It Has Nothing To Do With Fate

Well.  I came across some disturbing poll results today.  The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy did a little polling and if their results are even a little bit indicative of what is going on out there, they really have their work cut out for them.  Before I get to the part that will have you wanting to jump out of a high window, I want to mention that while this organization may sound like they're all about the teenagers, it doesn't seem like that's all too accurate.  The people that they polled were grown-ass adults, ranging in age from 18-29.  And actually, that makes the results even more frightening. 

Participants in this survey were asked if they agreed with this statement:  “It doesn’t matter whether you use contraception or not; when it is your time to get pregnant, it will happen."  I would like to take this opportunity to point out that these questions were asked recently and this isn't archival data from the 1700s.  This was done in 2011 and again, with grown-ass adults.  That's why it scares the bejeezus out of me that four in ten actually agreed with that statement.  Wait.  Wait.  WAIT! 

Were these people not privy to the ol' very basic sex education classes that I sat through in high school?  Just the beginning part of that question "It doesn't matter whether you use contraception or not" makes me cringe.  Of course it matters!  That's why it exists!  It's contraception!  It's purpose it to be used and then to subsequently prevent pregnancy after you have all the sex!  But four out of ten morons believe that it's just fate?!  Doesn't matter what you do.  If it's going to happen, it's going to happen?!  Uhhh, I honestly don't know what to say about that.  Forty percent is a little too close to half for my liking.  Fate.  OK, then.  Moving on...

Here's another one:  "Thinking about your life right now, how important is it to you to avoid getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant?"  This was asked of unmarried young adults aged 18-29.  Again, grown-ass people.  72% said that it was very important.  That's good.  You know what's not good?  The other people who answered.  Only 12% said that it was "somewhat important".  How is that even a choice when you're talking about getting pregnant or not?  16% had some sort of a variation of it not being important to them.  The parameters of the survey do not outline whether or not it was a requirement that participants in the survey be sexually active, but I can't imagine why they would want people who are not having sex to be a part of this survey.  If you're not having sex, the problem of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with you.  So if I am to assume that those 16% that don't give a crap are currently sexually active, then I'm a little more than just concerned that they don't give a crap.  Those are the kind of people that I want studied at great lengths. 

Explain this to me:   "Fully 94% of unmarried young adults 18-29 say they have all the information they need to avoid having or causing an unplanned pregnancy."  BUT "11% say they know “little or nothing” about condoms, 42% say they know “little or nothing” about birth control pills, and 73% say they know “little or nothing” about IUDs."  HOW are you between the ages of 18 and 29 and know "little or nothing" about condoms?!  I can kind of understand the IUD thing, but only because it's not talked about or mentioned as much as the other two.  But condoms?  What sort of grown-ass adult knows nothing about a condom?!  I wish that they broke that answer down by age.  Then again, maybe I don't.  If I found out that it was mostly 29-year olds that answered the question that way, I'd have to start walling off my walled off compound again.  I cannot be part of a society where people who are almost thirty know nothing about condoms.  I just can't! 

Then there's this:  19% of the people surveyed answered 'Yes' to this:  “There is so much negative stuff said about birth control that it makes me feel I’m better off/my partner is better off just not using it.”  Negative stuff?  More negative than having a child that you're not ready for (and apparently have no idea how it came to be either)?!  What exactly are they referring to that is so "negative"?  Because the way I look at it, it's all of the getting pregnant that's the negative part of having sex.  Regardless, even if there are "negative" things about birth control, it's disturbing to me that one in five of these softheads thinks that no birth control is the way to go instead.  Twenty percent.  That's about twenty percent too high for me.  What is wrong with you people?! 

So you have all of that stuff going on, but then you have questions like "I have all the information I need to avoid having/causing an unplanned pregnancy."  Somehow, 94% of these folks answered 'Yes' to that question.  But these are the same people who forty percent of them think that it's just fate if you get pregnant regardless of your contraceptive usage!  Clearly, they do NOT have all the information that they need.  No, the information that they have is a bit outdated.  Medieval even.  Perhaps someone should inform them that science has made great strides since the days of leaving everything up to fate. 

This is all not good.  It's all very bad, actually.  The fate question really threw me for a loop.  If you'd like to see this data so that you can cry over it yourself, it's available here.

Sphere: Related Content

We're Scientifically Doomed

I came across an article over yonder at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that was titled "Why does U.S. fail in science education?" My question after reading that headline was "Why does the U.S. not only fail in science education, but also in proper grammar?" But I digress. Back to science. I really find the scales that they use to be completely meaningless, as they tend to categorize students as being 'proficient' or not. The problem with that is that in order to qualify as 'proficient' one usually has to get a minimum of around 60%-65% of the material correct. Sixty or sixty-five percent of anything is not proficient. It's barely half. And on most grading scales, it's all but failing. So I like it better when I am provided with how many people could actually answer the questions correctly. But let me be clear. I like the format better, not the results.

And that's what the article over at the Post-Gazette provides us with. They give us the percentage of people who could correctly answer some of the science questions. The results are so dismally low that I really want to know what people answered instead of the correct answers, as the correct answers seem to be pretty easy to noodle through. Let's take a look at some of them.

Fourteen percent of test takers thought that sound travels faster than light. OK, that's a solid 86 percent getting it right. I'm good with that. What I'm less good with is that 33 people disagree with the fact that Earth goes around the sun once a year. What the hell do think happens? Do they think it goes around more than once a year? Less than once a year? Do they think that the sun goes around Earth? There aren't a lot of choices that would make sense. I don't get it.

Here's one of the more appalling ones: 41 percent of people disagree with the statement that astrology is not at all scientific. Almost half. Geez. Just because stars are involved, it does not mean that it is scientific. It's a load of crap. I realize that there are plenty of people out there who really believe in this load of crap. I also realize that there are plenty of people out there who really like this sort of crap. That's all just fine. You can believe in it. You can even like it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is not scientific. No matter how much you like it.

And this one is as troubling as it is mystifying. 49 percent of people think that ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, but genetically modified tomatoes do. This just makes my head hurt to even think about. Where do those dimwits think that the genes to modify the tomatoes come from? The gene store? Even if you don't know squat about genetics specifically, shouldn't you be able to noodle this one through? Apparently not.

Do I take any consolation that, while in 1988 only about 10% of adult Americans were rated to be 'scientifically literate', in 2008 that number had risen to around 28%? No. Not really. 28% percent is abysmal. And who even knows what that means, anyway? We're just doomed, that's all. Simply doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Survey Says? Inappropriate!

Look, I'm not sure what a "sex survey" that is given to middle school children should consist of, but I'm not really all that comfortable with the first question on such a "survey" being "What is your gender?" and having there be four choices. As I'm sure you can imagine, not all of the parents were thrilled either.

Over there at Hardy Middle School in Washington, DC, a 7th grade health/physical education class was given a "sex survey", the purpose of which is a little fuzzy to me. From what I can tell from reading the article over there at something called The Georgetown Dish, there's some sort of a non profit called Metro TeenAIDS which educates children about HIV and AIDS. It appears that in 2009, the Washington, DC Public Schools (DCPS) gave Metro TeenAIDS "...a $15,000 consulting contract and $80,000 contract...to provide programming in the schools". Supposedly, "This program has been selected by DCPS for instruction to meet [health learning standards] for the middle school grades and is used in 7th and 8th health classes (sic) throughout DCPS." Um, OK. How does this turn out to be some sort of survey given to 12-year olds and asking them about their gender while providing them with four choices?

That part isn't overly clear to me. But it does say that not only does Metro TeenAIDS (which is a ridiculous name, if you're asking me) provide some sort of an educational component, they also use their time in public schools to do research. I'm guessing that this little survey was more along the lines of the research end of things. Though, from what I can tell, a whole lot of kids learn a whole lot of new things that day. And I'm guessing that a lot of them were more than they ever wanted to know. At least, I'm hoping so.

Let's look at some of the questions and see how appropriate they are for middle school kids, shall we? Let's also see if we can figure out what in the world people were thinking when they decided that this would be a good idea, OK? Here we go...first question:

"What is your gender?"

Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Let's look at the choices.

A) Male B) Female C) Transgender (M to F) D) Transgender (F to M)

Wait. For 12-year olds? Transgender?! I'd be looking for "E) WTF". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that choices C and D are completely unnecessary. 100% not needed. What is wrong with you people?

It only gets worse.

One series of questions read:

"How sure are you that you.......

Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV?

Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex?

Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner?

Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex?

Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex?"

For 12-year olds. First of all, dental dams? Really? You expect a 12-year old to have any sort of knowledge about that? Do you want your 12-year old to have knowledge of that? And seriously, who has ever used one of those? Honestly. Sure, they probably sound OK in theory (but not really), but I don't think that they're in high demand. Where do you get them? Other than at the dentist's office when you're having something done in your mouth. Are they next to the condoms? I have no idea and neither should 12-year olds.

By the way, when the kids didn't understand what certain things were and inquired about them, "...the facilitator...brought in on a DCPS contract...started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex." Are you kidding me?! Anal sex shouldn't even be explained to adults, let alone small children!

The questions on the survey continued along those ludicrous lines and included things like "During your life, with how many peopled have you had sex (oral, vaginal, anal)?" and "In the past 30 days on how many days did you......

Have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, or within a couple of hours?

Use marijuana?

Use other non-injecting drugs (like cocaine, PCP, ecstasy)?

Inject drugs with a needle like heroin)?

Have sex?

Have sex after drinking alcohol or getting high?"

Hey, you people getting the almost $100k grant to do this sort of thing! Yeah, you. Question: Don't you think that you should tone things down a bit? Seriously. Are you trying to traumatize these kids? I'd be interested to know if EVER during the time that you've been taking this survey even ONE 12-year old answered "Yes" to having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row or within a couple of hours. I'm guessing you have not. And what does that have to do with HIV and AIDS?

Now, of course, parents were outraged. Not just so much at the content of the survey, but more so at the fact that they had not been notified ahead of time, given a copy of the survey or given a chance to have their kid opt out of this insanity. Huh. And they're angry, eh? In what way?

I'm sure that some sort of an apology is forthcoming. That I don't doubt. But I'm sick of apologies. Here's what I want: I want someone to explain to everyone how they came to the decision to distribute this survey to the middle schoolers. I want someone to explain the logic that they were using that allowed them to come to the conclusion that this sort of thing was appropriate. That's what I want. I want a detailed description of the thinking process that goes into something that is so obviously not OK. I also want to know if anyone, anyone even ventured to say anything along the lines of, 'Uh, are we sure this is a good idea? Because this seems awfully advanced for 12-year olds." Anything along those lines? Anything? Anyone? That's what I want to know. Keep your apologies and instead explain why you're so stupid. Inquiring minds want to know.

If you'd like to see more of this absurd survey, it can be found here. And I can be found banging my head against a wall. What is wrong with people?

Sphere: Related Content

For That, I'll Skip Breakfast

I'm happy to announce that I'll be able to squeeze in one more "scientific study" before the year is over. Yipee! (Does the fact that I have "scientific study" in quotes give you any idea as to how scientific I deem it to be? Not very, that is correct.)

Perhaps the folks over there at Reuters actually found this "study" and it's "findings" to be newsworthy. Or maybe it was a slow news day. This is going to be one of the few, very few, times that I'm really hoping it was due to a slow news day. Otherwise, look forward to similar "studies" in the future with similar interpretations. (Translation: Crap.)

What we have from a government-backed Japanese medical researcher is that "Teens who skip breakfast as middle school students tend to have sex at an earlier age than those who start the day with a proper meal." Sooooooo.....yeah. We're blaming it on breakfast now? I've blamed having sex on a lot of things before. Alcohol, stupidity (usually induced by alcohol), loneliness (usually induced by alcohol), extreme horniness (usually induced by alcohol). So, basically, just alcohol. (OK, so my list isn't vast. It's a list!) But I've never blamed having sex on not having breakfast when I was in 8th grade. Or 7th. Or any grade, really. That's because it sounds ridiculous! (I prefer to blame having sex on things that make more sense. Like the alcohol reasoning. Now that's a sound excuse for just about anything right there.)

According to the study, "The average age of first-time sex for those who said they ate breakfast every day as a middle school student was 19.4, while for those who skipped breakfast, the average age was 17.5." Aw, this gets worse as I go along. 17.5?? Years old? Now they're blaming not having breakfast 4 to 5 years before someone managed to get someone else in the sack for all of the sack getting in the first place? Am I the only one who thinks they're stretching it just a tad here? I didn't think so.

"The fact that people can't eat breakfast may show something about their family environment," said a Japanese scientist who could not be any more vague with that statement. "Before blaming individuals for having sex at an early age, it may be necessary to look into the sort of homes they are from." Right. The sort of homes. OK. So, we're looking for what? Breakfast-less-ness? And lots of sex? (Alright, this is starting to get silly.)

I could see it maybe if they wanted to draw the conclusion that people were having sex for the first time at a younger age because they were doing that instead of having breakfast. I could buy that explanation. Barely. But I'd still buy it. (I'd skip a meal for sex. Hell, I'd fast on every day that ends in "y" for sex.) But this is saying that they're still not having sex until years after they've missed breakfast and quite frankly, if you're hanging onto this "not getting breakfast" thing for years, you should probably stop having sex and go find yourself a good therapist or a mental institution to check yourself into.

The survey "...also showed the average age of first-time sex was lower for those who found their mother annoying." Now there you go! That's some science I get fully back! Doing anything in spite of an annoying mother? SURE! I'm not saying that I believe people are thinking, "Man! I can't believe she grounded me for that! It was nothing! What a bitch! I'm going to show her! In a few years, I'm going to have sex! Just wait! You'll SEE!" No, that's not it. I'm just all for blaming mothers for anything. It's easier and believable in a lot of cases. (Disclaimer: There are a couple of exceptions to the blanket statement I just made about mothers. You guys know who you are. And one of them is not my mother.)

The scientist who, in the future, may be looking for different sources for research funds, said that, “Those unhappy with their parents — such as for not preparing breakfast — may tend to find a way to release their frustration by having sex." Again, I ask the question, "YEARS later?" You know what I do when I don't have breakfast prepared for me? I don't wait 4-5 years and then have sex with someone for the first time. No, I make my own damn breakfast!

Also noted was that, "If children don’t feel comfortable in their family environment, they tend to go out.” Go out...and....have sex? Well, yes! I don't know that the "family environment" is really the most "comfortable" place for anyone to be having sex! I'm glad they DO leave! I would hope that they would want to! And if they didn't, I sure as hell would ask them to!

If it wasn't for the delayed reaction time between not having breakfast and having sex for the first time, I might buy into the notion that there is something that is missing in the home environment that manifests itself without a morning Pop-Tart and leads to trampiness. But that 4-5 year window really isn't bolstering that theory very much. And actually, I'm a little surprised that they're complaining (if they are actually "complaining". It's kind of hard to tell what they're doing; other than just making stuff up) that the average age that someone first has sex over there is 17.5 years old. Seventeen and a half? I can't imagine that in the US it would be higher than that. (Have you seen how girls are dressing in the US? It's like the entire population of Whorevania exploded and made its way across the country.) Back to the survey questions, Japanese scientist guys! You have to come up with something else that you've derived from your data because this missing-breakfast-makes-you-have-sex-thing isn't quite cutting it. (Hey....does skipping breakfast make you have sex? If that's the case, I'm denouncing breakfast forever! Bring on the sex!)

Sphere: Related Content

The Internet or Sex? Your Choice.

Once again, we have a survey in which the results are touted to reveal a heck of a lot more than they actually do. Yes. Shocking, I know. I'm sure what will (or will not) be even more shocking to you is how the data from the results was not exactly used in the most straightforward and accurate manner.

Here's the scoop: The guys over at chip maker Intel got together with Harris Interactive (they do polls and surveys) to try and show how important the Internet and computers and using computers in general are to the average American. OK, that's fine, I suppose, but it seems kind of like an odd thing to want to know. Actually, maybe it's that it kind of seems like an odd thing if you don't know or don't have some pretty decent idea of how important those things are to Americans. (Americans love computers. Americans love the Internet. Survey over. Case closed. When's lunch?) If you were wondering about those in other countries or Aborigine tribes or something like that, I could more easily justify your curiosity. I'd still think it's strange, but I doubt that you'd rate a blog post over it. But if you don't know the extent to which Americans like their Internet, well then, you're one of the few people on the planet who has never heard of a little thing we like to call porn. (Because from what I can tell, if there's something that Americans like more than the Internet, it's the porn found on the Internet.)

But here's where it just gets silly. In order to try to figure out how important something is, you need to rank it or you need to compare it to something else. The Harris Interactive folks (I'm assuming it was their doing. After all, it's what they do.) decided that the best way to gage the importance of the Internet to Americans would be to compare it to having sex. (Oh. Good Lord...)

According to the fit to print piece over there in the New York Times the Harris poll results showed that "...46 percent of women and 30 percent of men would opt to forgo sex for two weeks rather than give up access to their precious Internet for the same period." Uh-huh. Is it that all you've got for me?

Of course not. Yes, there's more! The article stated that "...those surveyed said access to the Internet ranked highest among the discretionary spending items they could not live without. Cable television, dining out, shopping for clothes and gym memberships followed in declining importance." And these folks didn't know any of that or couldn't figure it out without a survey? Gym memberships? You're going to compare my Internet usage with my gym membership usage? Um, OK. Here goes. Internet usage: All the time. Gym usage: Not a snowball's chance in hell. Er, I mean, rarely. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess, just guess that I wasn't the only one who answered that way.

But back to the sex part (because really, why wouldn't you want to go back to that? It's fab-ulous!). Do they not see the problem with their question and how it was posed/asked? (Obviously not, if they still went ahead and asked the damn thing, I suppose.) Now, they didn't say how old the people were in this study, only that they were "adults". Now, be honest here! How often, really do the majority of people actually have sex each week? According to the Kinsey Institute, 18-29 year olds have sex about twice a week. And they were being asked about a two week time period?

Well, of course they said that they'd rather give up the sex than the Internet for two weeks! If you go with the Kinsey Institute's findings, that's four times. Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with the folks in the survey. If I have two weeks of which to refrain from sex in order to use the Internet (what am I? Some sort of Rhesus monkey?) I can do without having sex four times! (I wouldn't think that I could, but it's been known to happen!) That's how I'd look at it. Besides, it's not like just because you're not having sex it means that you also have to be Master of your Domain. You can do that in lieu of sex. You cannot do that in lieu of the Internet (as far as I know. There have been a lot of things that have happened that way, but Internet substitution is not one of them!).

I mean, do the folks at Intel and Harris Interactive think that real people in real life are living their lives just like the porn people in Internet life? They must. Hey, Intel and Harris guys! When was the last time you ordered a pizza and the hot, young, buxom blonde who delivered it wanted to have sex with you? Hey, Intel and Harris women! When was the last time you got pulled over for speeding and Sergeant Sagittarius came up to your window with his shirt unbuttoned and his firm, hard abs were tanned and glistening with sweat under the hot summer sun? Oh, that's right. For both of those scenarios, the answer is NEVER!

The Times article even says that "Along similar lines, 61 percent of the women surveyed said they would rather go without TV for two weeks than lose access to the Internet for one week." And why would that be? For the same reason. There isn't crap on TV. So what the hell do I care if I go without it for two weeks? Ooh! And guess what?? If I miss a show that I had wanted to watch on TV, I can watch it on the Internet. That same Internet which I opted for instead of having TV! (They could have reported that maneuver as "Findings show that Internet users are a sneaky, crafty bunch, as they thwarted our survey and watched TV anyway!")

But see, those are all my interpretations of the data. And from my interpretations, one could draw the conclusion that I do not work for Intel. You can really draw that conclusion when you compare my interpretations to those of Intel, as they said that, “The survey revealed that 65 percent of adults feel they cannot live without Internet access, and even more — 71 percent — responded that it is important or very important to have Internet-enabled devices, such as laptops, netbooks and mobile Internet devices that can provide them with real-time updates on important issues including the state of the economy.” Wait. What?

THAT is what they got from that Harris Interactive poll? My God, why bother doing the poll at all? Why not just throw darts at a board or a donkey (not a real one. I'm thinking a paper one. Probably on that same board you were throwing the darts at.) with different phrases and numbers on it and use those results? You're going to have results that will seem rather extrapolated, but I'm failing to see how that would be any different than what Intel already does! (By the way, just an aside here: I like how they define "Internet-enabled devices" as being "laptops, netbooks and mobile Internet devices". Well, no duh, Intel. Thanks for that.)

So, yes, it's probably true that a whole lot of women would be perfectly OK with giving up sex or TV for a couple of weeks rather than giving up the Internet for those same couple of weeks. But you can't automatically chalk it up to the Internet being better than sex. (Don't get me wrong, sometimes it is. I mean, that's not my experience, but from what I've heard. I hear things.) You'd think that companies that do these polls would know that and you'd think that companies that pay for polls like this would want to know that. But apparently, neither one of those is the case. No, apparently, whatever the results are will be good enough for someone, regardless of how accurate they are. (Does Intel make their chips the same way that they interpret data? Let's hope not, shall we?)

Sphere: Related Content

Job Perks That Aren't So Perky

What comes to mind when you think of "office perks" or "job perks"? Company vehicle? Expense account? Free food? Can you say "Google?" While you and I might think those things, we might be the only ones. Either that or working conditions across America are starting to resemble those that one might find in the war zone of a third world country, if you're going by the results of a survey by Blumberg Capital Partners.

Blumberg Capital Partners is a US investment firm. They specialize in commercial real estate. Thus, they felt that they were perfectly qualified to conduct a survey on workplace conditions and the perks thereof across the country. They surveyed a paltry 500 people and found that one in three of those employees have either left a job OR accepted a job based solely on the condition of the building or on the perks/amenities of the job. Really?

According to Philip Blumberg, the chairman and CEO of (surprise) Blumberg Capital, yes. He said, "Office conditions, indeed, directly impact employee retention, recruitment and productivity." I'm not really sure that his revelation is "news" to anyone. I'm also not sure if it's entirely accurate when you learn more about what he's referring to as "office conditions".

Among the 500 office workers that were surveyed (for this completely unscientific study with a very low sample number), the biggest complaint that they had was extreme temperatures in the office. That was followed closely (no word on how close "closely" is) by unclean restrooms, outdated furniture, persistent odors, leaky ceilings, crime, rodent problems and insect problems. Wait. What?

Where in the hell are these people working?! Persistent odors?! Leaky ceilings?! Crime?! Rodents?! Bugs?! Human waste?! Cats and dogs! Living together! Mass hysteria! WTF?!

And what is with the outdated furniture complaint? You're going to quit your job because you have a spinning chair from the 80s?! (Don't get me wrong, the unclean restrooms one grosses me out. That IS reason to quit. Soon.) I'm thinking outdated equipment would be more of a complaint than outdated furniture. I don't care if I have to sit in an avocado green room with orange chairs, but I draw the line at having to use a 486 computer that runs Windows 3.1!

Oh, but it gets better. What do the employees that were surveyed want at their jobs for perks? They want a subsidized cafeteria or restaurant. (We can all thank Google for that one.) That's followed by covered parking, a conference center, a food delivery service, a fitness center and an on-site day care. Again, I ask you, WTF?!

I'd like to know what they mean by "food delivery service"? I thought everyone had that and it's called Domino's. And covered parking? Are you kidding me?! THAT is what you people WANT at work?! A roof over your precious vehicle?! Anyone who lists "covered parking" as their number one job perk needs to seriously rethink their priorities.

The survey also provided a write-in sections where those surveyed could write in what their "demands" would be for a better workplace. And, once again, their "demands" for a "better workplace" will shock you (or make you laugh. One of those.). Here are some of their "demands":

• Hot water in bathrooms. (OK, this is totally reasonable, which is why it's at the top.)

• Mace for protection. (Protection from WHAT? Do they work in Darfur?)
  
  
• Area to lay down for a quick nap during lunch. (It's called "your car". You'll find it out there in that uncovered parking lot.)
  
  
• Men’s room instead of unisex bathroom. (This, too, seems reasonable.)

• I wish the building had windows. (Are these people working out of a storage shed?)
  
  
• Take better care of the grounds, fix the kitchen, and make it not seem like a nursing home. (I'm really curious about the "nursing home" part of that. Are these people asking for more knitting and crocheting? Do they want their medication dispensed to them by an RN? More wheelchairs and walkers? What does that mean?)


• Security measures such as metal detectors and security guards. Bullet-proof glass would be an asset. (Good Lord, "bullet proof glass would be an asset"?! Clearly, this is an industry that really pisses people off a lot! And I'm dying to know what it is. But they seem to worry about people with metal items coming to harm them to the point they want metal detectors and security guards for protection.)

• Fix the roof so it doesn’t leak. (Again, from those telecommuting out of a hut in the Sudan?)
  
  
• Free parking. (What business makes their employees PAY to park? Who are those morons?)
  
  
• Better vending machine selection. (This does not exist. They all suck.)

Blumberg and Buddies did this survey to figure out what impact an office building's conditions has on the attitudes of workers. They found that one fifth of the employees felt that their productivity and motiviation was decreased by the condition of their building. (That assessment coming from those who need a "nap room" during lunch and list "covered parking" as their most desired perk. Take it for what you want. I'm just saying.) No word on if they're going to start beefing up security, covering the parking spaces or adding a shuffleboard court in the cafeteria.

So, what have we learned? Not much, really. What I got out of all of this is that I never want to work for any of the companies that the surveyed people are working for. Oh, and I don't think I want to work for Blumberg either.

Sphere: Related Content