Seriously?

Couple things here for Friday diversion that are either good satire or just plain stupid.

First, this from London via India:

Next time you think of putting away your office files high-up on a shelf behind your desk, think again, as it may seriously curtail your shelf life in the office , as well as nail you for sexual harassment.

A law firm in Scotland has issued warnings to employers not to store important files and documents on high shelves, as if found guilty they could be charged of sexual harassment since only tall people are able to reach them, and in general, men are taller than women.

“Putting files on high shelves tantamounts to sexual harassment!” (India News)

Yeah, right. The better warning is not to stare at (or grope) their legs or bottoms as they stretch to reach the top shelf! Even better: keep a stepstool around.


Second silly item:

Heard on the radio on my way home last night on Marketplace, was this contrarian management advice: “Don’t despair. Or then again, do.”

Listen to the radio story (mediaplayer).

It’s conventional wisdom that happy workers are productive workers, and productive workers are profitable workers. Lawrence Kersten is a management consultant who says conventional wisdom is very wrong.

Skipping Work to Watch the Playoffs

I just returned from Busch Stadium (probably my last game there before they tear it down to make way for the new one growing up next door). Very satisfying first playoff game — Cardinals victory over Padres, highlighted by Reggie Sanders Grand Slam way into the left field stands.

Back home, trying to catch up on a little reading and blogging, I found a very troubling story telling me I was part of a major economic problem.

This article talked about all the lost productivity (about $225 million) caused by employees skipping work to attend — or even just watch or listen to — the playoffs:

Who is an Applicant?

We just got a tip by email from David Manaster of the Electronic Recruiting Exchange about the new regulation defining an applicant.

See the definition and some questions and comments about it.

David asked for our thoughts.
Michael is following this issue more closely than me, but may not have time to respond, so here’s my best shot.

The issue has become problematic because of recordkeeping requirements for government contractors relating to applicant flow. The issue may also be important for disparate impact hiring cases, in which statistical “applicant flow” analysis requires a known pool of applicants so that the impact of the selection process on protected groups within the applicant pool can be determined.

There always was an ambiguity about unsolicited resumes. Electronic jobsearching has aggravated this by allowing applicants to flood employers with resumes and/or electronic applications. The regulation establishes that only those who are considered for a particular position and whose resume or application indicates they meet its basic qualifications are deemed applicants.

So my interpretation would be that persons submitting unsolicited electronic resumes or applications not directed at or reviewed in connection a specific opening would not be applicants. Nor would those whose submission does not disclose they meet a basic qualification such as a degree or industry experience.