Monthly Archives: January 2012

NLRB And UN Worker Heads to Jail.

ImageAt a time when people are having trouble finding even one job, Jeffrey K. Armstrong of South Riding, Va. was able to find two full-time jobs — one at the United Nations in New York and another at the National Labor Relations Board here in Washington.

Armstrong, sentenced Friday to 18 months in federal prison for his fraudulent endeavors, managed to snag a job in 2008 as the U.N. assistant chief of the Security and Safety Service, “responsible for all physical security at U.N. facilities,” the Justice Department said. That paid about $160,000 a year.

Then in February 2009, after almost a year at the United Nations, he got a second job here at the NLRB as a chief of security within the division of administration. That paid about $121,000. (That’s some serious double-dipping.)  Armstrong somehow “dissuaded” NLRB officials from contacting his U.N. supervisor and filed for medical leave at the United Nations even though he was working at the NLRB, the Justice Department said.

Between April and September 2009, Armstrong picked up more than $100,000 “working” both jobs before he was discovered.

Some people are under-employed, some are employed, some are over-employed. Well, at least he should be able to put his knowledge of security to good use in his new, secure location.


New Career Website Lets Job Seekers Upload Video Resumes

A new career website that launched on Monday aims to be a one-stop shop for hiring managers and job seekers. was co-founded by Suki Shah, 28, who was inspired to create the integrated site after running his own medical diagnostics company and experiencing difficulties with the hiring process.

“We created out of a pure need that we experienced in the market for both employers and job seekers,” he told Mashable. “There is no solution that currently integrates job postings, prescreening via audio and video, applicant tracking, interviewing, and social recruiting.”

His goal is to streamline every task of the job search into one place. On employers can search for candidates, sift through multimedia resumes, schedule interviews (and sync those appointments to their iPhones) and video chat with potential hires.

Job seekers can upload a video of themselves explaining their background and expertise, or answer employer-submitted questions via an automated phone system and upload the sound bites to their profiles.

“Companies often spend tens of thousands of dollars or more for a fraction of these capabilities. We’re thrilled that we are able to make available for free,” Shah said. For the time being, the site will be free for hiring managers, but eventually charge a nominal fee (about $25 bucks) per job post. It will always be free for job seekers.

The company announced on its blog that GetHired received “$1.75 million in an oversubscribed round of seed funding.”

While LinkedIn is a great tool for job seekers–letting you identify who’s viewed your profile and which keywords they used to find you, features a great deal of tools for hiring managers. And unlike LinkedIn, only employers can view job seekers’ multimedia resumes on the site — a job seeker can’t sign-in and check out their competition. Job seekers can also set their profiles to “private” and only allow managers at jobs they have applied for to view their profiles, rather than any hiring manager.

Having audio and video gives each candidate a chance to be heard, Shah said.

“A stand alone, paper based resume is arguably the most discriminating component of the hiring process today. We all know that job seekers are much more than what an 8.5 by 11 piece of paper can represent. And if that is all that employers ask for, candidates may be disqualified for a number of reasons — for example, like the school that they may have attended,” he said. “When you integrate video and audio into the hiring process, you give every applicant an equal opportunity to be seen and heard by an employer. As a result, employers often report that they hire candidates that they may have otherwise overlooked.”

Hiring managers will be able to posts links to GetHired, along with job descriptions, and refer job seekers to their site where employers can manage all applicants in one place. Right now, Monster and Career Builder are the most popular, general job-seeking sites.

Recruiters have long used social networking sites to hire and check out candidates, but could GetHired be another tool in their arsenal?

Source: Kate Freeman for Mashable Business.

Is GM-UAW “No Strike Clause” Real Or Bailout Deception?

Back during the days of General Motors’ bankruptcy proceedings, media reports cited the many “sacrifices” made by the politically favored UAW. I have long wondered what these many sacrifices were, as UAW members seem to be doing pretty well since the GM bankruptcy. One such “sacrifice” was a supposed agreement that the UAW could not go on strike at GM until after 2015, as mentioned in this Bloomberg piece, and accepted as fact by all media sources. I questioned this assertion in apiece I wrote in December of 2010, but as has been the case with much of the coverage of GM, the potential GM deception was left unchallenged by auto journalists and the mainstream media. Recent reports of a strike authorized by GM UAW workers in Kansas now raise the question of if my suspicions were correct that there are no binding agreements to prevent strikes at GM plants.

The culture of deceit at Government Motors since the Obama Administration’s orchestrated bankruptcy becomes apparent on many occasions. The Chevy Volt is an ongoing debacle with continued bogus claims of strong demand for the vehicle as taxpayers are reimbursing each wealthy purchaser of the car up to the tune of $7500 plus state credits. Financial strength at GM has been touted by GM management, yet the share price is indicative of skepticism by those managing the smart money. The Obama Administration declared taxpayers would make money on their GM market-timing gamble, but billions of dollars have been flushed away. And now we discover that yet another representation of a UAW “sacrifice” was likely fabricated (or at best deceptive in the sense that it neglected to address any local UAW exclusions) to help garner political support for handing over $50 billion of taxpayer money to bail out GM.

Any strike at GM would be an embarrassment to both the Obama Administration, whose alliance with the UAW is clear, and GM itself. That is why I believe that there will be no strike as people in high places will go to great lengths to assure a deal is cut quickly, even if it means that GM has to cave in to UAW demands. Although the UAW risks being seen as biting the hand that feeds them after the GM bailout, they are in the driver’s seat as the stakes are high while the President is campaigning on the perceived success at GM. The conflicts of interest caused by the Administration’s refusal to exit the auto business by selling taxpayers’ stakes in GM and Ally Financial has become a hot political topic and any UAW strike at this point will expose the no-strike clause claims as deceptive and garner a lot of unwanted attention. Attention that neither GM, nor the White House, would want. As has been the strategy in the past, Government  Motors will rely on mainstream media and the public to ignore the deception.

I would welcome an explanation as to how we went from having a guarantee that UAW members would not strike to an authorized strike for 3,400 workers at GM’s Fairfax plant that produces the Chevy Malibu and Buick Lacrosse. Was the no-strike clause claim a total fabrication or just a half-truth? I suspect apologists for GM will point to a technicality that local UAW members were excluded from any no-strike clause. Nonetheless, the implication from Government Motors that the UAW could not strike was deceptive and auto journalists along with the rest of the media should be a bit more skeptical of a politically influenced corporation that is losing credibility quickly.  Source: Mark Modica is an National Legal and Policy Center Associate Fellow.

%d bloggers like this: