Savvify

I dragged my aching legs across the campus toward my dorm. After five straight hours of standing behind the counter of the UMass bookstore, my legs are as stiff as turkey legs. I got a temporary job at the bookstore during the beginning of the school year. Never did I expect that these three days of working would teach me knowledge that I would never be able to obtain from books.

This is the second time that I have worked at the bookstore. When school begins, the busiest place on campus is the bookstore. Every student has to go to there to buy his/her textbooks. The first time I worked there was after winter vacation last semester. It was a cold, wet day. Not too many people showed up the day I worked, but a lot of workers had been hired. If even only one customer came into the store, he/she would get the most attention and assistance. I didn’t get much of a chance to help out anyone.

This time was a completely different story. People came in and out of the store and waited impatiently in long lines that wound all the way out the door. Everyone was looking for textbooks. Boxes of books were carried onto the shelves from the storage room. We had to stock new textbooks and used textbooks onto different shelves at an incredibly fast pace in order to satisfy our customers’ demand. Even though my eyes were aiming to work as a cashier, (so I could see how the cash register, one of my favorite toys as I was growing up worked) I was still at an entry level position, so I worked as a bag-keeper at the entrance of the door.

Everyone who went into the store must put their belongings into a small security room; this is to prevent anyone from stealing books. How hard could this be, right? Wrong! With only two people working in the room, we had to quickly label every bag with numbers and give them a matching number too, so they’d be able to retrieve their bag later. When a throng of people came in, we had to run around checking and labeling. Every bag was also extremely HEAVY as well! People passed their laptops to you with instructions to be very careful with it. After hundreds of backpacks, handbags, laptops you found yourself almost losing your happy smile and working like a robot.

On the second day, I was promoted as a cashier. I was very eager to learn this amazing “toy.” As a child, I always admired the cashiers who constantly pushed the buttons and put in/took out the money. I liked the dinging sound it made as well.

Now, standing behind the counter, my boss gave me $200 to put into the register tray and taught me how to use it. It was pretty easy, since the computer calculates the change for you. The hard par—you have long lines of customers waiting in front of you, you have to work fast, and you must make sure you give back the right amount change.

If a customer uses coupons, you have to press a special button to deduct from the total amount. I learned how to swipe credit cards, cash traveler’s checks, and regular checks. At first, I was really nervous. The workload is so intensive; you don’t even have time to go to the bathroom. After a couple hours, though, I began handling it very well. We have 11 cashier registers, and everyone had a non-stop flow of customers. There were two security guards standing by to help out.

The store was bustling with noise. At the end of work, we all went to our boss, counted the money we had taken in, and gave the money to him. Then, we could leave. At that moment, you found out your legs do not belong to you anymore.

During my last day of the work, I worked as a cashier register again. People still poured in. As a pro, I could take the customers more easily. I returned their change faster. I also saw many familiar faces from last year’s class. We can only exchange a quick smile, before I had to return to concentrate on my work. Through my work, I also met some new friends, especially those who helped me when I was still fumbling with all the buttons. I am very glad I didn’t make any mistakes counting the money. It would be such a headache if my cash tray ended up missing some money.

Three days of work has trained me to be a fast, efficient worker. I also learned that every occupation is important in this society, no matter if it’s big or small. You have to be responsible, have a good line of communication with people, focus on your work and accomplish the work in a timely fashion.

I also learned that a cashier’s job is definitely not child’s play!

Working from home is a dream many people have, and for some, this dream has come true. With the internet and computers in most homes now, working from home is something that can be achieved.

Here are three tips for working from home:

1. Make sure to sit down and decide if your website or internet business, is going to be a hobby or is it your main source of income. You need to decide this now, because you will need focus and time to get your home internet business started.

2. Make sure your family realizes, that you are starting a home business, and just because you are on the internet, does not mean that you are playing games or “fooling around” (as my friends put it!), that you are wanting to change the quality of your life and therefore theirs by getting this business going, and need some time to yourself to focus.

3. Block a certain amount of time each day for your business. If you are still working full time until your internet business or website gets going, then you really need your family’s co-operation. They will have to understand that you need some time and focus each evening to get this going. Block out some time on your day timer just for your internet business. But also, do not spend so much time on it, that you forget what your family looks like! Go for balance, after a couple of hours, I personally find I do not focus as well, you need to take a break or put it away until your fresh eyes can look at it the next day.

Starting an internet business, can be exciting, and fun. Come up with an idea or niche and run with it. Getting a website is a good start. Find one that is not frustrating, and has some great templates to make your website look professional, and offers online support, and you will be on your way to a great internet business at home.

click here to get your home business started now!

Working from home, is something many people wish to achieve. Lets face it, who really likes that stressful commute, or that nagging boss, who just piles more and more work on you, and gives you that “you are lucky to work for me” look.

Do you daydream about working from home? Making your own hours? Doing something you like to do and make money at it?

With the advance of computer technology, some companies are allowing their employees to work from home, but now there is no end to their day. A friend of mine, actually emails herself the work she did not get done during the day, so she can work on it from home that night, and she actually fell asleep at the computer. This is nuts.

But, how do you get started? Working from home can be anything from creating products at home such as crafts, woodwork, or scrap booking, or consulting, there are many great ideas, if you can just sit down long enough to come up with a game plan. But another option is to work from your computer.

If you have been forced to use a computer all day long at work to make your boss money, you may be sick of it. But what if you could use the computer to make money for YOU?.

Even if you do not have much computer experience, you probably surf the internet or deal with emails, which means you are more experienced than you think. Here are three steps to get started:

1. Make a list of things you like to do or are interested in. This will make it easier to write about something online, especially if its something you like.

2. Get a website. Most internet businesses get started with a website. There are many simple websites and templates that help you get set up. It is easier than you think.

3. Sign up for some money making affiliate programs, such as adsense or clickbank, to monetize your website, and then let everyone know that your website exists.

Now you are on your way to a great internet business. Make sure and get this started now, so that one day, hopefully soon, you can walk into work and tell your boss what he can do with your job… Be nice!

easy websites in as little as 60 seconds!

A different way of immigrating to Canada is through the Live-in Caregiver Program. The Live-in Caregiver Program allows qualified individuals to apply for permanent residence in Canada while living and working in Canada.

This article is not legal advice, but rather is merely informational. It is accurate as of November 20, 2005.

The basic rules are simple: you need a certain amount of schooling, you must have educational or practical experience as a caregiver, you must have had work offered to you in Canada as a live-in caregiver, and you need a certain understanding of English or French. If you are reading this article, it appears that your English is good enough to qualify.

A “live-in caregiver” means that you work and reside in the home in which you are providing care. The Live-in Caregiver Program was developed due to the shortage of Canadians available or willing to work in such a job, and therefore the market was opened to international workers.

After two years of employment as a live-in caregiver within three years of arriving in Canada, you may apply for a permanent residence through paying the proper fees and completing and submitting the appropriate forms.

In 2003, it was reported that 1,074 permanent residents in Canada were drawn from the Live-in Caregiver Program. This number includes not only the live-in caregivers themselves, but also their spouses and dependants.

The Live-in Caregiver Program may be recommended for those who want work experience in Canada, or for those who are unable to qualify for immigrate to Canada through the Family Class or Skilled Worker Class.

Earn money online for free, visit: http://workathome-jpso.blogspot.com

In recent years, a new term - social enterprise - has started to develop throughout the world (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001). This article attempts to answer some key questions for four specific interest groups:

1. Those in the private sector wondering if social enterprises are a threat or an opportunity for them (and how they might alter their own practice to remain competitive).
2. Those in the voluntary / community sector trying to work out their medium/long-term future (whether they should engage or resist the notion of social enterprise).
3. Those in the public sector being asked to develop, support or commission work from social enterprises.
4. Those who self-define as social enterprise, wondering how to understand themselves and describe the value of their approach to others.

The problems surrounding the definition of social enterprise can be explored by reviewing the contexts in which the term is now being used. A country’s economy can been conceptualised as having three sectors (Billis, 1993; Pearce, 2003): a public sector (state institutions and publicly owned and funded organisations); a private sector (businesses established by individuals for purposes other than the development of the state, principally to earn money and make a living); a voluntary sector (organisations established by people on a voluntary basis to pursue a social or community goal).

The problem with the above definition is that it tends to exclude organisations that transgress the boundaries of these definitions. For example, co-operative enterprises (owned by employees, producers or consumers) cross the boundary between the private and voluntary sectors (Oakeshott, 1990). They often have a social or community goal, but are usually set up to distribute financial benefits equitably to all parties involved in an enterprise rather than prioritise the needs and financial goals of the founders (Ridley-Duff, 2002). While the term co-operative has varying degrees of salience, many household names provide good examples of this organisation form: The London Symphony Orchestra, PA News (the world’s largest news agency), John Lewis (with nearly 70,000 partners) and the Mondragon Co-operative Corporation (with over 60,000 members in nearly 200 organisations across 45 countries) are all enduring examples.

The continued growth and development of co-operative forms of enterprise, and ‘mutual help’ as a commercial principle led to the emergence of the a new term in the early 1990s - The Third Sector. This terms covers more than voluntary bodies and charities and includes mutual organisations (e.g. building societies) and producer, marketing and consumer co-operatives (see OFT, 2008). One social value that pervades the entire Third Sector is a concern that contemporary private and public sector management principles have contributed to the social exclusion of disadvantaged groups and vulnerable individuals. For some in the sector, the goal is to address (and find alternatives to) powerful political and financial interests that disempower many citizens (Morrison, 1991; EAO, 2008). Many Third Sector organisations, therefore, share an orientation that specifically attempts to reduce social exclusion. They may do this in a variety of ways: by providing services more cheaply to disadvantaged groups; using collective bargaining power to negotiate access to scarce or expensive resources; organising themselves in a way that enfranchises and empowers individual members (and gives them a political voice); traditional approaches by attempting to redistribute surplus wealth to disadvantaged groups through charitable practices and organisations.

The identification and growth of the Third Sector has been accelerated by changes in the public sector. Since the early 1980s, there has been a shift away from welfare through state institutions and a greater use of agencies and contractors. New Public Management is a concept that has underpinned a new commercialisation agenda (attempts by government to make greater use of markets and private sector thinking in public service delivery to ’save’ money). Accompanying this is a belief that business practices and managerial solutions will improve the ‘performance’ of the public sector and create a more efficient and fair society (Paton, 2006; Chandler, 2008). It is this thinking that is now driving changes in the UK National Health Service (NHS): the UK, as in other parts of the world, is switching to a ‘contracting culture’ in which grants (or statutory funding) are replaced by contracts for service delivery. So, in recent years, the boundaries between the private sector (in term of market thinking and managerial practices) have impacted the public and voluntary sectors and started to blur traditional distinctions between them (Bull, 2006, 2007). Secondly, the emergence of radical business alternatives with a strong social orientation, democratic organisation, and positive attitude to ‘profitable’ trading has led to formal recognition and academic scrutiny (Seanor, Bull and Ridley-Duff, 2007).

In the late 1990s, I played a minor role in discussions to establish a new business support agency. Around the table were support and trading organisations from the co-operative sector (Computercraft Ltd, Poptel, ICOM London) and representatives from public sector training and enterprise councils (TECs) that supported skill development in the voluntary and community sectors. All of us were looking for an idea (and name) that captured the goals for a new support agency. We decided on the name Social Enterprise London and established a new organisation. Members of Computercraft and Poptel (a phone co-operative) provided political support and organisational know-how. The TEC and ICOM provided assets and funding streams that enabled Social Enterprise London to establish itself (SEL, 2008). Whether this is the first organisation to use and promote the term social enterprise throughout the UK is unclear, but the role of Social Enterprise London in helping to bring the concept (and language) to public consciousness is not in doubt. It helped to establish the first Social Enterprise degree courses at the University of East London (UEL, 2008) as well as the first Social Enterprise Journal that is now owned and published by Emerald Publishing (JMU, 2008).

With their help (as well as many others) the term social enterprise has started to spread throughout our culture. By 2008, it had been appropriated by four distinct groups to describe their approach to organisation:

• A - Charities and voluntary groups that are embracing a ‘contracting culture’ by tendering for public sector contracts.
• B - Charities and voluntary groups that establish trading operations to generate income for their social missions.
• C - Co-operatives or stakeholder businesses that tackle social exclusion by adopting democratic governance and human resource practices.
• D - Businesses that deliberately re-invest or share their surpluses in a ‘public interest’ or ‘fair trade’ enterprise.

Three of these contexts (A, B and C) are typically linked to developments in the Third Sector (community businesses, social firms, voluntary groups, charities, co-operatives, credit unions and mutual societies). The last of these are increasingly linked to the agenda of ‘New Public Management’ that seeks to reverse the post-WW2 policy regarding the state’s role in the delivery of education, health and social services.

As a result, the term ‘social enterprise’ has become highly contested. Advocates from each of these groups may, or may not, recognise the other parties as legitimate social enterprises. This is experienced most sharply when organisations trading for a social purpose are rejected by social enterprise support agencies on the grounds that they do not organise themselves in a sufficiently transparent way, or are trading with commercial organisations for ‘private’ gain. As a way through these conceptual difficulties, it is helpful to examine how theories of social enterprise are grouped into two competing perspectives. Firstly, there are those that conceive social enterprises as trading organisations sitting in the middle of a continuum between the pursuit of a social mission (charitable) and trading in a market (private). The issue here, for those supporting their development, is whether they are sufficiently social in their organisation and trading purposes.

Another perspective, however, breaks out of this linear mode of thinking and views social enterprise as a trading organisation capable of rebuilding and developing social capital where this has been destroyed / depleted by contemporary political / economic business thinking (Laville and Nyssens, 2001). As such it emerges in the boundaries between the public, private and voluntary sectors to address the shortcomings of each (Nyssens, 2006; Ridley-Duff, 2008). In its ideal form (a multi-stakeholder co-operative or business) it has a social mission, an inclusive system of governance that erodes the distinction between ‘governors’ and ‘governed’ (or ‘directors’ and ‘employees’). At the same time, there is a renewed emphasis on sufficient trading strength to impact positively on the lives of all parties to the enterprise. In this guise, social enterprise moves beyond another form of charity in which wealthy philanthropists use their wealth and business logic to solve social problems (Nicholls, 2006) and becomes an alternative way of understanding wealth creation that echews the thinking that creates socially excluded individuals and groups in the first place (Ridley-Duff, 2008). This broader based understanding is embraced by the Social Enterprise Coalition (SEC, 2008).

In short, social enterprise can be applied to any of the following:

1. Enterprises that bridge the boundaries between the private and voluntary sectors (e.g. trading charities and mutual societies).
2. Enterprises that bridge the boundaries between the private and government sectors (e.g. housing associations and public/private partnerships in the Health Sector).
3. Enterprises that bridge the boundaries between government and voluntary sectors (e.g. enterprise / employment support services provided under contract).
4. Enterprises that internalise a social orientation, democratic governance and entrepreneurial trading (e.g. co-operatives / employee-owned / co-owned businesses).

Acknowledgement

^{This article has been written by one of the authors for a forthcoming book by Sage Publications. Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice will be marketed by Sage Publications from early 2010 onwards. This article draws on material submitted for the book proposal and approved by the Sage editorial board in March 2008. The authors of the book will be Rory Ridley-Duff, Mike Bull and Pam Seanor.}

References

Billis, D. (1993)Organizing Public and Voluntary Agencies, London: Routledge.

Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds), (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London: Routledge. Bull, M. (2006), Balance: Unlocking Performance in Social Enterprise, Manchester: Centre for Enterprise, Manchester Metropolitan University.

Bull, M. (2007), “Balance: The Development of a Social Enterprise Business Performance Analysis Tool”, Social Enterprise Journal, 3:49-66.

Chandler, J. (2008) Explaining Local Government: Local Government in Britain Since 1800, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

JMU (2008) “Social Enterprise Journal”, http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/socialenterprise/67985.htm

EAO (2008) “The voice of co-owned business”, http://www.employeeownership.co.uk/

Laville, J. L. and Nyssens, M. (2001), “Towards a theoretical socio-economic approach”, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, Routledge, London, pp. 312-332.

Morrison, R. (1991) We Build the Road as We Travel, New Society Publishers.

Nicholls, A. (2006)Social Entrepreneurship: New Paradigms of Sustainable Social Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nyssens, M. (2006)Social Enterprise at the Crossroads of Market, Public and Civil Society, London: Routledge.

Oakeshott, R. (1990) The Case for Worker Co-ops (2^nd Edition), Macmillan.

OFT (2008), “About us”, London: Office of the Third Sector, http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/third_sector/about_us.aspx

Paton, R. (2003) Managing and Measuring Social Enterprise, London: Sage Publications.

Pearce, J. (2003)Social Enterprise in Anytown, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2002) Silent Revolution: Creating and Managing Social Enterprises, Barnsley: First Contact Software Ltd.

Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2008) ‘Social Enterprise as a Socially Rational Business’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour, 14(5), forthcoming.

Seanor, P., Bull, M. & Ridley-Duff, R. J. (2007) “Contradiction in Social Enterprise”, paper to the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference, Glasgow, 7th-9th 2007.

SEC (2008) “What is social enterprise?” http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/page.aspx?SP=1345

SEL (2008) “About Social Enterprise London”, http://www.sel.org.uk/about.html

UEL (2008) BA (Hons) Social Enterprise, http://www.uel.ac.uk/programmes/ssmcs/undergraduate/summary/socialenterprise-ba.htm

In a world where size zero is the expected norm… it is nice to see a “plus size model” become successful. Nancy Hayssen, is one of those models, and she is beautiful and is trying to help change the modeling industry, especially after the publication of a very “anorexic” looking model in Europe.

According to statistics, 6 out of every 10 North American women are considered “plus size”. Plus size is considered size 14 and up. This means that more than 1/2 of the female population will be buying the latest fashions and styles in a size 14 and up.

Then why do they insist on displaying size zero models?. Why not show your fashion designs on a “average size” woman and help the self esteem of many young girls.

Young teenage girls want to fit in, and will aspire to become like these models. The problem is, that if your frame is larger, you are never going to be a size zero no matter what diet you try. But there are many young girls damaging their health trying to maintain this image.

In the last few years, stores have sprung up that cater to the plus size girl and women, but they are separate from the main stream stores, which further alienates a young girl. I personally am considered a “plus size”, at size 14-16, and after seeing a style in the window of a popular store, I went in, only to be told “my size is in the back”… like I had a disease or something. The front of the store only had size zero to 8.

Lately though, I have noticed a few more stores catering to all the sizes, and as long as we have beautiful “plus size models”, like Nancy Hayssen, then we should start seeing more styles and fashions for the 6 out of 10 women in North America that fit into the “plus size” label. Who came up with that term anyway?

Nancy Hayssen, is also a great author, and has written a book “You can be sexy at any size”.. she also is in a small film clip where she talks about her modeling career as a plus size model, and she is comfortable enough with her body to pose naked for the camera, (tastefully of course). This is a real plus for us larger girls. The short film gets the point across quite well…