Today, while in the car, I heard on the radio that there were more companies doing the same thing. They were requiring potential job applicants to be currently employed before they could apply.
My first thought to that was confusion and anger. I mean, why would a company want to limit their applicant pool? Haven't they heard that thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of companies have downsized or even closed up shop? Haven't they also heard that the amount of jobs created hasn't caught up with the amount of jobs deleted? Do they think that the only good talent is what is currently employed? Do they honestly think that only those who have outstanding skills have found employment, while everyone who is not employed does not have skills? Haven't they heard that it's hard to move because selling your house takes at least a year, and most people cannot afford to pay a mortgage payment and rent, especially when wages have gone down?
Apparently not.
They must have missed the memo about the current economic conditions. At least that's the only good reason why they would do something like that.
Anyway, on the radio, they talked about the California legislature seeking to pass a bill which would prohibit companies from posting on Help Wanted ads a requirement that potential applicants have a job before applying. They say that it's a form of discrimination, which is bad (duh!).
Wow. Reading over what I have written so far (I don't usually rewrite my posts--they're pretty much off-the-cuff remarks), it appears that I do enjoy rambling. Well, that's a given, because I do enjoy rambling--at least I think I do because I do it often.
There I go again. Let's get back to the topic.
So, given that many companies are requiring job seekers to currently be employed before they can apply, this is causing a lot of problems for those who are currently unemployed. The problem for them is, How can they get a job when one major requirement is that they must currently have a job?
That is where this idea comes in. This would be a very simple business. It would be a business that employs everyone. Now, I haven't had a chance to figure out all of the specifics (I thought of this about 3 hours ago, and I've been busy all morning, so I haven't had any study time for it), but here are my thoughts:
The business would hire all employees as W2 employees (W2 employees are those who are hired, not 1099 employees, which are independent contractors. W2 employees can get paid salary, hourly, contract, commission, by the piece, or many other methods, but the main thing is that they are employees of the company. 1099 employees can be paid the same, but they are not employees of the company--they work with the company and get paid by the company, but they do not work for the company). That would show that they are employed by a company, not as independent contractors. This distinction carries a lot of weight when it comes to hiring managers. It looks more professional to be hired by a company instead of trying your hand to work by yourself.
The business would be an online business, where each of the employees would do something in their field of choice, be it writing tips, articles, doing webinars, vlogs, blogs, tutoring, or whatever else they would like to do (they would let us know what they can do, and we would work with them). That would allow them to add something of value to the company, which is what is needed.
They would also need to bring traffic into the site. That would cover the costs for the business. Advertisers are willing to pay lots of money to websites which have a lot of traffic. That is what this would focus on. The more traffic we get, the more advertisers we could attract, which means more revenue for all involved.
That brings me to the employee pay, which would pretty much be determined on the amount of traffic or clicks on their pages (tips, articles, webinars, vlogs, blogs, tutoring, etc). The more traffic they generate on their pages, the more money they make (this is very similar to most blog pages, but this would be even better than that, because they'll be considered actual employees).
The only downside to this (as far as I can see, but as I think about it more, I'll find more problems) is that there will be an incredible amount of liability for the company. If any employees do things which are illegal or bring a bad name to the company, that may bring legal trouble to the company. My initial thoughts to combat that is simply to have each employee sign a contract, stating that if they do anything which brings liability to the company, or do anything in the name of the company which brings about lawsuits, they will absolve the company of any and all wrongdoing, and they will be held fully liable for their actions. If the company is still named in a suit, they agree to pay the company back all moneys paid out by the company.
That is my initial thought on that. I know that it is not a well-formed idea, but since it's still in its infant stage, I'm sure that one of you can take this and create something amazing. This will help thousands of people, and it has the opportunity to be ground-breaking.
If you have ideas or suggestions for making this better, let me know! I like my ideas to be better than they are currently.
No comments:
Post a Comment