Author: Deano

It's almost like the answers here don't walk things back enough – if badges started in the educational system, standardization wouldn't be an issue. Titles as we know them would just be specific "bundles" of other badges, and would be much clearer at signifying competence/prior achievement/likely career aptitudes and vectors to explore.

That, in turn, may help solidify social hierarchies within companies and across/between compatible industries – when you see you're only 3 badges different from that guy down the hall in marketing, or that you both share a particularly hard-to-get specialized badge, it's a lot easier to create and build off that in and outside of work.

A badge system may also help simplify, rather than complicate pay grade and employment issues – promotions would be tied more around performance at a given job versus how well you "fit" the requirements, plus assessment of the "next rung" position. It would both make the fast but focused-vector climbers more appreciable to their peers, while simultaneously allowing for seemingly-inconsistent hops across disciplines more "explainable" via badge-based skillsets/strengths that carry over to the new area.

In short, I think badges at work would be a great idea, so long as they start in everyone's first job – kindergarten – and form part of a clear life-long work/education/career development continuum. Such a system could effectively enforce standards and enable easier re-pathing for workers, employers, and goverment/NGO/NPO support programs as economic needs and environments change.

What if you earned badges at work instead of job titles?

Corporate America has veery little interest, on the whole, with green initiatives that do not positively impact the bottom line… So, it seems unlikely that the use of bamboo as a strong, pliable, sound-dampening and renewable building material for office ceilings would be a big win, unless it resulted in faster installs, lowered costs, and/or a local or Federal tax incentives – either directly for materials used, or indirectly for hiring specialist installers as a way to help the fledgling bamboo ceiling construction sector sprout.

Is there a bamboo ceiling in corporate America?

It's pretty rare that salary history is going to be the decisive factor between two great candidates, so I wouldn't recommend it as a filter as a general rule. So long as you present a clear range for the position, you can assume they aren't wasting your time completely… But if they come off as cautious, closed, or deflective in multiple ways, it may be a warning sign.

Just remember, from the applicant point of view, the only reason you would want salary history is to use it against us in negotiation…

Should you eliminate a candidate who says all of his recent salary history is "confidential"?

This question directly affects me, since I became a "99er" last week… I can provide the following insights:

The US Unemployment Rate ONLY covers the following people:

Those unemployed receiving unemployment benefits, who must give weekly/biweekly updates to their state/local unemployment office to continue to receive benefits.

Those unemployed no longer receiving benefits, who volunteer their job search history/status on a regular basis.

In this sense, it's not just the discouraged who no longer show up – once you stop receiving an employment search form, and stop being incentivized to send it back (to receive your next check), then effectively the unemployment bureau is asking you to spend money on paper/printing and stamps to submit additional reports, and/or reporting physically to an unemployment office on a regular basis.

Neither case is particularly practical once the money has run out. It may be embarassing, but you really do eventually start measuring your life against the cost of a stamp… And ironically, the way the system is set up, it's exactly at this lowest of the low points, where you no longer are considered unemployed. Go figure.

The real rate, including unemployed, underemployed, and malemployed (overqualified workers who effectively take jobs outside their expertise/seniority level who need the work) is closer to, if not exceeding 20% in the US. And no politician wants to talk about rates at that level, which is why the current system of reporting was created to fudge the numbers/make them look better. 

Since this system has also been in place for so long, both major political parties are loathe to use a more accurate count – because in doing so, they would effectively make it look like a huge percentage of jobs were lost on their watch.

Does the American unemployment rate include workers who are still unemployed but demoralized and aren't looking for a job anymore?

Given the inherent risks of a virtual or remote employment scheme, it's pretty much standard practice to try someone out via contract work, then if they produce good results to offer them ongoing work – either part time, which allows them to continue contracting, or full time.

In the case of "buying out" an online contractor from somewhere like oDesk.com, freelancer.com, etc, the worker agrees to terminate their account when signing the employment agreement. 

It's actually fairly common – if you can find someone who does decent work on time consistently for a fraction of the cost of a local worker, it makes great sense to both give THEM steady reliable work, as well as lock them down enough to make sure you're their only pending deadline.

What are the best resources for finding remote or virtual jobs?