Category Archives: jobs

The Boss Wants to Know

Posted on by
Reply

Bari Weiss, newly hired CBS News editor-in-chief, wants to know what her employees in her news division do while they’re on the company clock.

On Friday [10 October], she sent a note to CBS News staffers asking each member of the organization to detail what they do, and what they believe is working or not working, by Tuesday [14 October].

Weiss, in so many words:

I want to understand how you spend your working hours—and, ideally, what you’ve made (or are making) that you’re most proud of. I’m also interested in hearing your views on what’s working; what’s broken or substandard; and how we can be better. Please be blunt—it will help me greatly[.]

You’d think two things would obtain here in an honest industry. One is the widely understood concept that bosses get to know what their employees are doing on the clock to earn their paycheck. The other is that such reporting would be simple and straightforward to carry out. In those industries where employees are required to keep time sheets, it would be a simple matter for employees to submit theirs or for bosses to get them from HR. In those industries where time sheets are not kept, those employees still know what they’re doing, and it would be simple to write down a few bullets and submit those.

In the present case, Weiss is also asking her employees what they think works and does not work. This is the employees’ opportunity to provide serious input and to simply bellyache about how hard their work life is.

However.

The Writers Guild of America East, which is a union representing many of those news room employees, is advising its membership to refuse to supply the data.

That’s a highly instructive tell.

Either these unionized employees spend their time on the clock largely goofing off and want to cover that up, or this is all-too-typical union obstructionism solely for the sake of obstructing. Or both.

Wess needs to instruct her HR to prepare termination notices for those employees not meeting the deadline (who did not meet the deadline as this is posted a couple of days after it) and to instruct her legal department to prepare to defend in court (no settlement) those terminations.

Note: Since I wrote this, Weiss has acquiesced and advised the union that writers who ignore her deadline will be acting with impunity–she will not punish them for their disobedience.

How Many Bureaucrats?

Posted on by
Reply

James Freeman asked this question in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, regarding the bureaucrats in the Federal government.

The government, and I [ahem], answered this question during an earlier Progressive-Democrat-led Federal government shutdown, and we’re about to get an empirical demonstration with the current Schumer Shutdown which began Wednesday morning. Here’s what that earlier shutdown demonstrated about the number of bureaucrats actually needed:

Office Per Cent Nonessential
White House 74
Treasury 82
Labor 82
Interior 81
EPA 94
NASA 97
Housing and Urban Development 96
Education 94
Commerce 87
Smithsonian 84

 

There are others, also, with a different per centage of nonessentials:

Office Per Cent Nonessential
U.S. Commission of Fine Arts 100
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness 100
USDA Risk Management Agency 100
Federal Maritime Commission 100
Economic Development Administration 100
Minority Business Development Agency 100

There’s a more complete list over at Slate.

The short answer is: not many of the bureaucrats on the payroll are actually needed. The longer answer will be begun to be delivered with the RIF that the OMB has instructed Executive Branch Departments and Agencies to prepare lists for, with those lists beginning with programs and projects currently unfunded and that do not align with Presidential policy. The answer will be expanded on by all the Leftist and Civil Service union lawsuits objecting to the RIF, even to preparing for a RIF. Those lawsuits will prove the lack of need for those bureaucrats.

Is He Worth the Money?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the question the nattering Left is asking about Elon Musk’s new pay package on offer from Tesla—a package that could aggregate to a trillion dollars over 10 years. Of course, we’d expect such a question from the Left—and from too many Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who disparage free market capitalism.

Of course, in one sense—a sense at the core of free markets—is by definition, Musk is worth the money: all the parties to the package voluntarily and of their own accord agreed to it, each satisfied that they’re better off after agreeing than before.

What the natterers carefully ignore, though, is this:

…the Tesla CEO will get richer only if workers and shareholders do too. Oh, and only if consumers like what Tesla is selling.
Tesla’s board recently proposed a pay package for Mr Musk worth up to $1 trillion over 10 years, contingent on the company achieving ambitious milestones.

Musk has actually to perform in order actually to earn that pay. That’s another aspect at the core of free markets: folks must earn their compensation; they’re not entitled to money just because they think they’re special.

Corporate Cybersecurity Training

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t very effective, apparently.

To measure the effectiveness of different methods of cybersecurity training, the authors [of a study] divided employees into four groups. After each attack, each group received a different training method: one received generic tips about avoiding phishing attacks, a second received an interactive Q&A on cybersecurity, a third was informed about the specific methods used in the most recent attack, and the fourth received an interactive Q&A that also included details about the most recent attack. A fifth group was also created, and the employees in that group received no training.
The authors found that on average, employees who received training of any sort had only a 1.7% lower failure rate than employees who had no training.

The authors’ solution?

The study’s takeaway for organizations, says [lead author Grant] Ho, is to rely on measures other than training, like phishing-detection software that automatically eliminates the need for employees to detect phishing attacks.

Software aids are important in this milieu, but the weak link remains the human. Software aids by themselves are insufficient.

There needs to be more to the training than just a slide presentation and some lectures, or in the present case, “interactive” Q&As. The training sessions need to be plussed up, a lot, but that can’t be the end of it. Schools and responsible companies run fire drills that run to completion with evacuation of the building and head counts and roll calls while the evacuees are gathered up at their assigned evacuation points. So it must be with cybersecurity training. Simulated cyber attacks (phishing, social engineering, etc) attacks should be run against a rotating collection of employees to test their training and their responses to the attacks. Those simulations should be run some weeks after the training and more frequently than those fire drills, and they should not use IT-ginned up attacks, either; they should use serious real-world attacks, altered only to get them targeted to the collection of employees being tested.

Beyond that, there needs to be teeth attached to the training and to employees’ failure to take the training seriously.

There are three outcomes from this. One is an empirical assessment of the quality of training, its durability, and identification of weaknesses in the training program, which then can be corrected (not given up on). A second results from those teeth: once management is satisfied with the training quality, employees still falling for the attacks should be terminated. They’re too great a risk to the company.

The third outcome is a very great increase in the cyber safety of the company and of its employees (with a follow-on: those employees will be better able to maintain security in their homes’ cyber environment). The added training and testing will incur costs to the company, but the risk of the far greater cost of a cyber breach—both direct and indirect through liability—is too great to ignore.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

This one, a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on a coerced unionization of ride share companies Uber and Lyft. The editors got their misunderstanding in early, via their lede:

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday announced a “deal” with ride-share companies Uber and Lyft that they couldn’t refuse. Democrats in Sacramento will reduce auto insurance coverage mandates that are driving runaway litigation in return for the companies letting drivers collectively bargain.

Yes, they could have refused the deal. The California government foisted onto them a supremely ugly choice, but it was no less a freely taken choice for all its ugliness. The companies’ managers were just too timid to resist, too timid to leave the State altogether, as their own powerful alternative to Sacramento’s demand.

There’s no reason for any business, not just Uber and Lyft, to suffer the politically imposed costs of operating in California. Nothing is stopping businesses from leaving other than the timidity of their managers.

I alluded to it just above: the cost of doing business in California isn’t just fiscal. It’s political, too, reducing as that cost does, a company’s ability to manage its own business affairs in accordance with its own free market imperatives.