Super!

Turns out that 8 out of 10 people accept whatever super fund their employer recommends.  Now, I’m no financial planner but that sounds crazy!

From my experience, the funds my employers in the past have recommended have been attached to the big banks or are retail funds (which generally have a reputation for charging high fees). 

You don’t rely on your employer to tell you what car or house to buy? So why would you rely on them to tell you where to keep your superannuation – a reserve of your funds that should one day amount to over $400,00!

When you change jobs do you:

•    Accept the new super fund?
•    Roll over money from old super funds?
•      Provide details for your super fund when you start a new job?

Your Superannuation nest-egg will be (for most) the biggest investment in your life! Why would you not be engaged with where and who your money is with?

Disclaimer: I am no financial planner, this is not financial advice.  I am purely bringing to your attention questions you need to ask of yourself.

References:  http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2014/sep/24/super-funds-banks-union-gravy-trains

Preach to the Unconverted

I could have gone to an International Women's Day breakfast on Friday.  Why didn't I?  Because any of the speakers that morning would have been preaching to me what I already know ... that women are still not being treated equally, either at home or in the workplace. Sure, I could have learnt a few new stats, but no matter how you cut it, it's still the same root issues.

Organisations that buy tables at these International Women's Day functions should really have some sort of plan for who should attend. (Not run around/mass spam employees desperately trying to fill these seats).

Of course, anyone who wants to go should go, but, attending a breakfast is not going to narrow a nearly 20% pay gap.  Awareness is the first step. This is what the networking sessions should be used for. Those who are already converts, should be championing for changes back in their workplaces.

So, who should be tapped on the shoulder to attend?

1. Middle managers - those responsible for teams at the front line. It's your people who require work/life balance, who ask for pay rises, who negotiate salaries at time of appointment.
2. Self-proclaimed non-feminists or those who don't believe in a gender pay gap or flexible work.
3. People being counselled for discrimination.
4. The leadership or management team - lead by example.
5. The grads (graduates) fresh out of uni - the pay gap starts after year 1 in the workforce.

Business Dictating when to have a Family

You can tell a lot by an organisation by the perks and incentives it offers its employees. Only a few weeks ago, Virgin announced a very generous perk of unlimited leave*.

I heard today that both Apple and Facebook are adding to the ‘perks’ of working at their companies, the option to freeze women’s eggs.

Of course it is offensive when the choice of a woman (or a man) is taken away or even hinted at.   

However, it’s not the freezing part, that annoys me about this.  It’s the fact that organisations still don’t think about structuring their work in family friendly ways.

Giving women the option (and even hinting) to defer having a family is a band aid solution as opposed to acknowledging the structural issues.  What about the extra assistance parents need in order to work? Where is the childcare close to or at the office? How do you engage parents in business goings-on while on parental leave?

I guess it is cheaper to freeze their eggs than to restructure the business and culture.  

*I am sure there are T’s & C’s attached to this, however, I don’t know too much detail.

Source:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/oct/14/apple-facebook-pay-women-employees-freeze-eggs

The Super Paradox

Women, generally speaking, will be out of the workforce for a few years due to caring needs placed upon us from raising children and for looking after frail parents. Superannuation earnings could be short by $232,500 because of time out of the workforce.

Women who are generally the primary carers, are disadvantaged providing a service to society by not earning, let alone not having additional super contributions made^.

Women, on average, have a longer life expectancy than men. Retirement is at 65, however, with a women’s life expectancy at 83, we’re living on average 13 years without income, relying upon superannuation.

Considering, there isn’t enough super accrued for women, there will be a strain put on the demand for the government funded pension.

Demands on the pension also strain our health care system as pensioners cannot afford private health insurance.

Solution, women will have to work well past the retirement age.

However, who will hire an employee over 60 and at their appropriate skill and qualification level?

References:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/a-million-in-super-wont-be-enough-20130923-2u978.html

http://www.theage.com.au/money/super-and-funds/women-treated-as-secondclass--citizens-20130702-2p8vw.html

^ - The Labor government under Gillard introduces a ‘Low Income Superannuation Contribution’ for people earning up to $37,000/year.

http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2013/045.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType=0

Work 2.0

The concept of 'work' and the way our workplaces function is a construct invented by males.  Women initially joined the workforce and started paid work as a result of most males leaving to go to war.  It was hoped that the women could 'fill in' until the men came back.  When the men came back, a slight concession was made for women to be able to enter paid work until they were married. It wasn't till 1950's and 60's that women were embarking on a career for themselves.

Jumping forward to present day 2013, there is a push to have greater representation of women in organisations; on board of directors, in senior management and in typically male dominated industries such as engineering and transport.  The diversity agenda (in Australia) is firmly being pushed.

Knowing that women have only been active in the labour force for over 50 years and that women still experience a 17.5% inequality of pay, can women really be given a fair go in an environment that has been typically male dominated and designed?

What if we turned things up-side-down? What would 'work' and our 'workplaces' look like if we could re-do it?  What if it were up to women to redesign the way work would work?

Over the last few weeks I've given this a bit of thought.  Here are some of my ideas.

• Joint or job sharing CEOs (leading by example is the best way to make it seen as a norm)
• Fully decked out HUB offices opening up across the city (instead of just in CBD, Sydney has a number of areas where these could open)
• Flexible work arrangements for ALL employees  
• Extend school hours till 4pm and provide less homework (the hour in school makes up for the hour doing homework but also provides parents more time at work)
• Additional sick leave days provided to those over 50 (government funded)
• Typically female dominated professions are paid much higher, entice more males into those industries
• Weed out the idea of 'gender based professions' and what constitutes gender based activities. Young boys and girls should grow up equally wanting to be nurses, teachers, researchers as well as accountants and electricians.
• Bonus not tied (or completely tied) to individual performance but to the organisations performance
• Rewrite job descriptions - take out the fluff, make it easier to understand and also make it easier to work out; part time and job sharing programs
• Having suits (and ties for men) as dress code
• 24/7 access to offices/work spaces/Hubs
• Superannuation paid for all types of leave (including; parental and long service)
• 24/7 childcare facilities
• Childcare facilities are available in proportion to where employees are located
• Improved 2-way loyalty between employers and employees
• Centralised services (I.E. procurement, admin, payroll, tax, professional development advisers) for small to medium sized businesses.  No one wants to mitigate red tape when they should be growing their business
• Laptops not desktops, greater utilisation of software, social media, video conference and communication tools.
• Proper job-for person program for skilled migrants/people on 457 visas.  No point in them coming here if there is no job directly available to them.

Will some of these become a reality with the implementation of the National Broadband Network? Through greater numbers of women on boards and government? Technology such as Google Glass going mainstream? Who know what will happen, but keep watching, it's going to be well beyond the offices and cubicles we know!


References: 
1. http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/editor-s-agenda/re-imagine-work-could-you-make-it-better-work-for-you/201306072285?utm_source=Women%27s+Agenda+List&utm_campaign=04ac0fd79b-Mon+03%2F06%2F2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f3750bae8d-04ac0fd79b-30603413
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_workforce
3. http://www.hcamag.com/hr-news/looking-for-the-ideal-worker-time-to-wakeup-177367.aspx
4. http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/top-stories/the-cost-of-being-female-64-extra-days-at-work/201309022823#.Uih1pByUlpc.twitter

Where the Loyalty Lies

With the re-appointment of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, I slept well for the first time in 3 years and 3 days.  There is now a new hope for the Australian Labor Party (ALP) to climb back up the polls and possibly win the next election. (after ex-Prime Minister Julia Gillard stepped down and retires after losing yesterday's leadership ballot).

Now we all know the environment in parliament is quite different to the environment of our workplaces.  However, one thing that both parliament and our workplaces have in common is navigating that fine line of loyalty.  Our loyalty to the party, organisation or employer and loyalty to the leader, CEO or our manager.

Political loyalty over the last 24 hours has been raised many times (even more over the last 3 years!) and it was clear that some politicians really struggled with their decision on who should be leader of the ALP, thus becoming Prime Minister.

By nature of who we are and the psychology under which we operate, we humans are social and loyal creatures. We thrive in an environment surrounded by other like minded people. We all want to belong to something and by belonging to something, we want to pledge an allegiance and our loyalty to that person or group.  In the workplace, we ideally work for an organisation who mirrors our values, surrounded by similar thinking people, channeling the same values, vision and being a team player.

What the ALP party members faced yesterday was a tug-of-war in the loyalty games.  Either loyalty to the incumbent PM (their manager) or loyalty to the ALP (organisation, employer).
It was a choice of either; a) Stick with Julia Gillard, the present PM, someone who is good with her team but has alienated the public and may greatly lose seats in the election.  Or b) Vote for Kevin Rudd, ex PM who was disposed of 3 years ago, someone who may not be the best with their team but will have a greater chance to win around the public and not lose so many seats or even possibly win the election. Ultimately, it was also a choice in age old, 'flight or fight' - fight for a chance for the ALP and their own seat's survival or flight, flee reality and continue pledging loyalty to the then PM, Julia Gillard.

In today's ever changing workplaces, our loyalties are constantly being tested. Redundancies, downsizing, mergers and takeovers, no one is really secure where they are and in some professional environments and circumstances, the only person you can really count on is yourself.  There have been many times when I have demonstrated loyalty to the organisation and or to my managers. Many times, my loyalty did not really count for anything.  Regardless of my attitude, regardless of my hard working nature.  Unfortunately, it seems to me these days that loyalty counts when money and business doesn't, or at least when budgets are not that tight and jobs are not in jeopardy.

So what did we learn today?
We all want to be loyal, we all want to be part of something bigger and want to be surrounded by like minded people. However, when the times are tough and people are scared, we retreat and question what we need in the search for self-preservation.  In tough situations, we too would question our loyalty.  We also need to remember that where you place your loyalty can determine your own success or failure. It's no wonder that loyalty is not lauded as it once used to be.



Image from: 
http://images.smh.com.au/2013/06/27/4524205/spruddspeaks27-20130627121936747447-620x349.jpg

Safety - The #1 Value for Organisations

It's becoming more and more evident the importance of organisations handling Workplace Health & Safety matters.

Workplace Health & Safety (WH&S), re-named from Occupational Health & Safety, is more than just picking up boxes with correct posture or wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 

We all have a duty of care to each other.  WH&S is reporting spills and near misses, it is checking to see the 'slip' factor on the lobby floor when wet, it is knowing the signs of fatigue, it is letting employees know that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated.

SAFETY IS EVERYONES RESPONSIBILITY.

The recent Telstra/NBN roll out is just the latest in a long line of safety scares and concerns. Lend Lease at Barangaroo, the clothing factory collapse in Bangladesh, tornado chasers in Oklahoma (who died in pursuit of 'the big one'), the truck driver ploughing into a building early in the morning, etc, etc.

I've been very fortunate with my previous employers. They have all had safety as a priority.  It is reinforced and communicated all the time, it is included in their values, it is keeping WH&S top-of-mind when pursuing strategy or undergoing any changes.

Focus on safety should not just be reserved for your immediate environment, but throughout the whole supply chain. 

The prioritisation of safety is one of the values I look for in a new employer.  Do you? 

We all need to ensure that our employer places great value on safety.  If not, challenge them, start the ball rolling yourself or leave. 

Compromises in safety is not acceptable!



References;
Summary of our WH&S law from Australian Industry Group

Images from:
http://signforce.com.au/images/s725.jpg

Welfare for Single Parents

It's hard & an expensive job raising children these days.  I can imagine it so much more difficult financially when its a single parent family.

It's not getting a lot of air-time but today legislation will be put forward by the government to reverse a budget decision that will put single parents (predominantly women) receiving Parenting Payments onto Newstarter Allowance (aka the dole) when their youngest child turns 8 years of age.

I'm all for the push to get people into employment, however, this is ridiculous.  It is unfair & a bad change considering how hard it is a) to find a job b) one that is flexible to suit the needs of primary aged children.

In my opinion, children should not be left at home alone till 6pm.  Children under the age of 12 let alone 10 should not have to be forced with the responsibility to open & lock up their home or to carry their house keys.  Children under the age of 12 should not be operating ovens/stoves/gas without adult supervision. Children of that age need someone to help them with homework, preparing snacks & someone to talk to at the end of a school day.

What would be more reasonable would be when the youngest child turns 12 or is in High School. The child is slightly older but also more mature.  They are more responsible & have more knowledge in how to handle sticky situations.
The government's plan would cost parents $60 to $100 a week & save the government $728 million over four years. This is the price they are putting on savings, not realising that in the meantime, single parents will have to pay for before & after school care & other childminding arrangements for school holidays.

Surely there are other savings that the government can obtain? Or at least push the age of the youngest child up.  We need to nurture & encourage our vulnerable children & to give single parents the OPTION to parent.



  Sources & Pics http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/mps-up-in-arms-over-wheat-and-welfare-20121008-279cp.html#ixzz28ktHncvj http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a08/72/2t/children-child-abandonment-laws-texas-800x800.jpg

Best job in the World

I attended my first webinar last week through The Happiness Institute.  The webinar was about Creating the Best Job in the World for Yourself.  Practically every activity,  Professor Tim Sharp discussed and went through was something that I had heard of or still practiced or used. All very useful activities and things to do and I guess a timely reminder for me to remeber what path to take.  I felt really happy knowing that the same principles I adopt were the ones 'Dr Happy' uses and advocates.

1. Taken from the 7 Highly Effective Habits ... the Circle of Influence Vs Circle of Concern. Minimise your issues and areas of concern by working out what is it that you have control over and exploit them to overcome your concerns.

2. Be as positive as you can!  A happy workers is a good worker (ofcourse within reason, if your boss is an ogre, its not going to make you very happy.)  You have control over your own emotions and your reactions, if you have a good day or a bad day - the choice is yours.  Your positive outlook will be infectious within the office and your collegues and clients will be infused with your happiness.

3. The NASA Idea.  I love this one, it is my favourite.
Its the story of a very happy and smiling janitor cleaning the hallways of NASA HQ before man landed on the moon.  When asked by the then US President, "what are you doing?" The janitor replied, "Putting a man on the moon!" His conviction, determination and optimism is inspiring.  The high-ups in NASA are also to be congratulated for instilling the vision, drive and goal into their emloyees, regardless of how bottom-of-the-food-chain they are.

I hope that one day I can lead a team or an organisation and instill this NASA ideology with them.



Photos/Images taken from:
1. http://sivers.org/images/circle-proactive.jpg

There's a new Bank in Town

Yes, and that bank is the "Talent Bank". A by-product (I am assuming) of the economic crunch that we are faced with. A human resource manager and recruiters dream and something to keep them busy in these recruitment freeze days.

Talent Banking is a new kind of recruitment being undertaken by some of the bigger companies that usually experience a higher turnover of their staff. Its a great idea if you are on the other side of finding a job. The premise is that they scout and sieve from the larger pool of the unemployed and find some back ups for when their employees resign.

Having been on the other side of it, I was unawares of it when it first reared its head to me. Phone interview went well and then bah-pow. Now as I am scouting seek.com.au or seeing some other job ads, I am seeing the phrase popping up here and there. I'm also staying clear of these.

High turnover job = Stress OR annoying boss OR repetitive work ... So I think I will bank elsewhere.

Repect for Job Seekers

I am currently unemployed but looking for a job. I'm proud of it because it means that I went out and lived a bit before "settling down". My sister is also on the hunt being in her last semester of uni. We are each others motivators and we read over each others applications etc. Applying for jobs gives you thick skin because of the rejections but ... I have beef!

If you put in an application and pour your blood, sweat and tears into an application and are not emailed back, its just very unpolite. However, if you go for an interview and DON'T hear back from them then, then thats just plain rude!! People should boycott from working there. Clearly they have issues in treating people well!! Treating your employees or potential employees is important if you want your brand to be well respected and trusted.

I have now heard of 2 very big companies in Sydney that have not followed this. Granted, in one of the cases the guy rang up, harassed them and they they said, ok you got the job. However, you will always be stepping on eggshells not knowing what will happen if they don't care about their people. It's their employees is what makes their business successful.

The distress and not knowing drives people crazy. Wake up HR people! How would you like to be kept waiting for something and not know the result? DNA results take a few days and those people waiting the results toss and turn and go crazy. Hearing if you are successful or not is the DNA test all job seekers have to go through and I'm not talking about if you are applying for some insignificant after school job! These are jobs for graduates and higher.

I have had one fantastic experience though. I sent in my resume at 5pm one afternoon and within 20min someone rang me and booked me in for an interview. If only all HR teams acted so efficiently. You know what kind of candidates you want, you know the essential and desired criteria. You know how they interviewed and if you need more information PHONE THEM! Its not that hard!