Being George Clooney’s Girlfriend

By now, we have been shocked, shocked to learn that George Clooney has broken up with his most recent girlfriend, Italian stunner Elisabetta Canalis, after dating for two years.

None of this should have come as a surprise. George has made it very clear he has no intention of ever marrying again. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. At least he is honest.

Yet I can’t fault the girlfriend either. After two years of dating, she was perfectly within her rights to ask if the relationship was going to the next level (marriage). Alas, here were two people with different outlooks on the future.

Nevertheless, both got something out of the relationship: He got to be seen with an age-inappropriate hottie on his arm at movie events. She got to spend time with one of the most handsome and eligible guys in the world at his villa aside Lake Como in Italy. Hey, I’d make that trade-off any day of the week.

So, what does this have to do with employment (and unemployment) in the 2010s? A lot. Here’s why:

No long-term commitment. As an employee of any company these days, you cannot expect your bosses will commit to you long term. When things turn bad, you will get the boot faster than, well, a girlfriend of George Clooney.

Leave after two years. Really, Elisabetta should have seen this coming and moved on a year earlier. He usually doesn’t stay with one woman for much longer than two years. So as an employee, lay the groundwork for your exit no later than two years after your hire. Take control of the situation before you get the heave-ho. It’s gonna happen, so why prolong the inevitable?

You will get screwed. And I don’t mean in the good way.

Both George and Elisabetta will end up fine. He will get another pretty young chickie to squire around to show he’s not getting old. She will get movie parts and modeling gigs and another rich boyfriend.

The same cannot be said of the millions of unemployed people still waiting for a job.

Oh, and George: Call me.

Disposal Workers

I read something recently in one of those advice columns. A woman wrote in, telling her story of how she was laid off from her former employer after more than a decade with the company.

She said she still felt bitter and angry about her termination, and was still obsessing about her former company. The advise columnist wrote back that she should basically get over it, move on, and that her former employer owed her nothing for her years of service.

Yes, the columnist made a good point. I freely admit I let my bitterness and resentment over my layoff consume me at times (but never to the point where I stopped looking for another job).

However, my second thought was that the advice columnist has probably never been laid off, and has always worked freelance or been her own boss. So, how can she know what it’s like to be laid off after many years with a company?

Is this what it has come to for millions of working Americans? We’re nothing more than disposal paper cups to be tossed aside when we have outlived our usefulness to our corporate overloads?

I understand companies must make staffing cuts to survive in harsh economic times (although I’d like to think there are other solutions). But it seems to me that all the power has shifted to the executive suite and workers have little or no say in the matter. Where is the balance? Where is the fairness?

Companies expect loyalty from their workers, but what are they giving us in return? No job security, no raises and crappy health plans.

Are we nothing more than disposal workers?

Computer Phobia

So, I’ve been on my new job for more than two months now and it’s getting a bit easier. At least my body has gotten accustomed to waking just before the sun rises.

My boss has liked my work so far. However, in a few weeks, I will be confronted with my old nemesis: technology. Due to someone leaving the company, I must learn new duties that include being trained on new computer programs. I don’t mind the extra work, but learning new technology has never come easy for me. I trace it back to my first job, when we trained on a new computer system (the first Apple computers, really) and my trainers openly mocked my inability to learn quickly enough for their tastes. Geez…have I spent my entire working career around total jerks?

I have become friendly with a couple of people in my office who can perhaps help me on this program, which, by the way, is going to be changed in two months. Great…then I have to learn another computer system. Yet by all accounts this new system is easier. Let’s hope.

This brings up another set of issues, beyond just learning new systems and more duties. Just how much work should I do for this company? A few weeks ago, I did some work over the weekend. Should I have done so?

At my previous place of employment, I worked my tail off, did two and three jobs for them, took work home on the weekends…and where did it get me? Laid off. So why bother extending myself?

Of course, I want to do a good job. Never again do I want to endure an extended period of unemployment.

But I sometimes wonder if companies are taking advantage of this sluggish job market to force workers to work even harder for little or no raises. (I’m making much less than at my previous job and who knows when I will get a raise.)

The attitude of employers is that we are lucky to have a job and if we complain, well, go find another job. But there are no jobs to be had, despite what some politicians and economists say.

What should I do? Well, I’ll try to learn the new technology to the best of my ability (albeit not very quickly) and find a way to squeeze more work into my day.

Until they lay me off.

Double Dip

We’re headed for a double dip…and not in a good way.

Unemployment is inching up as employers still refuse to hire. The housing market is still sinking. Natural disasters in the South and Midwest are taking a heavy toll both financially and emotionally. Are we headed for a double-dip recession?

We could be.

Some pundits argue that we should load up on national debt in an effort to create jobs. Others want to reduce the debt, regardless of how it shreds the social safety net. Who’s right?

Should we raise taxes? Rich people are angry because they don’t want their money taken away and given to those who they deem lazy and unworthy.

Corporations say they can’t hire because of excessive taxes and regulation. However, there is no assurance they will hire if taxes and regulations are lightened.

Meanwhile, companies and even state governments are crushing unions. So who is speaking up for the middle class?

Rich people and big corporations have lobbyists and can buy influence with politicians. But who is sticking up for the little guy? At one time, it was the unions, but their clout has been nearly obliterated.

I’m no fan of debt. But I don’t think we can get out of this situation by cuts alone. Taxes must be raised, but it should be done fairly, where everyone pays their fair share.

If the economy falls into another recession and workers are cut en masse, I don’t think those laid-off workers will go as quietly this time around.