Category Archives: Inclusion

Employees, Smoking = Less Money

Posted on by
2

Smokers will hate to hear this, but if you smoke, you’re more likely to make less money.

Really?

Really.

From CNBC —

“In a new paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta economists Julie Hotchkiss and Melinda Pitts found that smokers only earn about 80 percent of what nonsmokers earn. People who used to smoke and quit more than a year earlier, though, earn 7 percent more than people who never lit up in the first place.

The PSA advice that “one cigarette is one too many” apparently is true at work. Hotchkiss and Pitts found that the earnings of both a weekend social smoker and a pack-a-day puffer suffer a similar wage gap.

“It is simply the fact that someone smokes that matters in the labor market, not the level of intensity,” they wrote. “Even one cigarette per day is enough to trigger the smoking wage gap.”

That truly sucks, because those of you who know me, know I love hanging out with smokers!  Smokers are the backbone of your informal office communication network.  Smokers come in all shapes and sizes, from all levels of your organization.  It’s nothing on any given day to see a senior executive and some rank and file employee, standing outside enjoying a smoke and some small talk.  Many times strong relationships are formed outside in the ‘smokers area’, and it is very common for information to be shared that normally wouldn’t be amongst employees of different ranks.  I don’t smoke – but I love going out and hanging with smokers!

So, as you can imagine, this news from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (and why does Atlanta have their own Federal Reserve?!) was extremely disheartening to me.  I wonder what else Julie and Melinda have been digging into down there in Atlanta?  Do employees who drink Gin make more than all other employees? (please let this be true!) What about the office slut? Does he/she make more money, at work?  If so, did they name that ‘the slut wage gap’?  Do our tax dollars support this ‘research’?

Here is what I know, compensation pro wannabes, if slice and dice the data enough, you can make up any conclusion you want to.  The reality is, smoking equates mostly to lower education, thus lower wages.  That’s a broad stroke, but fairly accurate.  Educated people, for the most part, understand that smoking is bad for you.  Having that knowledge, and being educated, tends then to lead to a non-smoking life.  Having lower education, and knowing smoking is bad for you, tends to lead to a life of ‘what the hell, I’m going to die anyway’.  Some educated folks fall into this same trap.

So, I’ll ask you my smoking friends – if you knew you could make more money, would you stop smoking?  Also, if you never smoked, are you willing to pick it up for a 7% bump in pay?!

Smoke’em if you’ve gotten them in the comments…

 

Inclusion – As Defined By A Conservative White Guy

Posted on by
8

Before I go off – let me say I’m 100% sure Pro Diversity and Inclusion camps don’t have me in mind to be their spokesperson.  You see I’m white. I’m middle-aged. I’m a male.  I tend to lean conservative in my political views, moderately.  So, if you’re really into Diversity and Inclusion – I can totally see why you’ll immediately discount everything I’m about to say.  If I was a women – a black woman – a liberal black woman – a liberal black woman in a wheelchair  – well then – I’d expect you’d listen pretty closely. Right? Don’t kid yourself.

If that’s the case – you’re as closed minded as you believe I am.

I’m completely sick and tired of hearing about Diversity and Inclusion in the way it is being advocated for by my HR brothers and sisters.  It literally makes me sick to my stomach.  Here’s why – with every program, every communication you espouse about your organization being ‘Inclusive’ – what you’re really saying is –

“ABC Company values Inclusion as long as you’re view points are the same view points that we share.”

This isn’t Inclusion!  This is ‘Exclusion’ to the definition!  But you’re selling it as Inclusion.  Am I insane!? (Don’t answer that – it was rhetorical!) Or did someone change what Inclusion really means?

You see – by my middle aged white conservative viewpoint – Inclusion means we should accept everyone – all view points, all colors, all shapes and sizes.  But when ‘I’ the middle aged white conservative guy wants to share ‘my’ beliefs – your organization doesn’t want to hear those.  What you want to hear is that I really have liberal beliefs, that I support abortion, that I think marijuana is harmless, that tattoos are super cool, that everyone should be working from home, that all people have the ability to do all jobs, that I’m not religious – and if I am it’s a religion that you totally support, and that if my religious beliefs somehow don’t support your liberal view of inclusion that I’ll never speak those views publicly and make those employees who do have different views that I uncomfortable – although it’s fine if they throw their views in my face, since that is what ‘Inclusion’ is all about…

The funny thing is – I would define myself as a fiscal conservative, socially liberal and I don’t go to church but was raised around many religions- so I can adapt and fit into almost anywhere.  But since I’m white and middle aged and voted Republican – I can’t fit into most of your Inclusion demographics – which is again is funny to me – since Inclusion is defined as:

“the act of including or the state of being included”

No where in the dictionary did the definition include: “if you believe the same things we believe ‘inclusion’ to mean” or “if you some form of minority”.  The definition is short and clear – Inclusion means everyone is included – even Me – middle aged conservative white guy!  My HR peers are forgetting the “Inclusive” part of “Inclusion”.  I’m reminded of this daily, not because of my own demographic makeup – but I have a 70 year old father still in the work force and he continues to share stories with me about how his 50 years of experience is no longer relative.  That somehow 50 years of experience is becoming worthless.  That on a daily basis – he feels his organization is less inclusive, and more exclusive – because the only people who know anything are the young.  Again – Inclusive-Exclusion at its finest.

But – I understand while you’ll discount this – I’m not liberal – I’m not a minority – the only disability I have is horrible grammar.  I don’t count.  Maybe we can call this ‘new’ Inclusion – “Inexclusion” – being inclusive to those that we share our same ideas, beliefs and opinions.  What do you think?