Dear Job Market,

At this point, I’m not sure even where to begin. But we’ve been through a lot, and I feel like it wouldn’t be fair to either of us if we don’t try to clear some things up.

You know my feelings for you. As far as I’m concerned, none of the other markets are even worth looking at. The stock market is arrogant and measures everything in dollar $ign$.  The bond market is self-involved and incomprehensible. The fish market smells funny.

You’re the one I relate to. The one that matters. Why do you think I burned that CD for you?

But your recent behavior confounds me. One month you post strong gains and hint that you’re ready to commit to something more permanent and meaningful. The next, you virtually disappear without so much as a note or phone call.

Last week, you gave me numbers for new jobless claims that were down a bit but still too high to make anybody feel particularly good. And on Friday, you posted really disappointing new job gains of just 54,000. I’m not ashamed to admit it hurt.

I mean, how am I supposed to take that?

You should know that economists are talking about it. And they’re saying some pretty harsh things. Did you hear what MarketWatch said Julia Coronado of BNP Paribas told them?

“The level of (jobless) claims is consistent with very weak job gains, something we expect to be reflected in the May employment report.”

And Tuesday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke called you “far from normal” and said you were performing “well below” your potential.

Now I know I have my faults — short, snarky, oversensitive — but I think I deserve better from you. At the very least, I want to know you’re out there trying — that you’re working on meeting your potential.

I’d like this to work for both of us. I can only hope that you do too.

Consumer confidence in Florida remained stuck in neutral, coming in at 68 on the most recent survey by the University of Florida Survey Research Center.

It was unchanged from April.

Perceptions of personal finances now compared to one year ago dropped by four points — to 52 points. But perceptions of their personal situation looking ahead a year rose by three points to 76.

You can find the full results here: Florida Consumer Confidence.

The Conference Board’s consumer index dropped a bit last month also — from 66 to 61. Analysts blame a sluggish job market and rising prices.

My story  earlier this month about Workforce Central Florida and its practice of making deals with board members has attracted the attention of The Nonprofit Quarterly, an online and print magazine of the nonprofit industry.

In a recent posting, it raised questions about how Workforce Central Florida was operating, citing the size of its board and its history of awarding contracts to members of its governing board. It writes …

Workforce was thrust onto the public scene last month because of the organization’s marketing plan for handing out 6,000 superhero capes to the unemployed. The capes were part of Workforce’s “Cape-A-Bility Challenge” public relations campaign aimed at defeating a cartoon character called “Dr. Evil Unemployment”. The campaign featured pictures of the board chair himself wearing the cape targeting Dr. Evil Was it a board member’s PR firm that recommended that brilliant strategy?

It’s hard to imagine that it wasn’t. There are 44, count ‘em, 44 luminaries occupying seats on the Workforce Central Florida board of directors. What do 44 board members do? The board chair said that “it’s natural for business owners [on the Workplace board] to sometimes bid on agency work,” and to prevent that practice would make it “difficult ‘to recruit the people we really want.’” He went on to say that “Orlando is ‘not that big’” and self-dealing restrictions would, as the Orlando Sentinel put it, make the “willingness to serve on civic boards . . . evaporate.”

In the case of Workforce Central Florida, it is easy to imagine why the public might question the civic rather than business motivations of the 44 board members. Who the heck needs 44 board members? Couldn’t many of them simply provide services to the unemployed rather than having to serve on the board to guarantee that they do?

The post was prompted by a couple earlier stories that ran in the Sentinel. Sunday, we published a follow-up, outlining how, despite the agency’s assurances that board members could not exert undue influence, one board member actively lobbied staff to give his company a contract worth about $50,000.

The story also explained how Workforce had given about $28,000 in training grants to a company whose secretary and treasurer was the mother of a Workforce president. The agency said the awards — four over five years — were all handled appropriately.

Last year, I wrote about an online employment ad that explicitly told folks who were unemployed they shouldn’t bother applying. The company, Sony Ericsson, was interested only in candidates who were currently working.

Back then, a company spokeswoman insisted that wasn’t really the case. She said the online employment site had screwed up and added the language excluding jobless candidates without Sony Ericsson’s approval.

Now TIME magazine revisits the story, reporting that the practice may be much more widespread than first thought.

TIME writes …

At an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing this year, Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, declared that “excluding the unemployed” is “becoming business as usual.” Owens testified about a 55-year-old California woman who had applied for a job as a software-systems engineer. The recruiter for the position was enthusiastic until she learned that the woman had been out of work for six months. At that point, she told the woman she could not forward her résumé to the hiring company.

The rationale is that people who’ve been out of work for an extended time may have lost their edge. Or, they’ve become so desperate they’re applying for jobs they’re not remotely qualified to do.

But it’s a savage policy, especially when you consider the nature of this recession. Something on the order of 30 to 40 percent of the unemployed have been jobless for at least a year.

If companies are engaging in this practice on any widespread basis, it’s going to be extremely difficult for the long-term unemployed to get back into the labor pool.

Businesses have argued that they’re reluctant to consider the unemployed because, historically, folks let go during a downturn tend to be underperformers. But the layoff ax cut so deeply in this recession, it took out huge numbers of people who were well qualified and had been successful for years.

Maybe too successful. In many cases, companies cut costs by throwing some of their highest-paid people overboard.

The TIME story points out that some states are considering laws that would make it illegal to post job listings that make employment a condition of being hired. New Jersey has already done so.

Given the current makeup of the Florida Legislature, don’t look for similar action here.

Rocket-engine maker Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne is laying off about 300 people, including 69 at its facility at Kennedy Space Center, the company said this week.

The Kennedy layoffs were included in the state’s regular announcements of major layoffs around the state. The company, which has powered missions to virtually every planet in the solar system, cited a sluggish economy, uncertainty in the space industry and concerns about government spending as reasons for the job cuts.

“We must take difficult steps to ensure our cost structure is competitive during these challenging times,” the company said in a statement. “This action is part of the company’s continuous effort to align its workforce to meet customers’ needs and to respond to the prevailing business conditions and outlook.”

The company said it had already cut back in other areas, reducing spending on facility space, salaries and travel.

Salaried workers who are being let go will receive severance packages that include benefits.

The layoffs will affect all Pratt & Whitney sites, including facilities in Florida, Alabama, California and Mississippi. The company has a manufacturing site in West Palm Beach. The impact in Florida is less than a third of the total planned cuts.

The company is the nation’s leading maker of rocket engines.

The Wall Street Journal writes today about new study that suggests many Americans are navigating post-recession waters in dangerously fragile boats.

The report, from the National Bureau on Economic Research, says that almost half of all Americans say that they probably couldn’t or definitely couldn’t come up with $2,000 in 30 days if they were faced with a financial emergency.

About 22 percent said they’d probably be unable to find the money and 28 percent said they definitely couldn’t.

Researchers used data collected from a 2009 survey that asked respondents, “If you were to face a $2,000 unexpected expense in the next month, how would you get the funds you need?”

The answers suggest economic fragility is widespread.  Low-income families were more likely to be unable to come up with $2,000 in emergency cash, but a significant percentage of people who are considered “middle class” were vulnerable as well.

Respondents cited a range of possibilities for how they might be able to find the cash. Most indicated they’d look to several sources — everything from savings accounts to credit cards to payday loans.

Researchers used the $2,000 figure because it’s a reasonable estimate of what you might expect to pay for a major car or home repair, an unexpected medical expense or a legal bill.

The Journal’s item about the report is here. You can find the study here.

When the Florida Legislature passed a sweeping overhaul of the state’s unemployment laws, most everyone focused on provisions that cut weeks of benefits and tied the maximum number of weeks available to the state jobless rate.

Florida became the first state in the nation to put maximum weeks — under the state program — on a sliding scale.

But there’s language in the reform bill that has the potential to have an even greater impact on unemployed Floridians.

Legislators neutered a long-standing provision that gave employees the benefit of the doubt when their unemployment eligibility was challenged by employers.

Under the old language, eligibility was to be “liberally construed” in favor of the employee. That is, when a company challenged a former worker’s right to collect benefits, it had to prove to a state referee that the ex-employee had done something that would render him ineligible.

If the case was a close call, the employee was to receive the benefit of the doubt. The law was to be “liberally construed” in favor of the claimant.

But this year’s legislature eliminated that element.

The words “liberally construed” still appear in the law, but they’re now followed by a mishmash of legalese that says little more than, “We will administer unemployment in a way that’s consistent with all current laws and regulations.”

This is a pretty big deal.

Until now, unemployment benefits have been viewed as something you earned. To be eligible, you had to work consistently and meet an income threshold. Once you did that, the benefits were yours — an insurance policy you could draw on if you were laid off.

The new measure re-frames eligibility as a status to be debated by employer and employee. If ultimately signed by Gov. Rick Scott, who’s said he support the bill, businesses should find it easier to deny benefits to former employees.

Employers say it’s necessary because the old language made it too easy for undeserving claimants to game the system. But worker advocates are worried.

You can read the full story — New law would make it easier to challenge jobless claims — in today’s Central Florida Business magazine.

We’ll get new statewide unemployment numbers tomorrow, but some national numbers today are an annoying reminder that the labor market remains soft.

New claims for unemployment dropped to about 409,000, according the Labor Department, falling from about 480,000 in late April. That’s a welcome turnaround.

But the four-week moving average rose slightly, hitting a six-month high. The four-week average is important because it tends to smooth out weekly blips that can jump around pretty dramatically.

Welcome to the rubber ball recovery: We’re up, we’re down. We’re up, we’re down. Or the toddler recovery: One shaky step forward, a half step back.

There’s some forward momentum, but it’s not been enough, so far, to move the economy ahead — especially the labor market — in any dramatic way. And right now, the labor market remains the single most salient measure of the state’s economic health.

Last month, the jobless rate in Florida was 11.1 percent, the lowest since November 2009.

In Central Florida, it fell to 10.4 percent as the region added 20,400 jobs over the same time last year. Metro Orlando, in fact, has emerged as the state’s leader in new jobs, adding significantly more than other parts of the state.

The state will release new jobless numbers Friday, and it’s possible the unemployment rate will tick up a bit. That’s not necessarily a terrible thing.

During a recovery, it’s not unusual to see the jobless rate climb a bit. That’s because people who’ve stopped looking for work — and, consequently, aren’t factored into the jobless rate — jump back into the labor pool and restart their job search.

So a small increase could be a sign that people are feeling good enough about their job prospects that they’ve decided to start looking again.

The folks over at the National Employment Law Project are keeping an eye on a piece of legislation that has the potential to undo the year-long reauthorization of federal unemployment benefits.

Introduced early this month, the House bill would let states take federal money set aside for long-term unemployment benefits and use them for other purposes. NELP says states, for example, could use the federal money to fund the state unemployment program — the first 26 weeks of payments — to ease the tax burden on businesses.

If the money was diverted to that program, it wouldn’t be available to cover benefits for the thousands of Floridians receiving payments under the federal system. That program kicks in after someone has exhausted their state benefits.

NELP says the proposal would also allow states to reduce the number of weeks offered under the federal plan and cut the amounts paid. Florida lawmakers have already passed a bill that shortens the length of the state program — from 26 to 23 weeks — and ties maximum number of weeks to the statewide jobless rate.

Gov. Rick Scott has indicated he supports the measure, but he’s not yet signed it.

Backers of the federal proposal say it would return power to the states and allow them to use the money as they see fit.

About five months ago, federal lawmakers cut a deal to reauthorize the extended benefits until the end of 2011. That came only after President Barack Obama agreed to allow tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans to remain in place. In return, the GOP signed off on the unemployment reauthorization.

Now Democrats and worker advocacy groups like NELP are worried the new House bill would undermine that deal and leave the long-term unemployed with no source of income.

NELP estimates that more than 4 million people across the country are receiving benefits under the federal program. Last month, that included roughly 253,000 Floridians.

The proposed federal legislation and the sweeping state unemployment reform bill reflect a growing frustration with people who’ve not yet been able to find a job.

Two years ago, it would have been political suicide for lawmakers to push legislation that seemed to target the unemployed.

But compassion fatigue has begun to set in, and there is a mounting suspicion that many of the unemployed just aren’t looking hard enough for a job.

Workers and their advocates have pushed back, saying the real issue is a lack of work. In Florida, new jobs are once again being created, but the unemployed continue to outnumber job openings by about 4 to 1.

Here’s the sort of news Gov. Rick Scott wants breaking on his watch: Florida was just ranked the third-best state in the nation in which to do business.

In its annual survey, Chief Executive magazine cited the state’s low taxes, business-friendly regulations and quality of life. Florida finished third behind Texas and North Carolina. The state moved up three spots, having ranked sixth in 2010.

For Scott, who has promised to make the state the most business-friendly in the country, it’s something to wave in the face of detractors — an affirmation of his “Let’s Get to Work” campaign slogan.

Scott and many GOP lawmakers ran last year pushing the idea that the state had become overrun by regulations that stymied entrepreneurs and choked economic growth. Most of the just-completed legislative session was spent looking for ways to make doing business in Florida easier.

But before the administration gets too excited — and what exactly would it look like if the reserved guv got too excited? — it’s worth examining where Florida has placed historically in the Chief Executive survey.

In 2010, it finished sixth. The year before that, third. In 2008, it was third. in 2007, third. In 2006, it finished fourth, and in 2005, it placed third.

Wait. How’d that happen?

The storyline during much of last year’s election suggested the state had been taken over by bureaucrats and environmental extremists  who met visiting CEOs at the state line and chased them off with torches and pitch forks.

Yet the folks at Chief Executive kept handing Florida high marks. The state fared well even during those years when …  (shudder) … Charlie Crist was governor.

The rankings are consistent with what economic development types and elected officials know to be true — regardless of what gets said during campaigns: Florida has been one of the most business-friendly places on earth for years now.

The economy here tanked not because taxes were too high or regulations too onerous, but because the bottom fell out of the construction industry when the housing bubble burst. The challenge now is to diversify that economy so the next downturn isn’t quite so painful.

Here are the five best and five worst states in the Chief Executive survey:

The best: Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia.

The worst: Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, California.