Working During Holidays? Increasingly, More and More of Us Are Working Too

From National Public Radio:

It can be a drag but working on the holidays is inevitable for some jobs. A nurse, a cook and a ballet wardrobe supervisor share what it’s like to work during the most wonderful time of the year.

Not everybody gets a break on holidays. In some professions, including this one, working on Christmas or New Year’s Eve is just part of the territory. We asked our listeners who are working this holiday season to tell us about it.

“The Nutcracker” doesn’t take a vacation. Marlene Olson Hamm is an assistant wardrobe supervisor at the New York City Ballet, where they’ve put on 49 performances. Two of them will be on Christmas Eve.

MARLENE OLSON HAMM: It can feel like you’re missing out on the holiday season – time with your family, all the Christmas parties.

SIMON: Trudy Kemp from Owasso, Okla., not only works Christmas, she works overnight. But there are perks.

TRUDY KEMP: Because I’m a nurse, I work with mommies and babies.

SIMON: Thomas Hukriede cooks at a restaurant called The Laundry in Steamboat Springs, Colo. Wonder why it’s not called The Kitchen. Anyway, he’s pretty happy with holidays in the kitchen.

THOMAS HUKRIEDE: We love what we’re doing, and we’re happy to be working there. So the best Christmases that we have are together, loving what we do.

SIMON: Thomas says restaurants are warm and inviting places for people who may be far away from their families during the holidays.

HUKRIEDE: Restaurants are like a family. And if it’s slow, you’re just making a lonely holiday season lonelier. So don’t be afraid to come down for a drink or a meal. Let the restaurant be your friends and family during the holiday season.

SIMON: Even though nurse Trudy Kemp is at the hospital pretty late, she looks forward to having an ornament exchange and a potluck meal while on duty. And she especially enjoys singing Christmas carols to the newborn babies.

KEMP: At night sometimes, I will actually walk in the hall – and I have done this forever. But I will actually sing as I’m going up and down the hall. And I do add Christmas carols.

SIMON: Her favorite song goes…

KEMP: (Singing) It’s the best time of the year. Here’s a toast to Christmas cheer. We will eat and drink our fill until there’s nothing left in sight, for we’ll have a party tonight.

SIMON: Oh, what a wonderful way to be greeted into this world. To anybody working or not working – well those who are working, thanks very much. Happy holidays.

Listen the radio segment here.

Automation Could Displace 800 Million Workers Worldwide By 2030, Study Says

From today’s National Public Radio:

A coming wave of job automation could force between 400 million and 800 million people worldwide out of a job in the next 13 years, according to a new study.

A report released this week from the research arm of the consulting firm McKinsey & Company forecasts scenarios in which 3 percent to 14 percent of workers around the world — in 75 million to 375 million jobs — will have to acquire new skills and switch occupations by 2030.

“There are few precedents” to the challenge of retraining hundreds of millions of workers in the middle of their careers, the report’s authors say.

The impact will vary between countries, depending on their wealth and types of jobs that currently exist in each. In 60 percent of jobs worldwide, “at least one-third of the constituent activities could be automated,” McKinsey says, which would mean a big change in what people do day-to-day.

McKinsey looked at 46 countries and more than 800 different jobs in its research.

In the year 2030 in countries with “advanced economies,” a greater proportion of workers will need to learn new skills than in developing economies, researchers say. As many as a third of workers in the U.S. and Germany could need to learn new skills. For Japan, the number is almost 50 percent of the workforce, while in China it’s 12 percent.

Jobs that involve predictable, repetitive tasks are more easily automated, “such as operating machinery and preparing fast food,” and data processing, like paralegal work and accounting. However, McKinsey estimates less than 5 percent of jobs can be fully automated.

Jobs that pay “relatively lower wages” and aren’t as predictable are less likely to face full automation, because businesses don’t have as much incentive to spend on the technology. This applies to jobs like gardening, plumbing and child care, according to the authors.

Occupations that pay more but involve managing people and social interactions face less risk of automation due to the inherent difficulty in programming machines to do those types of tasks.

Read the complete article here.

In Cutting taxes, the Economic Odds and Historical Experience Are Against Trump

From today’s New York Times:

When President Trump adds his distinctive signature to the tax bill, he will also be making a huge bet that the Republican strategy of deep cuts for businesses and wealthy individuals will fuel extraordinary growth across the board.

Perhaps more than any other American political leader, Mr. Trump knows that long shots, like his own presidential bid, sometimes pay off. In that vein, he and congressional Republicans are arguing that their bitterly contested and expensive rewrite of the tax code will ultimately create more jobs and raise wages.

If they are proved correct, they will be repudiating not only historical experience, but most experts. From Congress’s own prognosticators to Wall Street’s virtuosos, scarcely any independent analyses project anything like the rosy forecasts offered by the president’s top economic advisers.

To Mr. Trump and his allies, the normal models just do not fully capture the high-octane “rocket fuel” embedded in the tax plan. Mr. Trump intuitively understands just how much attitudes and expectations can shape economic decisions.

With a businessman in the White House, Mr. Trump argues that companies, large and small, have a renewed faith in the economy. And the corporate tax cut, combined with the rollback in regulation, will prompt waves of new investment and hiring, as middle-class Americans liberally spend the extra money in their pockets.

Read the complete article here.

Labor Board Reverses Ruling That Helped Workers Fight Large Chains

From today’s New York Times:

The National Labor Relations Board on Thursday overturned a key Obama-era precedent that had given workers significant leverage in challenging companies like fast-food and hotel chains over labor practices.

The ruling changes the standard for holding a company responsible for labor law violations that occur at another company, like a contractor or franchisee, with which it has a relationship.

The doctrine also governs whether such a corporation would have to bargain with workers at a franchise if they unionized, or whether only the owners of the franchise would have to do so.

While most labor law experts expected the labor board, which gained a Republican majority only in late September, to overturn the board’s so-called joint-employer decision from 2015, the speed of the change came as a surprise to many.

“Frankly, it’s shocking,” said Wilma B. Liebman, a former Democratic appointee on the board who once served as its chairwoman.

The board’s 3-to-2 vote, along party lines, restores the pre-2015 standard, which deemed a fast-food corporation a joint employer only if it exercised direct and immediate control over workers at the franchise, and in a way that was not limited.

Employer groups had been agitating to undo the standard that was set under President Barack Obama almost from the moment it was decided, and they applauded the decision on Thursday.

The key question in determining whether a company, like a fast-food corporation, is a joint employer of workers employed by another company, like one of the chain’s franchisees, is the degree of control exercised by the corporation over workers at the franchise. The ruling on Thursday declared that such control must be direct.

Under the Obama-era doctrine, the fast-food corporation could be held liable for labor violations that occurred at the franchise even if the control it exerted was indirect — for example, if it required the franchisee to use software dictating certain scheduling practices — or if it had the right to exercise control over workers that it nonetheless didn’t exercise.

The reversal could have important implications for the ability of workers to win concessions from employers through collective bargaining. In many cases, a contractor or franchisee has such low profit margins that it could not afford to raise wages or improve benefits even if it wanted to.

Read the complete article here.

Women and Power in the Workplace

From today’s New York Times:

“Revolution will come in a form we cannot yet imagine,” the critical theorists Fred Moten and Stefano Harney wrote in their 2013 essay “The Undercommons,” about the need to radically upend hierarchical institutions. I thought of their prophecy in October, when a private document listing allegations of sexual harassment and abuse by dozens of men in publishing and media surfaced online.

The list — a Google spreadsheet initially shared exclusively among women, who could anonymously add to it — was created in the immediate aftermath of reports about sexual assault by Harvey Weinstein. The atmosphere among female journalists was thick with the tension of watching the press expose the moral wrongs of Hollywood while neglecting to interrogate our own. The existence of the list suggested that things were worse than we even imagined, given all that it revealed. It was horrifying to see the names of colleagues and friends — people you had mingled with at parties and accepted drinks from — accused of heinous acts.

A few days after the list appeared, I was in a van with a half dozen other women of color, riding through the desert on our way to a writing retreat. All of us worked in media; most of us had not realized the extent to which harassment polluted our industry. Whisper networks, in which women share secret warnings via word of mouth, require women to tell others whom to avoid and whom to ignore. They are based on trust, and any social hierarchy is rife with the privilege of deciding who gets access to information. Perhaps we were perceived as outsiders, or maybe we weren’t seen as vulnerable. We hadn’t been invited to the happy hours or chats or email threads where such information is presumably shared. The list was F.T.B.T. — for them, by them — meaning, by white women about their experiences with the white men who made up a majority of the names on it. Despite my working in New York media for 10 years, it was my first “whisper” of any kind, a realization that felt almost as hurtful as reading the acts described on the list itself.

As a young business reporter, no one told me about the New York investor known for luring women out to meals under the guise of work. I found out the hard way. I realized he was a habitual boundary-crosser only after The New York Observer reported on him in 2010. Most recently, after I complained in a media chat room about a man who harassed a friend at a birthday party, everyone chimed in to say that he was a known creep. I was infuriated. That information never made its way to me, and worse, it was taken as a given. Was keeping that secret hidden worth the trauma it caused my friend?

The list’s flaws were immediately apparent. It felt too public, volatile and vulnerable to manipulation. But its recklessness was born out of desperation. It detonated the power and labor dynamics that whisper networks reinforce. Information, once privileged to a select few, became decentralized and accessible to all. And the problem of sexual harassment no longer belonged solely to women to filter and share.

Read the complete article here.

Will Robots Take Our Children’s Jobs?

From today’s New York Times:

Like a lot of children, my sons, Toby, 7, and Anton, 4, are obsessed with robots. In the children’s books they devour at bedtime, happy, helpful robots pop up more often than even dragons or dinosaurs. The other day I asked Toby why children like robots so much.

“Because they work for you,” he said.

What I didn’t have the heart to tell him is, someday he might work for them — or, I fear, might not work at all, because of them.

It is not just Elon MuskBill Gates and Stephen Hawking who are freaking out about the rise of invincible machines. Yes, robots have the potential to outsmart us and destroy the human race. But first, artificial intelligence could make countless professions obsolete by the time my sons reach their 20s.

You do not exactly need to be Marty McFly to see the obvious threats to our children’s future careers.

Say you dream of sending your daughter off to Yale School of Medicine to become a radiologist. And why not? Radiologists in New York typically earn about $470,000, according to Salary.com.

But that job is suddenly looking iffy as A.I. gets better at reading scans. A start-up called Arterys, to cite just one example, already has a program that can perform a magnetic-resonance imaging analysis of blood flow through a heart in just 15 seconds, compared with the 45 minutes required by humans.

Maybe she wants to be a surgeon, but that job may not be safe, either. Robots already assist surgeons in removing damaged organs and cancerous tissue, according to Scientific American. Last year, a prototype robotic surgeon called STAR (Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot) outperformed human surgeons in a test in which both had to repair the severed intestine of a live pig.

So perhaps your daughter detours to law school to become a rainmaking corporate lawyer. Skies are cloudy in that profession, too. Any legal job that involves lots of mundane document review (and that’s a lot of what lawyers do) is vulnerable.

Software programs are already being used by companies including JPMorgan Chase & Company to scan legal papers and predict what documents are relevant, saving lots of billable hours. Kira Systems, for example, has reportedly cut the time that some lawyers need to review contracts by 20 to 60 percent.

As a matter of professional survival, I would like to assure my children that journalism is immune, but that is clearly a delusion. The Associated Press already has used a software program from a company called Automated Insights to churn out passable copy covering Wall Street earnings and some college sports, and last year awarded the bots the minor league baseball beat.

What about other glamour jobs, like airline pilot? Well, last spring, a robotic co-pilot developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as Darpa, flew and landed a simulated 737. I hardly count that as surprising, given that pilots of commercial Boeing 777s, according to one 2015 survey, only spend seven minutes during an average flight actually flying the thing. As we move into the era of driverless cars, can pilotless planes be far behind?

Then there is Wall Street, where robots are already doing their best to shove Gordon Gekko out of his corner office. Big banks are using software programs that can suggest bets, construct hedges and act as robo-economists, using natural language processing to parse central bank commentary to predict monetary policy, according to Bloomberg. BlackRock, the biggest fund company in the world, made waves earlier this year when it announced it was replacing some highly paid human stock pickers with computer algorithms.

So am I paranoid? Or not paranoid enough? A much-quoted 2013 study by the University of Oxford Department of Engineering Science — surely the most sober of institutions — estimated that 47 percent of current jobs, including insurance underwriter, sports referee and loan officer, are at risk of falling victim to automation, perhaps within a decade or two.

Read the complete article here.

How To Make a Flexible Work Culture Work For All Employees in a Firm

From today’s Forbes:

Imagine a work culture in which team members can connect, regardless of where, when and how they work. The traditional workspace is rapidly changing, and today’s businesses need to modernize and evolve if they want to attract — and keep — the most talented among today’s workers.

At Dell Technologies, where I lead HR, we long ago recognized the need for a connected workforce. Dell’s vision for the future is founded in enabling its team members to be their best and do their best work, through a flexible approach to their work.

Results from early research we conducted show that more than 60% of employees work before or after standard business hours. Furthermore, roughly two-thirds of workers globally conduct at least some business from home on a regular basis, and the average employee spends at least two hours per week working from public places. In fact, research shows that more than 80% of millennials say workspace technology will influence the jobs they take. This aligns to research published by GlobalWorkplaceAnalytics.com, which shows that more than 80% of the U.S. workforce say they would like to telework at least part-time.

Additionally, the firm’s report shows that many Fortune 1000 companies around the globe are entirely revamping their spaces around the fact that employees are already mobile. The report’s findings share that studies have repeatedly shown that employees are not at their desk more than half of the time.

As leading organizations evolve to meet the new cultural requirements of today’s workforce, what exactly are business leaders to do?

Read the complete article here.

Should You Share Your Feelings During a Work Conflict? Probably best to avoid it.

From today’s Harvard Business Review:

When a disagreement gets heated with a colleague, it’s normal to feel all sorts of emotions: disappointment, anger, frustration. But should you express those emotions? Or try to keep them close to your chest? Will it help if you tell your colleague that they’ve made you mad? Should they know how upset you are?

Of course, just because you feel angry, doesn’t mean you have to express it. And the real issue is not whether you reveal your emotions or not. What’s most important is that you have the ability to choose whether or not to share your feelings. This isn’t always easy because when we’re having an argument with someone, too often we feel as if we are in the grip of the emotions and they’re dictating what we say and do, rather than the other way around. Under these circumstances, you’re not able to make a smart choice about what to say and do. You need to put space between what’s happening (the disagreement) and your reaction. Here’s how.

First, recognize that conflicts at work are usually not one-off events. Many people I work with in my practice describe being caught off guard by a disagreement. They might say “I didn’t see it coming” or “I was blindsided.” But most conflicts have an element of predictability to them in that they have the roots in prior behavior. Chances are that the current argument you’re having is tied to a pattern of behavior, what usually upsets you about that person (or people in general). For example, you might work with someone who you feel makes unfair decisions or takes advantage of others.

When we get upset, it may be because we’ve sought evidence that proves these patterns. When you feel like someone is a slacker, you’ll look for ways that they aren’t carrying their weight. If you worry that your manager is unfair in her treatment of the team, you’ll be on alert for signs that she’s showing preferential treatment. Recognize these patterns so that you’re not caught off guard next time. Instead of feeling surging anger, you might realize, “This is something I often get worked up about.” If you’re more attuned to the conflicts that arise in you and around you, you can be more emotional agile.

Then, when a specific conflict arises, you can make a conscious choice about if and how to express your emotions by asking yourself these four questions:

Who’s in charge – the emotion or me the person experiencing the emotion? Ask yourself if you are making thoughtful decisions about how to react or if the emotion is driving your reactions. If your thoughts and emotions are in charge, it’s a sign that you’re hooked by your feelings and you’re going down a path that is unlikely to help you resolve the argument and more likely to make it worse. If the emotion is dictating how you act, it will be difficult to do what you need to – take the other person’s perspective, have compassion, clearly articulate your narrative of the event.

Read the entire article here.

Risky GOP tax cuts won’t trickle down, may lead to economic disaster in future

From today’s Politico News:

Republicans are on the cusp of passing the biggest corporate tax cut in American history, betting it will ignite an economic boom that creates better jobs and fatter paychecks for middle-class Americans.

That boom may never trickle down.

Some economists and corporate executives are already warning that simply lowering tax bills won’t necessarily cause companies to hire more people and pay them better. Instead, they could just wind up returning the extra cash to shareholders.

That could leave President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans celebrating a short-term legislative win that hurts them in the long run, with bigger deficits and little to show for it. And an already deeply unpopular bill — one that includes immediate hikes on some individual taxpayers — could become a serious political headache in 2020 and beyond.

“Frankly, I think they are bonkers,” David Mendels, former chief executive officer of software firm Brightcove, said of the GOP banking on a lower corporate rate to generate bigger worker paychecks. “It really doesn’t work that way. No CEO sits there and says, ‘When my tax rate goes down, I’m going to hire more people and pay them more.’”

Tax legislation cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Wednesday ahead of a formal vote as early as Thursday. House and Senate lawmakers will need to convene in coming weeks to hash out a compromise between their two bills.

Even some Republicans seem deeply unconvinced by predictions from members of the Trump administration and more aggressive budget forecasters that slashing the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent will generate enough economic growth to offset the additional $1.5 trillion in debt the Senate tax plan envisions over the next decade.

Read the entire article here.

Proof Retail Jobs Don’t Need to Be Bad

From today’s New York Times by Eduardo Porter

Bethamy Magrow is grateful that the minimum wage in New York City is rising to $13 at the end of next month. Earning the current minimum of $11 an hour at a Times Square fashion retailer and scheduled to work some weeks for only 19 hours, the 25-year-old sales worker realizes she doesn’t quite clear New York’s poverty line.

It would be nice if her schedule didn’t change so much from week to week, she told me, so she could set up her doctors’ appointments in advance. But at least New York bars retailers from changing the schedule from one day to the next. In any case, jobs she has had at Whole Foods and Pokéworks, a restaurant on Union Square, were no better or worse.

Millions of Americans have similar stories to tell. For all the talk about the “end of retail,” it is one of the largest employers in the country, accounting for about one in eight workers in the private sector. For every miner toiling in the United States, there are almost 25 retail workers. Manufacturing, the apple of President Trump’s eye, doesn’t employ nearly as many.

Typically paying full-time employees less than $33,000 a year, well below the midpoint across the economy, retail jobs have become the work of the lower class, the main source of support for Americans left behind by economic change.

This raises a fairly urgent question: If retail work sets the living standard for so many low-income families, why doesn’t it get more attention?

Read the entire article here.