Breaking Job Market News: Fired BLS Head Speaks Out, AI Retraining, Employee Honesty or Dishonesty!

Is your job safe from AI? A new Harvard study reveals only 25–40% of roles are truly "AI-retrainable," sparking urgent questions about the future of work. At the same time, politics and data collide as former BLS head Erica McEntarfer publicly defends herself against removal by President Trump, warning about the dangers of politicizing jobs data.

But that's not all. A new survey shows that over half of employees lie about their work hours, with Gen Z leading the way. What does this say about remote work, trust, and accountability? While discussing salary with colleagues is 100% legal, host Pete explores the emotional and cultural repercussions that can arise from implementing pay transparency.

Finally, we lighten things up with a surprising origin story: the history behind the word "work."

In this episode, Pete breaks down:
1. The limits of AI retraining and the future of jobs.
2. Why politicizing jobs data could be dangerous for everyone.
3. How work-hour dishonesty is reshaping employee trust.
4. The risks and rewards of salary transparency.

News Articles:
1. AI took your job — can retraining help?: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/09/ai-took-your-job-can-retraining-help/
2. Fired BLS Chief Breaks Silence, Calls Her Dismissal a 'Dangerous Step': https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/fired-bls-chief-breaks-silence-calls-her-dismissal-a-dangerous-step-7e3a6a86?mod=jobs_news_article_pos1
3. Over Half of Workers Tell Employers This Expensive Lie — Especially Gen Z: https://www.entrepreneur.com/living/over-half-of-workers-tell-employers-this-expensive-lie/497132
4. Can you talk about salary at work with colleagues?: https://www.thehrdigest.com/can-you-talk-about-salary-at-work-with-colleagues/

Don’t miss out! Subscribe for weekly updates on the latest job news. 

🧠 WANT TO LEARN MORE? Be sure to subscribe and check out 4 Corner Resources at https://www.4cornerresources.com/

👋 FOLLOW PETE NEWSOME ONLINE:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petenewsome/
Blog Articles: https://www.4cornerresources.com/blog

Episode Transcript

Pete Newsome (00:03):
Today's job market headlines include the former
head of BLS defending herselfpublicly and a new survey that
shows employees aren't alwayshonest about how much they work.
But first, a team ofresearchers at Harvard analyzed
the outcome of workers whoparticipated in a job training
program after losing their jobto AI.
It shows that only 25 to 40percent of occupations are

(00:25):
considered AI retrainable.
That means that the workers cansuccessfully move to higher
wage, more AI intensive jobs.
So think roles in the legalfield, computer and math, and
design and media.
That's what ranked highest onthis adaptability scale.
My second takeaway is areminder of why I didn't go to
Harvard after looking at thecomplex formula they used to

(00:47):
create this index in the firstplace.
The third thing I took from thestudy is that workers who lost
their jobs in high AI exposureroles so those would be customer
service reps, clerks andcashiers they actually benefited
financially.
Their income on average went upabout $1,500 per quarter, and
that's a significant amount.
And they didn't do that bydoubling down on AI and going

(01:10):
farther in that direction.
It was the opposite they wentinto less AI intensive jobs, and
so that's good news for now.
But here's the thing this studywas done between 21 and 23.
It's a very different jobmarket now.
It's much tighter than it wasin, so those increased earnings
may not be as realistic today asthey were just a couple of

(01:31):
years ago.
And the other thing is that AIis evolving so rapidly.
Two years is kind of aneternity in that space right now
.
So I don't know that the jobsthat were AI immune then are
just as AI immune now, but it isan interesting study and one
worth checking out.
Moving on, erica McIntarfer isthe former head of the Bureau of

(01:52):
Labor Statistics.
She was removed very publiclyrecently by President Trump and
she's broken her silence andcalled that move a dangerous
step for the US economy.
She warned that politicizingdata, which she's accusing him
of doing, puts America on thesame path as other countries
like Argentina and Turkey, wherethey've suffered just
disastrous economic crises.

(02:14):
And McIntyre said that she cameinto that role with plans to
modernize how BLS collects data,but instead spent most of her
tenure fending off politicalinterference, which primarily
came from Doge.
She has fully defended theagency's integrity, stressing
that the jobs data revisionsthat have recently angered the
president and have been verypublic are just routine and

(02:38):
weren't manipulated at all.
I don't know that anyonebelieves the data is being
manipulated as much as they justcan't rely on it because of the
inconsistencies and the massiverevisions.
We saw over 800,000 jobsrevised last year.
Two weeks ago there was a911,000 job revision.
That is massive and each monththere are significant revisions.

(02:58):
That kind of happen in thesmall print of the reports that
come out, but now there's a lotof light on those.
The BLS head has been fired.
She says it's not her fault.
President Trump has a nomineein place EJ Antony.
We'll see if he gets approvedthrough Congress soon, but it's
a mess right now and the trustis definitely gone, at least for

(03:21):
the time being.
In our next headline it turnsout more than half of all
workers lie to their employers.
This is according to a newglobal survey of 2,000 employees
.
It shows just 18% of people areactually working the 7 to 8
hours that their managers thinkthey are.
Over 60% of respondents admitthat they're not fully honest on

(03:42):
their timesheets.
44% say they occasionally roundup their hours, 12% say they
stretch the truth and 3% sayit's a regular thing.
That leaves just 41% who are100% honest.
So good for you guys.
Now this is self-reported.
Don't blame the messenger here,but Gen Z seems to be the
biggest culprit.
Only 35% of Gen Z claim to beperfectly honest.

(04:06):
That's compared to 46% of Gen X, so no surprise there.
And 43% of millennials arehonest all the time.
These survey results arepublished on entrepreneurcom,
where they also cite a Gallupreport estimating disengaged
workers cost $438 billion inlost productivity in 2024.

(04:26):
That is a massive amount ofmoney, no matter how you slice
it, and a big disconnect betweenwhat companies think their
workers are doing and whatthey're actually doing.
One more thing that jumped outat me is that 55% of respondents
claim to have taken a nap whenthey were supposed to be working
.
This dates me, but I can't notpicture George Costanza from

(04:47):
Seinfeld sleeping under his desk.
I want to believe that thosepeople who were sleeping at work
were doing it at home.
Now, that's something youshould have lied about, because
if your employer is thinkingabout making everyone go back to
the office, you shouldn't admitto sleeping on the job.
But I also want to picture abunch of people sleeping under
their desk at work.
That's much more entertaining.
But I also want to picture abunch of people sleeping under

(05:08):
their desk at work.
That's much more entertaining.
And the final headline today, hrDigest asks can you talk about
salary at work with colleagues?
Now the article goes into a lotof detail about whether you
should and how managers shouldhandle that and whether it's
legal.
So let me cut to the chase.
The answer in almost every caseis yes, you absolutely can do
it.
It's protected under federallaw.
Employers can discourage it.

(05:30):
I mean, that is something thatmany do, some more than others
but there's really no way forthem to prevent it and very few
actually try.
Now for employees, I've seenthis as a personal choice.
Some people are very open andwill be quick to share their
income, and others would neverconsider doing that at all.
And having worked with hundredsof companies over the past 20

(05:51):
years in staffing, I've seenenvironments where comp plans
were widely published and justcommon knowledge, and others
where that information waspretty tightly guarded.
And in those scenarios whereit's just not public, I've seen
those conversations lead to hurtfeelings and disruption more
often than not.
So it's really an individualchoice.
There's no reason why youshouldn't share that information

(06:14):
, but just know that if you'rethe one who makes more money,
there may be some resentment bythose you share it with.
And if you're the one whodoesn't, well, there's a good
chance your feelings are goingto be hurt and you're gonna be
pissed and rightfully so andthen the managers have to deal
with the fallout.
So this is a story as old astime where, when that topic

(06:35):
comes up, emotions aredefinitely going to be involved.
And the truth of the matter is,if you're interested in finding
out what your colleagues make,go ahead and pursue it.
I don't think there's a perfectanswer in that scenario, but
just be prepared that there'sgoing to be some fallout, unless
it's a company that payseveryone the same.
And if I think about all of theexperiences I've had and what

(06:57):
I've been exposed to, I wouldsay very often, most of the time
, it's not a situation whereeveryone's getting the same comp
.
So just proceed with caution ifyou decide to have that
discussion and just know thatthere's going to be some
consequences not disastrous, butdefinitely emotional.
And then our fun fact for theday the word work Doesn't sound

(07:20):
like fun, but here we are.
The word work is from theProto-Indo-European word worg
and it means to do so.
You do something, you get paidfor it.
That's work.
That's where we are.
So thank you for listeningtoday.
Please like, subscribe, sharewith anyone you think might be
interested and, as always, I'dlove any feedback or comments

(07:41):
that you have.
Talk to you soon.