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

Art Naming

I’ve often wondered while strolling through an art gallery, how some of the art pieces get their name.

Do the artists name it? Is it something that needs to be easily translatable?

Sure, there are some more interesting names for some art works but most of the time, I find their names very literal and straight to the point.

Haystacks - Claude Monet

Woman in front of Van Gough's Sunflowers - Isaac Israels

The Thinker - Auguste Rodin

Is there a naming convention they must adhere to?

The word ‘art’ and pieces of art already brings up so many adjective to our minds, so maybe art naming is about the noun?

I know if I was an artist and I painted something, I wouldn’t want it to be so …. literal, and all in English!

This got me thinking, what if we applied this type of 'art naming' to our lives? To our social media posts? The food we eat? It would greatly simplify the complexity in our lives.

Images from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Government Hypocrites

Fred Hollows once said "Every eye is an eye".  It's the same for life. Every life is a life.

It's why I find the Australian government very hypocritical at the moment. 

Respect where respect is due, I give kudos to the way that Prime Minister Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop are stepping up and handling the Malaysian Airlines 17 and Russian Rebels issue. They called on the Rebels to release the bodies back "Operation Bring them Home".  After 4 days, the Rebels are handing them over to where the plane originated in The Netherlands.

However, it is absolutely hypocritical when the government of Australia under "Operation Sovereign Borders", are essentially holding 157 refugees hostage and imprisoned on a shonky boat out at sea.  They've been there 3 weeks.

Awkward & Cliche Travelling

As a traveller, not only do I like to see the off-the-beaten-track stuff, but I also go to see the cliche post card places.  Eiffel Tower, Charles Bridge, London Eye, Sydney Opera House, Times Square.  Can you really say you have been to Paris if you haven't seen the Eiffel Tower?

Visiting the cliche places make me pinch myself.  I get a feeling of disbelief.  Am I actually there?

London - The Shard, The Eye and a Cab

The first 1 or 2 seconds of seeing the site is the OMG moment. Awe-struck, mouth agape, eyes are wide.  Realisation sets in that I am finally at that place, in that city.

When realisation settles in, I want to "scream and shout and let it all out".  It's like an explosion of happiness!!  I'm just so happy and just so cliche.  Everyone else around me is pretty much experiencing the same or has just finished experiencing the same.  All I can do is stare amongst the masses.  I am insignificant, surrounded by an insignificant crowd, watching and staring at the significant.

I don't know what to say apart from being cliche at the cliche.
"It's so much bigger than I thought"
"It's smaller than I thought"
"Wow, look how tall it is"
(Awkwardness generally sets in when you realise even your response is cliche staring at the cliche.)

I was on the Metro when I first saw the Eiffel Tower. It was beautiful, set a few kilometres away amongst the grey buildings, green trees. Picture postcard perfect and I feel that it easily could have been a scene from a movie.  Seeing the White House, it was small, much smaller than I thought, but then it was my perspective of seeing it from many metres away. 


Long after I have returned, watching TV or a movie, when I catch a glimpse of an iconic landmark that I have been to, I know that I have been but was it in a dream? I feel that I was transported into a postcard and was walking around it. 

Loch Ness - So beautiful, but my Nessie made it memorable!

The only time when the awkward and cliche doesn't work is when there is an anomaly or extraordinary event.  When the visit you make to that site, doesn't look like you''re walking through a brochure or movie. Either it is raining or something funny/memorable happens, that's when it is so much more real, it wasn't the perfect atmosphere but it was perfect for you at that time.





Photos taken from:
http://ak7.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/2614409/preview/stock-footage-aerial-view-of-the-city-of-paris-with-the-eiffel-tower-in-the-distance.jpg
The London Shard/Eye photo and Loch Ness photo were taken by myself earlier this year.

Gone Too Far: Red Carpet Camera

I like looking at what the celebrities wear.  Glamorous, sparkly dresses, dresses I would only dream of wearing.  Gucci, Pucci, Dior and more.

All the celebrity reporters do it, however, today the team at E! took it a bit too far at the SAG awards. 30 seconds into the interview, the camera's that pan-down, focus on the dress, cutting out her head.   She then bends down (a-la, my face is up here, not down there) and tells off the camera man that nothing special is down there and if he does that to the men walking down the red carpet.

Who wore it best? Cate with a head? or Cate without her head? 

 

               

Now kudos to E! for publishing the story themselves, however, don't forget, its the person that really "wears" the dress or suite.  It's their smile, confidence and a certain je ne sais quoi.


Story from: 
http://au.eonline.com/news/501154/cate-blanchett-calls-out-e-s-red-carpet-glam-cam-at-2014-sag-awards-what-do-you-think-is-happening-down-there

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2014/01/cate-blanchett-wins-the-sag-awards-2014-red-carpet---gif.html

Image from:
http://www.thequeenofstyle.com/quee/2014/01/go-ahead-copy-cate-blanchetts-sag-awards-hairstyle.html