Down with “Up in the Air”

“Up in the Air” played on HBO the other night.

I didn’t watch. Why would I want to watch a movie about a guy who flies around the country firing workers when I’ve already experienced the shock of a layoff? Still living it, in fact.

True, the movie stars George Clooney, one of my favorite actors. But I just couldn’t bring myself to watch it. Too soon, too painful.

My sister saw it and told me the basic plot. It’s more a movie about the isolation of the Clooney character than it is about the impact of what his character is doing to the poor slobs he’s putting out of a job. Oh, yeah, they have some short interviews with just laid off people, but that’s about it. If the unemployment rate hadn’t reached such a crisis level, would the producers have added those segments?

Because Hollywood likes nothing better than to take a current social issue and gloss over it. To prop up unemployed people like so many circus freaks so the audience (and the cast and producers) can say, There by the grace of God go I.

We go to movies to escape, but with millions of people out of work, why would any of us want to see a movie about a guy who terminates employees on behalf of their companies? Do you think I want to be reminded of the day I was told to pack up my desk and leave?

If you want to see an escapist movie starring George Clooney, go see “The American.” I did. He and the Italian scenery look great.

And just how accurately will any movie portray the plight of the unemployed? How do convey emotional and financial stress on screen? Remember how movies and TV shows in the ’70s turned Vietnam vets into crazies. Will today’s movies do the same with laid-off workers?

But there could be some hope on the horizon. I saw the trailer for the soon-to-be released “Company Men.” The movie stars Ben Affleck as a thrown-overboard executive.

A couple of scenes hit home: There’s one in which the Affleck character complains about being an unemployed loser. Yes, it’s whiny, but that’s pretty much how all laid-off people feel.

In another, Affleck is seen shouting into a phone at the person who presumably told him to pack up and leave. He wants to know why he was fired. Yeah, I’m still waiting for that answer.

Perhaps “Company Men” will take a more realistic view of unemployment in 2010, the impact it has on a person’s psyche and family life. But will the producers tack on a happy ending just for the sake of having a happy ending? Will it be parable about what’s really important in life? Who needs a six-figure salary and a fancy car when you have your family? To me, that is just as unrealistic and frankly, insulting to unemployed people. Of course, family comes before any job. But we need a paycheck to keep a roof over our heads. And how often do we hear about a couple that broke up because the spouse—usually the husband—lost a job? Hard to support a family and have any sort of family life without a steady paycheck.

It’s easy for some rich Tinseltown producer, director or actor to preach to us about the goodness and supremacy of family life when he or she goes home to a mansion in the Hollywood Hills or a villa off of Lake Como with some sexy plaything. They are not facing the prospect of being homeless. And why “Company Men?” Why not “Company Women?”

Will I see the movie? I’m not sure. I really don’t want to go there again, and I really don’t think any movie can realistically convey the emotional depth and individual nature of what a person goes through after he or she has been laid off.

On the small screen, even Donald Trump has gotten into the act. This season of “The Apprentice” features mostly out-of-work contestants. I watched the first episode and I have to say, The Donald seemed somewhat sympathetic. But there is something a bit cruel about the prospect of telling someone they are fired when they have been, well, already fired. The whole setup smacks of desperation and exploitation. And it didn’t escape my notice that nearly all of the contestants are fairly young and good looking. I guess that means old and unattractive people cannot be hired. Ever. Again.

After the first person was fired, Trump did mumble something about getting her an interview at one of his holdings. And I thought to myself, well, if he really wants to help out unemployed people, why not just hire all of them? Why make them go through the rigmarole (and humiliation) of some silly contest? In his vast empire, there must be dozens and dozens of openings at any one time those people would be qualified to fill.

Because in reality, unemployed people don’t need a movie or TV show to tell them what it’s like to be out of work. We know.

We need a job.

The Point System

15,645

No, that’s not the number of days I’ve been out of work (although it feels that long). It’s the number membership reward points I’ve accumulated on my American Express card.

Why is that important? Well, if you are unemployed and looking to gain some extra buying power, cashing in those reward points on your credit cards is one way to do it.

With those points, you can obtain gift cards to stores like the Gap or Kohls or chain restaurants. Or you can get a prepaid AmEx card, which can be used anywhere and for anything. A $50 AmEx card can buy groceries for a week.

The dollar amount on the card depends on how many points you redeem. Cashing in those points came in handy during the ’09 holiday season when I got my niece a gift card to the Gap, her favorite store. I’ll probably have to do the same this year.

Admittedly, racking up charges on your credit card during a jobless period just to gain reward points is not advisable. Use your credit cards sparingly! But if like me, you used your card for traveling expenses on business trips while you were employed, now is the perfect time to redeem those reward points for gift cards or other items (small appliances, computers, clothing) offered by the credit card company.

This is just one way an unemployed person can ferret out some hidden cash and save money during a financially fallow period. But there are many others.

I won’t bore with the obvious, like buying only on sale and using coupons, or even eliminating unnecessary expenses, like newspaper and magazine subscriptions (you can see them online). Even before you were unemployed, you were probably clipping coupons. And keeping a close eye on your expenses is always a good idea, whether you’re employed or not.

Yet there are other ways to make it through a fiscal rough patch:

Negotiate. Speaking of credit cards, many offer programs to extend or suspend payment periods when a holder is unemployed. So why not call them up and ask if you can participate? Be proactive. It’s better than getting bombarded with calls from collection agencies and having your credit score plummet. Getting a job and regular paycheck won’t automatically raise your credit score if you allowed it to tank when you were jobless.

If you’ve been paying on time, but are suddenly getting behind in payments, the credit card company may be able to accommodate you. A while back, my credit card company called me, wondering why I was late on a payment. My balance was particularly high because I was forced to buy my new computer on credit when my old computer went up in smoke—literally, plumps of smoke came up from the keyboard. When I explained my situation to the gentleman, he offered to work with me, even voiding my late fee.

So I paid the minimum amount that month, and I’ve been paying as much as I can each month. But it’s nice to know the credit card company is willing to help me during my unemployment.

The caveat, of course, is that you must have a history of paying on time before you lost your job. The goodwill of a credit card company extends only so far.

Same goes for doctors and dentists. If you’ve been up to date with your payments in the past, they will allow you to pay over time for an expensive procedure while you are out of work. Again, explain your situation and they should understand. They would rather get a little each month than nothing at all. (I’m still paying off my root canal done in January.)

Use Up What You Got. This morning, I counted six lipsticks in my bathroom cabinet. So do I really need to buy another lipstick? No. Although it’s nice to have things in stock when you need them, it’s perhaps better to use up whatever you have in your home before you go out and buy more detergent, shampoo and cosmetics.

There are other small ways to save money. I only get my car washed on Wednesday so I can save $3 because it’s Ladies Day. And I can’t remember the last time I bought an item of clothing. Do I really need another T-shirt when I already have so many?

But the biggest money-boosting tip of all? Getting a regular paycheck.

Sacrificial Lambs

I read an interesting article in Newsweek a while back http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/04/lay-off-the-layoffs.html. The gist of the piece is this: layoffs don’t automatically make a company profitable or enable it to survive long-term. (The article also outlines the detrimental health effects on laid-off workers, but that’s for another blog entry.)

Let’s concentrate now on the myth that layoffs are necessary for a company’s long-term survival. The article pretty much debunks that belief and for many reasons: large severance payouts, higher unemployment insurance costs, and low worker morale, among them. But companies do it because they think Wall Street analysts will applaud such expense-cutting moves (not really, says the article).

So why do companies persist in slashing payrolls? In a severe recession, such as the one we are in now, it is necessary for some hard-hit industries to downsize, the Newsweek article concedes. Yet I also think there is a herd mentality at work here. Companies see other companies doing it, so they think they must do it as well.

To my mind, it’s a knee-jerk reaction. For most companies, the easiest and quickest cost-cutting measure is to slice payroll. Why bother to find new ways to boost revenues when you can just cut salaries and show a profit in one quarter?

All this reminds me of something I was told just after I was laid off. A woman I worked with sent me an email saying that while she felt sorry I was let go, I would just have to understand that my bosses (who kept their jobs as did she) were just trying to save as much of the company as they could. (More on the stupid things people say after you’ve been laid off later.)

Let’s put aside for a moment the appropriateness of telling someone who was just put out of a job that he or she must “understand” that it was done for the greater good of the company’s survival. Hey, what about my survival?

Her comment doesn’t make any sense on so many levels. As an employee, I was paid to do a job that, I hope, brought some value to the company’s overall mission and goals.

I did not, however, sign on to be a sacrificial lamb to be tossed aside when times got rocky and my bosses couldn’t figure out another way to save the company. If any of us who have been laid off were that self-sacrificing we would have joined the Army or become firefighters.

Am I supposed to feel better that I was sacrificed so the company could survive? Well, I don’t. And why say that to me at that time, as if that would make me less devastated? It was almost as if she wanted to say, “Whew! Better you than me, you sucker!”

I wrote back to my former co-worker, telling her that, no, I didn’t particularly like being a sacrificial lamb so my boozed-up bosses (the head of the company and the alleged head of our sales department are alcoholics) could continue to make the moronic, ginned-up decisions that put the company in the hole in the first place, so they could continue to have their liquid lunches and happy hour excursions every day after work. I’m sure they discussed the layoffs at a bar. Nice, huh? If managers are going to talk about employee cutbacks, the least we deserve is that our corporate overlords be sober when the discussions are held.

There were times those two idiots would go out to lunch around noon, drink too much and not make it back to the office. For those of you who think the ’60s-era shenanigans of Mad Men no longer go on, think again. I saw this with my own eyes and heard enough stories from other reliable sources to vouch that this was the case. This was an open secret at the company. Nearly all of the upper management there are heavy drinkers.

During my (forced) exit interview, the head of the editorial department (not a heavy drinker, but a total douchebag) told me I was being cut because my salary was too high. Well, imagine my surprise when I was informed later the same day from someone inside the company that I was NOT the highest paid editor on staff. An editor who made $4,000 more a year than I did and with less time in the company was kept on staff. In all likelihood, he was kept because he is the editorial director’s handpicked puppet.

And yes, I am bitter. Get used to it.

Of course, the highest paid editor is the editorial director, but he’s not going anywhere. In the past two years, this person has eliminated any and all editors who questioned his authority and/or came close to him in terms of seniority. At the time I was cut, I was the second most senior person on the editorial staff, second only to him. So why wasn’t he and his bloated salary cut? The company doesn’t publish as many magazines as it used to, so why does it need an editorial director?

True, the regional magazine I edited was put out of print, as were all the regional publications within our group. But all the other regional editors were kept on staff…except me. I think they had to sacrifice (there’s that word again) someone from the editorial staff and I was it, even though my salary was not the highest. Yet after I left, they split my duties between two of my former co-workers. So how did they save money when they had to pay two people to do my jobs? I’m sure those two salaries added up to more than I was being paid.

So there is no rhyme or reason as to why one person gets cut and another one doesn’t. It all basically comes down to the whims of people who will do anything to save their own jobs and those of their lapdogs.

But back to the question of whether a company can survive after massive layoffs. I’ve since found out that the company I used to work for has handed out raises to the remaining staff. So, I guess that’s where my ginormous salary went: to fund the raises for those remaining staffers, all of whom have less experience and seniority than I did. Meanwhile, I’m still trying to find a job and make a go of it on unemployment benefits (which will end in November) and some freelance jobs.

Now, I’m not saying they don’t deserve raises. The company had imposed a wage freeze for about two years before I was laid off. They had to give its workers something, or there would be a mass exodus (to where in this economy, I don’t know). And some of my former co-workers did work hard. They are being asked to do more with fewer colleagues…but they are also putting out fewer products.

And how can it be that a mere seven months after cutting about a third of the staff because of revenue shortfalls that the company can now dole out raises, and some pretty hefty ones from what I’ve heard?

I’m sure the company got a small bump in profits after cutting so many salaries and products. But I find it hard to believe it is now wildly profitable, especially with the drunken bozos who still run the show.

Yet apparently the company has survived and is doing better because of the layoffs. Yippee! But I can’t help but think that those of us who were jettisoned deserve at least a small bonus—or at least a shout out—for making the ultimate sacrifice so others could keep their jobs and get a raise. I guess I’ll be waiting a long time for that.

One of the points the Newsweek article makes is that companies sometimes cut their most experienced employees. What is a company except a concept or a service put into action by the people who work for it? When you lay off seasoned employees, it must have a detrimental impact on the company as a whole. Quality suffers and the people who buy the product notice.

It’s also a myth that a company must cut staff to survive. There are examples of firms who make it a point not to cut staff even in bad times. Southwest Airlines is one of them. It didn’t lay off workers, even after 9/11 and it has thrived. Its former head of human resources is quoted in the Newsweek article as saying, “If people are your most important assets, why would you get rid of them?”

Yes, Virginia, there are some companies that believe that keeping people employed is for the greater social good of the nation. Employed people buy more goods and services so that companies can be profitable. Cutting workers serves no good purpose except to eventually starve corporate profits at more and more companies. It’s a vicious cycle: companies cut workers, laid-off employees spend less, more companies have to cut more workers, and so on and so forth.

Sadly, for many companies, the philosophy is to cut staff first and try to figure out how to survive later. They blame the recession, when, really, it was their own poor decisions that led to cutbacks. Why do some companies survive an economic downturn and others don’t? I think a lot of it has to do with a management team that is smart, nimble and proactive, rather than slow-footed and reactive.

Some companies and their employees work out concessions so the company can carry on without having to resort to massive layoffs. If the option were given to me to take a cut in pay, I would have considered staying. But I was never given that option. Not saying I would have taken a cut in pay, but I would have considered it.

Instead of cutting workers, why not find new revenue streams? Well, that takes time and perseverance, as well as brains and ingenuity, all things our corporate overlords lack.

Businesses today take a short-term view, and if cutting staff gives a quick boost in profits, well, that’s what a company will do. It may be damaging in the long run, but bosses don’t think that way. They want an instant fix so they can make it to the next happy hour by 5 p.m. and toast themselves on how they made the company more profitable and survived the recession. Well, I wouldn’t pop the champagne cork just yet. This recession is far from over (double-dip anyone?), and someday, you may be the sacrificial lamb.

That’s the problem with upper level managers and executives at U.S. corporations today. They are so interested in keeping their vaulted positions—and overblown salaries—that they will do anything, anything just to stay in power. It’s not about doing a greater social good by keeping people employed or devising innovative new products that will increase employment.

No, it’s all about lining their pockets and maintaining the appearance of making a “profit” at a foundering company.

And if hundreds or thousands of hard-working people must be sacrificed to do it, so be it.

Baaaa…

The First Rule of Unemployment

The First Rule of Unemployment is this: You will gain weight.

Can’t be helped, and for many reasons.

Probably the first and easiest expense cut is the gym membership. With no regular exercise program, the pounds will pile up on your thighs and stomach.

And to get over the shock of being laid off, you will naturally gravitate toward comfort foods, like potatoes, chocolate and chips. Not a healthy reaction, but it’s understandable.

While other unnecessary expenses, such as clothes, can be eliminated, we still need to eat. Food is the one product we don’t have to feel guilty about buying.

And buy food we will! What else can we spend our diminishing cash intake on? A new car? Not bloody likely. Furniture? Not this year.

So you do your weekly food shopping, stocking up on your favorite snacks. Then chomp through those chips and sweets after two days.

I know I gained weight after I was laid off. Making it even worse, I was let go shortly before Christmas, so I gorged more than normal on holiday cooking.

And even if you didn’t have a regular exercise program before you were laid off, the routine of getting up every morning and walking to the car, bus or train got your heart racing and your muscles working. In a busy workplace, it’s easy to stay occupied and away from the vending machine (well, almost). Temptation is kept mostly at bay, at least between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Now, you spend most of your time in front of the computer or TV. Your life is more sedentary, even if you don’t want it to be. And that fridge is so close….

I really didn’t begin to take off some pounds until I got so depressed my appetite lessened. See, there are some good things that can come from being depressed and out of work!

So what to do? Buy stretchy clothes that can expand with your waistline. Elastic and spandex are an unemployed person's best friends.

Seriously, I’ve tried to watch my diet, cooking smaller meals, making sure to eat fruit and veggies. It ain’t easy, but I try.

Even if you can’t go to the gym, you can put on comfortable shoes and walk every day. Walking is free…and us unemployed people have a lot of free time.

If this recession doesn’t end soon and employers don’t start hiring, we are going to become a nation of wheezing, insulin-grubbing, Rex Ryan-sized couch potatoes.

Hmmm….potatoes!

Happy Cheap Labor Day

Today is Labor Day. Hooray for the working men and women of the USA!

Yet for those of us who are unemployed, today is a brutally ironic day. We want to work, but have been deemed unfit to do so by our former employers and the hundreds of prospective employers who have received our resumes and not hired us. Yep, this holiday is about as much fun for us as Valentine’s Day is for single people.

Today also brings up the question of whether an unemployed person should take any job, no matter how low paying, just to have a job and get off unemployment.

Not long ago, there was an article that referenced an unemployed mechanic in North Carolina who refused several job offers because the pay was lower than what he was receiving on jobless benefits (see: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/man-receiving-unemployment-benefits-refuses-over-a-dozen-job-offers-535306.html?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,spy,tlt,%5Eixic,qqqq&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode= ). The man, Michael Hatchell, has since found a suitable position that pays him what he feels he is worth.

Of course, this brought a great hew and cry from some politicians who played the “I told you so” card. You see, unemployed people simply don’t want to work and this proves it, they claimed. How do such stupid people get elected?

Hatchell and his wife subsequently appeared on Keith Olbermann’s cable TV program. While his wife gave an exasperated sigh, Hatchell calmly explained that he had a mortgage, car payments and other expenses that a low-paying job simply would not cover.

Hatchell further pointed out that unemployment insurance is just that—insurance, meaning money is taken from our paychecks to fund the program. So in essence, we are paying for our own unemployment benefits, just as we do for healthcare or car insurance. It's to be used when we lose our jobs through no fault of our own and need the money to pay our bills. Unemployment benefits are not handouts, despite what some politicians think.

The same article that mentioned Hatchell also reports that a Dubai-based airline was having difficulty finding workers for its cabin crews. Pay starts at $30,000, but accommodations and healthcare are free. The kicker? They would have to move to Dubai.

I’m of two minds on this issue. Hatchell was certainly within his rights to refuse a job that would not pay him a decent wage, or one that would fail to cover his living expenses. Only he knows his financial situation and what would be a livable wage for his family. It's an individual decision and it's not for us to tell him what to do. He made the right choice for himself and his family by refusing a low-wage job, and in the end, it worked out for him.

And moving to foreign country would be a hard choice for anyone, particularly if it means leaving family and friends.

Yet these are difficult times and unemployment benefits do not last forever. If Congress does not extend unemployment benefits in November for people like myself, I’m going to be in a pretty precarious financial position if I don't have a job by then, which is a distinct possibility.

So would I take the first job offered me, even if it paid me less than what I was making when I got laid off?

Well, I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that I will not make the same salary I was at my previous job. However, I don’t have a mortgage, my rent is reasonable and my car is paid off. My expenses (especially since I’ve stopped buying at Macys) are low. So, yes, I could take a cut in pay. I could handle it; others may not be in the same position.

Perhaps in a year or two, when the economy is in better shape (we hope), I could get a raise or move to another job that pays more.

A lot depends on the benefits package as well. Buying healthcare is so expensive on one’s own that taking a low-paying job with decent medical benefits is an option that cannot be ignored.

And as much as I hate to admit this, I’ve sat in interviews and thought to myself, “Jeez, I would hate this job. Please don’t pick me.” I know there is no such thing as the perfect job, but we all want to be in a workplace where we are reasonably contented, where there are at least some aspects of the job we enjoy doing. I’ve seen friends take jobs just to have a job and they were miserable. And nothing makes you more miserable and unhappy than working at a job you hate day in and day out.

So, no, I don’t think an unemployed person should take any low-paying, cruddy job just to have a job. That’s a choice only that person can make and we should not judge him or her. We lost our jobs, not our free will.

Now, if their unemployment benefits run out, that’s another matter entirely. But while they are collecting unemployment, they should have the option to look for a decent paying job and refuse those that do not offer a reasonable living wage. That’s what unemployment benefits are for: to give a person, who has paid into the system, the ability to stay financially afloat while he or she searches for another job. Once the benefits end, well, their options are limited and it might be advisable to take the first job that comes along, ride out the recession and find something better down the line.

Yet I can’t help thinking there is something more nefarious at work here. Are employers routinely low-balling prospective employees in order to get, well, cheap labor? Employers hold all the cards now and knowing this, they are going to use their leverage to boost profits at the expense of employees. If they hire at all, it will be at the lowest possible wage.

I know this first hand: Recently I was aced out for a job I was perfectly qualified for by someone whose only professional experience was as an intern. Why pay an experienced worker what they are worth when you can hire someone with no experience cheaper?

Funny thing is, American companies used to outsource to other countries for the cheap labor. Now, they can do it within the USA.

Happy Cheap Labor Day!