When I began my career as a business journalist, I was blessed to have the guidance of tough editors who equipped me with what would eventually develop into a fine-tuned bullshit detector. Many years later, when I switched over to “the dark side,” meaning public relations, my bullshit detector almost immediately went on the fritz, burned out by an overload of fluff speak.

But let’s go back to my early days as a reporter. Perhaps the first lesson my editors taught me was to sniff out misleading information on press releases. For instance, one particular press release noted that a certain company had grown “100%” in the past year. Innocently, I thought that this was a great news peg and went to my editor with the release. He sat me down and explained why this was not necessarily important news. “100% could simply mean that the staff grew from two people to four. It could mean that the company had one office and now has two. Call the contact person back and ask exactly how it was that the company grew.” He was right. There was no story.

Here’s a generic example: “Company X is the preferred purveyor of high-quality widgets in the market.” Oh, really? How do you define “preferred”? Is this based on a customer satisfaction survey? Is it based on sales figures? Number of stores carrying such widgets? I could break down the rest of the statement just as easily, but you see what I mean. 

More than a decade later I switched careers and joined a public relations agency. I was confident that being a subject matter expert would allow me to skip the fluff and provide my clients with insight that would help them engage and grow their client base. 

The ensuing culture shock zapped me. One of the agency’s main selling points was that it was a competitive analysis expert. This analysis is used to figure out how to market a company and make it stand out from the competition. I asked to look at some of the agency's recent analysis projects to see what they were all about. 

The first example, like all the others the agency gave me, made me cringe. After embarking on an “arduous and detailed analysis of the competitive landscape,” my colleagues finally had come up with a “differentiated strategic point of view.” They recommended that the client position itself as a firm that could “alleviate its prospective clients’ pain points via this carefully tailored strategic plan called 'Scale Up'.” 

My bullshit detector went off. Perplexed, I looked up at the main author of this plan and said, “Ok, so you want the firm to tell its clients that they should expand? That’s your differentiated point of view? Are you serious? How about also recommending they ‘Pay Taxes’ or ‘Treat Customers Well’ while you’re at it?” 

The client's in-house marketing team, having no understanding of the industries their firm works with, thought this was a brilliant plan. The partners thought it was odd, but went along with it. It came as no surprise to me that that a few months later the partners counteracted with a strategic plan of their own, which I'll call “Scale Down,” cutting the public relations budget significantly. 

Still, it appears that talking in circles and using trendy buzzwords or phrases can be extremely effective as long as you express yourself confidently. 

Here’s a conversation I had the dubious pleasure of overhearing recently:

Person A: The integrated content strategy will be activated via media outreach.

Person B: We definitely must think through the media outreach component so we have a cohesive methodology on how to pursue these opportunities. We will have some initial external triggers mapped out tied to those issues and then identify proactive priority issues to focus on during outreach.

Person A: Ok, let’s circle back and regroup once your team has ideated a multi-pronged process on how to move forward with this plan’s execution.  

One thing is for sure, the jibber-jabber may dazzle some clients, but it will never pass any good journalist's bullshit detector test. In fact, editors are hip to it. Here’s what American Banker magazine tells potential contributors:

Avoid jargon. Though our audience is familiar with many technical topics, we strive to use language that is clear and accessible to the layperson. Don't refer to software as "solutions," don't use the term "holistic" unless referring to spa treatments. https://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink-submission-guidelines

Oh, if I had a dollar for each time my colleagues uttered the word “holistic”!  

It is sadly hilarious how some public relations professionals can carry a conversation and even win new clients while not saying anything substantive. However, it also does a great disservice; this is exactly why journalists call the industry “the dark side.” 

Public relations needs professionals who don’t have to resort to gobbledygook to sound smart. But that requires knowing more than just how to implement a public relations plan - it requires a thorough knowledge of the companies they serve and, in turn, the intricacies of the industries the clients operate in. I still think there is hope.

There's a storm brewing on the horizon. The chances of another financial crisis are gaining intensity. 

On one front, we have lenders practically showering companies with billions of dollars in loans. On the other hand, companies are more than eager to take on those loans, especially now that they are dirt cheap and basically free of covenants. 

Let's back up a bit. After the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, the Fed lowered rates to 0.25% and kept them there until December 2015, when it raised them to 0.5%. Right now they are at 1.25%, still very low. The Fed rate controls short-term interest rates such as banks' prime rate, and many types of loans and credit card rates. The reason for keeping rates so low is to encourage banks to lend to each other, and consequentially, to companies and consumers.  

And so they have. Thanks to low Fed rates, lenders - the regulated banks that take deposits, and the alternative lenders, which aren't as strictly regulated - have been busy showering companies with loans. While the regulated banks have been relatively cautious, the alternative lenders have gone out in full force, backing practically everything in sight. 

Not only have they been on a lending spree, the loans they've offered, known as "covenant-lite," come with almost no strings attached. So, for example, if your company took out a loan with strong covenants (think of covenants as rules), which determined that if your company's debt levels exceeded, say, 6 times your EBITDA amount, you will have "tripped" the covenant, and thus would see the interest rate on your loan rise, possibly leading the lender to call a default if you can't keep up with the payments. (EBITDA stands for "earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization" and is considered an important metric of a company's financial performance).

Defaulting on debt is not good for any company - it will ruin their credit rating and drastically increase the cost of taking on leverage (leverage is another word for debt). But covenant-lite loans also add more risk to the lender, who will have almost no way to recoup its money if a borrower defaults. Now imagine if a lender only did covenant-lite loans in an attempt to compete with the other lenders in the market. What happens if a high portion of that lender's clients went into default? The answer is pretty obvious. 

So far, defaults have been pretty low in the U.S. But the race to lend, already at high-speed, is about to jump into overdrive. 

Back in 2013, in an attempt to reduce market risk, the Securities and Exchange Commission enacted guidance that discouraged regulated banks from providing loans valued at more than 6 times a company's EBITDA. While many market observers think that the 6 time EBITDA threshold is arbitrary, credit ratings agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's see leverage at that level as a sign of danger ahead, so it's definitely worth taking seriously. 

In October, the Government Accountability Office noted that the above "guidance" is actually a rule, which means it can be repealed via Congressional review. So far, it hasn't been officially repealed, but ask any banker and they'll tell you everyone is proceeding as if it had been. Just the other day the head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said bankers shouldn't consider themselves bound by the lending guidelines. He even said he does expect leverage levels to increase in the near future. This basically gives regulated banks permission to join the alternative lenders in the debt party, providing riskier loans that they wouldn't have provided before.

Another thing that could encourage regulated banks to be less cautious when lending is the incoming hike in Fed rates. So far, three rate hikes are expected this year. A hike in Fed rates essentially puts more money in banks' hands, as the interest rate they charge for loans will increase. At the same time, the rate hikes could add more danger to lenders. When companies holding vast amounts of covenant-lite loans see the cost of the interest on their debt rise, payments will be harder to make. And the lenders will be caught with no way to get their money back.

Also keep in mind that a good portion of fund managers were not old enough to be working in finance when the 2008 financial crisis erupted, and have never faced a major financial meltdown. More than half of them don't even have a decade of experience. Think about it. 

The denomination, Puerto Rico evokes a destination rife with abundance. By substituting, Pobre for Rico, it suggests a place of great need. Thus it is currently in Puerto Rico. The small Caribbean island within the U.S. orb is on the verge of bankruptcy.

In 1493, during the Second Voyage, as his ships 17 cruised through an archipelago in what would become known as the Greater Antilles of the Caribbean Sea of the Caribbean Sea, Christopher Columbus set foot on Borínquen or Borikén, as it was known to the indigenous Taínos. The smallest of those islets, it measures only 110 by 40 miles. The Taínos as a tribe disappeared centuries ago. Nevertheless, their present-day descendants – now an amalgam of Spanish and African blood – still refer to themselves as Borinqueños or Borincanos.

Although Columbus's stay was only about 2 hours, it is forever commemorated on the island. Approaching the Spanish fortress city of Old San Juan from the upper, ocean-front road, there stands a statue of Columbus in the center of Plaza Colón, which is named after him. In the western city of Mayagüez, that tribute is repeated. In a section of the Greater San Juan area known as Caparra, there lies the remains of a residence once supposedly occupied by Ponce de León, the vaunted seeker of the Fountain of Youth. Prominent in the foreground of the island's capitol, facing the Atlantic Ocean, there is a statue of a scolding John the Baptist, after whom the capital city is named. In Loiza Aldea, descendants of the black gold brought to the island to replace the decimated Taínos, still scamper up coconut trees, to the delight of tourists. Not too long ago, their rope ferries still transported people and cars from one side of the river to the other.

Discovery; conquest; extinction; bondage; the Stars and Stripes – thus is the lore of this jot in the panoply of Spanish ambition in the New World.

In 1898, the American Eagle, prodded by yellow journalism – decided to spread its neo-imperialist wings from the far-flung Pacific to the romantic Caribbean. When this incredible flight was over, the Spanish had been evicted from Cuba and Puerto Rico. The American flag was planted on the latter. Army and Navy bases were established in Puerto Rico. The U.S. Justice Department and Post Office moved in. American school teachers were imported in an attempt to inculcate Puerto Ricans with American culture and the English language. Nevertheless, a contingent of Puerto Ricans opposed the Americans from the very beginning.

Via the 1917 Jones Act, Congress made all Puerto Ricans citizens of the U.S. Regardless, on separate occasions, in the 1950s, Puerto Rican extremists attempted to assassinate President Harry S. Truman and did manage to shoot up the U.S. House of Representatives while it was in session.

The U.S. Congress granted Puerto Rico home-rule as a Commonwealth. With the U.S. imprimatur having been well established, two major political parties resulted, reflecting the sentiments of the Republicans and the Democrats. A small portion of the populace remained independence-minded, with an even smaller number of them, now and then, consisting of the hardcore Independentistas.

In the 1960s, a joint U.S.-Puerto Rican operation entitled, Bootstrap/Fomento was initiated in order to boost the economic viability of the island. This attracted mainland business, which increased the presence of mainlanders on the island. This venture was instrumental in reviving and beautifying Old San Juan. After the Castro takeover in Cuba, many of the U.S. interests there switched to Puerto Rico. Large hotels began to book the best of American showbiz talent. The area from Isla Verde through the Condado Strip and on to Old San Juan became a year-round destination for tourists worldwide. Then, the green monster of nationalism reared its five-percenter head.

The Independentistas insisted that, by allowing performers from the mainland and other countries to monopolize the entertainment venues, Puerto Rican performers were being slighted. The fact is that Puerto Rican performers are the equal or better of any in the world. However, because they are not known internationally, they did not draw the type of attention required to sustain that same high level of tourism. Consequently, visitors to the hotels and other, related venues throughout the island suffered tremendous economic losses.

A refurbished area of Old San Juan began to attract the huge tourist ships. Although those short stays helped some Old San Juan businesses, it was no comparison to the overall, island-wide support to economy that the hotels were able to generate.

With the economy at an all-time low, for the past decade there has been a steady exodus of Puerto Ricans to the mainland. After the granting of citizenship, there was a steady trail of Puerto Ricans to New York City. That population gradually grew to balance that of the island. This new immigrant clash with mainland culture was dramatized on stage and screen by Westside Story. When this writer was growing up in Philadelphia in the 30s and 40s, there were no Puerto Ricans. Today, they are as visible as any other minority group. These latest arrivals, however, head for the State of Florida.. At first, it was Miami; now there is a growing Puerto Rican presence in the Orlando area.

Back on the island, with a depressed economy and rapidly disappearing tax base, they are at the threatening point of literally having the lights turned off! The power company, deeply in the red, is attempting to work out an agreement involving the stockholders and the U.S. Government, which would allow it to re-structure its debt. The alternative is bankruptcy.

***** ***** *****

Out here, in the Caribbean,

Quite soon, we may not be seein'.

'tWere this not enough,

Now, "zika's" our stuff.

'sToo much for a human bein'!

[This writer is a former resident of Puerto Rico. En mi Viejo San Juan is a song cherished by Puerto Ricans. Here is a link to Tommy Dodson singing my translation of that song, the only English version authorized by the composer, Noel Estrada.]

Dear Boss,

Please accept this as my letter of resignation. I have come to the conclusion that I am ‘not a fit’ for the company. I know that you will file this letter in my file which will then be stored in a cabinet to be moved to a box in a dark room where it will sit until it passes the cut off period and you can legally destroy the record but formality dictates that I submit it to you. It will occupy about 1 millimeter of space in your mind and will be purged as soon as you finish reading it. It would be nice if you absorbed the information but you are too busy so you won’t and let’s be honest, you really don’t care. My position will either be replaced or absorbed. Everyone will move on. Sort of.

I say ‘sort of’ because even though I am one of millions of dissatisfied employees, the pot is simmering and a collective of disenfranchised, discouraged, stressed, angry, depressed, unmotivated, alienated and disheartened employees is boiling. You will look at me with your Dolores Umbridge smile and your sightless eyes and shake my hand and wish me well. I will go somewhere else and for a year, maybe 3 or 4 if I’m lucky, I will think, “This is a good company to work for, they are different here, not like my last place.” Soon the honeymoon phase will be over and I will be part of the collective of workers bees trying to compensate for their job dissatisfaction with boats and toys and more shoes than I can possibly need. You will move on also because deep down inside you feel the same as I do, you just don’t admit it to yourself. You call it, ‘advancing my career’ but it is really that you are equally disenfranchised with the lack of respect and consideration for your thoughts and ideas. You may be a bigger cog in the wheel of the working world but you are still a cog, just like me and millions of others.

Yours truly,

I never did find a job I loved until I retired although there were a few that came close to being in the category of, “I’d do this even if I wasn’t paid.” I was like ‘most people -- 80% according to Deloitte's Shift Index survey -- who are dissatisfied with their jobs'.  Now that I have the time to look back and reflect I notice a common theme in my own personal job dissatisfaction and the dissatisfaction of others- management. I had one great boss out of about 20, mostly they were mediocre and a few even diabolical, some tried to be great bosses but their boss was a jerk and it filtered down. The letter above was never given to a boss because one has to pretend every job is fantastic and the only reason we are looking for a new one is because we want "advancement" or were let go through no fault of our own. We have to play our part in the, ‘we are all great employees and all the companies we worked for are great”. I was tempted to give my last boss a letter similar to this one but the 10 people who had resigned in the 6 months ahead of me had tried to explain why they were leaving but they were given the, “I guess you just aren’t a good fit.” speech as they walked out. What’s the point if you won’t listen?

Why was I dissatisfied? It seems for the same reason many others are; I didn’t have a voice. Sure I sat in meetings and offered suggestions, created presentations, and made goals but I was only regurgitating what management wanted to hear, with my own spin. There is not a lot of room for dissent. If you try to bring up issues or raise warnings about problems you find yourself being subtly ostracized and it happens very insidiously and slowly. You ask your boss why you weren’t promoted and you get vague comments like, ‘they were more qualified’, yet you met every point on the list of qualifications. Getting a direct answer in corporate America is impossible because everyone is afraid of repercussions for honesty and you receive phrases like, ‘not a good fit’, ‘just a different place on the bus’, ‘more valuable in this (lower) position’, etc, but you know that it is time to polish up the old resume and start looking.

What do most employees want? More money and the time away from work to spend it without being made to feel guilty because their cell phone isn’t permanently on and attached to their ear. Are they given that? Hell no! Not even a few executives at the top who do get the salary have the freedom of a personal life. Trying to suggest you might want a work free space at your home or vacation is the sure path to job death- ‘she just isn’t a team player’. "I think a lot of people are fearful of the workload they'll come back to, and some know they'll be on call during their vacation anyway," John de Graaf, executive director of the nonprofit Take Back Your Time said. "The increasing inequality plays a major factor in the U.S. because people are feeling they have to work longer to keep pace. Other reasons include workers who don't want to be seen as the office slacker and career couples unable to schedule their vacations at the same time." 

It’s pretty simple, really, humans like to be happy, they want to do things they enjoy and if they can’t do what they enjoy then they want to be compensated in some way, so why are people unhappy at work? Because management doesn’t care, or if they do they are not doing a very good ‘job’ of showing it. It seems their bosses are largely to blame as 2/3 of Americans don’t like their boss. The rules at work are made by bosses and if bosses are the problem then changing them seems to be the solution. "Here's something they'll probably never teach you in business school: The single biggest decision you make in your job — bigger than all of the rest — is who you name manager," wrote Gallup CEO and Chairman Jim Clifton, according to CBS News.  However, it will probably not happen because, like the work place, this is a hamster circle; employees don’t have a voice, bosses won’t listen, employees are unhappy that their bosses won’t listen so they don’t use their voice.

Now that my children are grown and working in their chosen profession I hear workplace stories from them, their friends and acquaintances at social gatherings. Apparently with all of our technology, data collection, mentoring, seminars, surveys, meetings and specialists nothing has changed. The information is right there but they don't want to see the real answer, money and respect, so they spend time and money trying to find a different answer. In fact, it seems that things have gotten worse. Employees are working longer hours with less staff and less money for themselves and for their departments. The most popular phrase is ‘due to budget cuts’. Is it any wonder we feel like nothing gets accomplished or that our efforts aren’t valued? Add to this the worry of ‘when is the next lay-off’ employees do not want to stand out for any reason.

In the early 90’s the corporation I worked for embraced TQM, Total Quality Management. We were sent to seminars, had strategy meetings and dinners to determine what was wrong with our company and how we could be #1 instead of #3 in the industry. After thousands of hours and even more thousands of dollars the employees told us, management, that we weren’t listening to them and they felt they had no voice in the decisions that were made. So what did the executives and CEO do in response? They fired the plant managers, replaced salaried and longtime hourly workers with outside contractors and temporary labor. So much for having a voice, more than half the company lost their jobs. It cured one thing; the desire to speak out about problems. "Yet studies find that “what actually lands many companies high satisfaction ratings and a place on "best workplace" lists is often a culture that encourages workers to voice opinions.”  Along with no voice, “nothing extinguishes passion quite like the feeling of being paid less than you deserve. Poor management can ruin even the most passionate and well-paid employees love for their job.” Epic fail for that corporation. By the way, they are no longer in business.

Before you say it: “My company isn’t like that.” Are you sure? Or maybe you are just incredibly lucky OR maybe you are part of the problem, tough to think about it. Do I have an answer? Yes, do you want to hear it? If not, then stopping reading here. My solution is to actively listen, not judge and don’t make a mental note to dismiss the person’s next promotion because they said something negative about the company. There are good places to work and people to work for, certainly, Nick Hanauer appears to be one that has an idea of what is wrong. “Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle class creates us rich people, not the other way around.” He also talks about wages and why it is important to also pay employees a living wage. 

If you live in a home with 24 bathrooms and six kitchens you  probably don’t understand what I am trying to get across. If you have a closet just for your shoes, you also probably don’t understand what I trying to express. I will try to sum it up for you simply: People hate their jobs and they hate working for you because you aren’t listening to them and aren’t paying them a decent wage. If you haven’t figured out that happy employees make quality products then please open your mind, your ears and your wallet or sooner or later your business will be impacted negatively. Soon you will hear them and you won't like what they are saying.

Revolutionary France

When employees come to you and tell you that their boss is a jerk to them and treats them badly don’t tell them, however politely, to ‘suck it up’, actively listen and then have a conversation with that boss, don’t ignore or continue to promote a boss employees don’t like. It may seem logical and financially sound to do so because his/her department numbers look good on the books but people will leave if you do nothing and you will have to recruit and train all over again. If you have 6 kitchens and your employees barely have one then, I’m going to say something offensive here, are you sitting down? You make too much money! There, I said it. Yes, you make too much money. The current US average is: $12,259,894 to $34,645. Don’t finish that thought...... No, you don’t work that much harder than other people in your company. No, you don’t shoulder that much more stress and responsibility than others in the company. You have convinced yourself you do to justify your million dollar salary, your triple million dollar bonus and your stock options but you really don’t work that much harder. CEO-To-Worker pay ratio has ballooned to 1,000 Percent Since 1950. Have your work efforts increased 1000%?  Sorry, I had to be the one to break it to you. You really don’t work that much harder, a little, but not as much as you have convinced yourself. Wait, before you finish that next thought...... Yes, I do know because I was once you. I had a lovely office with floor to ceiling windows overlooking manicured gardens, I wore expensive suits to the office, sat in a comfy chair, attended fancy dinners with suppliers, shared in your meetings and received a great salary and bonus. Unlike you, when I went on the production floor I felt guilty because I knew those people were wearing themselves out for hardly any money. You didn’t listen to the employees, or me either, when I tried to suggest that we should keep work here in the US instead of sending it overseas. The compensation wasn’t enough for me to turn my back on those people so I left, I just didn’t tell you why I left because I knew you didn’t really want to know. We can all keep going down the same oblivious road we are on and the economy will crash, again. Or we can do something different. Maybe you won’t listen to me or your employees or Mr. Hanauer or Costco CEO and President Craig Jelinek, (who has came out in support of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, which aims to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, then adjust it after that for inflation) but when you don’t have enough customers to buy your product maybe then you will listen as you shut your company door for the last time and you will finally undertand the value of treating employees fairly.

In summary, actively listen and modify company policies and direction according to reasonable input from your employees and pay them well for the hard work they do, from your ridiculous profits. And if you don’t think I’m talking to you, I hope you are right but maybe you should ask the people who work for you, do they want free donuts on Friday or do they want a voice and a living wage?