Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

Why consumers don’t care about dual agency in real estate

The real estate consuming public wants results. In the last half century they’ve simply not made even a small deal out of dual agency.

Published

on

dual agency

dual agency

Dual agency in real estate

Buyer representation? Dual agency? NAR for heaven’s sake? Give me a break. Until I became a blogger I was both ignorant and apathetic about what opinions were held by others in the industry on those subjects. The only thing that has changed is the entertainment I sometimes enjoy while reading about them.

Keep in mind that most of these opinions are offered by agents who’ve never put together consecutive years of income equal to the national median. In fact, the vast majority of these pillars of agent ethics, according to their own association, earn far less than the national median.

In the 1960s and early 1970s I worked for a real estate firm sporting six offices and give or take 40 agents. About 65-75% of the agents were full time. In the two years I was the janitor and printer (mimeograph) of new listings, they closed over 1,000 transactions — over 2,000 ‘sides’ — 100% of which were dual agency sales. That same firm also escrowed the sales. Oh, the humanity! Furthermore, if one of their agents was caught showing another broker’s listings, he/she was fired on the spot. The company’s broker/owner didn’t cooperate with outside brokers – as policy. He refused to join the local board or the MLS. How could that work you ask? Simple, his company always had more listings under $20,000 (the magic number back then) than the entire MLS. He didn’t need them. They needed him.

And everyone knew it.

(Note: For the record, this broker didn’t employ nepotism very well either. Starting your son in the family business as the janitor for two years sends a pretty clear message, don’t you think? Dad was one of a kind.)

When inevitably the green monster of envy showed up in the form of an anonymous complaint to the DRE — bullies are almost always cowards too — he was unceremoniously audited within an inch of his life. It took three days. The auditor handed his card to the broker when he’d concluded his work, and said, “Mr. Brown, if you are contacted by the DRE about any broker’s complaint ever again, give me a call. Your files are the cleanest I’ve ever seen. If I ever decide to move, you will get my listing.”

It seems when the smoke cleared, integrity was what mattered. Integrity is the ultimate trump card.

I find it silly to even have to debate this subject, since most of the time it revolves around perception, not reality. Marketing deals with perception. Our behavior in the service of our clients must be more valuable than that. It must be real. Our clients must have faith in us and our integrity, not merely an ambiguous, often amorphous perception.

I work in the investment side of real estate. My clients invest to improve their retirement. A large part of my business is tax deferred exchanges. The consequences of a failed exchange can be ruinous in terms of capital gains taxes unintentionally caused.

Without boring you with tax law details, there are times in an exchange in which investors can be put at risk of owing capital gains taxes. If a transaction falls through at a critical point in the exchange, it can result in huge tax consequences, regardless of whose fault it was. In my experience this usually comes up when I’ve sold a client’s income property as the first stage of an exchange. There is a 45 day window from the time that sale closes in which the seller must ‘identify’ the property they will be exchanging into, using the equity/proceeds from the recently closed sale. If that property is listed by an outside broker who somehow causes the escrow to fall out, and the 45 days has passed – my client is rendered helpless. He can no longer take advantage of a tax deferred exchange, and will now owe whatever capital gains tax applies to that property.

The common denominator of these failures is the listing agent, virtually always a specialist in owner occupied housing.

This is why my clients PREFER to purchase properties I’ve listed. They know the other client is likely also exchanging for tax reasons and therefore equally motivated to perform. They also like that I’m in control of both sides.

Wait, it gets better.

I tell my clients, in writing, that if I sell their property myself it’s virtually guaranteed to be at a lower price than if another broker from the MLS brought their buyer to the table. Now this is where the chorus chimes in – “That’s at least the perception of evil! This is why dual agency is so wrong.” Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. The next question is why sell for a little less, right? I’m glad you asked.

90% of the properties I sell for my clients are 1-4 unit rentals. Most of the buyers are represented by agents who couldn’t find their backsides with two guides, a map, and a GPS when it comes to income property. Their agents allow them to pay more than my clients would. (I’m with this when there’s no exchange involved, as who doesn’t like a higher price.) My clients make the decision to sell for a tad less, (usually 1-3%) because of the peace of mind they have knowing the sale, and therefore the tax deferred excchange is going to conclude successfully. Paying $50-100,000 in capital gains taxes because some house agent wannabe decides to dabble in investments isn’t worth getting $10,000 more for their property.

And for the record, I charge six percent — period. Of course, all this is disclosed to the max. I usually end up introducing the clients to each other, and some have become friends. They all have a signed, written disclosure by me on my letterhead, making my relationship with all parties nakedly transparent. One of the common denominators that makes this attractive to my clients is the knowledge that they’re buying property that hasn’t been broadcast to the public. They don’t have to compete with other buyers, making it even more of a seamless transaction. And the sellers prefer this approach for the above mentioned reasons. (I’ve always been told repetition is the best teacher.)

When I’ve given ‘mini-seminars’ in their homes, attended by their friends, neighbors, and family, it’s more likely than not that they’ve actually invited another client of mine to attend. It’s pretty effective when investors hear from satisfied clients that dual agency is sometimes the way to go. This is especially true when some of the attendees have experienced exchanges gone sideways due to an outside house broker’s poor performance.

However, now that my operation is national, not local in scope, I hafta deal with these wannabes regularly. The silver lining is that even if the sale of the original property in the exchange falls through, they’ve not yet incurred tax consequences. Since I advise/consult with the sellers of the properties they’ll eventually acquire, their safety remains assured.

Ultimately the reasons my clients do business with me is the same reason your clients do business with you: You offer solid value, expertise, and results. You operate with INTEGRITY. My clients come to me because they want to increase net worth, retire as soon as possible, and with as much tax sheltered or tax free income as they can possibly create. I strive to give them just that.

Dual agency is a non-issue debated by folks who are either jealous or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, afraid of what others might think of them. I have no problem with those who disagree with me and avoid dual agency as policy. In fact I admire them for walking their talk. I think most of them are sincere in their beliefs.

I just think they’re sincerely mistaken. Integrity should always triumph over perception. When perception wins, we all lose. Perception is too often a bully who doesn’t have anything else to say, so the issue is framed by how it might appear. To those who are on the fence, I say, grow a pair. Look others in the eye and stand on the platform of your integrity.

Dual agency is simply not an issue worth of all this drama. Here are the usual 4 arguments brought forward.

 1. The client has the potential to be injured by an agent who isn’t an angel.

If this is accepted universally then we must repeal the law of gravity. It also is employed daily by those not possessing either wings or a halo. This belief requires all agency to be eliminated due to the potential for abuse.

2. If he is the listing agent he can’t compose a low ball offer.

What, your forms software won’t work? There is no ethical prohibition to making low ball offers if the buyer insists on it, even if you’re also the listing agent. That offer doesn’t make you unethical, it makes you an agent. A seller can turn it down as he pleases, just as if he was represented by another agent. In fact, I’d be telling my client that his low ball offer will be turned down — due to my advice to the seller. 🙂 The seller’s already been told by me, verbally and in writing, that the ultimate sales price WILL BE lower than the buyer wasn’t also my client. They’ve made a totally informed decision to go with that scenario. (Just not low ball.) They know I won’t allow a stoopid low sales price, AS DOES MY BUYER CLIENT. They both know the story from beginning to end, and have opted in voluntarily.

3. If dual agency can ever be abused via bad agent intent, then it is universally a bad idea.

By that definition all agency is a bad idea as it can all be abused by bad intent. Using that approach, marriage is a bad idea. Government is a bad idea. Baby sitting is a bad idea. Only those unable to think for themselves buy into that school of thought.

4. The perception of the public favors an agent who refuses to participate in dual agency.

I’ve been hearing this since Nixon was in office, and apparently missed that tsunami of negative public opinion. Yet how many past clients refuse to do business with huge teams whose volume each year consists of 10-25% dual agency? I personally know a highly successful team leader in another state who listed and sold an attorney’s home himself. The attorney came to him to list the property with full knowledge it could result in a dual agency sale. The final false premise is that I must ‘persuade’ you that dual agency is universally good rather than evil. Shame on me for accepting that in the first place.

Nobody’s ever proved to me that dual agency is inherently injurious to our clients. What folks have said is it has the potential to be. I have the potential to be an escrow officer but haven chosen to eschew that path. An argument against dual agency based on the potential for agent abuse, or the public’s perception, or that it sometimes results in unethical behavior, is doomed to failure. We all choose to behave and conduct business ethically and with OldSchool integrity, or we don’t. The real laugher is that an agent behaves ethically during single agency deals, but misbehaves during dual agency. Really? You’re hangin’ your hat on that? You’re embarrassing yourself.

As for the public’s outcry on this subject, I’m deafened by the silence. 

This coming October will mark my 44th anniversary in the business. I’ve heard this dual agency ‘debate’ since I was 18. Yet, the public hasn’t cared a whit. It’s almost always the PC bully crowd makin’ most of the noise.

Please put forward an argument which logically stands alone. As you have noticed by now, I won’t defend my position based upon the potential for evil. Angelic behavior is not a requirement to make a living in real estate. Integrity and ethically based behavior is. Bad behavior is punished. The drunk driver is punished, but you and I aren’t prohibited from drinking because of the drunk driver’s sin.

Ayn Rand said it best: If the results you wish continually fail to materialize – check your premises.

The public simply never has, isn’t, and likely won’t buy your irrational reasoning. They’re far more interested in getting results.

Jeff Brown specializes in real estate investment for retirement, has practiced real estate for over 40 years and is a veteran of over 200 tax deferred exchanges, many multi-state. Brown is a second generation broker and works daily with the third generation. With CCIM training and decades of hands on experience, Brown's expertise is highly sought after, some of which he shares on his real estate investing blog.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. Miriam Bernstein

    July 15, 2013 at 8:35 am

    The correct title for this piece should be “why old timers in real estate don’t care about dual agency” because some consumers do care. That is not to say in your particular business it doesn’t work perfectly; more like commercial transaction which are strictly business – emotion removed. Dual agency laws are different state to state and what is and isn’t allowable can make a difference…In New York for example the Broker designates a buyer’s agent and a seller’s agent who can “advocate” for their consumers also works….I personally don’t like it because I prefer that each party have an advocate who can advise them as issues come up which can’t be done in Dual Agency….not so simple.

    • BawldGuy

      July 15, 2013 at 5:37 pm

      Sorry you felt it necessary to get personal, Miriam. Try this out. Since the 21st century began, clearly in the internet era, my firm has closed 8 figures of dual agency transactions. The median age of my clients is under 45. Fully 20% of them are in their 20s and 30s. Guess they didn’t get your memo.

      • Miriam Bernstein

        July 16, 2013 at 9:55 am

        I’m an old timer too, so didn’t think it was “personal” in a negative way. I started working as a sub agent and we knew nothing of dual agency. I have found that us “old timers” have a different view about dual agency at times than agents who haven’t experienced the way it was. I sometimes think they should just go back 20 years as this is all so complicated for consumers –

        • BawldGuy

          July 16, 2013 at 2:04 pm

          I apologize, Miriam. I, maybe as you do at times, get tired of folks sayin’ that something in principle has changed. Principles simply don’t change. I think Ms. Lussier said it best. When there is no slight of hand, everything is open to sunlight, trust is created. Once trust exists, I’ve not seen them care. Oh, and for the record, my first 7 years were listing and selling owner occupied homes. Never had a complaint about dual agency in those years either.

          Again, I’m sorry for taking your comment the wrong way. My bad.

  2. Hank Miller

    July 15, 2013 at 9:59 am

    A few good points but Miriam makes a very good one regarding emotion. I’ve been doing this since ’89 and every agent worth their salt has an example or one hundred of where a client removed the data and common sense from a transaction and acted solely on emotion. With the availability of data over the last several years, everyone is an “expert” and I’ve seen many instances where good, ethical agents have been skewered in dual agency. Unreliable data (most any public site), emotion, suspicion, the home buying process in general and angst make dual agency a potential disaster. I much prefer to hand an unrepresented client to my managing broker for assignment, the risk of an issue isn’t worth it to me – perception is reality in many minds when things “go wrong” for someone.

    Commercial and income properties tend to be more data centric, I don’t see the risk/reward equation being favorable in the current environment. I’m just fine representing one client in a transaction. Now as far as the bully and extortion tactics of the MLS organizations, don’t even get me started.

  3. Jonathan Dalton

    July 15, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    * watches BawldGuy drop the mike and leave *

    • BawldGuy

      July 15, 2013 at 11:00 pm

      Exactamundo.

  4. Jonathan Dalton

    July 15, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    > With the availability of data over the last several years, everyone is an “expert” and I’ve seen many instances where good, ethical agents have been skewered in dual agency. Unreliable data (most any public site) … make dual agency a potential disaster.

    If the agent’s data is correct, then why would they be skewered?

    Jeff works the investment side so emotion ain’t part of the deal. Having said that, arguments about the emotion go back to the perception. If I have even the slightest concern that one side or the other is concerned about me working both sides, I don’t do it. Call it common sense. Call it CYA to the max. Whatever it is, it works. So far, though, it’s been raised as an issue by less than 1 percent of my clients in my nine years in.

    If you’re that worries about perception, given what most of the public thinks, you’re in the wrong business. Me and the man in the mirror, however, rest east because we know what we’re doing.

  5. franklyrealty

    July 15, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Was my comment removed?

  6. franklyrealty

    July 16, 2013 at 11:42 am

    Thank you for an example where Dual Agency might work. I have also heard it from a horse expert that said that being a specialist in Horse Farms makes things go more smoothly, whereas a random agent will guarantee problems.

    The post was confusing however since it isn’t clear which “client” you are referring to at times. Maybe edit the post and always say “buyer client” or “seller client.”

    That being said, there was one thing I was looking for in your in your post. And that is advice and how it is given when both sides are your client. And I found it when you said “I’d be telling my [buyer] client that his low ball offer will be turned down — due to my advice to the seller [client].”

    Exactly what advice are you giving? The drawback of dual agency that you didn’t discuss (and most articles miss) and is my main gripe is that the agent becomes an overpaid paperpusher. They can’t give advice to either side (for most negotiation matters).

    So when the listing is $500k and your buyer offers $490k, do you give advice? To go higher or lower? And when you take that offer over to the seller, do you say “I think you should hold out for more, or this is good, you should take it.”

    My understanding of dual agency, and I could be wrong, is that you have to work the contract, not the clients. You can’t give advice to either side that might in the slightest effect the other side. Hence a glorified paper pusher.

    Do you give offer and counter offer advice?

    Frank LL0SA Esq
    Broker Md VA DC
    Attorney only in NJ

  7. Theresa Lussier

    July 16, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    I don’t believe they don’t “care”. I do think they don’t mind.

    >>They all have a signed, written disclosure by me on my letterhead, making my relationship with all parties nakedly transparent.

    Which makes it their decision, Jeff, and that is the difference. As long as they know upfront what is going on, they are okay with it, but if it’s not disclosed upfront, they do not like it one bit. I’ve had buyers come from other agents who showed them their own listings and never once brought up dual agency. Believe me, they care, they just want it disclosed at the beginning. It’s about trust…

  8. BawldGuy

    July 16, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    I think that statement is accurate, Mark. On the other hand, who has more on the line, emotions aside? Again, I agree with your statement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion Editorials

Could Facebook’s newest censorship tactic decimate an entire industry?

(BUSINESS NEWS) Facebook’s last line of defense seems to be platform censoring and they’re using it to demolish businesses and advocacy groups.

Published

on

censoring mark

In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, proclaimed that Facebook was meant to be a platform for all ideas. This was in response to the public’s theory that Zuckerberg was censoring political posts on Facebook. Even then, it was pretty clear that Facebook was, in fact, censoring by removing pages, profiles, and content related to political posts they saw as misleading or inaccurate.

But recently, Facebook seems to be playing both sides of the fence when it comes to censoring, favoring policies supported by well-known organizations like PETA (People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals), self-proclaimed “animal activists” who claim to focus on 4 main areas related to animals and mistreatment in labs, the food industry, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry.

Of course, it’s also pretty commonly known that they expand beyond their definition pretty often, frequently attacking the beliefs and practices of some of the best pet owners and wildlife activists out there, like Steve Irwin. In February of 2019, PETA even went so far as to tweet a post on Twitter about how much they think Irwin did both before and during his untimely death.

In more recent news, PETA actually purchased Facebook shares. They did this because they were showing videos on Facebook that were gory, disheartening, and downright sad, which Facebook also censored by requiring a warning before their videos played. PETA obviously didn’t like this, so in a strategic retaliation to end the censoring of them, they bought shares in Facebook. This allowed them to attend shareholder meetings and to ask questions of executives.

This was actually a very clever idea on their part, but it is in no way a new idea. Indeed, they’ve purchased shares from companies like Levi, BooHoo, and Louis Vuitton in the past for similar reasons.

But now, with PETA’s involvement with Facebook, policies that previously went un-policed are quickly becoming top-of-mind for the tech giant. Facebook’s official policies have been notoriously obscure and are only really explained in-depth to Facebook employees or legal entities.

Plus, Facebook doesn’t really have a dedicated customer service team, so even if you found and vaguely understood their policies (again, mostly written in a way only a legal team or Facebook employee would understand) there’s no real avenue to get clarification. More recently though, Facebook posted their policies for all of its users to review.

One big policy that PETA’s involvement looks to be affecting is in relation to animal sales and rehoming. Facebook has had a rule against animal sales and rehoming for many years, but until now, many of its users (breeders, rescuers, and animal advocates included) weren’t aware or fearful of it.

That’s quickly changed over the last few months as Facebook’s vendetta against anyone selling, rehoming, or even reposting content with certain key words that remotely resemble animal sales or rehoming, has continued. Not only is Facebook now taking down pages, groups, profiles, Marketplace listings, and even comments. They’re also rejecting fundraisers, which we’ll talk about more in a few minutes.

Another scary thing they’re doing is putting some power in the hands of the typical Facebook user, in the form of a new content-reporting button, like the one below.

facebok report button

With that, it’s no surprise that legitimate and well-known animal breeders, rescues, and even long-time pages/groups are being affected negatively.

Facebook has historically been an outlet for pet owners, breeders, and rescuers alike, and it makes sense why. Facebook is supposed to be a platform where your friends, peers, enemies, and even “frenemies” come together to create an online community. It’s meant to support both the social and business aspects of a user’s life, but in recent months, it’s certainly not living up those standards. The result: Facebook is quickly being abandoned by users – especially animal lovers and those within the pet space.

Let’s take breeders as an example. Breeders often post animals on Facebook. In the past, they’ve posted photos and pricing. This is something they can no longer do.

Legitimate breeders are usually not too pushy, nor do they typically spam. They don’t usually sell on Facebook directly ether, which is what Facebook strictly prohibits. Instead, they opt for a 3rd party service like Paypal or Square, but that makes no difference to Facebook. Although the animals aren’t being sold on the website, just including a picture and a price are enough for them to take content down. In truth, they’re taking pages down left and right as a direct result of the metaphorical pitchfork they’ve handed users (the “report” button).

Now, not all breeders are good, just like not all taco stands are good, but does that really give Facebook the right to censor you or ultimately close your Facebook account down? I don’t think so, and neither do breeders.

I spoke with Scott Poe of Poe’s Pogonas in Corona, California this week, too. He’s a reputable breeder of high-quality Bearded Dragons (a very popular pet). When asked how Facebook’s policies have affected him, he said “It certainly has made it a little challenging to list Dragons as available for sale…”. He goes on to offer Facebook advice, suggesting that they certify vendors on their site to proactively vet through quality breeders who are looking to improve their niche’s gene pool, and not those who are simply looking to make a quick buck.

We agree that, of course, there are bad breeders out there, but putting a blanket policy over an entire niche of business owners is like prohibiting alcohol – it doesn’t work!

If we were to go a little further into this topic, we’d see that Facebook’s stance on policies is actually likely to deter many other business types that don’t sell exactly what Facebook deems to be “appropriate”. Obviously, this type of practice can have a major impact on those types of businesses.

To drive this point home further, ask yourself this: what if Facebook disagreed with the produce or service you provided. Would you be okay with them taking your page down, one you’ve worked hard at and one with a lot of followers? How would you feel if 3rd party users, who are not even Facebook employees, started reporting you based on their own beliefs?

It’s important to note that Facebook does seem to allow you to post if you are a brick and mortar, so pet stores, you may be safe… for now.

The same logic applies to animal rescuers, except that rescues are most often not for profit. Facebook doesn’t discriminate though, so if you do rescue (even as a person and not a group), they’ll treat you exactly the same way as they do for animal sales-related posts. What we know is that this will absolutely crush any attempts to re-home or adopt out animals in need.

There are a growing number of animals in need of homes, many of which will actually be put down at kill shelters if not adopted within a 3-5 day period, and with Facebook’s policies in place, it has essentially banned helping animals and their advocates through their platform.

To understand more clearly, I reached out to Jeff Stewart, one of the founders of Sunshine’s Shoulders Rescue in Tenaha, Texas, about their experience. He and his wife run a rescue out of their home. Stewart, like most other rescues, rely on donations from a few people to help feed and give care to their rescues, and while they have a vet that works with them on their bills, sometimes it’s not enough.

Stewart goes on to say that he used to do Facebook fundraisers, but there were two issues that forced him to stop. First, Facebook takes a cut of any fundraiser on Facebook, so if you’re donating to a charity, just know that all of those funds are not going to the charity of your choice and are, in reality, lining Facebook’s pockets. The second reason they stopped was due to Facebook’s declining of their fundraisers. Stewart said, “The past 3 times we have tried to have a fundraiser I have gotten a message telling me that it goes against community standards.”

He goes on to say that “the new [Facebook] policy also prevents us from finding adoptive homes for any of our animals through the FB platform.”

Due to the issues they’ve encountered with the platform, Stewart can no longer take in rescues. They’re costs for dog food alone are upwards of $500/month and their vet bills can get pretty extreme, too, reaching more than $2000 a times (even with the negotiated pricing from the vet). And it’s no wonder why they have to stop. Without the support from Facebook patrons, they’re paying for all rescue products and services 100% out of their own pocket.

To clarify though, Facebook’s policies surrounding rehoming are pretty vague. They strictly say no to “live animals”, but they don’t draw any conclusive lines as to what that could mean for a legitimate rescue who has paid their dues (literally) to become an official nonprofit organization. However, because the power now lies in the hands of the Facebook user, discretion seems to be up to them as to what they deem inappropriate.

Playing devil’s advocate here, there are many animals in need of homes as a direct result of a lack of regulation when it comes to pet ownership and breeding. I definitely agree that these things need to be monitored and regulated, but by censoring content for both entities, Facebook appears to be taking a very strong stance that they don’t want to be involved at all with animal-related content unless it’s funny, cute, or meme-worthy.

Finally, it’s important to know that although Facebook seems to want you to learn what you’re doing wrong, they definitely don’t act like they do. When a user is reported, Facebook will let you know. If you disagree with their assessment, you can appeal it. However, again, there’s no way (no easy way, at least) to talk to a real person. Often times the reported post will come back to the poster with some kind of vague warning that doesn’t go into details on what they did wrong. That means that even when your posts are taken down, you may have no idea as to why.

At the end of the day, Facebook does have the right to choose which policies to include and which to enforce, but it’s pretty clear that they don’t really have an understanding of how any of this is impacting their users.

I have one tip for Facebook: I invite you to take another look at your policies (as well as who’s supporting them and what their agenda is), reporting capabilities, and education on restrictions when reported and to consider lifting some of the bans on animal-related posts, groups, pages, and ads. It’s affecting the livelihoods of thousands of breeders and rescuers worldwide, as well as in-need animals that desperately need a home.

Note: The author has years of experience with breeding bearded dragons as well as marketing, and has unique insight into the aforementioned online niche.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Relax and refresh with our office life movie list

(EDITORIAL) Whether you are considering a new career path or not we have a movie list to pique your interest, and just maybe motivate as much as they entertain.

Published

on

Movie projector

It’s a new year! Woot! Maybe you’re feeling in a work funk and are rethinking your goals and future trajectory. Whether you need something to push you in a new direction, motivate you, make you think about where your career is going, or just to entertain, here are 10 movies about work, work ethic and how we can change our career path by just changing our mind.

Top 10 Movies About Work

1. Glengarry Glen Ross: This take on David Mamet’s play is at the top of the list. If you haven’t seen it, where have you been? If you have, it’s a good one to revisit. This ones got it all raw reality, ego, desperation and some surprising plot twists all with an outstanding cast. If you are in sales, don’t miss this. And, Millennials, take note. You will one day be in the same place as those old fogies – aka Boomers. Oh, and, remember, “Coffee is for closers.”

2. His Gal Friday: An oldie and a goodie with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell as an editor and reporter who worked together, married and then divorced. This slapstick movie is great for a peek inside media, especially journalism, because it shows the lengths that reporters and editors will go to in order to get the scoop. The movie has great dialog and is timeless. It also shows how fast things can move, which is still relevant today especially with social media and the life of a news story moves even faster.

3. Up In The Air: A hatchet man learns his job is being tweaked. He will no longer need to fly, and now the tables are turned and he is unhappy with his fate. This movie can be a challenge to watch if you recently lost a job. But, one lesson learned is that work isn’t everything, so live your life.

4. Office Space: A funny take on work and life and the balance between the two. Regardless of where you are employed, there are rules, regulations and office BS that can be on the one hand completely pathetic and on the other so laughable. It’s always better to laugh, rather than cry. Oh, and do not touch the red stapler.

5. Working Girl: Maybe you missed this one because it dates back to the days when shoulder pads ruled the workplace and women still wore nylons. Melanie Griffith portrays a secretary (remember this is before that changed to assistant) who is great at what she does. She’s got goals and dreams to take her career to the next level. But, she’s not taken seriously at the investment firm where she works. Sigourney Weaver is the boss and she will do whatever she needs to stay on top. Griffith has a twist-of-fate meeting with Harrison Ford, another executive and she takes a chance on herself and her future. This movie has big hair, humor and a love story to boot.

6. Good Will Hunting: Ok. This one isn’t necessarily about work. But, I picked it because it’s an example of what can happen when you let your past hold you back and you don’t pursue your dreams. We have Matt Damon (Will) a janitor at a prestigious university and his friend Ben Affleck, a brick layer. Damon portrays a guy with a rough past who is going through the motions until he has to work with a psychologist played by Robin Williams. He’s forced to consider his past and his future. He has a gift but what will he do? His friend, Affleck, wants him to pursue bigger things, but can Damon let go of his past and embrace his gift?

7. The Devil Wears Prada: Ah, the evil queen and the naïve princess. That may seem like a different story, but it is a similar plot line with a triumphant finish. Anne Hathaway portrays Andrea who is fresh out of school and lands a job at a prestigious fashion magazine. The fact that she had never read the magazine and got the job is beyond surprising, but regardless she lands the job and works for Miranda, played by Meryl Streep. Streep’s character is a Diva and a demanding and horrible boss. She challenges Andrea on multiple levels. Will Andrea become a workaholic like her boss? As they say, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

8. 9-to-5: Way before the Me Too movement there was Fonda, Parton and Tomlin as three office employees who are sick and tired of their chauvinistic boss, played by Dabney Coleman. The women begin to plot for revenge and take their boss hostage in his home. In the meantime, they begin making changes at the office.

9. The Pursuit of Happyness: If you think your life is rough, maybe reconsider for a moment. This is a story about a man who was determined. He was pushing forward and as much as he was pushing, it seemed that he couldn’t get ahead. But he was resolved in the belief that he could and would make his life better for himself and his son. There is a great quote that says: “The harder I work, the luckier I am.” This movie shows that out.

10. Rocky: This movie made Sylvester Stallone. He wrote it and that my friends is a great story of tenacity too, because before Rocky Stallone was basically a nobody. Rocky is a nobody boxer who gets the chance to take on the reigning champion, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers). He busts his ass and does whatever it takes to get the job done. This is a story of endurance, dedication and taking a chance on yourself.

This list is not comprehensive, but we hope you find inspiration, motivation and some laughs too. And, remember, work is not who you are, it’s what you do. Now, go get some popcorn and candy and take a break.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

It’s Me, myself, and I; not work, job, and side hustle

(EDITORIAL) Who else is tired of the Hustle? Why is it there anyway? How can I stay out of it? These question are important when thinking of your next opportunity.

Published

on

no side hustle for me

Live your life in a constant state of fear and exhaustion because you’ll either be doing so in an apartment, or under a bridge.

Sounds…bleak, no? Well, it’s still the best business advice I’ve ever gotten.

Okay, fine, I didn’t hear this pearl of wisdom in those exact words.

What my father actually said was ‘Make sure you have a side hustle or two, because it’ll broaden your experiences, and because you never know.’

The reality of seeing that through just so happens to mean what I got into in the opening.

Texas is an at-will state. Just as you don’t need a reason, or notice to quit, neither do employers need to give you reason or notice to fire you. Want a personal example? Here’s mine:

Just as I’d settled into starting day 4 of a house cleaning gig, corporate, so to speak, called me in to fire me. I wondered if I’d accidentally offended someone, missed a light fixture, or blacked out, unhinged my jaw and swallowed a client’s cat, so I asked what it was I could have done so badly in only three shifts.

As it happened, they just “didn’t think I was a good fit”, and “could tell how it was going to turn out”, which could have meant anything from ‘You vacuumed too loudly and someone complained’ to ‘The chicken entrails we cast told us you were going to start a fire somewhere and we wanted to nip it in the bud’.

What would have happened to me if I didn’t have contract work on my side to keep my lights on while I got back to the search for 40 hours? It starts with an E, and ends with a viction.

Or, to be realistic, it’d start with asking my folks to move back in, selling all my stuff, and desperately searching for someone to take over my lease so I wouldn’t take a huge credit score hit.

But not everyone has that kind of fallback. And even though I fully expect my mother to outlive me, everyone reading this, and also the sun, I won’t always have it either.

My point is: you never really get to rest. You have to constantly chase clients as a freelancer in case someone changes their minds, gets acquired by another company, dies, etc. You have to keep your resume updated and your job searches fresh in a 9-5 in case they lowball you on a raise, let your manager grope you without consequence, or decide that new employment laws threaten their yacht-panthers’ manicure schedule and show your entire division the door.

I don’t subscribe to the ‘Hustle Culture’ that paints this as a good thing either. It’s not. It’s maddening to keep up with, and that’s very much by design. Scared, tired people need more convenience, need to buy more stuff, need to work harder to afford that stuff, and it’s a hard cycle to break out of and STAY out of. Remember, nobody writes books about the businesses that fail.

But with this fear comes a certain kind of clarity. If nothing is promised to ME, I don’t have to promise anything either!

I don’t HAVE to work late into the night to prove my loyalty. I don’t need to see other, better offers as a threat to a meaningful relationship. I don’t have to put my education on hold until I reach ‘a good time’ to ask for a different schedule around acquiring a valuable new skill.

If, for all you know, your boss is having you train your replacement any time someone’s “brought on board”; then, for all they know, your in-person-interview elsewhere really IS a dental checkup!

At first I felt super slimy about thinking this way. Whatever happened to perseverance? Integrity? Honesty? Teamwork?

And then I realized the people at the top sleep like rich toddlers after making decisions for the betterment of the company that might happen to screw over an individual, and I embraced my inner hagfish.

If your net worth is a rousing round of canned laughter like mine, you have very little choice but to weave and maintain your own safety nets. That’s what Dad wanted me to understand—not to put all my eggs in one basket. He didn’t want me to be afraid, per se, just aware. I added the fear myself because…well pick any news story.

It’s tiring, it’s difficult, it’s morally light gray sometimes, and I shudder to think how I would handle this if I had kids.

But considering how many times an extra check, or a good gig reference has saved my bacon, job monogamy is out…even if playing the field does mean I need extra naps.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!