Why my youthful disdain toward money? Because I had a savings account, that’s why. All the money I got for birthdays/Christmas/grade school graduation went straight to the bank, and my parents expected me to be happy when I exchanged a would-be shopping spree at Toys-R-Us for a deposit receipt and a lollipop. I was eight, and I was not happy.

Reflecting on those times now, I realize I’d be thrilled with a savings account as well-endowed as the one I had in fifth grade — its present-day counterpart is paltry, to put it optimistically. Though I know the importance of saving money, there are certain times when it seems almost impossible to save — a feeling that is shared by an increasing number of workers these days.

According to a new CareerBuilder survey: “Saving money is not an option for some workers, as one-third (33 percent) state that they do not participate in any programs such as 401(k), IRAs or retirement plans. One-in-three (30 percent) report that they don’t put any money aside into their savings each month, while 28 percent set aside $100 or less per month for savings and 14 percent save less than $50.”

The survey also reports that the number of workers living paycheck to paycheck has risen in the last year: 77 percent of workers report living paycheck to paycheck in 2010, compared with 61 percent who reported doing so in 2009.

Unfortunately, since we’re in the middle of a recession, it’s likely that many of us will be living with tight purse strings  for the foreseeable future.

Yet according to Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources for CareerBuilder, that may not be such a bad thing, since living on a budget  may ultimately make us more financially responsible. “The last 18 months have required some workers to tighten their day-to-day spending and make some adjustments to their financial futures,” says Haefner. “Our survey found that six-in-ten workers say that the recession has made them more fiscally responsible. Maintaining a budget is not only important now, but will better position workers – both personally and professionally – for the long run.”

When it comes to  budgeting, workers reported using the following tactics to help make ends meet:

•             Cut back on leisure activities – 54 percent

•             Used coupons or shopped at discount stores – 48 percent

•             Drove less to save on gas – 37 percent

•             Cancelled cable and other subscriptions – 12 percent

•             Used public transportation – 5 percent

Cut back on cable, carpooling to work and still stretching your paycheck thin? Haefner offers the following tips for getting the most out of your money and creating a livable budget:

Cut back where you can – That daily dose of Dunkin Donuts coffee can add up. Create a spreadsheet or keep a small notebook to track your expenses. At the end of the month, analyze where your money goes, and cut back where you’re spending unnecessarily.

Be saving savvy – While you may not be able to stash away a few hundred dollars each month, it’s still important to save what you can, even if it’s a small amount. If you tend to spend whatever is in your checking account, try setting up an automatic deposit into a savings account. 

Maximize your benefits– Talk to your HR department to see if there are any benefits you’re not taking advantage of.  Many companies offer perks like free museum admission, discounts at certain stores, etc. Also, if necessary, re-evaluate your benefits plan to make sure you’ve selected the right one for your budget.

For more on the recession and its effect on workers, check out:

Is Going Back to School the Right Move?

Workplace Fatalities Reach Record Low

Surprising Growth Industries

Related posts:

1. Do You Live Paycheck to Paycheck? You’re Not Alone. Scenario: It’s a couple of days before payday. You’ve checked...
2. Tax time dilemmas for workers and job seekers Tax season can be, well, taxing to say the least,...
3. Missing open enrollment can cost you If you’re fortunate enough to have a job that offers...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, incidences of workplace fatalities were 17 percent fewer in 2009 than in 2008. The 4,340 fatal workplace injuries reported for ’09 is the lowest number on record since the BLS started keeping track in 1992.

While a large part of that has to do with the fact that there were fewer jobs in general, the BLS reported that injuries per 100,000 workers declined from 3.7 in 2008, to 3.3 in 2009.  Bloomberg also reported that, according to the National Council of Compensation Insurance, workplace injuries have been on the decline for 10 years, reflecting an overall trend toward safer workplaces.

Transportation accidents, which account for almost two-fifths of all fatal workplace injuries also declined by 21 percent in 2009; though an overall loss of jobs in the construction industry plays a large part in the decline of these injuries.

As a response to the BLS numbers, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis said in a statement: “A single worker hurt or killed on the job is one too many. While a decrease in the number of fatal work injuries is encouraging, we cannot and will not relent from our continued strong enforcement of workplace safety laws. As the economy regains strength and more people re-enter the workforce, the Department of Labor will remain vigilant to ensure America’s workers are kept safe while they earn a paycheck.”

We agree that even one accident is too many, so here are a few tips for staying safe on the job.

1. Pay attention to overtime hours - Staying late is bad for your health in more ways than one.  One recent study reported that employees who work more than 10 hours per day and 60 percent more likely to develop heart disease.  A long day also makes your commute more hazardous. You’re more likely to get in an accident when you’re tired — in fact, research has shown that drowsy drivers are seven times more likely to crash.

2.  Talk to your boss if your job is taking a physical toll on you - Jobs that are physically demanding may start to wear on workers after a while — especially those that involve repetitive motion, awkward body positioning or heavy lifting.  Companies are required by law to provide workers with a safe work environment, and your boss can help you figure out a safer or more comfortable situation.

3. The same goes for workplace injuries - If you are injured on the job, speak up. Your company will either have to provide you with time off to recuperate, or with a new set of job duties that will not exacerbate the injury.

4. Take breaks -If your job is physically demanding or requires you to operate heavy machinery, working while tired can also pose safety risks. Like driving while tired, doing physically demanding work, like construction, maintenance or manufacturing, can be seriously dangerous to tired workers. Take short, frequent breaks to keep your attention levels high and your drowsiness levels low.

For more on workplace issues, see:

Caution: Toxic Co-Workers Ahead

A Trying Economy Means Healthier Habits For Some Workers

Weight Gain at Work

Related posts:

1. Nearly 40 percent of workers have flirted with romance on the job When you think of TV’s most famous romantic duos —...
2. Which Halloween Character Is Your Boss Most Like? Two days until Halloween! I got the finishing touches to...

For those of you unaware, some employers run a credit check during the hiring process before deciding which candidate to choose. They can’t run the check without your permission, so you must first sign a form that allows the company to check your credit history. You can choose not to sign it, but they can then choose not to consider you for the job.

Why would your boss care whether or not you have an outstanding payment on your car? Answers vary, but the gist is that employers think you need to be responsible with your finances before they can trust you. In other words, if you’re not dependable enough to keep your own matters in order, what kind of an employee will you be?

In an article on credit checks during a job hunt, Rachel Farrell explains:

“Though many people argue that credit scores have nothing to do with their capabilities on the job, some employers say differently. Sixty percent of employers recently surveyed by the Society of Human Resource Management said they run credit checks on all or some potential new hires. That’s up from 43 percent in 2006 and 25 percent in 1998.

Opinions on whether or not this is fair vary. Supporters of credit checks don’t think it’s any different than checking a candidate’s references. But opponents see it as unfair — especially in this economy — because medical problems, divorce or a job layoff and subsequent missed bills can wreck an otherwise perfect credit score in an instant.”

Unfair? Perhaps, but it’s a widespread practice that is perfectly legal in most states. And employers are forced to tell applicants if they were turned down due to a credit check. But recently, Illinois became one of a few states to prohibit the use of credit checks as a deciding factor in the hiring process. Well, kind of. As The Consumerist points out:

“Under the new law, employers may access credit checks under limited circumstances, including positions that involve: bonding or security per state or federal law; unsupervised access to more than $2,500; signatory power over businesses assets of more than $100; management and control of the business; access to personal, financial or confidential information, trade secrets, or state or national security information.”

So there are exceptions, and perhaps you can agree with all or some of them. The correlation between financial responsibility and handling money on a daily basis isn’t that farfetched. However, credit checks as a hiring component are legal in most of the country and they are a problem for many job seekers.

The economy has not been kind to bank accounts, as employers have laid off workers, frozen or reduced salaries, cut 401(k) matches and been slow to hire. Jobless claims rose alongside foreclosures. Medical issues for the unemployed have put financial strains on families. Credit scores surely suffered. Much like the frustrating predicament entry-level job seekers have where they need experience to even get a job to earn that experience, job seekers who need income to improve their financial situations are unable to get hired because of their finances. Therefore, even if you agree with credit checks, you can probably see why some job seekers are concerned with this practice.

Where do you stand on credit checks during the hiring process? Is Illinois doing the right thing by enacting this law or do employers have a good reason to check your credit history? Have you ever lost out on a job because of your credit history? Let us know.

Related posts:

1. Ask The Work Buzz! Salary history From Kathy: Hey, Work Buzz! Boring question, but necessary answer....

The survey, which asked participants to rank an applicant’s ability to perform a specific job based on pictures alone, found that while attractive women had an advantage in jobs with a “feminine” typecast, like secretarial positions, they were seen as less suitable for jobs like prison guard, tow-truck driver, mechanical engineer and director of security.

In a statement, lead researcher Stefanie Johnson, an assistant professor of management at the University of Colorado, said “In these professions being attractive was highly detrimental to women. In every other kind of job, attractive women were preferred. This wasn’t the case with men which shows that there is still a double standard when it comes to gender.”

The report also stated “We found that attractiveness is beneficial for men and women applying for most jobs, in terms of ratings of employment suitability. However, attractiveness was more beneficial for women applying for feminine sex-typed jobs than masculine sex-typed jobs.”

The new study comes on the heels of a variety of other recent reports on appearance and the workplace — one which suggested that women who dressed “provocatively,” felt more productive at work.  

Another, conducted by Newsweek, found that among nine employee characteristics, hiring managers ranked “looks” as the third most important trait. Newsweek also reported that 57 percent of the 202 hiring managers surveyed felt that unattractive candidates typically have a tougher time landing a job — even if they are well-qualified for the position.  

What do you think about all of this so-called “beauty-bias?” Let us know in the comments section.

For more on the role looks play at work, check out:

Provocative=Productive, New Survey Says

Professional, Not Provocative, Equals Productive, Say Employers

Nip/Tuck: Baby Boomers

Related posts:

1. Provocative = Productive, New Survey Says Need a confidence boost at work? A new study suggests that...
2. Professional, Not Provocative, Equals Productive, Employers Say A couple of weeks ago we told you about a...
3. Is “To whom it may concern” the kiss of death? Most job seekers know that, whenever possible, it’s best to...

Please note: We don’t advocate you becoming a mindless drone. We’re just saying that the boss sets office hours, dress code and other guidelines. If you walked in the boss’ office and said, “Hey, you need to get here early tomorrow,” she’d probably laugh at you and then hand you a pink slip.

Within reason, the company sets standards and you abide by them. Plain and simple.

For that reason, recent news that Goldman Sachs no longer allows its employees to use curse words in e-mails shouldn’t be headline news. But it is. How will workers adjust when profanity is a common part of their daily lexicon. The financial world is often stressful and its workers passionate. A *#@$ or  !%*& is bound to slip out when large sums of money are on the line, after all.

In an article for The Daily Beast, Reihan Salam argues that the freedom to curse is one of the fundamental pressure releases an employee has:

“Swear words in the workplace might sound like a fairly juvenile way to build a sense of solidarity, yet they are essential. The pleasure of using a forbidden word can be pretty powerful. And when that pleasure is shared, it is more thrilling still. One feels like a renegade 13-year-old, armed with an illusion of competence and power. You might be a cog at a trading desk, compensated with nothing but money. But you can drop all the f-bombs you’d like. Until now, that is. Now your e-mails will be scanned and filtered by sophisticated software, heightening the sense that you are monitored and very much subject to discipline. A sense of powerlessness is the inevitable result.”

Based on Salam’s argument, banning curse words is akin to banning eye rolls and sighs. Workers need to vent somehow, and apparently a bad word now and then does the job for many people.

Many companies have rules about what language should be avoided in written and verbal communications. In some companies, the list of forbidden words isn’t confined to expletives that would earn a “bleep” on TV. Employees at some companies are given broader guidelines that prevent any talk of a potentially controversial topic. Companies aren’t just worried about you offending a colleague; they’re worried about being held responsible for your profane words. If you’ll recall, discussing the sexually tinged  Junior Mint episode of “Seinfeld” led to one firing, which then snowballed into a multimillion-dollar lawsuit that gained national attention and a major headache for one employer. So employers are skittish about salty language for good reason.

Consider that companies can prohibit their employees from posting negative comments on Facebook and Twitter. They don’t want a digital paper trail of bad behavior, and e-mails are no different.

Are people making a big fuss over this because it’s Goldman Sachs and it’s an easy target? This story might not be newsworthy if it were a grade school instituting this policy on teachers, for example. It would likely be a noteworthy story if a construction company didn’t allow its crew to use expletives, I imagine.

Is the controversy much ado about nothing to you because you don’t think profanity should ever be used in the workplace? Or can you make exceptions and let out a few unsavory words when things just get too stressful? Leave your comments below.

Related posts:

1. Halloween costumes at work Halloween is only a few days away, as the terrifying...
2. Are Common Communication Barriers Holding You Back at Work? At first glance, communication can seem pretty easy. You started...
3. The Supreme Court says worker’s texts aren’t private Workplaces are not new. They’ve been around forever in some...

With about five unemployed people per available job and 6.8 million who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more, this seems like a no-brainer at first glance. Proponents say this emergency relief can help the unemployed pay bills and put food on the table and also stimulate consumer spending. Yet many argue that extending unemployment benefits will deter people from looking for jobs and dig deeper into the nation’s deficit.

So which argument is right?

A March 2010 report from JPMorgan Chase argues that emergency unemployment benefits have contributed to longer durations of unemployment and a higher unemployment rate.

But in an April 2010 report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, researchers Rob Valleta and Katherine Kuang wrote: “Analysis of unemployment data suggests that extended unemployment insurance benefits have not been important factors in the increase in the duration of unemployment or in the elevated unemployment rate.”

And this July, the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee released a report entitled “Does Unemployment Insurance Inhibit Job Search?” The report states “it is unlikely that extended unemployment benefits inhibit individuals’ job search efforts. Simply put, even a low‐paying job is likely to provide more support than that offered by [unemployment insurance].”

Still unsure? Are both sides right? Watch this clip from MSNBC’s Hardball to learn more:

For more information on related to this post, check out:

• June Jobs Report Redux
• Tips for the Long-Term Unemployed
• Handling Job-Search Desperation

Related posts:

1. June Jobs Report Redux At first look, the BLS’s June unemployment numbers give a...
2. January job numbers redux The BLS released January’s jobs report this morning, and while...
3. Tax time dilemmas for workers and job seekers Tax season can be, well, taxing to say the least,...

Said one report in the NY Times:

Just as last month’s government job report appeared deceptively robust, swollen as it was by 411,000 workers hired by the federal government to help with the census, so the June report appears deceptively anemic, as the government is shedding many of those same temporary census workers.

Here’s why: While nonfarm payroll employment fell by 125,000 in June, the decline reflects the shedding of 225,000 temporary Census 2010 jobs. The number of jobs in the private sector actually edged up by 83,000. If you remember May’s report, temporary census hiring accounted for about 411,000 jobs and private-sector employment rose by a modest 41,000.

Since the beginning of 2010, private sector employment has risen by 593,000; yet, that is still a sharp contrast to the 7.9 million jobs that have been lost since the start of the recession.

June’s job growth is due to modest increases in several industries including:

• temporary help services
• management and technical consulting
• business support services
• amusements, gambling, and recreation
• transportation and warehousing
• mining
• health care
• manufacturing

Construction employment, which has changed little this year, continued to fall.

For the long-term unemployed, there is added concern. More than 2 million people will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of next week, according to NPR news:

Unemployment benefits generally last 26 weeks, but they are inevitably extended during recessions. With the jobless rate hovering around 10 percent … Congress has already extended the benefits several times over the past two years, offering assistance for up to 99 weeks.

But such additional coverage expired June 4 and the Senate has since failed to renew it. The House approved an extension Thursday, but it appears the Senate will not pass its version until after the July 4 recess.

If you want to know more from CareerBuilder’s perspective on job growth, watch CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson from this appearance on CNBC’s SquawkBox:

Related posts:

1. April Job Numbers Redux This morning the BLS reported employment rose by 290,000 in...
2. May Jobs Report Redux For the fifth consecutive month, employment grew by 431,000 in...
3. March job numbers redux We’re not out of the woods yet, but Americans got...

Recently, President Obama relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his job as commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan because of negative remarks he and his aides made about several officials in the Obama administration that were published in a Rolling Stone magazine article. The comments made were pretty clear that the general did not agree with many of the policies and decisions made about the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal isn’t the first U.S. general to be sacked by a Commander-in-Chief. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman are among those who have done the same during wartime. In a statement, the president gave his reasons for the decision:

The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.

While not everyone is going to be the subject of Rolling Stone feature, more and more people are airing grievances about their bosses to the public via FaceBook, Twitter and text … and getting in trouble for them. For every story you see in the newspaper about this issue, I bet there are many more that aren’t reported. Just this week, a friend told me she might have to let an employee go based on a FaceBook post.

So can you disagree with your boss without losing your job? Yes, but it’s how you do it that can make or break your employment.

Most importantly, you should address the issue directly with your boss in a respectful manner. Joseph Grenny, coauthor of “Crucial Confrontations,” gives some tips on how to do this.

1. Get your motives right. Sometimes we wait to bring up concerns until we’re irritated. This is ineffective because at that point our goal is no longer to be constructive, it’s to punish. Before opening your mouth, ask yourself, “What do I really want?”
 
2. Start with safety. Begin by clarifying your respect and your intent. Help your boss understand that your intent is to provide a different viewpoint you feel will help achieve your mutual goal.
 
3. Start with the facts. Once you’ve created safety, you start describing your concerns facts first. Don’t lead with your judgments or conclusions. Start by describing in non-judgmental and objective terms the behaviors that are creating problems.
 
4. Don’t pile on. As you lay out the facts, monitor safety. If your boss becomes defensive, pause for a moment and check in. Reassure them of your positive intentions and allow them to express any concerns they have.
 
5. Invite dialogue. Finally, having shared your concerns, encourage your boss to share their perspective. Invite dialogue. The result of your openness will be a greater openness on your boss’s part as well.

Have you ever been fired for something you said about the boss? Have you ever let anyone go because of something he said? Tell us.

Related posts:

1. The boss doesn’t care anymore … so now what? Talk of workplace productivity, motivation and passion (or lack thereof)...
2. How to prove you’re needed If you’ve read our posts before, you know we encourage...
3. When your boss forgets to be the boss I fully admit that I’m not the reality TV junkie...

Twitter, e-mails, blogs, etc. They’ve all caused headaches and lawsuits. The latest kerfuffle has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, and it could change the way some workers think about workplace privacy.

In City of Ontario v. Quon, Jeff Quon, a police sergeant in Ontario, Calif., had the text messages on his company-provided cell phone audited by the city and claimed he had a right to privacy. A lower court agreed and said he had the right to file suit, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

According to NPR:

A review of the transcripts revealed messages between Quon and his wife, Jerilyn, from whom he was estranged. He also exchanged intimate texts with his girlfriend, April Florio, another police department employee.

Internal affairs investigators pulled two months of transcripts and concluded that of 456 messages Quon sent or received during work hours in August 2002, no more than 57 were related to his job.

Ontario police officers had been put on notice that their e-mail messages and texts could be subject to oversight by department supervisors.

For an overview of the case, you can head over to ScotusWiki and read the details of the case. In a unanimous decision, the court decided, that Quon had no reasonable expectation of privacy in this particular case and that the city did not violate his constitutional rights. The court also made clear that it did not mean workers have no right to privacy with regard to workplace communications. In other words, this case isn’t quite as far reaching as it could have been. And since I’m no legal scholar, I won’t hypothesize about what it could mean for us beyond what the court ruled.

Still, the case is worth thinking about as an employee. If you have a company-provided pager (or cell phone as it probably is in most professions), should you expect that anything you write during the workday is private? Does that mentality extend to how you correspond via work e-mail? Do you think employers should be able to audit your correspondence if they want or only if it directly relates to an issue where your messages are pivotal to the outcome? Do you agree with the Supreme Court in this case?

Let us know what you think.

Related posts:

1. Are co-workers the reason you don’t get any work done? Two excellent blogs (Lifehacker and Boing Boing) I often read...
2. Caution: Toxic Co-Workers Ahead As we’ve mentioned before, co-workers play important roles on your...

-A woman filed a lawsuit  against Citibank, claiming she was fired for being “too sexy.”

-A Wisconsin woman was fired from her job as a dispatcher, after posting on Facebook that she was a drug addict — even though she was joking.

-And just last week, news broke of a Christian-school teacher who was fired for becoming pregnant before she was married.

Though wrongful termination laws vary by state, most states have adopted an “at will employment” policy, meaning that companies can fire an employee at any time, for any reason (and that employees can quit at any time, for any reason). The only concrete exception, of course, is if the firing is in violation of Federal Equal Opportunity Employment laws, which prevent employees from being terminated based on race, sex, age, color, religion, disability or veteran status. 

What do you think about these recent termination stories? Let us know in the comments section.

Related posts:

1. Fired for a Facebook Joke … Again Last week we wrote about a possible new trend where...
2. Social media guidelines in your job search and workplace Last week I was in a café when I overheard...