roadmap to get to the finish line. In our view, three things need to be done in the final five years to optimize the impact of the Goals: (1) Develop a more holistic approach to achieving the goals, (2) Create better measurement of progress, and (3) Get business more involved. First, a more holistic approach to progress on the MDGs is needed. At present, donor coordination around the MDGs is scattered, with donors honing in on specific topics (HIV/AIDS, girls’ education, or agricultural markets) rather than the full MDGs ecosystem. Sustainable progress on the goals requires recognition of the linkages between them, i.e. steps forward on environmental protection are integrally linked to economic development. One solution might be for bilateral donors and recipients to join forces to develop coordinated action plans that address all the goals in the specific context of a single nation’s needs and circumstances. Second, better measurement is also essential. As we know from our work at BSR on return-on-investment metrics, collecting data to assess MDG progress in developing countries can be incredibly challenging given resource and capacity constraints. We need country-specific measurements, in addition to global assessments, to ensure that we stay attentive to poor results in smaller countries, even as progress in large countries creates good results. To put a fine point on it, the significant progress in China to improve maternal health risks masking a lack of progress in a country like Uganda. We need to vigilantly measure both. Finally, the private sector can and should play an expanded role in reaching the MDGs. Even during the depths of the recession, governments and communities have looked to the private sector to generate the investment and innovation that’s needed to help marginalized communities grasp new economic opportunities. And while a great deal of attention lately has been on social entrepreneurship, neither the capacity nor the conditions are present to make this the answer to massive development needs. Filling the interim gap between the present and a future ripe for entrepreneurship would be both a noble and profitable endeavor for companies–and an important development strategy. Hopefully the first ten years of the MDGs were the hardest. Now that the world has finally taken note of the Goals as a measure of development progress, the time is now to accelerate progress toward the 2015 deadline and ensure momentum and progress behind the goals that are met–and those that are not–continues.

Read the full article →

Elizabeth Warren Was Paid To Be An Expert Witness In Cases Against Bailed-Out Banks

September 28, 2010

While acting as a government-appointed bailout watchdog, Elizabeth Warren, whom President Obama appointed this month to lead the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , served as an expert witness in cases against some of the big banks receiving aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Bloomberg News reports. Warren was paid $90,000 to be an expert witness in a class-action lawsuit at the same time she was head of the Congressional Oversight Panel , which oversees the $700 billion government bailout of the financial sector. Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, all of which received TARP assistance, were among the defendants in the suit, according to Bloomberg . Warren told Bloomberg that her work as a witness constituted no ethical violations, saying she had prior approval from the ethics lawyer for the Congressional Oversight Panel. A Harvard professor and an expert on the financial sector particularly as it relates to middle-class consumers, Warren said she was allowed to continue doing side jobs even as she held this government role. Warren is famously tough as advocate for the middle class, and a former student described her teaching style at Harvard as “Socratic with a machine gun.” As head of the panel overseeing TARP, she remained more skeptical than Treasury secretary Tim Geithner about whether the program had actually succeeded in ensuring that certain banks could function without government support. In appointing Warren to set up the CFPB, which she is credited with devising, the president effectively made her head of the agency, at least for now, and sidestepped what could have been a contentious confirmation hearing.

Read the full article →

A CONVENIENT TRUTH: Gearing Up For Climate Change Could Supercharge The Job Market

September 28, 2010

(This is Idea No. 5 in Huffington Post’s ongoing America Needs Jobs series; see the introduction .) Could one major crisis be solved…. by solving another? If we’re talking about the nation’s desperately poor job market on the one hand, and the dire threat of climate change on the other, then the answer is: Quite possibly, yes. The solution to both would be an enormous investment in green technology and green jobs — creating a robust “clean energy economy” while reducing carbon emissions; putting millions of Americans back to work while increasing our energy independence; rebuilding our manufacturing base while saving consumers money on their energy bills; and saving the planet. It certainly sounds a heck of a lot cheerier than the alternative. And it makes sense that to genuinely restart the American jobs engine, you’re going to need something really big. Here’s University of Texas economist James Galbraith putting today’s need in historical perspective: The illusion of stimulus was that the economy would “return to normal” with a little “fiscal boost.” The reality is that having exhausted (however imperfectly) the 1940s agenda of middle-class housing, the 1950s highways agenda, the 1960s health-care agenda and the 1990s information-technology bubble, the economy needs a new strategic direction. The clear and pressing priorities are energy and climate change. To address these challenges is a grand task, requiring decades of research, careful planning and many investments, if we are to pass on a livable planet and a decent living standard. Institutionally it will require new lending agencies to assure that the funds needed are available over the long term. And the work can provide jobs for millions, for many years. In a major report issued last year, John Podesta and colleagues at the Center for American Progress described the characteristics of a clean energy economy . Among its attractive qualities, it promises to revive the American middle class: Solving global warming means investment. Retooling the energy systems that fuel our economy will involve rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. We will create millions of middle-class jobs along the way, revitalize our manufacturing sector, increase American competitiveness, reduce our dependence on oil, and boost technological innovation. These investments in the foundation of our economy can also provide an opportunity for more broadly shared prosperity through better training, stronger local economies, and new career ladders into the middle class. Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is critical to solving global warming, but it is only one part of the work ahead. Building a robust economy that grows more vibrant as we move beyond the Carbon Age is the greater and more inspiring challenge. Famed venture capitalist John Doerr is an evangelist for clean energy and one of seven business leaders (also including Bill Gates and Jeff Immelt) who make up the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC). That group is calling for “both robust, public investments in innovative energy technologies as well as policy reforms to deploy these technologies on a large scale.” Here’s how Doerr explains the group’s thinking : Well, today, we are in a worldwide race for the next great global industry. And I believe, and my partners believe, the president and members of Congress believe that is the new clean-energy technologies…. [I]f you look at the top 30 companies around the world in new clean energy — that’s the top 10 in wind, the top 10 in solar, and the top 10 in advanced batteries, the sort that would power our electric vehicles — only four of those 30 are American companies. If I compare that to the Internet, it’s — it’s as if, gosh, Microsoft and Apple and Google and Intel and Yahoo! were all companies headquartered in Europe or Asia, and only Amazon was a company here in the United States. So, we have got to make choices, make decisions now about whether we want to be making our own energy future with American jobs, or if we want to be buying that future from China and other countries around the world. There are many different paths to a green jobs future. The AEIC’s plan, for instance, calls for $16 billion in annual federal government investment in clean energy innovation. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is still pushing for a “Green Bank,” at a cost of $10 billion a year, that would facilitate “significant and sustained investment” in new clean-energy technologies. (Bingaman, however, will be lucky if he can win passage of his bipartisan Renewable Energy Standard bill , written with Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, which would require utilities to get 15 percent of their power from renewable energy sources like wind and solar by 2021.) So what may be the last, best hope for major federal clean-energy investment is a retooled green bank proposal that former FCC chairman Reed Hundt is pushing . Bowing to the political realities — that, as he puts it, “Congress won’t appropriate any money now for any cause, no matter how worthy” and that unemployment is a more urgent priority than clean energy — Hundt is advocating a nonprofit Energy Independence Trust (EIT) that he bills as a massive jobs generator, and that he says would not require appropriations because it would just be borrowing money from the Treasury. At the core of the proposal is Hundt’s embrace of one of the many facts that deficit hawks try to ignore: that despite concerns that high deficits will force the U.S. to increase interest rates, the Treasury is currently able to borrow money — i.e. sell Treasury bills — at stunningly low rates . “You want to take the astoundingly low interest rates that the government has to pay to borrow money, and you want to transfer that to the degree possible to productive, revenue-producing businesses,” Hundt told HuffPost. “There’s a huge unmet need for productive new investment, but the only way to really prime the pump is to put in really cheap capital.” The investments Hundt is talking about, however, need to generate returns. “You want to build toll roads, not roads; dams that produce electricity, where you get paid back after a long period of time; electric transmission lines, where the revenue comes in from carrying the electricity; wind farms, where the revenue comes in from selling the electricity.” The Treasury would sell securities at very low interest, lend the money at cost to the EIT, and the EIT would then turn around and lend it to private investors. Hundt calls this “really, really, low, wonderfully low, cheap capital for investors who will build these clean energy systems.” And everyone would eventually get paid back. “It’s really pretty simple. In fact, it’s what China does,” Hundt said. “And in fact China has used low-cost lending to stimulate about twice as much clean energy investing as we have in the United States.” But how many jobs would this create? “Roughly speaking, $1 billion in capital is 10,000 direct jobs and about 50,000 indirect jobs,” Hundt said. “So one way to do it is say: How many jobs to you want? “So if you tell me you want a million jobs, then I need $100 billion of investment, which means that I need probably about $30 billion of cheap capital, because the rest would come from other forms of capital.” Meanwhile, that $100 billlion would buy an awful lot of clean power. “Everyone knows that we need to build a clean energy system to replace a dirty energy system,” Hundt said. The plan also allows for private industry and the states to be the decisionmakers. “I don’t believe that we need some kind of federal, national comprehensive, Washington-dictated solution. Electricity is a very local business,” Hundt said. “But I do believe if we said to all the states and all the businesses: Here’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for very cheap capital… then we would be opening the door to a variety of technological solutions that would be selected on the local level…. “If you want to rebuild the country, this is a golden opportunity.” ************************* NEXT IN THE AMERICA NEEDS JOBS SERIES: A Shorter Work Week (Want to learn more about the series? Read the overview . Got an idea you think we may have overlooked? Email froomkin@huffingtonpost.com . ) ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Brett King: Bye Bye Tellers – Hello Branch 2.0

September 26, 2010

Given the challenges of branch banking today, there’s a bunch of innovations taking place in respect to “Engagement Banking” within the branch property and it’s clear that many banks feel the branch environment has to change to stimulate different activity in the branch. In BANK 2.0 I classify this need to change the engagement in this way: “The core function of the branch moving forward will be about establishing the relationship with the customer at inception, and extending that relationship through an advisory sales process and excellent customer support systems. It is conceivable that all of the transactional elements within a branch will be moved to automated banking within electronic banking centres, automated branches, ATMs or the Internet within the next 10 years. What then is left? The face-to-face, value-add of a real, live human interaction.” Chapter 3 – Rebuilding the Branch One Customer at a Time, BANK 2.0 So I wanted to take a quick snapshot at some true innovation in branch design and deployment today. I’m not talking about a fresh repaint, some new plastic signage, and more laptops and kiosks around the branch, I’m talking about something fundamentally different for customers. The Flagship Luxury Engagement Model There’s something about walking into a Louis Vuitton or Versace Luxury store, the expansive space of Virgin’s flagship store in London (Oxford Street), or the wonderment of the Apple Store in Manhattan or London. A retail experience like this is just begging for customers to visit you. On the other hand the traditional branch is just not, well… attractive. Design is an under leveraged resource in attracting and engaging customers today. Some banks, however, have tried to change that. Have a look at these innovators in branch design, and say goodbye to the high-counter, bulletproof glass paradigm: CheBanca! – Milan, Italy Where’s the teller? Nope…not here either More great photos here… Deutsche Bank Q110 – Berlin, Germany Where’s the teller – not here either.. . Engagement Banking with Microsoft Surface Tech More great photos here… Some other great examples of branch design for the low-counter, sales engagement model include Jyske Bank ,and an innovative explanation of branch function redesign from Grey Architecture for “Info Bank”. The POD concept Clearly many banks see the “POD” or a customer engagement area as a key component of branch design moving forward. This will be either through ‘stations’ or sales pods designed for customers to sit in privacy with a relationship manager to discuss their needs. Here are demonstrations of the two core concepts in deployment today: The teller ‘pod’ with stations with some transactional capability The ‘sales’ pod – maximizing the face-to-face engagement Taking Design Too far?? But some take it too far – like this example from HSBC at Design Miami 08 where the temporary branch/vip lounge looked more like a farmyard than a bank…The point is – it’s not about design as the sole criteria, it’s about the engagement. The digitally-enabled branch We already saw Microsoft Surface technology enabled in Deutsche’s Q110 branch – there are a bunch of other banks who are doing the same. In the video below you can see a discussion from the Microsoft Surface team on a possible Financial Services application, or click through to the Razorfish app on Microsoft Surface. Microsoft Surface Financial Services Application – Razorfish Demo from Razorfish – Emerging Experiences on Vimeo . HSBC Premier in Hong Kong and YES Bank in India have given their customers RFID -enabled ATM and Debit cards, so that when you walk in the branch, they already know who you are and can start anticipating how best to serve you. YES Bank’s RFID readers are hidden behind brand signage We know Banco Santander has already deployed a very cool media wall in their corporate headquarters (along with Robot assistants), but I envisage that media walls will increasingly come into the branch to create both a super-dynamic advertising environment, along with a place for customers to interact in-branch. Jeffry Pilcher at Financial Brand has done a great piece on branch design and the use of interaction – The Future Of Branches . Check it out if you can… Conclusions The future of the branch is about engagement. The old thinking that was based on getting customers into a branch to do a transaction and cross-selling them is no longer a viable model, because the branch provides no value-add for a transaction. Thus, if the branch is about an excellent, high-quality face-to-face interaction, we need to build for that. Open up the branches, hire new staff and put new systems in place designed to support the conversation with the customer. The high-counter old teller stations and staff who are versed in transactional banking, won’t work in the BANK 2.0 world. See our work on engagement banking in more detail here…

Read the full article →

Job-Creation Idea No. 3: The Joys Of Retrofitting

September 23, 2010

(Part of Huffington Post’s America Needs Jobs series; see the introduction .) Let’s say you’re running a country that’s suffering from a terrible jobs crisis — but you’re worried about adding to the national deficit. Well first of all, you shouldn’t be so worried . The best way to reduce future deficits, hands down, is to spur economic growth. And the evidence is pretty overwhelming that spreading a lot of federal money around right now will pay off handsomely down the road. But let’s say that due to the political exigencies of the moment, you insist on hard numbers. You want your investment to pay for itself within a few years and then start reducing the deficit by real, measurable amounts of money. Have I got the program for you. And in addition to putting people back to work and lowering the long-term deficit, you’ll be increasing the country’s energy independence, reducing greenhouse gases, and growing a key sector of the economy. What does all that? A massive investment in retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient. The Home Star program , also known as “Cash for Caulkers,” is President Obama’s plan to use federally subsidized low interest loans to encourage consumers to make energy efficient improvements to their homes. Legislation to that effect has passed in the House and has stalled in the Senate. That’s a fine idea, but even at low interest, it’s hard for some homeowners to make any kind of investment in their homes these days, no matter how quick the returns are going to be. For the federal government to retrofit its own buildings, however, is truly a no-brainer. There are lots of ways that adapting to the challenges we face in the areas of energy and climate change could put America back to work ; I’ll be writing about a new energy economy, a carbon tax, and investing in public transit in the coming days. But I singled out this idea because it has a certain purity to it. “The one area in the green economy that in my mind is the most fertile right now is retrofitting public buildings,” says Bob Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. “The payoff is very, very quick,” he said — as soon as three or four years. The 2009 stimulus package contained a fair amount of funding for retrofitting, including $5 billion in weatherization services to low-income families, $4.3 billion for high-performance energy upgrades to federal buildings, and $4 billion for the energy-efficiency modernization and renovation of public housing facilities. But Pollin, who has been tracking the effect of those programs on job creation, says they haven’t reached critical mass. “The numbers are still too low, and they’re not going to get big unless the government forces them to get big. And the best way to do that is to mobilize the government itself,” he told The Huffington Post. “Let’s start hiring crews.” It’s the economies of scale that really intrigue John A. “Skip” Laitner, director of economic and social analysis at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. A big commitment to retrofitting government buildings doesn’t just create jobs and reduce energy costs, it also provides huge incentives for the private sector to invest in research and technology and infrastructure and labor in ways that will bring the cost of energy efficiency down for everyone. With the government providing a large, stable market — “a beachhead, an anchor if you will,” Laitner said — private industry will improve quality, reduce costs and expand operations in a way that it wouldn’t have had the confidence to do otherwise. Laitner sees a government initiative — something on the order of $20 billion a year — sparking a burst of investment and competition among performance building design firms, the contractors and architects that feed into them, and manufacturing firms that produce improved construction materials, heating and ventiliation systems, lighting systems, controls and wiring, and even turbines and generators “All those things ripple through the economy in very productive ways,” Laitner said. They also speed up the payoff for the government’s investment. “The payback right now may be 7 to 10 years, but as the economies of scale begin to kick in, it may be a 4 to 5 year payback,” Laitner said. Pollin says he has some reasons to hope that the idea will capture Obama’s attention. For one, the president has already declared the concept of retrofitting “sexy.” Speaking at a Home Depot in Northern Virginia in December, Obama had this to say : “I know the idea may not be very glamorous — although I get really excited about it. We were at the roundtable and somebody said installation is not sexy. I disagree….. Here’s what’s sexy about it: saving money. Think about it this way: If you haven’t upgraded your home yet, it’s not just heat or cool air that’s escaping — it’s energy and money that you are wasting. If you saw $20 bills just sort of floating through the window up into the atmosphere, you’d try to figure out how you were going to keep that. But that’s exactly what’s happening because of the lack of efficiency in our buildings.” The Vice President is a fan, too. His Middle Class Task Force put out a whole report on the topic of Recovery Through Retrofit . In an article in the Nation in March, Pollin showed his math: There are roughly 24 billion square feet of building stock in hospitals and healthcare, education and government buildings. This is about 20 percent of all US building stock. Retrofitting these buildings would cost about $150 billion. If we assume this program is implemented over three years, at $50 billion per year, this would generate about 800,000 jobs per year over those three years. Retrofits are a highly efficient source of job creation, since all the work must be done within local communities, and a large proportion of the budgets go to hiring workers, as opposed to buying equipment, land and energy. This government-led project could be the launching point for a larger effort to build the institutional and market support for retrofitting remaining private-sector structures on an economy-wide scale. In addition to private hospitals and schools, the potential market for private retrofits for commercial and residential buildings is in the range of $650 billion. If even 20 percent of these buildings were retrofitted by the end of 2012, it would create another 800,000 jobs per year. Retrofitting alone could thus generate about 1.5 million of the 18 million jobs we need to create by the end of 2012. About 600,000 of them would be in construction, making up for one-quarter of the 2.6 million construction jobs lost since mid-2007. Trevor Houser, a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, describes yet another positive effect. Spending just $10 billion a year on retrofitting government buildings, he writes, would not only create up to 100,000 jobs between 2009 and 2011 and start saving the government about $1.6 billion per year on its utility bills, but by reducing overall energy demand would lower energy prices. As a result , he writes: $10 billion spent on government retrofits would save the economy as a whole an additional $2 billion per year. Redirecting this money from energy purchases towards the normal basket of household purchases would create and sustain an additional 20,000 net jobs through 2020. Jobs for American workers, reductions in carbon emissions, increased energy independence, it pays for itself and then offers big savings down the line. What’s not to love? Only in a town utterly paralyzed by partisanship and hobbled by an inexplicable, self-destructive and short-sighted deficit phobia would it even be a contest. TOMORROW IN THE AMERICA NEEDS JOBS SERIES: Putting Young People To Work (Want to learn more about the series? Read the overview . Got an idea you think we may have overlooked? Email froomkin@huffingtonpost.com . ) ************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail , bookmark his page ; subscribe to RSS feed , follow him on Twitter , friend him on Facebook , and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when he writes.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: After Summers, Which Path Will the President Take?

September 21, 2010

Now that Larry Summers is leaving, the President has a decision to make. His choice of a replacement will send a signal about the next two years of economic policy. That signal can restore consumer confidence and reinvigorate the electorate, or it can lead to even more discouragement and despair. Today unnamed Administration officials floated the idea of naming a corporate executive to the position. That’s a trial balloon that should be punctured immediately. The thirty-year-old law school graduate who asked the President yesterday, ” Is the American dream over for me? ” might interpret a choice like that as a ‘yes’ — unless he also happens to be a Fortune 500 CEO. There’s some confusion around today’s news about Summers’ end-of-year departure. Was it a rushed announcement? Did Summers choose to leave, or did he get the axe? Bloomberg News observed that Summers’ departure leaves Tim Geithner as the sole remaining member of Obama’s original economic team, which adds up to something that looks very much like a shakeup. Or maybe not. The Bloomberg article also quotes Robert Gibbs as saying “it is not a surprise,” and it’s true that it’s common for Administration officials to leave after the midterm elections. For his part, the President lavished Summers with praise : “I will always be grateful that at a time of great peril for our country, a man of Larry’s brilliance, experience and judgment was willing to answer the call and lead our economic team. Over the past two years, he has helped guide us from the depths of the worst recession since the 1930s to renewed growth.” Despite the kind words, the Wall Street Journal reports that “Administration officials say Mr. Summers’ departure could reinvigorate the White House economic team.” And there’s this quote from the President’s town hall meeting yesterday (via David Dayen ): “Well, look, I have not made any determinations about personnel. I think Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have done an outstanding job… This is tough, the work that they do… they’re going to have a whole range of decisions about family… the bottom line is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working as well as it could?” But for those who are hoping that this move signals a change in policy, we can zigzag back to the “no policy change” camp if we take this quote seriously (from the WSJ article:) “Those who know Mr. Summers say his departure has more to do with the need to recover from two tough years in which he worked brutal hours and often did not sleep.” In other words, we don’t know nothin’. That means the Administration doesn’t have to pay the political price for looking like it’s in disarray. But it also means the President doesn’t get the benefit of looking as if he’s taking decisive action after seeing unsatisfactory results. Here’s what we do know: For middle-class Americans in search of economic relief, Summers’ departure is hardly what you’d call a setback. According to all reports it was Summers who insisted on introducing a smaller stimulus package, back when Obama had the political clout to get whatever he needed to fix the economy. We’re seeing the results in today’s “jobless recovery.” Ezra Klein quotes Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who said his departure is “a big victory for anyone who voted for change in 2008 only to see Summers work from the inside to water down Wall Street reform, block President Obama’s promise to protect Net Neutrality, and urge other pro-corporate positions.” The Bloomberg report tried to pin down the Administration’s thinking about possible replacements. But by citing a variety of unnamed sources (“one person familiar with White House discussion,” two people,” “one person”) we’re left with a cloud of unknowing: Administration officials are weighing whether to put a prominent corporate executive in the NEC director’s job to counter criticism that the administration is anti-business …White House aides are also eager to name a woman to serve in a high-level position … They also are concerned about finding someone with Summers’ experience and stature… That’s enough trial balloons to float an army of economists somewhere high above the clouds. (Whoever said “good idea” — hey, that’s not nice!) The President’s choice will be watched closely by discouraged Americans like those he met yesterday. His appointment of Elizabeth Warren last week sent an encouraging message, not only to progressives but to middle class Americans who seem to have resonated with Warren whenever they’ve seen her. But whatever glow the Warren appointment cast will soon be outshone, for better or for worse, by this appointment. Felix Salmon said that the idea of replacing Summers with a corporate executive is “

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: After Summers, Which Path Will the President Take?

September 21, 2010

Now that Larry Summers is leaving, the President has a decision to make. His choice of a replacement will send a signal about the next two years of economic policy. That signal can restore consumer confidence and reinvigorate the electorate, or it can lead to even more discouragement and despair. Today unnamed Administration officials floated the idea of naming a corporate executive to the position. That’s a trial balloon that should be punctured immediately. The thirty-year-old law school graduate who asked the President yesterday, ” Is the American dream over for me? ” might interpret a choice like that as a ‘yes’ — unless he also happens to be a Fortune 500 CEO. There’s some confusion around today’s news about Summers’ end-of-year departure. Was it a rushed announcement? Did Summers choose to leave, or did he get the axe? Bloomberg News observed that Summers’ departure leaves Tim Geithner as the sole remaining member of Obama’s original economic team, which adds up to something that looks very much like a shakeup. Or maybe not. The Bloomberg article also quotes Robert Gibbs as saying “it is not a surprise,” and it’s true that it’s common for Administration officials to leave after the midterm elections. For his part, the President lavished Summers with praise : “I will always be grateful that at a time of great peril for our country, a man of Larry’s brilliance, experience and judgment was willing to answer the call and lead our economic team. Over the past two years, he has helped guide us from the depths of the worst recession since the 1930s to renewed growth.” Despite the kind words, the Wall Street Journal reports that “Administration officials say Mr. Summers’ departure could reinvigorate the White House economic team.” And there’s this quote from the President’s town hall meeting yesterday (via David Dayen ): “Well, look, I have not made any determinations about personnel. I think Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have done an outstanding job… This is tough, the work that they do… they’re going to have a whole range of decisions about family… the bottom line is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working as well as it could?” But for those who are hoping that this move signals a change in policy, we can zigzag back to the “no policy change” camp if we take this quote seriously (from the WSJ article:) “Those who know Mr. Summers say his departure has more to do with the need to recover from two tough years in which he worked brutal hours and often did not sleep.” In other words, we don’t know nothin’. That means the Administration doesn’t have to pay the political price for looking like it’s in disarray. But it also means the President doesn’t get the benefit of looking as if he’s taking decisive action after seeing unsatisfactory results. Here’s what we do know: For middle-class Americans in search of economic relief, Summers’ departure is hardly what you’d call a setback. According to all reports it was Summers who insisted on introducing a smaller stimulus package, back when Obama had the political clout to get whatever he needed to fix the economy. We’re seeing the results in today’s “jobless recovery.” Ezra Klein quotes Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, who said his departure is “a big victory for anyone who voted for change in 2008 only to see Summers work from the inside to water down Wall Street reform, block President Obama’s promise to protect Net Neutrality, and urge other pro-corporate positions.” The Bloomberg report tried to pin down the Administration’s thinking about possible replacements. But by citing a variety of unnamed sources (“one person familiar with White House discussion,” two people,” “one person”) we’re left with a cloud of unknowing: Administration officials are weighing whether to put a prominent corporate executive in the NEC director’s job to counter criticism that the administration is anti-business …White House aides are also eager to name a woman to serve in a high-level position … They also are concerned about finding someone with Summers’ experience and stature… That’s enough trial balloons to float an army of economists somewhere high above the clouds. (Whoever said “good idea” — hey, that’s not nice!) The President’s choice will be watched closely by discouraged Americans like those he met yesterday. His appointment of Elizabeth Warren last week sent an encouraging message, not only to progressives but to middle class Americans who seem to have resonated with Warren whenever they’ve seen her. But whatever glow the Warren appointment cast will soon be outshone, for better or for worse, by this appointment. Felix Salmon said that the idea of replacing Summers with a corporate executive is ” a bit weird ,” and that’s putting it mildly. I have nothing against corporate executives, having been one myself, but Salmon is right when he says that this position calls for an economist’s technical expertise. And that’s not even considering the political ramifications. With poverty on the rise, record joblessness, the employed middle class struggling to make ends meet, and staggering numbers of mortgages underwater, delinquent, or foreclosed, the selection of a wealthy CEO would probably set off a political firestorm. One CEO mentioned in press reports was Richard Parsons, former head of Time Warner AOL and current head of Citigroup. Parsons is a very sharp guy, but does the Administration really think it can fix its public perception problems by naming the head of Citigroup as his senior economic advisor? A CEO name that’s getting even more traction is Ann Fudge. Ms. Fudge served as a senior executive at Kraft Foods before becoming head of Young & Rubicam. She’s an impressive leader by any measure, and that includes the personal qualities she’s integrated into her management style (although I have to admit that in my own executive life I tended to get very impatient with “team building” exercises like the ones she reportedly pushed at Young & Rubicam.) Fudge’s background suggests she might surprise some people by bringing a more progressive perspective. But she brings some political baggage, too. She sits on the President’s Deficit Commission, which is becoming increasingly controversial because of its co-chairs’ shared antipathy toward Social Security. She also sits on the board of Novartis, and pharmaceutical companies aren’t very popular. Ann Fudge would be a great choice for a cabinet position with greater management responsibility — Commerce would be ideal — but putting any business person into this slot right now could pose real problems for the Administration. In any case, a CEO appointment won’t placate the executives who complain that “Obama doesn’t like us.” That’s just a ploy to intimidate him into giving him what they always want: less regulation. If he names an executive to this position, they’ll just use a new ploy. Besides, the Administration already has a senior business executive on its economic team: Jacob Lew, who is being nominated to run the Office of Management and Budget . Lew is both an economist and a former executive who was the COO of Citi’s Alternative Investments unit. That means the Administration already has its private-sector leader on board (although the fact that Lew received a $950,000 bonus after the bank was bailed out may make it something they’re not eager to advertise). But if he doesn’t pick an executive, who should he choose? The President could start by considering the economists who were right from the start — about deregulation, about the housing bubble, and about the need for stimulus. And for academic credentials, he could go straight to the top of that group by seeking out a Nobel laureate. Imagine the spike in consumer confidence we’d see if Paul Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz got the nod. (Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?) Since the Republicans won’t work with the Administration anyway, there’s no downside. Alright, alright — I know. He won’t do that. But if not Krugman or Stiglitz, then who? Given the Administration’s appropriate emphasis on finding a woman for the slot, one interesting choice might be Janet Yellin, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She’s been a little more pro-growth and pro-employment than many of her peers. Laura D’Andrea Tyson, who’s been arguing cogently and forcefully for more stimulus spending, could be an excellent candidate. Our number one concern right now is jobs. So if we’re looking at men as well, Robert Reich would be an inspired choice. While he’s not an economist, he is a former Secretary of Labor. He’s also an articulate and outspoken advocate for policies that will put people back to work. Washington insiders might be appalled, but Reich would bring a much-needed perspective and would send an encouraging signal to disaffected voters. He’d also make a great spokesman for Administration policies. Jared Bernstein would be a very good choice, and as Joe Biden’s chief economic advisor he’s already on the team. (Maybe — I don’t know how the turf’s laid out in this Administration.) And while I’ve been critical of Jason Furman on a couple of issues (Wal-Mart, the so-called “excise tax”), he’s smart and dedicated and would provide an excellent counterbalance to some of the Administration’s other players. This is all just speculation, of course. But the President has the opportunity to set a new economic course for his Administration. By choosing a CEO he would be signaling a turn to the right, a capitulation to the special interests and political groups that will dog him no matter what he does. By choosing another economist in the Rubin/Summers mold, he would be telling a disgruntled American electorate that it can expect more of the same. But by selecting someone with a different outlook, he could help turn the economy around — while injecting new life into the political debate at the same time. __________ (Note to readers: Hey! Zach Carter and I have a new financial/economics blog over at Campaign for America’s Future — www.curbingwallstreet.org . Check it out — we’ll have economic commentary, updates on news items, and probably the occasional inappropriate musical reference, too. What’s not to love?) _____________________________________________________________ Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America’s Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light . He can be reached at “rjeskow@ourfuture.org.” Website: Eskow and Associates

Read the full article →

Pam Lassiter: Stop Looking for Jobs! Shortcut Your Job Search by Getting off of the Job Boards

September 21, 2010

Spending time in front of the computer searching for the ideal job, either in your current company or a new one, is a bad, low yield way to plan your next career move, especially during daylight hours. I just finished interviewing multiple thought leaders around the country for the revision of The New Job Security and we’re all on the same page — except executive recruiters, more shortly — about the importance of trends and problems in finding the work you love. Are the two ways you look for work working? Typically, when you’re looking for the next job, you’ll do two things: search for job postings on the internet and ask all of your friends if they’ve heard about any “opportunities,” the code word for jobs. Sound familiar? Let’s flip that around so you’re not in a reactive position, chasing whatever is out there and hoping people remember you. Job postings are only 3% of the offers. Job postings you find on the internet typically have a 3% yield for offers compared to other ways to land jobs. Granted, this research is on mid-career professionals, but 3% is still too low to warrant much of your time. When the economy is slow — like now — that number could even go down because fewer jobs are posted and everyone is chasing the same openings. If a company is looking for ten qualifications in their newly posted job, they can get ten. You’re one of hundreds of resumes that is crossing the transom and not getting the respect that you deserve. Don’t go to your best prospects first. Asking friends about openings sounds like a logical alternative, but it depends on who and how. Running to your best connections shortly after a layoff when you’re in the shocked-and-muddled phase can burn some bridges that you may want later on. The “who” is best begun with your closest allies who can listen and advise but who you don’t want as your future boss. Your messaging about direction and building company profitability will be stronger shortly. Change your questions. The “how” is even more important. If you stop asking people about “opportunities” — i.e. already defined job openings that they’re probably not going to know about anyway — and get some questions focused on problems to be solved and responses to trends, you’ll get different answers and ways to open up multiple jobs — a.k.a. “work to be done” — rather than pursuing just one opening with a lot of competition. “Have you decided how to best change your practices to comply with the new financial reform bill?” This is an example of leading the discussion towards an area you already know something about. “I’ve been doing some work with mobile marketing, which is bringing in a whole new set of customers. Want to hear some ideas?” Heading towards regulatory requirements — a trend — and increasing profitability — an evergreen problem-to-be-solved — in well-framed business questions gets people interested in your ideas… and then you. Keeping your conversations focused on their business needs often ends up in consulting work or job creation, with no competition. These same strategies count inside of your current company as well as between companies. I’ve worked with people who’ve written their own job descriptions and compensation packages when coming into large companies — i.e. the ones with the most structure. Isn’t that a lot more fun than sitting in front of a computer screen punching “reply”? Oh, about those executive recruiters… their job is to think in terms of already approved, funded, job openings, and they are typically looking for someone who is doing the same thing that their client wants, only for the competition. It’s not a recruiter’s job to look for problems to be solved inside of companies, or to create meaningful work that addresses these problems. However, it is your job, and you’ll find a lot more jobs when you stop — or put off until the dark of night — looking for job openings. Pam Lassiter is Principal of Lassiter Consulting, a career management firm that provides transition services for companies and professionals worldwide. Her book can, “The New Job Security,” can be ordered here .

Read the full article →

Obama Hedges On Possible Geithner, Summers Departures

September 20, 2010

President Barack Obama hedged Monday on whether he planned to keep Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers on his staff after the midterm election. CNBC reporter John Harwood posed the question to Obama during a town hall meeting on the economy in Washington. “I have not made any determinations about personnel,” the president said. “Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have done an outstanding job, as have my whole economic team. This is tough, the work that they do. They’ve been at it for two years. And, you know, they’re going to have a whole range of decisions about family that’ll factor into this as well.”

Read the full article →

Simon Johnson: Elizabeth Warren: The Right Appointment at the Right Time

September 16, 2010

The case for appointing Elizabeth Warren to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was, at the end of the day, overwhelming. She had the original idea, she helped build political support and her own credentials have been only strengthened by her work as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP. On Friday, the president will reportedly appoint Professor Warren as an assistant to the president and special adviser to the Treasury Secretary, with the task of setting up and initially running the CFPB. Some of Ms. Warren’s supporters think this move is something of a half-measure — they would have preferred a conventional nomination, with all the fanfare of a classic confirmation battle in the Senate. There is something to be said for that, but the interim appointment route is by far the best way forward for three reasons. First, this form of appointment puts Elizabeth Warren to work right away — on the issues of consumer protection that are first order both for ordinary families and for the macroeconomy. You really cannot build a sustainable economic recovery on the back of exploitative or abusive behavior by the financial sector. These issues are urgent and need resolution as soon as possible. Second, the president finally has an adviser who understands the financial sector and who has healthy skepticism about its intentions and actions. As we documented at length in 13 Bankers, too many top policy people — both in this administration and all its recent predecessors — have been overly inclined to accommodate the interests of finance, particularly the big banks. In this regard, putting Ms. Warren directly into the White House with the highest possible level of access is exactly the right thing to do — much better, for example, than making her purely a Treasury appointment. Third, this step does not avoid a debate in the Senate — it merely postpones it to a more advantageous moment. Presuming that Ms. Warren is nominated for a five-year term as head of the CFPB, she would go before the Senate Banking Committee with a real track record of achievement as interim head. The debate would not be about what the agency could do, but rather what it has already done — and what it is set up to do next. These are exactly the right terms on which to bring out into the open all those who think that the financial sector only ever behaves well — or that enforcing sensible rules on lenders would somehow bring the economy to its knees. Barney Frank has the right overall assessment, telling the New York Times : “I congratulate the administration on its creativity. There’s no possibility she would take something like this unless she was fully empowered to do the job.” Cross-posted at The Baseline Scenario.

Read the full article →

Unions for the Jobless: Unemployed People Find Solidarity Online

September 14, 2010

When Charlene Troyer of Chicago, Illinois, was laid off from her job as an environmental manager for a garbage collection company in November 2009, she felt like there weren’t many people she could turn to for moral support. Her parents had never been unemployed and all four of her grandparents had kept their jobs through the Great Depression. “This was a whole new territory for them,” she told HuffPost. “One set of grandparents were self-employed farmers, and the other side worked for the postal service, so they never saw any job loss. They thought people who were unemployed had issues because of something they had done. They had no concept of a bad economy.” After several months of missing mortgage payments, trying to support three children on a $450-a-week unemployment check and watching her credit become ruined beyond repair, she says she decided to look for support groups online. “The depression just gets so bad,” she told HuffPost. “You look at the stack of bills and decide what the heck you’re gonna pay and how the heck you’re gonna afford food. My self confidence and dignity have been compromised.  I have failed my obligations to support my family and provide for them. It helps to talk to people who are going through the same thing.” Troyer says she found a Facebook organization called “Extend Unemployment Benefits” , where jobless people from across the country gather to offer support and advice to each other, discuss the latest in unemployment news, and rally together to petition Congress to extend unemployment benefits. One active group member, Brian Yeagle, uses the site regularly to motivate other unemployed people to vote and call their senators. “I have been on the phone for the last 3 hours straight calling Senator’s offices, pushing the message Tier 5 to Survive!!” Yeagle wrote on the page Monday. “Please continue to call, email, and fax today and everyday, this is the only way we are gonna make this work…. Please don’t give up now!!” Other members use the site as a venue to creatively express their frustrations. “How am I to stand up and enjoy the pride of being a father who cannot provide?” Lance Sievert wrote on the group discussion board. “My head has fallen, my eyes are cast downward. Where is the man that not so long ago could hold his head high, whose blue eyes were framed in an uplifted brow and who walked with a spring and urgency? He was not real? He was only so as is given by the contentness (sic) and security of being employed.” A number of support groups for the unemployed have sprung up online since 2008, reflecting a strong need for solidarity and commiseration among the jobless during this excruciatingly drawn-out period of high U.S. unemployment. On Unemployed-Friends.com , administrators post information about pending legislation for benefits and job creation, employment networking, job opportunities and schooling grants. On JoblessJoe.com , a more discussion based online community, people can share their personal unemployment stories, ask for feedback on their resumés and find money-saving tips from others in a tight financial situation. For some users, like Troyer, the sense of community in these online support groups is so strong that they are staying active on the sites long after they become re-employed. Troyer, who finally found a job in July making about $17,000 less than she was making in her previous job, said she continues to offer support and advice to people on the “Extend Unemployment Benefits” Facebook page because it gives her a sense of purpose, even though her own financial situation has improved. “When people have interviews, I cheer them on and give them advice as far as how to answer questions. It helps me to respond to other people because I can see they’re in worse shape than I am,” she said. “Helping them helps me.”

Read the full article →

Ludy Green, Ph.D.: Despite Bad Economy, One Non-Profit Employment Agency Finds Good Jobs for Battered Women

September 14, 2010

As the economy worsens, job seekers are growing more frustrated with their inability to find decent work. This crisis is even more acute for a certain sector of society, victims of domestic violence. Second Chance Employment Services was founded specifically to help these women find good jobs, even in a bad economy. According to a survey of studies conducted by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), “the effects of domestic violence on a woman’s job performance can make it difficult for some battered women to maintain their employment or to advance in their jobs.” The largest study ever conducted on economic security and domestic violence, entitled, Voices of Survival, The Economic Impacts of Domestic Violence: A Blueprint for Action , noted that “An independent source of income is the single most significant indicator that a woman will be able to permanently leave an abuser.” It was from my frustration with the lack of employment services for battered women that I decided to found Second Chance Employment Services in 2002. I saw the résumés of too many women with gaps in their employment history get ignored by hiring professionals. I witnessed too many women coming out of domestic violence shelters return to their abusers because they couldn’t find a job that would support themselves and their children. Despite the daunting facts about abuse victims and their inability to find and maintain good jobs, Second Chance Employment Services has spent the past nine years overcoming the obstacles these women face. To date, we have secured over 700 career-track jobs with health benefits for victims of domestic violence, with salaries ranging from $32,000 to $98,000 per year. But Second Chance, the nation’s only no-fee employment placement agency dedicated to victims of domestic violence, still faces an uphill battle. According to a NOW Legal Defense Fund report , “Studies show that 24 to 52 percent of surveyed battered women had lost their jobs — at least in part — because of domestic violence.” Further, the report finds that “Batterers sabotage women’s ability to work in other ways by failing to provide promised child care or transportation, stealing car keys or money, hiding clothing, or inflicting visible injuries.” As a career woman myself, a human resources professional to be exact, I’ve seen first hand what studies like these only report in dry figures. I’ve personally witnessed women losing their jobs because of domestic abuse, and I’ve watched them in their struggles to find new work. The challenges faced by these women are bad enough in a good economy, but in a bad economy, they’re seemingly impossible to overcome. The current economy has caused an increase in abuse, making the work of Second Chance even more crucial. In 2009, the Associated Press reported the number of abuse and neglect cases rose 23% in Fairfax County, Va.; 29% in Montgomery County, Md.; and 18% in the District of Columbia. The Washington Post reported, “Counselors across Northern Virginia said they have seen many of their clients, mostly women, return to their partners’ home faster than usual because they have been unable to support themselves… In some cases, the women return to the shelter within the month because they were abused again.” Second Chance was created to fill a much needed gap in victim’s services — finding victims an independent source of income so they can permanently escape abuse — and it has been recognized time and again for the creative work we do. Second Chance was even given the prestigious Award for Innovation in Victims Services by the United Stated Department of Justice. With the economy still dragging, and jobless numbers increasing, Second Chance provides a much needed service for the least vulnerable of all job-seekers, victims of domestic violence. Even as we ourselves face a tightening budget and watch countless non-profits close their doors for a lack of funding, we’ll continue to keep our doors open, so we can open the doors to meaningful employment for the women we serve. If you would like to find information about Second Chance Employment Services go to our website www.scesnet.org or contact at 1-888-331-7451.

Read the full article →

Larry Gellman: Let’s Be Honest: About Jobs and the Economy

September 8, 2010

As many of you know, I have been obsessing lately about the way in which truth and facts have seemingly become irrelevant and missing from the public conversation of politicians and our news media. It’s not about whether one agrees or disagrees with the point of view of another. It’s about the way issues are framed in a way that often has nothing to do with the truth and, more often than not, in a way that makes no sense. This will be the first in a series of articles entitled “Let’s Be Honest.” Each article will deal with an important issue which our news media and political leaders are framing in a way that is so dishonest and misguided that it makes rational discussion impossible. For example, reasonable people can disagree about whether Barack Obama is doing a good job as president. But they can’t disagree about whether he is a Muslim (more than 30 percent of Republicans believe he is) or was born outside the U.S (more than 40 percent of Republicans believe he was). Those are simply lies. The same would seem to apply to any reasonable assessment of where our economy and job situation stand right now and whether our president’s policies have helped or hurt. Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom and long-term impact of Obama’s policies but, as with so much else these days, the news media and politicians have chosen to make rational conversation almost impossible by filling the airwaves and print with so many lies and distortions that useful give-and-take can’t even get started. We are constantly hearing about the horrible condition of the U.S. economy and how Obama’s socialist preoccupation with redistributing wealth and taxing us to death is killing business . But let’s be honest. When Obama became president the economies of the world were in an American-induced death spiral. We were drowning in debt that could not be repaid. Stock markets and commodities prices were in free-fall, our economy was shedding 800,000 net jobs a month, credit was not available to most companies at any price. General Electric and Goldman Sachs had to pay Warren Buffett 10 percent interest and provide an equity kicker just to get a loan which should give you an idea how impossible it was for mere mortals to borrow. There was a very real risk that hundreds of major companies and financial institutions would disappear. Many actually did. We still face enormous economic challenges, but let’s be honest. It is now 18 months later and the stock markets in the U.S. and around the world are 50 to100 percent higher. With federal help, General Motors and many other companies staved off bankruptcy and are now able to sell stock to new investors. Millions of jobs that were thought to be at risk were saved. Commodities prices have recovered broadly and credit is widely available to a broad range of credible borrowers. We have enormous debts to repay once we get the economy on better footing and we face lots of other challenges. But the sequencing of the “experts” is backwards. We already had the economic crisis they are predicting for the future and it had nothing to do with Obama, taxes, or socialism. It was due to good old American greed and free-market capitalism run amok. We are also told that making the richest Americans pay the same level of income tax as they did during the boom times in the ’90s would kill the recovery in its tracks. But let’s be honest. How many millionaires do you know who are putting off purchases and denying themselves stuff that they would run out and buy if they only had an extra few grand? Most people are buying less because they are worth less than they used to be, their homes have gone down in and value, they are earning nothing on their savings, and/or they are heavily in debt. And most others are just nervous about the future–in part because they are told all day in the media and by politicians that they should be outraged and afraid. It has nothing to do with uncertainty about a proposed small increase in taxes for a handful of the wealthiest Americans. The one problem that remains very real for far too many people is jobs. Most companies downsized their work forces during the economic meltdown but now that business has come back–in many cases stronger than ever–they are not hiring new workers. In most cases, they haven’t even hired back the ones they laid off during the crisis. The U.S. unemployment rate is hovering just below 10 percent and the number of people who are holding jobs that pay and require skills far below their qualifications is at least as high. We are told by financial “experts” and politicians that Obama is to blame for reasons that make no sense. They claim that corporate CEOs are not hiring more workers, even though many of their companies are doing great business and are flush with cash, because they are “uncertain” about the impact of health care reform and tax increases they fear may be coming in the near future. These paralyzing uncertainties are simply the icing on the Obama anti-business, anti-America socialist cake which is yet another reason why the Republicans will take over both houses of Congress in a couple months. Or so the story goes. But let’s be honest. Back during the Clinton years when taxes were much higher and when health care costs were going through the roof each and every year, companies were hiring like crazy. Many, like my employer, offered big bonuses to any employee who referred a prospect who ended up being hired by our firm. It had nothing to do with certainty about the future or tax rates or socialism or health care costs. It was all about our CEO’s belief that we were missing out on a lot of business because we didn’t have enough people. So our company hired more people. Today many companies that survived the financial crisis are flush with cash and very profitable. But instead of hiring back the workers they laid off, they are investing in new equipment and productivity technology that will enable them to do more business with even fewer employees in the future. They are also using their huge cash hordes to buy other companies so they can lay off even more workers in the future and become even more profitable–at least in the short run. And when companies make more money, their CEOs (the same ones who decide whether to hire or fire more workers) make lots of money. A recent report issued by the Institute for Policy Studies shows that the 50 companies that laid off the most workers last year saw their profits go up an average of 44 percent. And (surprise surprise) the CEOs of those companies made an average of $12 million last year–almost 50 percent more than average CEO pay at America’s 500 largest companies. So let’s be honest. There’s not a thing that Obama or any other politician can do to lower unemployment in the private sector as long as CEOs and shareholders of our largest companies are getting richer and richer because of mergers, productivity gains, and layoffs. And our free market capitalist system–which I heartily support and have earned my living managing for more than 30 years–guarantees them the right to do that. So, if we’re going to be honest there is a lot to talk about and figure out. It will be tough and it will be complicated. It is so much easier to create villains and phony issues to keep people busy being outraged and afraid. Maybe that’s why so many of our politicians and media celebrities are going that route instead of giving us the facts and trying to help America.

Read the full article →

Mark Hurd’s Salary At Oracle Said To Be $950,000

September 8, 2010

NEW YORK — Oracle plans to pay newly appointed President Mark Hurd a base salary of $950,000 a year. The company also says the former Hewlett-Packard Co. CEO, who was ousted by that company last month, is eligible for a fiscal 2011 bonus of as much as $10 million. Oracle released the details of Hurd’s pay package in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday. The biggest part of Hurd’s pay package will be the 10 million stock options Oracle plans to give him. The company said Hurd’s options will carry an exercise price equal to the market value of the shares on the date they are granted. While the filing did not offer a specific date, Oracle shares closed Tuesday at $24.26, which would value 10 million shares at $242.6 million. If he stays with the company, Hurd will be given options to buy another 5 million shares each year for the next five years. Oracle is not shy about handing out big salaries and bonuses. Founder and CEO Larry Ellison, among the world’s richest people, drew a pay package worth roughly $70 million for the company’s most recent fiscal year, according to an Associated Press analysis of Oracle’s securities filings. It included a base salary of $250,000, a performance-based bonus of $6.5 million, stock options valued at $61.9 million and other perks totaling $1.5 million. During HP’s most recent fiscal year, Hurd received a pay package as CEO valued at $24.2 million, according to an AP analysis. His base pay came to $1.3 million, with bonuses totaling $15.8 million and $6.6 million worth of restricted stock. Hurd’s future at Oracle was complicated Tuesday when Hewlett-Packard sued Hurd to keep him out of his new job. HP is worried Hurd will use his knowledge of the company to give Oracle an unfair advantage. Lawsuits of that kind often end with a court ordering an executive to avoid certain parts of their employers’ businesses. Hurd resigned from HP last month after five years as the company’s CEO. An investigation uncovered inaccurate expense reports related to Hurd’s outings with an actress and HP contractor named Jodie Fisher, who claimed that her work at HP dried up after she rebuffed Hurd’s advances. Hurd’s move to Oracle has injected new friction into Oracle’s relationship with HP. The two companies have cooperated for years, with HP selling corporate servers and Oracle providing the software that helps organize the information stored on them. But Oracle, which is based in Redwood City, Calif., moved into direct competition with HP in the hardware business when it bought Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion last year.

Read the full article →

Mike Elk: Explosion Rocks Honeywell Uranium Facility Run by Scab Workers

September 7, 2010

Union workers have been locked out at the uranium enrichment facility in Metropolis, Illinois for two months now after contract negotiations broke down over Honeywell’s demand that workers give up their retiree health care coverage and pension plans. The Metropolis uranium facility is the only one in the United States that can convert U308 into the extremely deadly UF6. Because the plant is the only conversion facility of its kind in the United States, familiarity with the Metropolis plant, and not just generic experience in the field, is essential to ensuring the plant’s safety. Concerns have been raised by local community members and union officials that replacement workers at the Honeywell facility cannot safely operate the plant since they have no site-specific experience in this type of conversion facility. Workers claim that Cote is far more interested in keeping his record profits high than actually protecting workers and the surrounding community. They believe that Honeywell CEO David Cote is willing to risk nuclear fallout in order to demand that uranium workers cut their retiree health care and pension plans. On Saturday, nuclear regulators allowed Honeywell to start up core production at the facility, where core production had been shut down for over two months due to concerns about the training of replacement workers. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission delayed reopening the plant for several days after questions were raised about the unusually high levels of uranium that were appearing in the urine tests of several nuclear workers . The following day, a hydrogen explosion rocked the plant. The blast shook the ground in front of the plant and could be heard a mile away, according to local reports. State Trooper Bridget Rice said that police were called to investigate to the scene of the explosion after receiving several phone calls reporting an explosion at the plant. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Roger Hannah also confirmed that there was indeed “a small hydrogen explosion that was very loud” at the Metropolis facility. The plant splits hydrofluoric acid into hydrogen and fluoride. The hydrogen then gets scrubbed and released into the atmosphere and fluorine goes into the process. If the hydrogen and fluorine recombine, it can be very reactive and cause a non-radioactive hydrogen explosion. On Saturday, hydrogen was accidentally recombined with fluorine causing a massive explosion that could be heard a mile away and leading to the plant being temporarily shut down. Honeywell Spokesman Peter Dapel released this statement: “There was a noise at Metropolis Works yesterday that occurred as a result of the normal venting of one of our systems…. The union workforce is very familiar with the procedure that caused yesterday’s noise, having executed similar processes on at least two occasions earlier this year prior to the work stoppage with the exact same outcomes. It is common to plants that work with fluorine, and characteristic of plants that are following correct procedures.” However, union spokesman John Paul Smith claims that the workers who worked at the plant for decades said very minor explosions had occurred, but no explosion of such a magnitude that it could be heard outside of the plant. State police also could not cite an incident where they had been called to the plant to investigate an explosion at the Metropolis facility that had been reported to them by local community members. Workers and local community members see this explosion as evidence that the quickly trained replacement workers are not qualified to operate the plant. Local union officials claim that the workers are not properly trained to work in the plant. In a statement released last week USW Local 7-699 claimed, “The Union workforce was required to have extensive on-the-job training on running units from qualified trainers for several months prior to being qualified. We have recently learned that several Fluorination workers were deemed ‘qualified’ by company personnel after one week of training. Furthermore, Union employees were required to have been a qualified operator for six months on a running unit before they were allowed to begin to train another employee. The company is currently training their own employees with people who themselves are not qualified.” Additional concerns have been raised about the safety records of the replacement workers at the Metropolis facility who are employed by the Shaw Group. In 2009, a subsidiary of the Shaw Group was made to pay $6.2 million to the federal government for forcing its workers not to report safety and site violations when working on nuclear plant sites in Alabama and Tennessee. Local community members are claiming that Honeywell is also not properly reporting safety violations at the nuclear facility in Metropolis. A recent report by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says Honeywell has failed to notify the NRC of 37 reportable unplanned, uranium contamination events at its Metropolis facility between January 2008 and January 2010. The Metropolis facility had previously been shut down after a release of deadly toxic UF6 gas, which hospitalized four community members and lead to evacuations of dozens of residents near the plant. This was only the second time in American history (the first being the infamous Three Mile Island disaster) where a site area emergency forced the evacuation of a community surrounding a nuclear power facility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time found that Honeywell “failed to implement some parts of its emergency response plan and did not provide sufficient information to local emergency responders”. The Environmental Protection Agency has also been very critical of the safety record of the uranium enrichment facility. According to the report by Sam Tranum of Uranium Intelligence Weekly, in May of 2009 the EPA listed the Metropolis facility as being “in significant noncompliance – a high priority violator” of the Clean Air Act and that the Metropolis facility had been in violation of the Clean Air Act for the nine months prior to that. Also, the EPA found that the Honeywell Metropolis uranium facility had been violating the Clean Water Act for about two years, but returned to compliance in December of 2009. A federal grand jury has been convened to look into criminal violations of federal environmental laws. Honeywell initially tried to cover up the grand jury investigation to local community and union members. However SEC reports forced the company to reveal they were under grand jury investigation. According to Sam Tranum of Uranium Intelligence Weekly: Details of the investigation are being kept under tight control by the relevant authorities, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), but the existence of a grand jury probe was confirmed by Honeywell International’s most recent 10Q filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission. It stated that the EPA and DOJ are investigating “whether the storage of certain sludges generated during uranium hexafluoride production at our Metropolis, Illinois facility has been in compliance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA],” adding that, “The federal authorities have convened a grand jury in this matter.” Honeywell’s long history of safety violations, the poor training of replacement workers at the Metropolis facility, and Saturday’s hydrogen explosion, have lead local workers and community members to call on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to shut down production until the contract dispute can be resolved. “This just simply isn’t normal, what’s happening at the plant,” said union member John Paul Smith. Workers are also calling on President Obama to put pressure on his close economic adviser Honeywell CEO David Cote to settle the safety and contract issues at the plant. They are asking President Obama to remove David Cote from the President’s Deficit Commission if he does not resolve the safety and contract issues. Last week, the 350,000 members of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees called on President Obama to fire Cote from the so-called Deficit Commission. They released a statement saying : Mr. Cote’s cruel and calculated behavior towards workers at its hexafluoride plant in Metropolis, Ill. clearly illustrates that he’s unqualified and inappropriate to help decide issues such as whether to reduce the federal deficit by cutting programs like social security or by upgrading the faulty military contracting process, from which Honeywell benefits. Mr. Cote should be evicted from the so-called Deficit Commission immediately before he can use that position to harm all Americans the way he is injuring Honeywell workers in Illinois.

Read the full article →

Paul Hunting: Kindling — How to Ignite the Potential Fire in Your Business

September 7, 2010

But if these, as I am sure they do, bear fire enough to kindle cowards and to steel with valor the melting spirits of women, then, countrymen, what need we any spur but our own cause to prick us to redress? — Brutus, Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare. There seems to be a common frustration experienced by many leaders who have true vision — how do I get ‘the others’ to see, feel and act on the possibilities I, myself, see and feel? I was talking about ‘possibilities’ with a director of a large international operation the other day. They are doing very well — but not even close to his sense of the potential. His feeling of overwhelm was palpable. Yes, there were a select few who could lead the organization into a new league, but there were so many in key leadership roles who are not ready to embrace new ways and scary-hairy goals. Why bother trying to break the mold? What’s the point? They always came up with ‘perfect reasons’ why things should just plod along the way they’d been going — if it ain’t broke, why fix it? We’re lucky to be in profit in these hard times. Why rock the boat? Can’t argue with that logic. Add to that the data from all kinds of failed initiatives and you have your evidence sewn up tighter than my pants after a bowl of spaghetti carbonara. And there’s the thing — no matter how perfect the reasons and how compelling the evidence — he was still unhappy to settle for sloppy seconds without denying a greater truth within him — and feeling the pain that is the inevitable consequence. I was on the point of leaving when I felt the same pain in myself. Without realizing it at first, I was colluding with the conspiracy of inertia that was paralyzing not only his business but mine and everyone else’s too. What was I resisting? What was I afraid to ask? Was I expecting this to be handed to me on a plate — without my taking a risk in the first place? Not only was he unconsciously adopting his colleague’s perfect reasons as his own — but so was I! Not only was he afraid to challenge the ‘majority view’, but I was afraid to challenge his. Obviously, my fear was that of rejection — if I challenged his seemingly sewn up position I’d risk losing his approval and hence the relationship and the work. But if I didn’t, I’d lose it all anyway — so what the hell? Without alienating him and without a ‘coaching contract’ yet in place to give me permission, how could I challenge his limiting beliefs about ‘how it’s not possible for just me and one or two others to transform this business unless all the top people were in one accord’? My ‘little voice’ came to the rescue. I remembered a line from a seminar given by my mentor, John-Roger. It went something like: within the concept of coal is the potential of fire. I felt a metaphor coming on. At first I felt what I needed to say was all about him. But as I opened my mouth I realized his issue was just a mirror of my own — duh! Imagine you were me, I said. My organization is represented by a ton of coal. I’m saying it’s impossible to ignite this coal and release its energy with one single match. I have this genuine sense of all the heat, power and possibility to transform things that is inherent in this coal, but I am approaching it in a way that allows it to remain untapped. I am taking all the responsibility for unleashing the potential upon my own shoulders. My sense of ‘the perfect way this should happen’ is a fantasy expectation with no basis in reality. I am not using the resources that are easily available to me right now. Yes, he said. I understand. I agree. I am too. (My fear also had no basis in reality!) If you were advising me how to ignite this mountain of coal with one match, what would you do? Kindling, he said. Use kindling. Start with paper because it burns easily. Get some twigs to create a bit more heat. Then some logs. Then I’d put a few lumps of coal on. Then eventually I could burn it all. Exactamundo! I exclaimed with delight. Although this absolutely was true for me, by the end of his feedback, he was owning his own creative solution. So who is your kindling material right now? There’s an song by John Denver that began playing through my brain — ‘What one man can do’. Apparently it’s written as homage to Buckminster Fuller. What one man can do is take the risk to strike a match and light a small flame. Fire is contagious.

Read the full article →

Joan Blades: A Virtually Perfect Labor Day

September 7, 2010

I work from home. So do all the people who work with MomsRising.org and MoveOn.org , the two organizations I co-founded. It works great for us and has for years, and so, when I read that the number of U.S. telecommuters dipped to 8.7 million in 2009 from 9.2 million in 2006 (according to the IDC, a Framingham, Massachusetts research concern), I did a double take. What is going on? Word is that this drop is not due to job loss or employers discouraging virtual work. Rather, employees are too anxious to ask for any kind of special work arrangement in uncertain economic times. Social scientists explain that when we are fearful, we are less creative and tend to hunker down with what is familiar and feels safe. But I know, as an employer, what substantial research finds: that virtual work is a great way for small organizations to do more with less and for any workplace to boost the bottom line . I worry, this Labor Day, that employers and employees frozen in a defensive crouch are going to miss an opportunity for all of us to be more successful and improve our working lives. Though this might surprise people who opine about the influence of MoveOn.org (and MomsRising.org ), these organizations are entirely virtual. They have no physical headquarters. Offices cost money, and we choose to spend the funds we have on advocacy and education, instead of walls and floors. We also find that trusting our employees to work wherever it works for them means we get great people who are happy and remarkably productive. When my daughter gets sick, I don’t have to choose between getting my work done and being there for her, and if I want to go for a hike on Tuesday afternoon, I can. I work when the time is best for me and for the work I’m doing. I know from experience that intelligently structured virtual work is incredibly good for business and cost effective. We are not the only organizations that have discovered this. Most virtual workers work for traditional organizations with which we are all familiar. A recent study from Brigham Young University reports that telecommuting, coupled with flexibility, dramatically reduces work/life conflict and has saved millions of dollars for IBM. AT&T saved over 6 million dollars in real estate costs in New Jersey and realized millions of dollars in productivity gains when they embraced virtual work. Jet Blue’s call center is not in India; it is in homes in Utah, which lets the company realize cost savings while keeping jobs in the United States. Virtual and flexible work are management opportunities . While some organizations are embracing virtual work, even more people would like to try it. One survey on worker productivity found that nearly 60% of employees believe that telecommuting at least part time is the ideal work situation. 60% of federal agencies include virtual work in their emergency and continuity of operations plans in 2007. Yet only 7% of eligible federal employees regularly telecommute. The Employment Policy foundation suggested that 65% of jobs could be done remotely, yet less than 30% of managers and professionals work virtually even one day a week and far fewer in more blue-collar jobs. Clearly, we have a long way to go. The data about the benefits of virtual work are compelling. Is it really just unthinking fear that is stopping us? Change does create risk and new challenges. Individuals, managers, and even chief executives are feeling risk averse. It is not surprising that employees fear asking for flexibility or the ability to work virtually when they are fearful that their jobs might be cut. Likewise, managers who have the benefit of a hungry labor pool may not experience a strong push to make their employees’ lives better at the risk of having that change create unforeseen challenges. But businesses must recognize that there is a flipside to the risks of change – which is that there are risks in not changing, too. I have a hard time imagining a more efficient, environmentally sound, family-friendly work practice for a surprisingly broad swath of jobs in this country than virtual work. This is not the kind of opportunity business can afford to overlook. It is time for those of us that have experienced the benefits of these non-traditional work practices to reassure others that embracing these new practices is not only good for the bottom line, but necessary for success in the coming decade . Working virtually is what has enabled MoveOn.org and MomsRising.org to do so much with the resources we have. So I’m speaking out, and I hope others will too. This Labor Day, it is time to get serious about embracing virtual work. This blog is part of the Peaceful Revolution series that explores innovative ideas to strengthen America’s families through public policies, business practices, and cultural change. Done in collaboration with MomsRising.org , read a new post here each week.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Job Report Wows Wall Street, but Strikes out on Main Street

September 6, 2010

The applause was deafening. It was as though Derek Jeter had hit a home in the last half of the ninth inning that won the ball game for the New York Yankees. In this case, the ovation was not for a sports figure, but rather Wall Street’s enthusiastic reaction to Friday’s disclosure of a better-than-expected August employment report. That was the hiring of 67,000 new workers in the private sector, versus an expectation of just 40,000. In turn, the Dow Industrials shot up nearly 128 points. That capped a four-day winning streak in which the Dow ballooned 438 points, all predicated on the belief that accelerated economic growth is now just around the corner. In effect, investors swapped fear for greed, and for a while at least renewed their on-again, off-again love affair with stocks after having dumped $11.7 billion worth of U.S. equity mutual funds this year and switching much of it into the more safe bond funds. How long that will last is anybody’s guess, but it’s worth keeping in mind that love affairs die fast on Wall Street. Madeline Schnapp, the economic chief of TrimTabs Research, a West Coast liquidity-tracking firm partially owned by Goldman Sachs, already thinks it’s on borrowed time because she takes a dim view of the job report. I related her assumptions, assuming she’s right, to the three blind mice nursery rhyme. That’s a reference to three powerhouses, each of which reacted positively to the latest job numbers. They were Wall Street, which bid up stock prices, the New York Times and the White House. The Times responded to the job news with a front-page story that concluded a double-dip recession was now less likely. President Obama also got into the act, declaring after the revelation of the job numbers that “the economy is moving in a positive direction.” Schnapp takes issue with all three, essentially arguing that none of them is operating with a full economic deck. Her contention is that we’ve never exited from the recession, which kicked off in late 2007, that the jobs report was disappointing and says “investors’ exuberant reaction to it was nuts.” That’s strong stuff, but Schnapp, a crack, perceptive economist who has made a number of excellent economic calls, offers some compelling points to make her case. Noting that the market ran up Friday because the creation of 67,000 new private sector jobs (about 25% of which were temporary) was somehow interpreted as good news, Schnapp says “give me a break.” To put the latest employment numbers into perspective, she notes, you have to keep in mind that 8.5 million jobs were lost during the downturn. What’s more, unemployment peaked at 10.1% and still sits at a lofty 9.6%. Moreover, she points out, the jobs picture is pretty grim when you look at in its entirety. For example, she says, there are now 14.9 million unemployed workers. Add to that the underemployed and discouraged workers (those who have left the work force and part-timers who can no longer obtain full time jobs) and you come up with a total number of people in the unemployment doghouse of 25.7 million. That’s up 1.4 million from 24.3 million a month earlier, the kind of increase, Schnapp says, that one could hardly call good news. In order to get back to 6% employment by 2013 (current optimistic projections), the economy needs to generate a minimum of 250,000 to 300,00 jobs every month, not 67,000, she says. The big problem, as she sees it, is that job growth is dependent on consumption growth and housing growth. But housing is in a depression and consumption is weak. Elaborating on the housing dilemma, Schnapp took note of the accounting rule change dating back to March 2009 that allowed banks to abandon mark-to-market pricing of assets and adopt instead “mark-to-make-believe,” which created zombie banks. Then, she says, came the political pressure on banks not to foreclose on delinquent homeowners, which created more homeowners. The end result, not surprisingly, observes Schnapp, is a zombie housing market as far as the eye can see. Her conclusion is that the economy is stuck in first gear and is trying to accelerate without the housing market. “Can’t do it! Plain and simple,” she says. “We’re in a weak economy that could get weaker.” No surprise then when she tells me that she sees putrid GDP growth ahead for the rest of 2010, on the order, she believes, of 1% to 1.5% in both the third and fourth quarters. That’s well below the consensus of about 2.5% growth in the final quarters. Peter Morici, an economics professor at the University of Maryland, also views the job report negatively. “It was pretty bad,” he says, “We’re in a lot of trouble here. “The weak economy looks like it will get weaker and the second half will not be very good.” Morici also sees more bad news from Washington, notably “more spending, more taxes, more regulation and more failed policies.” The negative reactions of Schnapp and Morici to the job report raise an obvious question: Is the report nothing more than a paper tiger? In any event, the bottom line seems pretty clear. The August job numbers may have wowed Wall Street, but they were an unmistakable bummer for Main Street. What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com

Read the full article →