Minimum Wage and Poverty

Unions, collective bargaining, and fair wages are getting a lot of press due to the attempts in several states to introduce Right to Work laws, eliminate collective bargaining for public employees, and generally reduce the power of unions. It got me curious about what the current rules were according to the Department of Labor's Fair Labor Standards Act. What are the minimum benefits that an employer must offer?

The first item that comes to mind is minimum wage. Effective July 24, 2009, the minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour. There are some caveats though. If you are under 20 years of age, the employer is permitted to pay as little as $4.25 per hour for the first 90 days of employment. This falls under the subminimum wage clauses of the FLSA. That's pretty convenient for employers who look to pickup temporary help during the summer when schools are out. A fairly shrewd employer could substitute these youths for regular employees during the summer months and cut their wage expenses nearly in half. The hourly rate is even lower for those who regularly accept tips. Employers of tipped employees (anyone who receives more than $30 in tips in a month) may pay an hourly wage of $2.13 per hour, so long as the total of tips and hourly wage for the hours worked in that month at least equals the minimum wage rate.

So let's say that you are single, and you are entering the workforce after graduating high school. You are 18 years old and on your own. You canvas the town and are able to find a job with a local business. The business owner is very shrewd, and is only willing to offer the absolute minimums since you have no prior experience and no higher education. The owner offers you $4.25 for your first three months, with a pay increase to $7.25 at the end of those three months. The business is closed on all federal holidays (9 days in 2011), and is also closed the friday after Thanksgiving. You will not receive pay for holiday closings. You are permitted to take 5 unpaid sick days with short notice, and 10 unpaid vacation days with a minimum of one month notice. The employer notifies you that you may work a maximum of 40 hours in a week, but indicates that those 40 hours will regularly be available.

So how does this first year go for you? First, let's assume you work all of the hours that are available to you in that year.

Assumptions:
52 weeks in the year.
40 hours per week

13 weeks at $4.25 per hour = $2,210
37 weeks at $7.25 per hour = $10,730
2 weeks at $0 per hour (holiday closings) = $0

Your total pay for the year would be $12,940. According to the census bureau, the threshold for poverty in 2009 for an individual under the age of 65 was $11,161.

That's pretty bleak, but that is also assuming the best case scenario that you were able to work every day of the year. In the worst case scenario, where you exhausted all of your sick and vacation time at the $7.25 rate, your annual income would have been $12,070. Minimum wage is just barely keeping you above the poverty line.

Now imagine if you were coming out of high school with a pregnant girlfriend. You move in together, and the baby is born during the year. You are now a house of three. One of you stays home with the baby because the cost of childcare is greater than the wage you are able to earn. The 2009 threshold for poverty for a 3 person family was $17,098. You've worked a full-time job for a year and you are still under the poverty threshold.

I've seen several remarks indicating that Governor Mitch Daniels has indicated that $9 per hour is a livable wage. Unfortunately, I can't find any documentation of this quote, so take it with a grain of salt. Even so, a quick perusal of the job postings in a newspaper or online will show that $9 per hour is a fairly common offer from folks looking for appointment setting and phone support staff. How would that $1.75 increase in pay affect our earner? Let's assume that our worker gets that rate throughout the year, and again, isn't paid for holidays but otherwise works all the hours available.

$9 per hour x 50 weeks x 40 hours per week = $18,000 per year

That would put them above the poverty line for a family of three, but just barely. Keep in mind that this is gross pay too, not take home pay. This has to cover not just food, housing, and transportation, but medical benefits (likely not offered at this wage level), retirement savings, taxes, and all of the other expenses of life.

So what does it all mean? I don't pretend to know. In theory, the appropriate wage for a particular role is what the market will bear. We all want to save money though, so we encourage businesses to seek methods to cut costs by demanding lower prices. Labor is one option for cutting costs, and this can lead to reduced quality when those who are qualified to do a job are not willing to accept the wage offered, but those unqualified to do the job are willing to accept it.

It will be interesting to see how the legislative moves in progress in several states impact their local economies.

Right to Work

Indiana is currently embroiled in the discussion of Right To Work. Right to work is a bill put before the Indiana legislature that would, if passed, make it illegal for employers to require employees to join a union or pay union dues (HB 1468). Currently, if you are hired at an employer that utilizes union labor, you are required to join the union and to pay union dues. These union dues are often deducted from your paycheck automatically.

I've had first hand experience with this scenario. In my teens, I worked as a bagger at a Kroger grocery store. Kroger employees are members of the AFL-CIO. As a condition of my employment, I had to join the union, and union dues were automatically deducted from my paycheck. I only worked part-time, and I was paid minimum wage. My union dues were around $5.00 on each two week check, which means that for one hour every two weeks, I was sending my pay directly to the union. That was a pretty significant portion of my income when I only worked a few hours each week (between 8 and 24 depending on whether school was in session). I never met my union steward, attended a union meeting, or really felt a part of the union. Still, every two weeks an hours pay went to the union. It was frustrating! Still, the union did negotiate our breaks (one paid 15 minute break if you work 4 hours, two if you work six, and two paid 15 minute breaks plus a paid 30 minute lunch if you worked 8 hours). I believe that unions have their place, and that there is definitely a need to unionize. I believe that unions can and do provide benefits to their members. However, I also feel that our nations largest unions are no longer effective.

On the one hand, I can definitely see the argument for eliminating the requirement to join or pay dues to a union. As a teenager, I definitely would have taken the option to keep that money for myself. What I wouldn't have realized then is that, without the union, I might not be making that same hourly wage. My break times might not be paid either, or even exist for that matter. If I didn't pay those dues, I would effectively be free-loading on the union. I would be receiving the benefits of union membership without joining the union.

Attempting to make an argument on whether or not a Right to Work law is good or bad based on states that do or do not have such a law is difficult. There are many more factors at work than just the Right to Work law, such as tax breaks for the employer, or other pro-employer benefits. Those in favor of unions will quickly show statistics that demonstrate states with Right To Work laws have lower wages and high on the job injury cases than states without. Those in favor of Right to Work will talk about how employers specifically seek out states with a Right to Work law when expanding their business.

Growing up in a manufacturing town, I've heard the arguments back and forth. The unions argue for higher wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. The employers argue that the union demands are putting them out of business. The Right to Work bill is clearly an attempt to diminish the power of unions in our state. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I just don't know.

Effective Presenting

I've given a number of presentations to a variety of audiences. Over time I've developed a mental list of things to look for in providing an effective presentation.

Ear lobes and eye balls.

Where do you want the audience's attention? If you are giving a presentation, you want the audience to be focusing on you and the words you are saying. Complicated slides with lots of text and images will distract your audience from what you are saying and give them an excuse to tune out. Make sure the content on the slide is an augmentation of your spoken content, not a replacement for it.

PowerPoint is a horrible format for a white paper.

If your goal is to deliver documentation, deliver a document. Slides are for presentations, not documentation. There is nothing worse than sitting in a presentation where the presenter does nothing more than read their slides to you.

Expect to be interrupted.

If your audience is paying attention, they should have questions. Be prepared to stop at any moment and discuss either a detail of what you said or a detail on your slide. This is a good argument for limiting content, both spoken and on the slide, as it limits interruptions and side conversations. If you haven't been stopped, no one is listening.

Build in transitions.

For group presentations, build in a transition to cue the next speaker. Jumping directly to the first content slide of a follow-up speaker gives the audience time to digest the slide and make assumptions without the guidance of the speaker. This can lead to an ambush, or lack of attention.

Be concise.

You are brilliant. You've done an incredible amount of research on your topic and you want to show your audience how brilliant you are. Your audience, on the other hand, is probably bored and pressed for time. Assume your audience is a bunch of six year old kids hopped up on mountain dew and pixie sticks. Get your message across directly and immediately. Follow-up with reinforcement.

Be consistent.

Use a consistent layout. Turn on snap to grid and rulers. Be sure that common content elements appear in the same position throughout. Do not make your audience go hunting around the slide. Get familiar with the slide master.

Know your message.

Related to being concise, know the message you are trying to deliver. Everything you say or show should be geared towards reinforcing that message. If you can't relate the slide or discussion to your message, remove it.

Time the material.

Practice the presentation to get a feel for timing. Are you way over your time limit? Way under? Leave 10-20% of your available time for discussion.

One idea per slide.

Just because you can fit a lot of things on one slide doesn't mean you should. Focus on just one concept per slide. Loading a slide up with multiple concepts will only lead to confusion.

Over-prepare

All those slides you took out to be concise: put them in a different slide deck. Any additional material that someone might ask you for, such as data to backup your findings, keep in that second slide deck. Call it your Fully Updated (F.U.) slide deck. This way, if you suffer the misfortune of someone in the audience questioning your research, you've got it covered with a big F.U.

Wake 'em up

Let's face it, you and everyone in that room would rather be somewhere else. The longer the presentation the higher likelihood that your audience will lose interest. Throw something in there to wake them up. It can be anything, speaker transitions, physical samples, audience participation, home video of you bungee jumping, whatever. Find a way to break the monotony.

Warning signs that things are going very, very wrong

• No interruptions
• Waiting on audience to finish reading / digesting your slide
• Your spoken content doesn't track with your slides
• Lack of eye contact

Warning signs that things are going very, very well

• Lots of interruptions / questions
• Audience discussion
• Eye contact

Related Materials

Here are links to great materials on effective presenting.

The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs - How to be Insanely Great in Front of Any Audience

Don't Make Me Think - Geared towards web usability, but applicable to presentations as well

TED Talks - Watch a few of these videos online. These are some of the world's greatest presenters exhibiting their craft.

Resume Writing

Over the years I've had the opportunity to review hundreds of resumes.  In doing so I've found that there are certain things I scan for in a resume.  If I scan and find what I'm looking for quickly, you'll get a phone interview.  If it isn't there, or I don't find it on a quick scan, you might be out of luck.  

So here are some of the things I look for in a resume:

Your Name - In a large, bold font at the top of the page.  If I met you at a recruiting event and I somehow managed to remember your name, being able to flip through the stack and find you is going to be to your advantage.  Too often I see resumes where the name is lost somewhere in the page, and I have to go hunting it down.

Contact Information - Give me at least your current e-mail address and phone number where I can reach you.  In this age, mailing address isn't that important, but it doesn't hurt.  It should be near the top by your name.

Objective - A one line meaningful objective.  What are you looking to do?  Do you hope to climb the corporate ladder?  Happiest writing code all day?  Part time, full time, or intern?  Like dealing with customers?  Let me know so we don't waste each other's time.

Categorized Skillset - This should be a bulleted list of your major skills that you feel comfortable using.  This is what I'm scanning for to see if I will read the rest of your resume, and if you'll get a phone interview.  Do not pad this section with skills you no longer use, or would not feel comfortable being tasked with.

Job History - The job history is both a blessing and a curse, and it is where I see most applicants struggle to find the right way to discuss what they have done.  My pet peeve is to get a resume that reads like a personal diary.  I have had folks submit 17 page resumes.  I simply don't have time for that.  Be concise.  Three pages or less.  Backup the skills you bulleted earlier.  Tell me when you used your skill, and in what way.

Education - The education section is not a deal breaker for me.  If I've found the skill I'm looking for, and you have work experience to back it up, then you can leave it out.  If you are switching careers and have no job history with a skill, include your education as an alternative reference.

Last year I spent some time making campus visits and collecting resumes from students.  Here are some things to avoid with your resume:

Paper - Students spend an inordinate amount of cash on having Kinkos print their resume on the finest paper stock they have.  Kinkos loves it, especially at 75 cents a copy.  The truth is, as soon as I get your resume back to my office it hits the scanner, and your original hits the recycling bin.  You'll need lots of copies, so use whatever cheap paper stock is available.

Fonts - I don't know why folks feel an intense need to use fancy, script fonts.  They are hard to read, and that isn't helping you.  Don't stress on the font, just use the default for your word processor and forget about it.  

Clubs - I've heard recruiters recommend including your professional and non-professional memberships on your resume.  Frankly, I don't understand why.  Your membership to IEEE or the local Kiwanis doesn't tell me anything about your aptitude for my open position.  Save it for the face to face interview.

That is all that comes to mind at the moment.  I spent this past weekend brushing up my own resume, so all of these things were fresh in my mind.  If you have any additional tips or pet peeves for resumes, I'd love to see them in the comments.

Telecommuting

There was an article in this month's issue of Wired magazine touting the advantages of telecommuting and openly wondering why working from home isn't wholly embraced by more businesses. It got me to thinking about the reality of working from home. The other posits that businesses are averse to telecommuting for fear of losing control of their staff. I think this is probably the least of most managers' worries when considering whether to let their staff work from the home office.

Firstly, there is a whole industry of folks that simply don't have the option to work at home. If you are paid an hourly wage, chances are you can't take your work home with you. Next, consider experts and professionals such as lawyers and doctors. Running the business from the home is certainly an option, but having a separate office gives a much greater impression of professionalism to the clients.

So who does that leave? What niche of people could realistically work from home? People in my profession (programmers) certainly qualify. Authors, artists, accountants...anyone who only needs simple materials (including a PC) to complete their daily work could probably do their job from home. Video conferencing and the internet permit easy communication with colleagues regardless of location.

So could I work from home? Sometimes, and I have enjoyed that opportunity on a few occassions in the past. But in most cases, it wouldn't be the best solution for me. For one, there are three kids in the house, and explaining to a two year old, a four year old, and a baby that daddy needs to be undisturbed for 8 to 10 hours even though he is in the basement just doesn't work. Second, there are some pieces of equipment that I need to complete my job from time to time, and having those on hand at home isn't always possible. It is much more cost effective for my employer to purchase common resources that we can all utilize while at the office (such as test benches, faxes, printers, etc.) rather than for each employee to require them in their home.

In my opinion, the sluggish adoption of telecommuting is less about control issues, and much more about the realities of who can work at home, and in what capacity.