Today's Supreme Court decision on The Affordable Care Act will go a long way in empowering those who feel they know what's better for you than you do yourself. It's been to the highest court in the land and came out on the other side, no worse for wear.
In cities across the country, we've watched small pieces of personal freedoms and choices get stripped away, down to the very core of basic things such as soda sizes at the movie theater. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg made news again last month with his recently proposed ban on sugary drinks over 16 oz in on-premise venues across the city. This far-reaching legislation caught the attention of those on the left who are always happy to levy a tax or a ban on people or things and then hide behind the populist theme of "if it's for the betterment of society as a whole, I'm all for it."
Social wins are to liberals what spinach is to Popeye. They squeeze open the can and slam it down their gullet, their muscles and veins bulging, they got their chests sticking out. They're pumped up, man! And they should be. But, be careful. What comes with this new found confidence is a brazenness to go further. It's a blood sport once it reaches SCOTUS level and they want to put their foot on your throats while you're down. They want to finish you off like a fatality in Mortal Kombat.
The only way to fend off further far-reaching government intervention is to stay informed and stay active. Educate yourselves so you can debate a liberal. But don't stoop to the level of hysterics. They are really good at that. They will use terms such as "fair" or "equality" and other class-warfare buzz words to try to cloud the debate waters and fuel anger. Don't fall for it. Stay focused, use facts (they hate that) and keep your eye on the ball.
To keep up on the recent NYC soda ban, visit New Yorkers for Beverage Choices website. You can sign up for news alerts and even send a letter to Mayor Bloomberg. They are the local lead dog in the fight against NYC's proposed ban. Also, read the American Beverage Association Blog for more industry related news and data. You can also stay updated on beverage industry related topics and news on Twitter. Follow Kevin Perry from the Georgia Beverage Association, @GABeverage, for an in-depth view into the soda ban and other industry topics. Also, for an opposing viewpoint, follow @MicheleRSimon, a Public Health Lawyer who has been very vocal in her displeasure of big soda, big agriculture and big macs. It's important to know what the opposition is thinking, albeit misguided. Of course, you can follow me, @DrinkPro, for a little of everything. I'm kind of like a Long Island Iced Tea.
Remember, stay involved, stay educated, stay hydrated and stay polite.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the individuals or companies mentioned have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Nanny Nanny, Poo Poo
The recent debate over banning sugary drinks in New York City has
predictably turned into name-calling on both sides. I was sucked in to
this tactic in a recent article in which a reader replied by calling me
an idiot and so on. No big deal, I've been called worse, as they say. I
always remain civil during debate until the other side fires their
salvo, leaving me with no option but to unleash a fierce, fact-based
assault. I'm like the Hulk. Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.
Actually, I have fun at their expense and I enjoy reading their
insults. At least their fingers are getting exercise, if nothing else.
NYC has proved to be an intense battle ground over the quintessential right of choice. The choice, being able to purchase a sugary drink in excess of 16 oz, is being taken away by Mayor Bloomberg in a far-reaching, autocratic move based on the notion that government knows best. Bloomberg said last week on CBS This Morning "if government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is." That sentiment, right there, is what has long concerned people that government has lost it's sense of purpose. And that has led to average citizens voicing their opinions on things such as the soda ban, because they fear the slippery slope effect. And, it is those opinions that have brought out the other side, convinced it is in fact the government's role to protect us, cradle to grave.
There have been many comparisons made to the restrictions on the sale and use of tobacco. My rebuttal to that argument is tobacco will harm the user, but some science suggests that it can also harm non-users through second-hand smoke. I don't know all the science about second-hand smoke, but, if smoking is proven to cause cancer, then I don't think it's a good idea to blow your smoke in my child's face. If science has already said is toxic to you, then it could potentially be harmful to others? Irrational, self-proclaimed subject matter experts, however, will get nasty and personal when data disproves or shoots holes in their defense. It's simple; my contention is the act of me drinking soda can not physically harm a child sitting in the same room. It's not the same as cigarettes, so don't go there. For that belief, I have been accused of being fat, lazy, an idiot, a moron, stupid, not caring about fat people and, last but not least, racist.
I was wondering about that last tag until I read a comment by someone about how "poor people" and "low-income" folks are basically forced to purchase large unhealthy drinks such as soda because they can't afford the "more expensive, healthier" drinks. That idea is just one step away from turning the debate on it's ear by claiming a higher percentage of blacks are poorer than whites, therefore, being against a large soda ban makes you likely to be "against" blacks. That is where the debate has shifted, unfortunately.
There are groups that are trying to defeat the soda ban because of it's broad and not very well thought out approach. Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks. The unintended consequences of the ban are merely collateral damage, as they always are, for the feel-gooders in our society who claim to know better than we do about what to put into our bodies. One group, New Yorkers for Beverage Choice, has taken up the fight against the ban. They claim to lay out what the ban will and will not do. They also place an emphasis on moderation, diet and exercise. How about that? Three seemingly forgotten pillars of personal responsibility when it comes to health. Other groups, such as The American Beverage Association (ABA), have also spoken out against the ban. Groups like this will be demonized for having companies such as Coke and Pepsi show their support. What would you expect Coke and Pepsi to do? Apparently, there are those who feel an industry under attack should just sit back and take it. A recent tweet by @MicheleRSimon warned her followers by tweeting "Big Bev astro-turf alert" seeming to infer that Coke and Pepsi's support for New Yorkers for Beverage Choice somehow makes the group a non-organic effort. Michele has an affinity for the use of the term "big" on her blog. That's a code word meant to identify a company as "greedy polluters". You know, big sugar, big tobacco, big oil, big agriculture. Pretty much any big industry that prefers to make a big profit. Michele, who holds a JD, says on her Twitter profile "I am a public health lawyer, writer, and advocate for food justice. My book, Appetite for Profit, exposes food industry marketing and lobbying." Bam! What catches my attention are "advocate", "justice", "profit" and "exposes". That's all I need to hear to understand Michele's position. Call me short-sided, but I just read a book by it's cover. And you know what, I don't have a problem with her. She is using her experiences, education, knowledge and, presumably her money (I don't know for sure), to advance her agenda. I see nothing wrong with that. But, don't demonize corporations for defending their industry. In the spirit of full disclosure, Michele and I are now dating on Twitter.
However, the efforts of groups like New Yorkers for Beverage Choice and the ABA need to go beyond the ban's current theater of operations and fight an urban, house to house assault. We are fighting a much larger scale effort, brought on by those interested in simply penalizing a specific group at the behest of another by using class warfare as part of the debate. I ask the Bloomberg supporters this; Rather than making sure I can't buy a 32oz ice cold soda at a movie, why not focus on making sure the morbidly obese person in front of me gets a little exercise once in a while? Wouldn't that do more to combat obesity? Or, is that too mean of me to ask?
NYC has proved to be an intense battle ground over the quintessential right of choice. The choice, being able to purchase a sugary drink in excess of 16 oz, is being taken away by Mayor Bloomberg in a far-reaching, autocratic move based on the notion that government knows best. Bloomberg said last week on CBS This Morning "if government's purpose isn't to improve the health and longevity of its citizens, I don't know what its purpose is." That sentiment, right there, is what has long concerned people that government has lost it's sense of purpose. And that has led to average citizens voicing their opinions on things such as the soda ban, because they fear the slippery slope effect. And, it is those opinions that have brought out the other side, convinced it is in fact the government's role to protect us, cradle to grave.
There have been many comparisons made to the restrictions on the sale and use of tobacco. My rebuttal to that argument is tobacco will harm the user, but some science suggests that it can also harm non-users through second-hand smoke. I don't know all the science about second-hand smoke, but, if smoking is proven to cause cancer, then I don't think it's a good idea to blow your smoke in my child's face. If science has already said is toxic to you, then it could potentially be harmful to others? Irrational, self-proclaimed subject matter experts, however, will get nasty and personal when data disproves or shoots holes in their defense. It's simple; my contention is the act of me drinking soda can not physically harm a child sitting in the same room. It's not the same as cigarettes, so don't go there. For that belief, I have been accused of being fat, lazy, an idiot, a moron, stupid, not caring about fat people and, last but not least, racist.
I was wondering about that last tag until I read a comment by someone about how "poor people" and "low-income" folks are basically forced to purchase large unhealthy drinks such as soda because they can't afford the "more expensive, healthier" drinks. That idea is just one step away from turning the debate on it's ear by claiming a higher percentage of blacks are poorer than whites, therefore, being against a large soda ban makes you likely to be "against" blacks. That is where the debate has shifted, unfortunately.
There are groups that are trying to defeat the soda ban because of it's broad and not very well thought out approach. Mayor Bloomberg has adamantly laid out his case citing his desire to curb the obesity rate, with clear goals laid out over the next 10-20 years. But, merely being passionate about obesity isn't enough to slap a ban on those who aren't obese or for those who exercise restraint when it comes to sugary drinks. The unintended consequences of the ban are merely collateral damage, as they always are, for the feel-gooders in our society who claim to know better than we do about what to put into our bodies. One group, New Yorkers for Beverage Choice, has taken up the fight against the ban. They claim to lay out what the ban will and will not do. They also place an emphasis on moderation, diet and exercise. How about that? Three seemingly forgotten pillars of personal responsibility when it comes to health. Other groups, such as The American Beverage Association (ABA), have also spoken out against the ban. Groups like this will be demonized for having companies such as Coke and Pepsi show their support. What would you expect Coke and Pepsi to do? Apparently, there are those who feel an industry under attack should just sit back and take it. A recent tweet by @MicheleRSimon warned her followers by tweeting "Big Bev astro-turf alert" seeming to infer that Coke and Pepsi's support for New Yorkers for Beverage Choice somehow makes the group a non-organic effort. Michele has an affinity for the use of the term "big" on her blog. That's a code word meant to identify a company as "greedy polluters". You know, big sugar, big tobacco, big oil, big agriculture. Pretty much any big industry that prefers to make a big profit. Michele, who holds a JD, says on her Twitter profile "I am a public health lawyer, writer, and advocate for food justice. My book, Appetite for Profit, exposes food industry marketing and lobbying." Bam! What catches my attention are "advocate", "justice", "profit" and "exposes". That's all I need to hear to understand Michele's position. Call me short-sided, but I just read a book by it's cover. And you know what, I don't have a problem with her. She is using her experiences, education, knowledge and, presumably her money (I don't know for sure), to advance her agenda. I see nothing wrong with that. But, don't demonize corporations for defending their industry. In the spirit of full disclosure, Michele and I are now dating on Twitter.
However, the efforts of groups like New Yorkers for Beverage Choice and the ABA need to go beyond the ban's current theater of operations and fight an urban, house to house assault. We are fighting a much larger scale effort, brought on by those interested in simply penalizing a specific group at the behest of another by using class warfare as part of the debate. I ask the Bloomberg supporters this; Rather than making sure I can't buy a 32oz ice cold soda at a movie, why not focus on making sure the morbidly obese person in front of me gets a little exercise once in a while? Wouldn't that do more to combat obesity? Or, is that too mean of me to ask?
Friday, June 15, 2012
Review: Au Naturel by Jones Soda
Jones Soda, Seattle, WA, announced at Expo West in March, that they were launching their new sparkling soda, Au Naturel. The name lends itself to the fact the ingredients are all-natural. Jones Soda CEO Bill Meissner says the creation was the result of a challenge to the soda industry issued by The Harvard School of Public Health. The challenge, says Meissner, was to create a drink with specific nutritional guidelines, specifically, no more than one gram of sugar per ounce of beverage as well as having 70% fewer calories versus Coke and Pepsi. "We took that seriously and wanted to be the first to meet it in a
sparkling format, and we then upped the ante by making it all natural."
There are three flavors in the new lineup; Orange You Glad It's Mango, Lemon Limelight and Green Apple A Day. Among the ingredients in Au Naturel are the usual suspects of carbonated water, cane sugar, and green tea extract. Among the not so common ingredients are stevia, a natural product that's a gazillion times sweeter than sugar, and organic agave syrup. The agave syrup is used to tone down the licorice bitterness of the stevia.
The flavors are relatively palatable, considering the simplicity of the ingredients. My favorite was the Orange You Glad It's Mango. Its' initial sweetness quickly dissipates which leaves you with a mellow background flavor of orange which lingers a bit. The Green Apple and Lemon Lime are less sweet and not as notable. The carbonation of the soda is just about the right amount and adds a dry taste, which I prefer. Each flavor boasts 35 calories, 7 grams of sugar and a surprising 5 grams of dietary fiber per 16.9oz bottle.
The bottle is a sharp looking PET that has dimples near the top and bottom. The bottle is wrapped about 85% around with a pressure sensitive label, that leaves a small gap which allows you to see through the bottle to the inside of the label, which bares pictures of either oranges, lemons and limes or green apples, depending on which flavor you have.
You'll, undoubtedly, see the Jones name and will be familiar with the concept of using consumer submitted photos on their labels. However, the entire label itself leaves a bit to be desired in the "captain obvious" department. Even with the catchy name-play, you have to search around to actually discover what the flavor is and look even harder to find the words "sparkling soda" anywhere on the label. Trust me, it's somewhere. There's just a lot of action going on with that label which makes it look very busy. In addition to their trademark photo concept, Jones continues the practice of slogans under the caps. No word on whether these caps will be accepted for their Caps for Gear promotion.
I'm not sure how serious Jones is about this brand. The product is rumored to retail at $1.79, but, it has yet to be found in stores. And Au Naturel is not prominently displayed on their website, in fact, you have to click on their Product Locator to even see it mentioned, and even then, there are no results returned. If you do a Google search for "au naturel" without including the word "jones", you have to scroll all the way to page five in order to find it. Search Engine Optimization must improve if Jones wants Au Naturel to become a player rather than be merely seen as a project or experiment.
While the product has some quality points, there is definitely some room for enhancement for entry into what is an already crowded sparkling category. As always, time will tell.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. From time to time, @DrinkPro will receive promotional product from suppliers for the purpose of review. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
There are three flavors in the new lineup; Orange You Glad It's Mango, Lemon Limelight and Green Apple A Day. Among the ingredients in Au Naturel are the usual suspects of carbonated water, cane sugar, and green tea extract. Among the not so common ingredients are stevia, a natural product that's a gazillion times sweeter than sugar, and organic agave syrup. The agave syrup is used to tone down the licorice bitterness of the stevia.
The flavors are relatively palatable, considering the simplicity of the ingredients. My favorite was the Orange You Glad It's Mango. Its' initial sweetness quickly dissipates which leaves you with a mellow background flavor of orange which lingers a bit. The Green Apple and Lemon Lime are less sweet and not as notable. The carbonation of the soda is just about the right amount and adds a dry taste, which I prefer. Each flavor boasts 35 calories, 7 grams of sugar and a surprising 5 grams of dietary fiber per 16.9oz bottle.
 |
| Photo by @DrinkPro |
You'll, undoubtedly, see the Jones name and will be familiar with the concept of using consumer submitted photos on their labels. However, the entire label itself leaves a bit to be desired in the "captain obvious" department. Even with the catchy name-play, you have to search around to actually discover what the flavor is and look even harder to find the words "sparkling soda" anywhere on the label. Trust me, it's somewhere. There's just a lot of action going on with that label which makes it look very busy. In addition to their trademark photo concept, Jones continues the practice of slogans under the caps. No word on whether these caps will be accepted for their Caps for Gear promotion.
I'm not sure how serious Jones is about this brand. The product is rumored to retail at $1.79, but, it has yet to be found in stores. And Au Naturel is not prominently displayed on their website, in fact, you have to click on their Product Locator to even see it mentioned, and even then, there are no results returned. If you do a Google search for "au naturel" without including the word "jones", you have to scroll all the way to page five in order to find it. Search Engine Optimization must improve if Jones wants Au Naturel to become a player rather than be merely seen as a project or experiment.
While the product has some quality points, there is definitely some room for enhancement for entry into what is an already crowded sparkling category. As always, time will tell.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. From time to time, @DrinkPro will receive promotional product from suppliers for the purpose of review. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The NYC Soda Ban Transforms, Predictably
I know Winter hasn't arrived yet in New York City, but grab your skis. No need to wax them either since where you're heading, the course is covered in soda and butter. That's where the NYC Health Police take all the stuff that's bad for us and bring it to dispose of. What's going on there brings to mind the movie The Untouchables, where Eliot Ness' team of Prohibition Agents, with their axes in hand, would smash barrels of illegal booze and let them run in the streets. Is this what's coming next?
Maybe. On these slopes, you need no lift passes, just a movie ticket. As was predicted here, the unelected NYC Board of Health, a group of members hand picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, took the first step Tuesday to enact the proposed large soda ban; a measure that will limit the amount of sugary drinks you can buy at restaurants, theaters, stadiums, cafes, hot dog carts and other venues, to 16 oz servings. The board officially opened the issue up to a public comment period, after which, they will vote on the measure. Any guess on which way they will vote? Read on.
Opponents of the ban say that their freedom of choice is being infringed upon. They say if someone wants to drink a 32 oz soda, they should be allowed to and it's not the government's role to approve it or not. Supporters of the ban say the effects of obesity on society far outweigh (those darn puns always pop up when I'm trying to be serious) the right of someone to choose what size drink they want.
But, here's where people really have an issue with the government taking liberties with their liberty; most people are smart enough to know that if you give in, just a little bit, the government will want more. And they won't stop there. They'll want to control more and more of your life's choices until they control every aspect of you daily lives. Those people who believe this are called paranoid by the other side. But it's happening, just as I predicted it would only a few weeks ago in my article about the Bloomberg soda ban.
The slippery slope is all greased up and Mayor Bloomberg is heading down it on his toboggan with his goggles on and his scarf flailing in the wind. Coke and Pepsi have been paying attention, but someone may want to channel Orville Redenbacher in a séance. During the board's discussion on Tuesday, several members voiced their support of the ban, asking why the board isn't considering going after other high-calorie food and drinks as well. One member wondered why there is an exemption for milk products noting that people "could still drink those large drinks", referring to milkshakes. And another said he didn't like the fact that restaurants could skirt the ban by offering free unlimited refills on soda. But, here's where the slope really gets greasy. Bruce Vladeck, one of the mayor's handpicked health board officials, said he's not satisfied with just a ban on sugary drinks. He wants the city to look into portion control for buttered popcorn sold at movie theaters stating "the popcorn isn't a whole lot better [than soda], from the nutritional point of view." When people wondered out loud "what's next", I'm thinking they were serious when they said hot dogs and ice cream cones. Could it be?
I guess the slippery slope paranoia was well justified. Not if you ask Mayor Bloomberg, though. I still think he believes in his heart he's doing the right thing for the citizens of New York City. When you have an ultra-elitist such as Bloomberg, with the means to carry out his vision, it's going to be a long and arduous course. And it wont be a slalom course. Nope, this course heads straight down. But, there are warning signs, so we can't say we were surprised by the 80' pine right in the middle.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
Maybe. On these slopes, you need no lift passes, just a movie ticket. As was predicted here, the unelected NYC Board of Health, a group of members hand picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, took the first step Tuesday to enact the proposed large soda ban; a measure that will limit the amount of sugary drinks you can buy at restaurants, theaters, stadiums, cafes, hot dog carts and other venues, to 16 oz servings. The board officially opened the issue up to a public comment period, after which, they will vote on the measure. Any guess on which way they will vote? Read on.
Opponents of the ban say that their freedom of choice is being infringed upon. They say if someone wants to drink a 32 oz soda, they should be allowed to and it's not the government's role to approve it or not. Supporters of the ban say the effects of obesity on society far outweigh (those darn puns always pop up when I'm trying to be serious) the right of someone to choose what size drink they want.
But, here's where people really have an issue with the government taking liberties with their liberty; most people are smart enough to know that if you give in, just a little bit, the government will want more. And they won't stop there. They'll want to control more and more of your life's choices until they control every aspect of you daily lives. Those people who believe this are called paranoid by the other side. But it's happening, just as I predicted it would only a few weeks ago in my article about the Bloomberg soda ban.
 |
| Photo credit: shutterstock.com |
I guess the slippery slope paranoia was well justified. Not if you ask Mayor Bloomberg, though. I still think he believes in his heart he's doing the right thing for the citizens of New York City. When you have an ultra-elitist such as Bloomberg, with the means to carry out his vision, it's going to be a long and arduous course. And it wont be a slalom course. Nope, this course heads straight down. But, there are warning signs, so we can't say we were surprised by the 80' pine right in the middle.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
Monday, June 11, 2012
Recruiters and the Recruited...Who's Smarter Than a 5th Grader?
If you're an HR professional, a recruiter or a hiring manager in the beverage industry, then you have certainly sifted through thousands of resumes looking for that ONE candidate to fill that ONE spot. Undoubtedly, you take five to ten seconds scanning an applicant's resume to determine their worthiness to receive another five seconds of your time. But, as you scroll through pages of submitted resumes and nothing seems to jump out at you, you wonder how on Earth every single resume can make the same dumb mistakes.
I'm not here to tell you the "five fatal mistakes to resume writing". There are recruiters who claim they have read tens of thousands of resumes in their careers and they've decided to give job seekers advice (sell a program for $49 to $300) that will help them
avoid the most common resume mishaps. Whatever these mistakes are, these guys know how to avoid them. I liken them to the IRS Debt companies on TV; "John L. from Texas owed $149,000 in back taxes but the IRS settled for $457." I can't knock them, though. Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay.
If recruiters are tired of reading lame resumes, I bet applicants are equally tired of reading lame job postings. Incomplete job descriptions, over the top qualification requirements, "road warrior" travel status and the ever secret "confidential employer" are trademarks to a position that is more than likely a revolving door for the recruiter than a quality job worth pursuing further by the applicant. The overly-burdensome "Responsibilities" column is often filled with such mundane acts as "talking", "reaching", and "dialing a phone". Do you think you ever weeded out anyone after they've read those job duties? "Oh, dialing a phone. I'm not very good at that. I better pass." And do you think you've covered all your bases in case you get sued by an employee later? I can see it now; "Your Honor, the Plaintiff was told in the job listing the job included breathing and speaking, so we are asking the court to dismiss without prejudice." And the educational requirement is just as laughable. It says right there in the job description the role is "entry-level sales". Of course you'd like a person with a Bachelor's or Master's degree. Why not? But, is it necessary to list that requirement, even though you know the person you hire more than likely wont have that, or need it? Again, did you weed out any non-worthy applicants or did you eliminate potential quality hires?
Spelling errors are probably the most egregious and annoying. Especially when the person reading and critiquing your resume is the same person in charge of posting the job listing. I know, it's very easy to point out someone elses' mistakes while glossing over your own. But, you're asking for someone to bring their "A game" (and Bachelor's degree) and you can't even use the correct form of a verb in explaining the job description. Sometimes a job posting is cut-and-pasted so much for the same position, the mistakes are multiplied two and three times in the same listing. It really leaves the candidate shaking their head knowing someone of lesser attention to detail is deciding their future.
I'm not attacking recruiters here. I'm just tired of reading how there are so many experts out there who can help the job hunter. I guess when the national unemployment rate is above 8.5%, recruiters are holding the cards when it comes to hiring. There is such an unlimited pool of candidates that the recruiters' own inadequacies are hidden under a high volume of endless resumes. If the same standard was applied to their own work that's applied to the scrutinizing of resumes, perhaps the unemployment rate would be a bit higher.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
I'm not here to tell you the "five fatal mistakes to resume writing". There are recruiters who claim they have read tens of thousands of resumes in their careers and they've decided to give job seekers advice (sell a program for $49 to $300) that will help them
avoid the most common resume mishaps. Whatever these mistakes are, these guys know how to avoid them. I liken them to the IRS Debt companies on TV; "John L. from Texas owed $149,000 in back taxes but the IRS settled for $457." I can't knock them, though. Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay.
If recruiters are tired of reading lame resumes, I bet applicants are equally tired of reading lame job postings. Incomplete job descriptions, over the top qualification requirements, "road warrior" travel status and the ever secret "confidential employer" are trademarks to a position that is more than likely a revolving door for the recruiter than a quality job worth pursuing further by the applicant. The overly-burdensome "Responsibilities" column is often filled with such mundane acts as "talking", "reaching", and "dialing a phone". Do you think you ever weeded out anyone after they've read those job duties? "Oh, dialing a phone. I'm not very good at that. I better pass." And do you think you've covered all your bases in case you get sued by an employee later? I can see it now; "Your Honor, the Plaintiff was told in the job listing the job included breathing and speaking, so we are asking the court to dismiss without prejudice." And the educational requirement is just as laughable. It says right there in the job description the role is "entry-level sales". Of course you'd like a person with a Bachelor's or Master's degree. Why not? But, is it necessary to list that requirement, even though you know the person you hire more than likely wont have that, or need it? Again, did you weed out any non-worthy applicants or did you eliminate potential quality hires?
Spelling errors are probably the most egregious and annoying. Especially when the person reading and critiquing your resume is the same person in charge of posting the job listing. I know, it's very easy to point out someone elses' mistakes while glossing over your own. But, you're asking for someone to bring their "A game" (and Bachelor's degree) and you can't even use the correct form of a verb in explaining the job description. Sometimes a job posting is cut-and-pasted so much for the same position, the mistakes are multiplied two and three times in the same listing. It really leaves the candidate shaking their head knowing someone of lesser attention to detail is deciding their future.
I'm not attacking recruiters here. I'm just tired of reading how there are so many experts out there who can help the job hunter. I guess when the national unemployment rate is above 8.5%, recruiters are holding the cards when it comes to hiring. There is such an unlimited pool of candidates that the recruiters' own inadequacies are hidden under a high volume of endless resumes. If the same standard was applied to their own work that's applied to the scrutinizing of resumes, perhaps the unemployment rate would be a bit higher.
This blog is the opinion of the author. None of the companies mentioned here have any affiliation with this blog, nor do they endorse its contents...but they should. Gregg W Shore is a 23 year beverage veteran who writes his blog @DrinkPro, A View of the Beverage Industry, from the Inside Out. Connect on LinkedIn and follow on Twitter @DrinkPro
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Pot, Coke, Pros and Cons. Why New Yorkers Are Left Holding the Dime Bag (all puns intended)
As the writer @DrinkPro, I will talk about pretty much anything beverage related. No matter how minuscule, if it has ANYTHING to do with the beverage industry, I write about it. Which is why I'm writing about marijuana.
When I go to the polling place on election day, I have never voted for someone who said they would legalize pot. Why? Because none of the people I have ever voted for have supported or been against that issue. It doesn't mean I'd vote for them or not. It just means it has never been a campaign platform. So, why does it always seem to come up after an election?
I feel bad for the citizens of New York city that their mayor is spending his time on the clock talking about decriminalizing pot less than 25 grams and criminalizing Coke over 16 oz. I don't think either one of these issues was his platform when he ran for mayor. As for NY Governor Cuomo, in his 41 page One Year Progress Report, he didn't mention pot legalization as a campaign promise kept.
With far more serious issues confronting citizens across the country, why do our elected leaders continually make news worrying about nonsense? I wish politicians had to fill out an Official Agenda form when running for office, and, if elected, they were not allowed to discuss or legislate on official taxpayer time any topics not on the Official Agenda, with the exception of emergency issues, of course. That way, we could keep them on track with what it is they said they would tackle. They would have a list of the top 50 or 100 issues and voters would decide who's list is more worthy of their vote. If elected, and they finish off their list, then give them carte blanche to address any issue they want until the next election, when they formally submit their new Official Agenda.
We have high unemployment and home foreclosure rates across the country. Even while the national unemployment average fell almost 1%, New York state's unemployment went up a half a point. That's a 1.5 point negative swing for New Yorkers.
Nothing good can ever come from this. I know Cuomo and Bloomberg are sure to get a lot of support from pot smokers. And why shouldn't they? If I smoked pot, I'd be happy too. I just wonder how many of those applauding Bloomberg and Cuomo's efforts are out of work and on the brink of losing or have already lost their home. I really worry about our children's future when the grown-ups are consumed with what we consume. All puns intended.
@DrinkPro
When I go to the polling place on election day, I have never voted for someone who said they would legalize pot. Why? Because none of the people I have ever voted for have supported or been against that issue. It doesn't mean I'd vote for them or not. It just means it has never been a campaign platform. So, why does it always seem to come up after an election?
I feel bad for the citizens of New York city that their mayor is spending his time on the clock talking about decriminalizing pot less than 25 grams and criminalizing Coke over 16 oz. I don't think either one of these issues was his platform when he ran for mayor. As for NY Governor Cuomo, in his 41 page One Year Progress Report, he didn't mention pot legalization as a campaign promise kept.
With far more serious issues confronting citizens across the country, why do our elected leaders continually make news worrying about nonsense? I wish politicians had to fill out an Official Agenda form when running for office, and, if elected, they were not allowed to discuss or legislate on official taxpayer time any topics not on the Official Agenda, with the exception of emergency issues, of course. That way, we could keep them on track with what it is they said they would tackle. They would have a list of the top 50 or 100 issues and voters would decide who's list is more worthy of their vote. If elected, and they finish off their list, then give them carte blanche to address any issue they want until the next election, when they formally submit their new Official Agenda.
We have high unemployment and home foreclosure rates across the country. Even while the national unemployment average fell almost 1%, New York state's unemployment went up a half a point. That's a 1.5 point negative swing for New Yorkers.
Nothing good can ever come from this. I know Cuomo and Bloomberg are sure to get a lot of support from pot smokers. And why shouldn't they? If I smoked pot, I'd be happy too. I just wonder how many of those applauding Bloomberg and Cuomo's efforts are out of work and on the brink of losing or have already lost their home. I really worry about our children's future when the grown-ups are consumed with what we consume. All puns intended.
@DrinkPro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)