Previous month:
March 2010
Next month:
May 2010


Many firms profess that their most valuable assets are their employees.  If this is true, then one would logically expect that this belief would extend to those applying for jobs, as well.  When you think about it, these companies are selling themselves to these potential new hires, as much as the candidates are doing similarly to the company.


Two former colleagues briefed me on their job hunting journey, which recently involved them in separate interview processes.  Despite passing through the gauntlet of interviews, making it all the way to the final two, both unfortunately lost out to the other candidate left standing.  None of this is unusual, but it was disheartening to learn that both hiring companies informed them of their decision by form e-mails—an impersonal e-mail that didn’t even address them by name, and one of the form e-mails actually used the subject line:  DECLINED, as if she had applied for a bank loan.


Companies are currently in a luxurious position, as there is an abundant supply of talented people to fill job openings.  The way firms handle this will speak volumes about their commitment to people and will create an impression on all candidates passing through their doors.  There are few reasons why organizations should seriously consider how they deal with job applicants, solicited or unsolicited:


· These people are also consumers, personal and business.  Acting as buyers, their long memories about shabby job application treatment may influence their purchasing preferences;

· The economy will eventually rebound (signs are showing this is underway), unemployment will subside, and the supply of qualified talent will diminish;

· Baby boomers have begun to hit retirement, and this will also reduce the pool of available human resources.  This will have a much longer and profound effect on firms.


How do companies really feel about their most valued assets?  Their actions will speak louder than words.


Ryck Marciniak

Guest Blogger

iPad Physical Design Flaw

The iPad is a nice looking device, unless you want to hold it, or carry it.   It is not a handheld device, it is a prop-able device.   Aa  With a focal length designed for Steve Jobs' eye sight propped on his folded leg.  You cannot use it flat because of the glare (and it skids) and you cannot hold it without fear of it slipping from your grasp. Steve should have dimpled the shell.

I predict that every iPad user will buy a case to compensate for this flaw which will ensure that the aesthetics will only be seen the first time you take it out of the box.  And kudos to the first person who tells me of a case with a hand strap on the back so I can hold it in landscape mode.

Republican Senators back Medicare Reimbursement for Stump Water Wart Treatment

Dr. Rachel Clinton of Ipswich, Massachusetts was recently denied reimbursement from Medicare for her use of Pfizer's Xytol to treat a patient's warts.   According to Medicare's adjusters "Xytol in 3rd party studies is no better than using a placebo".   Pfizer didn't agree and enlisted the support of three senators:  Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Pat Roberts (R-KS) to support their position.  After spending a week in Maui on a fact finding trip, the senators issued a statement: "We spent time watching the manufacture of Xytol, from collecting stump water under a full moon at midnight, to the very modern bottling operation.   Pfizer has spent a lot of money in this great country of ours and they deserve to reap the rewards of all their investments regardless if it actually works. "


 April's Fools Day!  Of course these fine senators' would never insist that taxpayers pay for a treatment that was proven to be ineffective .