Home » Writer's Blogs » Rose-Marie-Chaperon

What is on your mind today?

Rose-Marie Chaperon ^(1,661) United States

Rose-Marie Chaperon

Redistribution of Wealth

Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009 (102 days 5 hours ago.) Viewed 9 times.

Wealth may be described as an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches, maybe yet, the state of being rich. Yet about 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations (Brenn, 2009). This is one person every three and a half seconds. Unfortunately, it is children who die most often. Yet there is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem is that hungry people are trapped in severe poverty. They lack the money to buy enough food to nourish themselves. Being constantly malnourished, they become weaker and often sick. This makes them increasingly less able to work, which then makes them even poorer and hungrier. This downward spiral often continues until death for them and their families.

There are over 500 billionaires in the world and countless millionaires with their net worth exceeding 57.1 trillion dollars (Luisa Kroll, 2009). These billionaires although, have lost millions sometimes due to bad business decisions still remain the wealthiest men alive and still every day people are dying of hunger all over the world.

In America alone, homeless statistics show the number of homeless has remained stubbornly high. Between five and six hundred thousand people are considered "homeless" at any given time - without a "permanent, safe, decent, affordable place to live" (Susan Barrow, 2003).

Homelessness in America persists in part because many urban areas remain economically depressed, housing costs have risen rapidly in the past decade, and wages for lower skilled workers have remained stable. According to a December, 2000 report of the US Conference of Mayors, single men comprise 44 percent of the homeless, single women 13 percent, families with children 36 percent, and unaccompanied minors seven percent. The homeless population is about 50 percent African-American, 35 percent white, 12 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Native American and 1 percent Asian.

With all these issues related to homelessness in America and the world we still have millionaires and billionaires throwing their money away on unwanted things, yet we still have people in the entertainment business who waste more money than anyone else because the money they do not know the value of hard work.

There are many ways for the world millionaires and billionaires to help with America's poverty. According to government figures, 1-percenters' share of America's total income is the highest it's been since 1929 prior to the 2007 recession, and their tax rates are the lowest they've faced in two decades. Through bonuses, many 1-percenters will profit from the $23 trillion in bailout largesse the Treasury Department now says could be headed to financial firms. And most of them benefit from IRS decisions to reduce millionaire audits and collect zero taxes from the majority of major corporations (Sirota, 2009).

But what really makes the ultra-wealthy so fortunate, what truly separates this moment from a run-of-the-mill Gilded Age, is the unprecedented protection the 1-percenters have bought for themselves on the most pressing issues (Luisa Kroll, 2009). To review: With 22,000 Americans dying each year because they lack health insurance, Congress is considering universal healthcare legislation financed by a surcharge on income above $280,000 -- that is, a levy almost exclusively on 1-percenters. This surtax would graze just 5 percent of small businesses and would recoup only part of the $700 billion the 1-percenters received from the Bush tax cuts. In fact, it is so minuscule, those making $1 million annually would pay just $9,000 more in taxes every year -- or nine-tenths of 1 percent of their 12-month haul (Sirota, 2009).

We are all created equal; yet, throughout human history, the rich - those with abundant resources - often forgot about their brethren who were poor and in need of assistance. In most societies, the poor were viewed as "strangers" - the outcasts of society - ignored even by relatives and fickle friends. As King Solomon wrote: "Wealth makes for many friends, but the poor person becomes separated from his friend" Fairness should mandate of the rich to share their resources with those in need. Even those with limited resources are obligated to share what they can. In other words, you don't have to be wealthy in order to give. I believe even a poor person who is supported through the government's help should be obligated to give to another person.

With that being said, I am well aware that America is a capitalist country, would communism work in America? Maybe not! if human nature is basically egoistic, then communism doesn't work. If people are basically selfish, then they won't work for the common good, and there will be a tendency to freeload or otherwise take advantage of the system. For communism to work in that case, you would you need to make sure that everybody was doing their fair share. You would need a system of "points", to make sure everybody is doing their part. People then work to earn points, so that they can justify receiving their share -- or else they don't get their share, or they go to jail, or they're kicked out of the community, or some other fascist reaction.

Would capitalism work or is it working? Capitalism is also a value-point system, with the "points" being capital. Therefore, capitalism works for the rich because it only shows the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer while they are still starving. It is my belief that people aren't bad, but they are by nature selfish. I believe that people, like all animals, are organisms with a genetically programmed desire to prosper, reproduce, and expand. What we see as altruism in people is an evolved sense of mutual benefit -- I help you, you help me, we both prosper. Should the wealth be shared amongst the poor, I would say yes to a limit.

Permalink Comments (0)

Leadership Influence

Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 (115 days 4 hours ago.) Viewed 46 times.

John Maxwell sums up his definition of leadership as "leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." This moves beyond the position defining the leader, to looking at the ability of the leader to influence others - both those who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle. Indirectly, it also builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the capability to influence will disappear (Mazwell, 2006) .

It's sad, really. After so much research on the benefits of Emotional Intelligence, too many managers and leaders continue to ignore the facts. They're stuck in their old patterns of intimidation and coercion, demoralizing employees and creating attitudes of grudging compliance. Emotional Intelligence means being intelligent about the emotions, values, and expectations of all concerned and making the best decision based on those observations. Unfortunately, that was the case for me.

As a first time supervisor, it is important to have someone to follow, someone who has lead before, someone you could refer to as a mentor. Being a successful supervisor is important. On May 1987, while I was working as a clerk in the emergency department of a florida hospital, to my astonishment, there was a supervisory position open. I was not sure if I wanted to apply for it or not. I knew very little of what supervision was about, besides what I was subjected to while I worked as a clerk.

The manager I reported to, which we will refer to as Carlos X, was one of the most unethical, uncaring and carefree individual I have ever worked with. Carlos X. created a very fearful environment for the employees he supported.

On the first day of my orientation as a new supervisor, Carols X told me one thing that will last with me forever. " Management is not a popularity contest. We're hired to meet targets and increased cash flows, and that includes cracking down on inefficiencies and making sure standards, deadlines, and budgets are kept. Experienced executives say that it helps to have your staff just a little afraid, just so they take your directives seriously. "I refuse to waste management time begging people to meet their deadlines," says Carlos X. When I asked Carlos X, is saying please and thank you begging? His response was yes it is, he said there is no need to say please and thank you, their paycheck is enough.

As a new supervisor who did not know any better, I started following Carlos X's foot prints; I started leading by fear and started treating people like my personal property. Within four months, I went from being on the A-list at work to being isolated, singled out for criticism and branded as "troubled and a bully." As months passed and the social isolation, hostility and false accusations of wrongdoing intensified, my productivity standards were low; the employees were resigning from my unit to go work in other units.

When I realized that my career would be over before it started, I had a decision to make. I knew demoralizing people, leading by fear and intimidation was not the kind of leader I wanted to be. I knew there was a difference between a good leader and a bad leader. In business some days are diamonds and some days are coal. Successful managers are prepared to deal with the day no matter what it brings. They do not stick their heads in the sand and wait for the bad news to go away.

A good leader listens more than he speaks. He takes input from the team and makes decisions based on that input and his own expertise. He sets the example that he expects his team to follow. Gives useful feedback; sets a high ethical tone. Good leaders are positive, encouraging and realistically optimistic. A good leader never lets his team see him sweat. He does not broadcast his negativity because he knows negativity is contagious and will spread faster than the plague. A good leader encourages his team to perform no matter the odds. He is the positive force that keeps everyone motivated to win (Knox, 2005) .

Seven months later after my ordeal, I started to lead my team differently; although Carlos X threatened to terminate me if he ever hears the magic words come out of my mouth, I decided to take a leap of faith because I knew where I was going. I knew that effective leaders know what's important to them, what their strengths and weaknesses are, what drives them, and where to draw the line. Put it together and it boils down to a leader who has self-confidence and clear values.

I knew myself very well, I knew how I wanted to be treated and so I started to treat people the same. I started to include the team in my decision making process, I started communicating with them; I became part of the team while I retained my position. Knowing oneself is necessary when faced with challenges or ethical choices, communicating with those who have different ideas, making decisions, and identifying sources of satisfaction. "We need to be clear about our own values, priorities, and preferences and not let someone else, such as Carlos X or society, define them for us.

I was on call on a Saturday, I received a call from one of the clerks working the night shift in the emergency department, and she was concerned because the hospital ran out of baby formula. I told her to tell the charge nurse that I would go to Wal-Mart to purchase the formula and I should be at the hospital within fifteen to twenty minutes. The clerk response to me "Rose, you would do that for real, even though this is not your area of responsibility"? My response to her, when it comes to doing my job, I will do anything for the company as long as it is not unethical, immoral or illegal. Looking back at my career, I think I changed and became a different person.

A few days later, I intervened in a discussion that Carlos X was having with an employee, I asked the employee to leave the room and to give us a few minutes. I stood up to Carlos and asked him to start treating the employees a little differently or I would have no choice but to report him to senior management and human resources. Although, he threatened to fire me for the fiftieth time, his threats did not faze me any longer because it was apparent that I was going to change things from the old way he managed people to the new way of leadership.

Change is one of life's most obvious factors, yet remains one of the most strongly resisted. As Peter Senge, an expert on managing organizations, says, "Everything is in motion, continually changing, forever adapting." Effective leaders recognize the value of change. Yet all too often, it's much more comfortable to ignore the inevitability of change and to keep things the way they've always been. Unless a leader's goal is to bankrupt a business or ensure no new members join an organization that approach cannot work. Changes need to be anticipated and responded to if growth is going to continue. And that applies to minor changes, as well as major ones (Bobinski, 2006) . I needed to make that change for my career, my personal growth, the hospital and most importantly the employees I supported. I had a very long progressive management career with the hospital until the hospital was sold then closed. Until these days, I apply these same management principles in y career; I treat people with respect, care and dignity.

Permalink Comments (1)

Archives:

November 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30
« Oct

All Posts by Rose-Marie Chaperon

What is on your mind today?

Redistribution of Wealth

Leadership Influence

Archives:

Previous Posts:

Related Posts: