Please Excuse the Following Rant.

(I've been out of work for an absolutely ridiculous amount of time. So I'll have to ask you to excuse the following, which is written out of sheer mindless frustration. I'm having a really bad month.)

I've read that archaeologists recently dug up a mysterious stone tablet in the Middle East. No one really knows for sure where it came from. Faintly visible on it is an inscription that roughly translates to, "Number eleven: Thou shalt not let Brian have money."

Seriously, these days, it seems that everyone wants money from me, but no one's willing to do anything that might run the risk of having to pay me. Not only can I not persuade an employer to hire me, but pretty much everything else I've tried to do for money has failed. Those Google ads? Those Shareapic galleries? Hardly producing a dime. Work-at-home gigs? Scams, one and all.

This, of course, does not stop a seemingly endless lineup of companies from demanding ridiculous amounts of money from me, without any indication of where in God's name I'm going to get all of that money from. I'm sick of being squeezed like this.

As a job seeker, I've heard the advice before that I should not give the impression of being desperate. The sad truth, though, is that I am desperate. My resources, to say nothing of my patience, are wearing extremely thin. I need someone to hire me. Sooner rather than later.

Notice that I said, "hire me:"

• Not, "Advertise positions that don't really exist, collect my resume and get my hopes up."
• Not, "Take my resume and then never bother to get back to me."
• Not, "Get my hopes up, tell me you'll be in touch, and then drop off the face of the Earth."
• Not, "String me along for three months, while telling me each week to call back the following week." (I had one prospective employer do this for a part-time position. I got in touch with him in March, and in June he was still stringing me along. I finally figured out that he wasn't going to hire. The fact that he posted a typo-ridden Craigslist ad in which he emphasized the importance of accuracy should have been a tip-off.)
• Not, "Try to sign me up with another MLM." I don't do MLMs. I don't consider it a legitimate business model if the participants make their money mainly from signing up new participants.
  
• Not, "Try to sell me something." I don't care what it is. I'm not buying.
• Not, "Try to scam me."

And for you IT recruiters who might read this? I'm a damn good programmer. Once I get up to speed, I can pseudocode in my head, code on the fly, and build a test prototype for you while you're arguing over who's going to run the program every day.
I can design and set up databases. I can write software manuals. I can train your end users. Hells, I can even do data entry if that's what you need.

All I need is a fighting chance.
Why is that so unreasonable?

Update on the Wal-Mart thing

To be honest, at first I wasn't too sure I should believe this news. After all, what day is this?

But CNN is now reporting that Wal-Mart has decided to back off and let the Shank family keep the money. You can find the article
here.

That's great news, and I applaud Wal-Mart for putting people ahead of money. See, guys? Doesn't that feel good?

Still, I have to wonder. The next time some big corporation decides to pull a stunt like this, will it take so much public outcry to get them to do the right thing?

Wal-Mart: How Low Can They Go?

Say that you're in charge of a multi-billion-with-a-b-dollar corporation. You've got stores around the world, with new ones opening almost daily. Your company's name is a household word. Sure, there's some criticism of your practices. You're getting a bad reputation in some circles. Critics harp on you over the way you treat your staff, where you get most of your merchandise from, things like that. But even so, you've got customers beating a path to the door. They can't get enough. Cash is coming out the proverbial wazoo. By corporation standards, life is good.

Now, suppose that you've got a former employee who was hit by a truck. This person is now permanently disabled. She's going to need round-the-clock care for the rest of her life.

Your health insurance plan has paid thousands of dollars for her hospitalization. Meanwhile, her family sued the company that owned the truck that hit her. Out of that settlement, the courts created a trust fund for the express purpose of paying for her care.

As it happens, your health care plan has a little-known clause that allows you to be reimbursed for the money you've spent on an employee's health care. True, you don't need the money. Remember the use above of phrases like "multi-billion-with-a-b-dollar corporation" and "rolling in cash."

But it's your money. You have a right to it. And after all, corporations exist primarily to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. So you feel entitled to go after it.

Simple, right? The corporation gets its money, the shareholders are happy, and all is well with the world.

Now let me turn that scenario around.

Say that you're the former employee of a multi-billion-with-a-b-dollar corporation. Your life changed forever on the day that you were hit by a truck. You can never work again. You will now require round-the-clock medical care for the rest of your life.

Your former employer's health care paid for your hospitalization. Meanwhile, your family sued the company that owned the truck that hit you. Out of that settlement, the courts created a trust fund for the express purpose of paying for your care.

Now suppose that your former employer comes back and says, "hold on -- that's OUR money!" Despite the outcry of public opinion, they drag your family into court to claim the money that is paying for your care, and more. You appeal and lose, appeal again and lose again.

Did I mention that without that money, it's anyone's guess as to how your family is going to keep paying for your care? You don't know it due to your brain damage, but your spouse has had to get a divorce so that you can get extra help from Medicaid. (This is apparently what corporations mean when they talk about "family values.")

Now put yourself in the shoes of the spouse. You were close to retirement. Now you've got to hold down two jobs in a desperate attempt to make ends meet. Your younger son can't afford college. Even after the help you've received from the settlement, you still owe great gobs of money to pay for medical bills. Creditors are circling. There's a good chance you're going to have to sell your house to try to pay off everything you owe.

No matter which way I look at this, I see a big, powerful corporation screwing a poor family. Is that America, now? Is that the freedom our founding fathers (not to mention the troops we've got stationed overseas right now) fought so hard for? The right of corporations to screw people over seven ways from Sunday?

Yes, I'm steamed about this. You should be, too.

A corporation is a person in the eyes of the law. If a rich man were to drag a poor family into court to sue them for every penny they had, I think we would regard that person as a callous, heartless monster, wouldn't we? So why are we letting a corporate "person" do exactly the same thing? Is that what we've come down to?

I'll close by saying this to Wal-Mart's various mouthpieces, apologists, and all-around talking heads: Wal-Mart may claim that what it's doing is "legal." It may have a "legal" right to screw the Shank family over. "Legal" does not mean "right."

Mr. Scott, I don't care what the "legal" thing is. Do the right thing. Get your hands out of the Shanks' pockets.

{Disclaimer: I have refrained from mentioned the fact that the Shank family recently lost a son in Iraq. That is by no means out of disrespect for his memory. The way I see it, that horrible loss is nevertheless not related to what Wal-Mart is doing to the Shank family. If Wal-Mart were not grabbing the money that the Shank family so desperately needs, Pfc. Shank would still be dead.}