Could one of these growing industries be the road to a new career?

Job seekers often hear that despite the continuing rise in unemployment, the bleak hiring outlook, and the uncertainty of a drawn-out economic recovery, they shouldn’t worry because “there are still jobs out there!”

They’re meant as words of encouragement, of course, but at a certain point, an exasperated job hunter can’t be blamed for wanting to yell “Oh yeah? Where?”

Where, indeed. Since the mid-90s, there has been plenty of research to go around about the best careers for each new year, and the rise of the Internet has only increased the number of outlets putting the job market under a microscope. At a certain point, in fact, the problem becomes too much information. It can be difficult to get any practical job-search wisdom without looking at a cross-section of the most reliable sources and looking for trends.

The best place to start in any given year is U.S. News & World Report’s annual list of the 50 best careers. Among their top choices for 2010 are: computer software engineer, x-ray technician, firefighter and financial advisor. The magazine’s list is useful because it divides the careers into categories, and one of those categories in particular—health care—has been a fixture on most lists of rapidly expanding job opportunities for several years running now.

Some may consider many of the careers they cover simply too specialized to be useful. However, they do make an interesting point about the field of science and technology:

This category includes the fastest-growing occupation—with a 72 percent growth rate that far outstrips the 10 percent average across careers — of biomedical engineer. Biomedical engineers help develop the equipment and devices that improve or enable the preservation of health. They’re working to grow cardiac tissue or develop tomorrow’s MRI machines, asthma inhalers, and artificial hearts.

Of particular note are two careers that are popping up on a lot of these lists: physical therapist and actuary. The former was also the number two choice for Jessica Hanley in her Yahoo! Hotjobs look at the most “surprising paths to fortune and fulfillment.” One of the biggest selling points for a physical therapy career, besides the fact that many such businesses are expanding into idle commercial space while the overall job market shrinks, is that it generally takes only two years to get the associate’s degree in physical therapy necessary to become a physical therapist assistant. There is expected to be a 33 percent growth in the field over the next eight years. Elementary school teacher, graphic designer and registered nurse also topped Hanley’s list.

Payscale.com’s Carol Tice also discusses physical therapy assistants—along with occupational therapy, sales positions, green jobs, repair technicians and computer security specialists–in her list of growing jobs in the small-business sector for 2010. Tice writes:

If you’ve been focusing your job search on major corporations, you may be missing out on the hottest hiring spot in our slowly dawning economic recovery: small business. Small businesses employ just over half of all private-sector workers, according to the Small Business Administration, and they generated 64 percent of all net new jobs over the past 15 years. Historically, as businesses start to hire again coming out of a downturn, small businesses lead the way.

Then there’s careercast.com’s list of the 10 best jobs for 2010, led by the aforementioned actuary. Computer fields take the next two spots—software analyst and computer systems analyst, respectively—while the rankings of mathematician, statistician and accountant show math skills are always in demand. Incredibly, only one health care field made the top ten: dental hygienist. Perhaps the biggest surprise is historian, at number five, which earned points for a strong hiring outlook, low stress level and healthy income.

Of course, the flip side of these bright spots on the job landscape is that there are plenty of careers in freefall, which anyone looking to transition might want to avoid. We’ll take a look at those next.

Or are they? According to new figures, they're all the rage.

We all had a feeling that the traditional notion of an “office” isn’t what it used to be, and now the latest from the U.S. Census Bureau confirms that more Americans than ever are working from home. In the last year that the government has figures for, 2005, the number of home-based workers jumped by almost two million, from 9.5 million in 1999 to 11.3 million in 2005. The report “Home Based Workers in the United States, 1999-2005” also shows that the number of people who worked exclusively from home jumped from 6.7 million to 8.1 million in that same period.

What this would seem to mean for employers is that workers are demanding more flexibility in their workplace. Among the top reasons cited in the 2005 census for reasons to work at home were “better child care arrangements,” “better arrangements for care of other family members” and “allows for school.”

But perhaps the biggest surprise is that it was most often a “requirement of the job” to work at home, according to 77 percent who did. Employers, it seems, want to redefine the workplace, too.

Another big surprise was the big incomes being pulled in by home-based workers: nearly half of them made $75,000 per year, or more. According to the bureau:

The most popular occupations among those who reported working at home were professional (25 percent), executive, administrative and managerial (22 percent) and sales (18 percent).

High-paying jobs were more likely to involve working at home for some or all of the work time. In 2005, 46 percent of people who said they worked at home some or all of the time earned at least $75,000 per year, compared with 34 percent of non-home workers who made at least that much. Those who worked both at home and in an office had the highest percentage of high-paying jobs — about 54 percent of whom made $75,000 or more annually in 2005.

But there was some trade-off: roughly a tenth of those who worked at home at least some of the time in 2005 said they worked 11 or more hours per day. Still, about a quarter of home-based workers felt they had flexibility in their work hours.

Chances are good that when the results from the 2010 census are in, those numbers will be even greater. Business Week noted that the number of people who are self-employed and working exclusively at home in 2005 increased from 3.47 million to 4.34 million , and they see this as further evidence that the so-called “homepreneur” trend .

In his first write-up on the phenomenon last year, John Tozzi said:

More than half of all U.S. businesses are based at home. These companies often are dismissed as quaint hobbyist ventures, but new research suggests that’s a mistake. An estimated 6.6 million home-based enterprises provide at least half of their owners’ household income. Together these “homepreneurs” employ one in 10 private-sector workers, and by many measures they’re just as competitive as their counterparts in commercial spaces.

With so many layoffs, will more and more workers pack it up and go home, and what kind of brain drain could that create for traditional businesses? Too early to say, maybe, but it’s clear that the definition of the American workforce is continuing to shift.

Every time there’s an economic downturn, the debate over a shorter work week becomes a hot topic. It’s back again with a report from the New Economics Foundation which claims that cutting employee hours nearly in half can cure what ails the global economy. The British think tank’s “21 Hours” study begins with the assertion that:

A ‘normal’ working week of 21 hours could help to address a range of urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life.”

The report argues that the current work week is arbitrary, and that despite the reduction in paid hours, “experiments with shorter working hours suggest that they can be popular where conditions are stable and pay is favorable.”

In an interview  with the BBC, “21 Hours” co-author Anna Coote claims a radical rethinking of the work week would benefit both employers and workers, saying “we could even become better employees—less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive.” Meanwhile, the foundation’s policy director Andrew Simms went for the crowd-pleaser: “Hands up who wouldn’t like a four day weekend?”

Since the current recession began in 2008, human resource experts in the U.S. have been tossing around this same idea. The HR Hero ezine published a great article on the subject this month, which jumped off from the assertion by economist Dean Baker that even President Obama’s own economic team doesn’t believe his stimulus package can heal the job market anytime soon. With employers already worried about possible future layoffs, Claudia N. Lombardo writes, shorter workweeks offer an alternative, and she addresses some of the HR worries:

A big concern for employers, particularly in a failing economy, is whether shortening the workweek reduces productivity. Employers may wonder how their company will continue producing at the same level with a reduction in employee hours.

Interestingly enough, according to Aaron Newton, author of “The 4 Day Work Week: Working to Live, Not Living to Work,” a recent survey of more than 10,000 workers revealed that on average, people spend more than two hours each day on personal matters (e.g., surfing the Web or calling friends) while at work. That adds up to 10 hours a week. The study shows that a four-day workweek wouldn’t necessarily reduce production if the focus remains on work.”

Lombardo cites statistics from around the world to back up the argument that maximum time spent on the job does not necessarily equal maximum productivity. If France, with its 35-hour work week, and Norway, with a labor base that works 26 percent fewer hours per year than Americans do, can produce a greater gross domestic product per work hour than the U.S., doesn’t it follow that “face time” at the office may be overrated?

Maybe, but keep in mind that this debate has been going on for nearly a century in the United States. In fact, it was 1926 when Henry Ford famously predicted that “the short week is bound to come because without it the country will not be able to absorb its production and stay prosperous.”

But that major shift in the U.S. workplace never did come. The idea bubbles up every few years, and employers often seem ready to pull the trigger. In a 1997 U.S. News/Bozell survey, almost two-thirds of managers polled said shorter work hours would make workers more productive. But uncertainty on the part of both businesses and their employees has kept it from gaining traction in the mainstream.

It could be that the Great Recession forces a major rethinking in our basic notion of the work week. There are only so many creative alternatives to layoffs, and shorter hours at least offers a certain win-win situation. Last year, the New York Times reported that some employers were trying to save jobs by switching their employees to a 24-hour work week. The article quotes human resource experts and economic analysts, and basically suggests that a strategy of flexibility in these economic times will beat out “the layoff mentality”:

Kim S. Cameron, a professor at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, found in doing research that the more that companies opt for flexibility in downsizing, the better they fare when the economy turns around.

‘When firms can deliver the message that their employees are human resources, rather than human costs or liabilities, they see higher profitability, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and employee loyalty over the long term,’ Professor Cameron said.”

Affiliated Computer Services, a Fortune 500 company and global leader in business process outsourcing and information technology services, has introduced a new service offering, ACS Transition Services - Powered by RiseSmart.

Said Mark Squiers, executive managing director of ACS Human Resources Outsourcing services, in the company’s press release:

This is a new model for transition services, one that is geared to providing strong returns for both employers and employees. By eliminating costly traditional services like office space and group seminars, which have been found to be of low value to employees, the focus is on aggressively helping workers find a new job. Valuable services such as professional resume writing and personalized support for individuals remain, while companies have the ability to quickly deploy the additional services without dealing with infrastructure issues.

We are delighted to partner with ACS as we continue to transform the way outplacement works, both for employees and employers.

I don’t generally think of myself as a movie reviewer, but my critique of “Up in the Air” — written, of course, from my perspective as the CEO of an outplacement firm — has gotten some attention, first in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and then in the online Wall Street Journal.

Wrote the Journal’s Josh Beckerman of our press release on the movie (which this week was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture):

Best of all is RiseSmart’s debunking of the theory that “laid-off workers can be mollified with generic pep talks.” The company invokes Clooney’s line that “anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you are sitting, and it’s because they sat there that they were able to do it.”

RiseSmart says “the thought that this kind of condescending pep talk would ‘work’ on people is insulting to those who have actually had to go through this experience.” Right on. The downsizing victims in the movie are too easily impressed - the cynical J.K. Simmons character is rapidly persuaded about the merits of opening a restaurant during the credit crunch, and there’s a queasy suggestion that layoffs are okay because you get to spend more time with your family.

Since Hollywood doesn’t make many movies about HR consultants, my 15 minutes of fame as a film critic is probably over. So Roger Ebert, don’t quit your day job.

But I would like to add one more point about the movie, which I’ve come to upon reflection. The unflattering treatment of HR consultants in “Up in the Air” might normally be dismissed as standard Hollywood storytelling. But the movie’s popularity and Oscar nod suggest it has struck a chord of authenticity with audiences.

Why so? I think it’s at least partly because hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers who have been laid-off in recent years have been less than pleased with the quality — and the results — of the help they have received from traditional outplacement firms. It’s the real story of old-school outplacement, which the Wall Street Journal told a few months back.

So ironically, for all its inaccuracies, “Up in the Air” points to the reason I started RiseSmart Transition Concierge in the first place — to make outplacement services more accountable to both displaced workers and their employers, by getting employees back to work sooner.

“Career transition” is on a lot of minds these days. The U.S. has more than 15 million unemployed — and if you count the discouraged and underemployed, the number is more like 27 million. You may be one of these people seeking a new job, or you may be one of millions of others who are employed, but trying to strategize a major career change in a tough market. No matter the specifics, the economic downturn is probably affecting your career.

As you craft your long-term plans, you’ll want to consider where the jobs are — and where they are going. Consumption drives these patterns, but so does technology. Don’t forget to account for older generations retiring and leaving needed jobs open, either. All of these elements affect which jobs are available.

Then, to maximize your future demand, think about adapting your strategy — be it higher education, government re-training, or developing a new area of expertise — to a field that is projected to grow.

To help you with your planning, we peeked into our “crystal ball” (actually, government projections) to share the latest statistics for the industries growing the most, and the occupations that will be adding the largest amount of workers, now through 2018.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently published its 2010-11 edition of  the Occupational Outlook Handbook, a report on occupations and employment growth trends that is updated every two years. This particular update covers 2008-2018 — meaning it has data through the end of 2008, and projects out to 2018. This is notable because it does cover one full year of the downturn (2008), which began in December 2007. Nationwide, employment is projected to increase by 15.3 million (approximately 10%) over the decade between 2008 and 2018, and the OOH describes exactly where the growth will be. Here is the OOH’s list of the 20 “fastest-growing” professions through 2018, as measured by percentage of growth.

1. Biomedical engineers: Slated to add 11,600 jobs, a 72% increase
2. Network systems and data communication analysts: Will add 155,800 jobs, a 53% increase
3. Home health aides: Set to add 460,900 jobs, an increase of 50%
4. Personal and home care aides: Will grow by 375,800 openings, or 46%
5. Financial examiners: Slated to add 11,100 jobs, an increase of 41%
6. Medical scientists, except epidemiologists: 44,200 jobs will be added, a 40% growth rate
7. Physician assistants: This field will add 29,200 jobs, growing by 39%
8. Skin care specialists: Set to add 14,700 positions, growing by 38%
9. Biochemists and biophysicists: Will grow by 8,700 positions, or 37%
10. Athletic trainers: Set to add 6,000 jobs, a gain of 37%
11. Physical therapist aides: 16,700 jobs will be added, a gain of 36%
12. Dental hygienists: The workforce will add 62,900 jobs, an increase of 36%
13. Veterinary technologists and technicians:  Slated to add 28,500 jobs, a 36% increase
14. Dental assistants: Will be adding 105,600 jobs, growing by 36%
15. Computer software engineers, applications: Set to add 175,100 jobs, a growth rate of 34%
16. Medical assistants: Will grow by 163,900 personnel, an increase of 34%
17. Physical therapist assistants: 21,200 jobs will be added, growing by 33%
18. Veterinarians: Will add 19,700 jobs, an increase of 33%
19. Self-enrichment education teachers: Slated to add 81,300 positions, an increase of 32%
20. Compliance officers, except agriculture, construction, health and safety, and transportation: Will add 80,800 jobs, growing by 31%

The first thing to note about this list is that a smaller industry can show an explosive rate of growth, yet still add fewer jobs in total than a huge industry that is growing more slowly. This is shown by the top occupation, biomedical engineer, which is going up steeply (72%!), but in spite of this is still only adding one job for every 39 added of the #3 job, home health assistant.

Examining the above list, here are some big trends I observe in the fastest-growing industries:

Biological sciences: In the Top 20, we see a high demand for biomedical engineers (#1) and biochemists and biophysicists ( #9), which reflects medicine’s growing interest in genetic research and biologic drugs. If you are inclined toward the sciences, biology would be a strategic area to explore.

IT: Don’t overlook the second-fastest-growing job, network systems and data communication analysts, which is set to add more than 150,000 new jobs, while computer software engineers, applications, #15, is adding another 175,000. Together, this is 325,000 jobs, so people who can run networks and write software will definitely continue to be needed.

Health assistance: Home health aide is #3, while personal and home care aides are right behind at #4. It makes sense: our increasingly aging population has an independent spirit, values their health, and would like help with it at home rather than at an institution. Physician assistants (#7), dental hygienists (#12), dental assistants (#14) also reflect these demographics, plus increased access to and demand for medical and dental services. Could you grow a career around this?

Veterinary sciences: The pet is of ever-increasing importance in the U.S.: people devote more of their money to a pet’s needs than before, and rates of pet ownership are up. So it’s not surprising to see veterinarians at #18 and veterinary technologists and technicians at #13. If you love animals, veterinary medicine may be the path for you.

Those were the occupations with steep growth. If you’re more interested in which occupations will be adding the most jobs in terms of sheer numbers, the following list (also from the new edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook) delivers that. Here are the 20 occupations that will be adding the most new jobs, in individual openings:

1. Registered nurses (581,500)
2. Home health aides (460,900)
3. Customer service representatives (399,500)
4. Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food (394,300)
5. Personal and home care aides (375,800)
6. Retail salespersons (374,700)
7. Office clerks, general (358,700)
8. Accountants and auditors (279,400)
9. Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants (276,000)
10. Postsecondary teachers (256,900)
11. Construction laborers (255,900)
12. Elementary school teachers, except special education (244,200)
13. Truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer (232,900)
14. Landscaping and groundskeeping workers (217,100)
15. Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks (212,400)
16. Executive secretaries and administrative assistants (204,400)
17. Management analysts (178,300)
18. Computer software engineers, applications (175,100)
19. Receptionists and information clerks (172,900)
20. Carpenters (165,400)

Observations on the list of occupations that are growing the most:

Healthcare: The need for registered nurses is #1. Although they didn’t make the Top 20, you should know that licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses came in at #24 on the list, and physicians and surgeons ranked #28. Being a doctor or nurse has always been an in-demand profession, and the demand will continue.

Services: The service sector is adding millions of jobs in the coming eight years. A large portion of them are adjacent to healthcare; home health aides are #2, while nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants is #9, and personal and home care aides is #5. Other growth areas in service are food preparation and landscaping.

Construction and carpentry: Good news! Building is projected to come back from its current slump, making construction laborer #11 on this list, and carpenter #20.

For more planning resources, be sure to visit the OOH website. There, you can read up on hundreds of jobs. For each job, you will find descriptions of the duties and working conditions, the skills and experience needed, projected earnings, and even information on the job in your region. It is a valuable resource for imagining, planning, and implementing your successful career transition.

Our recent blog post about “Up in the Air” inspired Mackenzie Carpenter of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to call us for a story she was writing about the movie and its portrayal of corporate layoffs.

Here are a few excerpts from Mackenzie’s piece, which appeared in Sunday’s paper:

Just how accurate a portrayal of your friendly corporate terminator is “Up in the Air” anyway?

Not very, say those who actually do it for a living.

“A lot of human resources people were excited when we found out that George Clooney was going to be playing one of us, and the movie is very good — but it doesn’t reflect HR consulting as I know it,” said Sanjay Sathe, founder and CEO of RiseSmart, a Silicon Valley-based outplacement firm, which provides job-search help and career coaching to laid-off employees.

“People who are laid off don’t want a generic pep talk from someone they don’t know. I can’t imagine that tactic being as effective in real life as it’s portrayed in the movie.”…

[T]he film’s premise that people doing the firing are emotionally detached is not true, argued Mr. Sathe.

“People go into human resources, as opposed to, say, finance or accounting, because they enjoy working with people, they genuinely like people and empathize with them … my experience is that layoffs are usually very difficult emotionally on HR people.”

Still, as the economy limps along, will employees be seeing more strangers — handsome or not — come to bid them so long and have fun with that gourmet cooking gig?

Despite recent growth in the outsourced human resources industry, most companies will continue to handle firings themselves — with consultants brought in to help plan the layoffs or, like his company, to help them find new jobs, Mr. Sathe said. And there’s one small detail in the film that cuts a little too close for comfort, he added.

“I wish Clooney’s character were not called a transition consultant in the film because we call our employees transition specialists.”

Just as Mr. Clooney delivers inspirational speeches to those he’s just fired, “We also give pep talks — not about building empires, but about how marketable they are based on a review of their backgrounds,” Mr. Sathe said.

“We might say, ‘Hey, have you considered applying for a job in the health care sector? Because your experience is great and would transfer very well to that industry.’ But I guess that kind of pep talk would not sell many movie tickets, would it?”

To follow up just a bit on the topic of empathy vs. detachment, I’ve recently read critiques of “Up in the Air” that argue that it’s not so much Clooney’s character, but the movie itself, that is detached and glib in dealing with corporate layoffs.

As Salon’s critic puts its:

What [director Jason] Reitman doesn’t seem to get is that [the film's] real-world testimonies are only a half-twist away from the slickster line of goods — “Losing your job is the best thing for you. Really!” — that Ryan’s character specializes in.

When Ryan is spouting these prefab pearls of wisdom, they’re treacherous falsehoods; when real people use them to make the best of a bad situation, they’re enlightenment. Reitman can’t even see the condescension in that.

By putting these faces in front of us — faces of people who have, most likely, suffered through some pretty rough times in real life — he isn’t making a grand statement about the precarious world we live in; he’s turning the misfortunes of others into a gimmick, a convenient hook on which to hang his movie.

That makes him less honorable than his smooth-talking, high-flying antihero. At least Ryan Bingham knows he’s selling us a line of bull.

Personally, I liked the film. But I suppose you could argue that if Reitman really gave a hoot about the fate of those laid off, he would have attempted to make a film like Time Out, which explores the pain of an executive who loses his job (but can’t bring himself to tell his family) in excruciating detail.

At the very least, I’d put the empathy of HR folks up against that of Hollywood types any day of the week.

Clooney and Kendrick arrive to perform a mass layoff.

George Clooney in an HR role … who among us wouldn’t want to see the most debonair actor of our times take on some of the tasks we perform every day? The prospect is just too delicious — so I headed out to find a theater that was screening the new comedy-drama “Up in the Air,” currently in limited release from Paramount.

In the film, Clooney plays the glib, charming Ryan Bingham — traveling corporate downsizer by profession, and budding inspirational speaker (focusing on having no baggage, of course) as a sideline. He spends most of his time on planes, hence the film’s title, and his real home is not the depressingly empty junior apartment he keeps back in Nebraska, but in hotels and airport waiting areas.

The film’s ad campaign strongly stresses the “air traveler” motif, and our hero does travel constantly, but the phrase “up in the air” is clearly also meant to signify the fates of the people to whom he delivers bad news.

Ryan Bingham works for a management consulting firm that appears to have a very limited focus. Clooney’s character does nothing but perform corporate layoffs — the service offered by his company is to hire out consultants who fly from city to city giving the bad news to workers for employers who don’t want to do it themselves.

Bingham has a catchphrase he uses to ease the downsized person (and himself) through the painful moment. “Anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you are sitting — and it’s because they sat there that they were able to do it,” he promises.

Then, the aftermath. In the film, the stunned person who has just been laid off is gently urged toward a packet. “In that packet,” Clooney assures, “you’ll find all the answers.” His words are empty and glib — the packet is thin, and the individual is distraught — but Clooney’s job is to get them to take the packet, return their keycard, and box up their belongings. Then he hops on another plane.

Unfortunately, scant mention is made of those whose job it is to help workers pick up the pieces after a layoff — both internal HR personnel and the outplacement firms they hire.

I realize that the film is fiction, but the bleak scenes did turn my mind to all the wonderful services that a good outplacement firm can provide: coaching, assistance with resumes and cover letters, and help in ferreting out job openings, among other offerings. This is the good news that comes after Clooney’s bad news — but “Up in the Air” leaves this part of the story untold. Up in the air, as it were.

The movie has proven to be emotional for many who have lost their jobs in this economy. The film’s storyline (which involves a romance, and a loyalty program motif with Bingham’s favored airline) is periodically interrupted to show stark, candid documentary-style footage of regular people describing the moment when they were downsized. It’s gut-wrenching, and you’ll find many mentions in Internet forums of how grueling it can be to watch.

But as dark as those moments are, most of us who have been laid off fight through them, and in many cases move on to bigger and better things — often with the help of an outplacement service. That’s the part of the story that “Up in the Air” doesn’t tell.

“Up in the Air” will go into wide release in the U.S. on December 25. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and reactions.

They say that time is the most precious gift you can give. And if that time is paid time off – and the recipient is truly in need – it is beyond precious.

This deeply meaningful gift is being given not by friends, not by family… but by co-workers. I’m talking about a trend in generosity that should be quite interesting to HR professionals: employees donating their Paid Time Off (PTO) to colleagues who need it to treat an illness or care for a family member who is chronically ill, or for employees who have gone through a major disaster.

I’ve known about catastrophic leave-sharing programs for some time, but I’ve come to appreciate this trend from reading a site called GivesMeHope which focuses on “life’s beautiful moments.” It’s a simple, text-based site, filled with short anecdotes submitted by users. Each story ends with a statement of what “gives me hope,” or, as they put it, “GMH.” Check out this story:

When my mom was dying of cancer, my dad had to keep working to keep his health insurance. His midsize company has a program by which employees can transfer paid time off to one another. A person in HR sent out an email explaining his situation. Within 3 hours, my father had 12 weeks of paid vacation. Strangers’ sacrifices GMH.

And this one:

A woman my mom works with has cancer and has been out of work for a long time. She recently found out she has to be out for longer but doesn’t have enough sick days left to cover it. Every nurse on my mom’s floor at the hospital is donating at least one of their paid sick days to her so she can finish her treatment – and get paid for it. GMH.

And finally, this one:

My girlfriend got the swine flu and was out of work for two weeks. Her paid time off wasn’t enough to cover the absence. When she got her first paycheck after returning, she found one of her coworkers had donated 8 hours of paid time off to her. Anonymously. She’s only been there 6 months. GMH.

If these stories warm your heart, consider starting a leave-sharing program for your employees. Most examples of leave-sharing come from universities – most notably the University of California system – but state and local governments also offer it, as well as some labor unions, non-profits, and private corporations. It may come with a bit of red tape, but leave-sharing programs are a low-cost, high-impact way to show thoughtful, flexible support to employees who fall upon tragic times. The show of altruism is wonderful for morale and can really bond a team.

Of course, transferring PTO between employees requires a solid policy – to describe what circumstances and family members qualify, and to determine how the program will be administered. It is best to address all this before a potentially emotional situation arises. Each situation must be researched carefully. There may be tax consequences, or state rules concerning what kind of hours can be donated (sick leave, holiday leave, or compensatory time may be treated differently.)

To explore this in more detail, we recommend An Employer’s Guide to Employee Leave-Sharing Programs as a start.

We’ve collected some examples of leave-sharing policies to get you started exploring the topic:

• Catastrophic Leave Sharing  Program from the University of California at Davis
• Catastrophic Leave Sharing Program for the City of Salem, Oregon
• Advocate Health Care PTO Sharing / Donation
• Catastrophic Leave Sharing Bank for Coast Federation of Classified Employees

Do these stories give you hope? Do you have a story of altruistic leave-sharing that you would like to share with our readers?

Recruiters: everyone loves to get a phone call from one, but once that phone call is over, a LOT of people will go on to say how much they “hate” recruiters. I’ve always been aware of this odd biting-the-hand-that-feeds-you phenomenon, but earlier this month, Ian Lenehan wrote a post called “Why does everyone hate recruiters?” that really got me thinking. Lenehan, an Australian recruitment consultant, told an anecdote of being embarrassed to admit his own job in a social setting. He went on to blog:

Recruitment is a valuable profession — everybody needs recruiters whether they like it or not. But unfortunately many people claim to hate recruitment consultants. Like car salesmen and real estate agents (hey, we need those guys too). Even recruiters engage in rec con baiting. Agency recruiters hate in house recruiters, and everybody hates rec to recs. So why is this?

Good question. It got me wondering: does everyone hate recruiters? I plugged the relevant words into Google, and the results were pretty disheartening. Evil HR Lady did a 3-part posting series on why she hates ‘em (she was partially kidding). Less playfully, an anonymous someone has created a Facebook page under the name “I Hate Recruitment Consultants,” which is mostly filled with unflattering jokes.  Someone else went to the trouble of setting up a blog called I Hate Recruiters on Blogspot. It reads, in part:

• Don’t you hate recruiters who try to push you into jobs that are not right for you just so they can make a few bucks?
• Don’t you hate recruiters who say they’ll call you back and don’t?
• Don’t you hate recruiters who claim to be experts but don’t understand what you do?

Clearly, some people have had bad experiences. But people have bad professional experiences all the time, and don’t go out of their way to create blogs denigrating entire professions. Where does this hate come from?

Lenehan, in his blog post, opines that a job change is an ultra-sensitive time in one’s life — a huge change — and any bad moments are thrown into especially high contrast. Fair enough.

My own suspicions revolve around the middleman nature of the job. The recruiter stands between people, by necessity. This is actually a service, but when jobseekers and hiring managers are frustrated, they focus on the limiting factor of having a middleman, when they should be counting their blessings that the recruiter saves them from having to meet and screen everyone. People who need jobs (or need to fill jobs) can be very stressed out, and anything that they perceive to be slowing them down can be a target. Recruiters control access to people, and access to jobs, and this seems to tap into people’s control issues in a very tangible way.

Add in a payment structure that is performance-based, and people start to bash the very recruiters that hook them up with jobs.

I checked in with a few popular HR bloggers to get some more thoughts on this trend of bashing the recruitment profession. There’s a real difference between people just hating recruiters (like the person who made the Facebook page) and actual recruiters tackling the profession’s image. The well-known Jim Stroud at The Recruiters’ Lounge has an oldie-but-a-goodie up called “6 reasons to hate recruiters, 3 ways to get revenge and 1 way to keep everyone happy.” I’ll let you click through to read all 10 tips, but two of my favorite points here are:

• Managers hate recruiters because they are after their best people (and it took forever to get the team just right.)
• Ego-geeks hate having to use a recruiter to find work because (they feel) that it is an admission of weakness. (After all, shouldn’t all companies be beating down their door to hire them?)

Finally, I came across a very good post that is brutally honest about why some people have problems with the profession. In 10 Things to Hate About Recruiters, Jeremy Sisemore, president of a recruiting firm, compiled this list of things people sincerely complain about in the recruiting profession:

10. “Recruiters don’t seem to truly understand the role they are recruiting for or that much detail about the client’s needs.”
9. “I am not sure if the post-interview feedback is honest or I don’t get feedback at all.”
8. “Recruiters don’t want to help or talk with me if I am not a perfect fit for their open search assignments.”
7. “Most headhunters don’t return my calls or acknowledge that I applied for a job.”
6. “As a hiring manager, I hate when recruiters sling resumes at me and don’t take the time to understand my needs.”
5. “Dishonesty about a position, company, or the requirements for a role”
4. “Some form of discrimination or even reverse discrimination”
3. “Recruiters seem unethical and will do anything to make a placement; their tactics to recruit or develop accounts are dishonest.”
2. “I feel like job postings are not real jobs some time, the Bait and Switch.”
1. “Recruiters are only working for the company and aren’t looking out for my best interest through the Offer Stage.”

Now, I feel like we’re getting somewhere. Recruiters, what do you think about these prejudices and misconceptions? What would you like to share about what you do?