Freedom of Speech, Employment, Economy

The Idea

Or, as some Republicans say, the very idea!

 Even if you are retired, you'll probably be interested in this proposal: The idea is simple enough.  Next time you look for a job, replace your resume with an application that asks the prospective employer for last year's turnover rate, a short history of how the managers got their jobs and, of course, the names of some expert references on the employer; the former employees.  Think of the time and money you'll save.  Think of how many more options you'll have.

 What's not so simple is getting someone to fill it out.  Until now, the information exchange that accompanies job placement has not been symmetrical. The employer routinely asks for pay history and references, yet the job applicant would never dream of asking to speak to a recently fired employee.  Job search books stress the importance of this kind of information, but they never explain how to find it.  It simply isn't readily available on the small to medium sized companies responsible for much of the job creation in this country.  In a society that likes to think of itself as open and fair to the individual, this will certainly change.

 To get started—and getting started is what needs to be done—the One Stop offices could be opened to all people to discuss information as to opportunities for employment, former employees as well as employers.  After an employee left a job, he would have a suitable location to file his name, phone number, E-mail address, and the names of any former employers he was willing to discuss with job hunters.  He, in turn, could contact references on other companies.  Not only could he share his experiences with someone who is truly interested—a potential applicant of his former employer—, but he could quickly gather very important information on a large pool of employers.  The cost would be negligible.  Web sites would make the service really convenient

 The advantages to job seekers are obvious.  He could screen many more places than with his informal network.  He could get both sides of the story.  He wouldn't waste time driving to the wrong places.  He could prepare for interviews.  He would have much more control over his livelihood.  Once a job was accepted, he would have a better idea what to expect.  He could plan.
 
 The indirect advantages to our economy are much more important.  The fundamental problem of employee-management communications would be largely alleviated.  Managers would have both the proper atmosphere and incentive to speak frankly with employees.  Owners or stockholders could get a point of view free of any conflict of interest.  A former employee has no economic incentive to give anything except his true opinions.

 Other advantages to  business:  accountability, responsibility, even imagination would be encouraged while cynicism and nonproductive wishful thinking would decrease.  An employee who can plan and knows what is expected is a better employee.  Employer-related litigation such as "wrongful-discharge" suits would decrease.  Companies would be better managed with fewer managers. 

 Instead of a lot of costly ineffectual labor legislation that has bureaucrats making highly judgmental decisions on matters they have little knowledge of and no interest in, these choices would be left to the job hunter.  He's the one who is going to be dealing with workplace problems.  The diversity of employer "cultures" can be thought of, not as a liability, but as a national resource for employees.  As employers openly competed for employees, the hoary artificial job shortage scam would finally come to an end.  Markets would level wealth reducing crime and a host of other political problems.

 Besides, what is good for the individual is good for California.  As Bishop Richard Cumberland wrote, "every idea is the product of a single mind."  

Bret Cahill