News:

  • February 25, 2018, 09:53:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 4023039 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

MrTango

  • Member
  • Posts: 2842
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11550 on: January 19, 2018, 07:41:52 AM »
According to a friend who said he worked in a nuclear facility (I have no verification of the assertion), one of the exacerbating problems at Three Mile Island was - in fact - a series of other buttons pushed. 

The Rule, therefore, came down that in the event of an emergency, the first step a technician was to take was to put both hands in the air and touch *nothing*.

No idea whether it's true. 

It makes too much sense to actually be the case.  :/
One of the best places I worked had a similar rule: Whatever error you made on a live server was 'no blame' as long as you told someone immediately. Trying to cover it or fix it without getting a second pair of eyes was a firing offense.

I like this rule.

Someone did something on our production servers last night, and as a result, our clients are currently unable to pull reports from the system (and we can't from our end either)...

rashea

  • Member
  • Posts: 9711
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11551 on: January 19, 2018, 08:01:17 AM »
I told my husband, only half-jokingly, that the delay in sending out the "Oops" might have been because the person responsible spent the next 20 minutes in an utter panic, wondering what on earth to do.

I work in I.T., and on the (thankfully) rare occasions that I've screwed up royally, it usually takes me several minutes to gather my courage to tell my boss.

(Mind you, my mistakes aren't liable to result in a statewide panic ...)
I've heard this from several nuclear weapons specialists.

Makes sense to me. First rule is always "don't make it worse".

According to a friend who said he worked in a nuclear facility (I have no verification of the assertion), one of the exacerbating problems at Three Mile Island was - in fact - a series of other buttons pushed. 

The Rule, therefore, came down that in the event of an emergency, the first step a technician was to take was to put both hands in the air and touch *nothing*.

No idea whether it's true. 

It makes too much sense to actually be the case.  :/
"Manners change, principles don't. It's about treating people with consideration, respect and honesty." Peter Post

Vermont

pierrotlunaire0

  • Member
  • Posts: 4602
  • I'm the cat's aunt!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11552 on: January 19, 2018, 03:35:25 PM »
Speaking to a friend recently, I was reminded of a case of PD from about 25 years ago. 

BG/ I was the payroll person for a company that sold, installed, and serviced business telephone systems.  The company was sales driven, and the sales reps were pampered compared to the rest of us, but hey, it was their sales that made the company succeed and provided jobs for the rest of us.  Derek was a good sales rep, not one of the top ones, but pretty solid.  He was also extremely entitled.  He complained to me on several occasions how badly the company treated the sales staff. 

He also was the only sales rep who would get advances on his commissions.  I would get a call from the Sales Manager (SM), "Hey Derek needs a paycheck of at least $500.  How much does the gross check have to be for the net to be $500?"  I would figure this out, say $600 (deducting taxes), and Derek would receive an advance on his future commissions.  It wasn't too difficult to figure out, because aside from Social Security taxes, there was next to no withholding.  Although single with no dependents, Derek was claiming 9 dependents on his W4.  But I figured, that was between Derek and the IRS when he filed his taxes.

Except Derek had not filed any tax returns for at least 5 years, during which time very little withholding was done on his paychecks.  I found this out the day I received an official levy from the IRS.  Now I had handled a fair number of garnishments, but this levy was brutal.  The IRS was estimating that Derek owed $17,000, and I was instructed that any paycheck would first of all have 1 exemption.  Then from the net, I would take $25, which would be Derek's net paycheck for a two week period, and the balance would be sent to the IRS until the $17000 was paid in full.  I was sitting there, looking at the instructions in the levy, just shaking my head, and I get a call from the sales manager.  "Derek needs a check from $500.  How much does the gross check have to be to equal $500?"  I picked up the levy, "Um, $17500 should do it."  The sales manager thought I was joking at first.  I explained, Derek hung his head and admitted (although the $500 he needed that day was for his rent, not taxes).

The company was extremely kind.  The company CFO helped Derek prepare 5 years of income tax returns.  The company law firm helped him approach the IRS to set up a payment plan (the IRS revenue agent did mention that they had been sending Derek letters for 6 months, which he had ignored).  Someone even offered to sit down with Derek and help him map out a budget.  /EndBG

Three months later, Derek places 3 large envelopes in the outgoing mail.  The mail room clerk picks up the 3 envelopes (size 8 1/2 by 11), and the postage to mail these out is pretty substantial because they are manuscript size.  The clerk takes them to her supervisor, because the postage needed will empty out the meter, and there is other mail that needs to go out.  Supervisor notices that the envelopes are addressed to company's top 3 competitors.  Well, they are on company stationary and were supposed to receive company paid postage, so she opens them.

Derek was mailing out his resume to our competitors, along with a chunk of the company's sales database, with a cover letter explaining that if they hired Derek, he would bring the entire database with him.  This database had customers, contact persons, what equipment they had, who had authorized previous sales, etc.  The kind of info that could make or cripple a company.  Obviously, Derek was immediately escorted from the premises.

I never could understand the mindset.  The company had really helped Derek.  A lot.  For him to try to steal confidential information was just mind blowing.  And he was stupid enough to use company stationary and postage!  Someone said the gossip on the sales floor was that he had a drug problem.  I don't know.  It would explain where his money went (his gross paycheck was much bigger than mine, and obviously his net paycheck was huge compared to mine, and I didn't have to ask anyone to help me make my rent).  Maybe it also explains his sense of entitlement.

I don't know what happened to him.  No one ever ran into him.
I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three cars across a sizeable desert.  Which makes me officially...Three Cars Crazy

PastryGoddess

  • Member
  • Posts: 6460
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11553 on: January 19, 2018, 04:04:18 PM »
Speaking to a friend recently, I was reminded of a case of PD from about 25 years ago. 

BG/ I was the payroll person for a company that sold, installed, and serviced business telephone systems.  The company was sales driven, and the sales reps were pampered compared to the rest of us, but hey, it was their sales that made the company succeed and provided jobs for the rest of us.  Derek was a good sales rep, not one of the top ones, but pretty solid.  He was also extremely entitled.  He complained to me on several occasions how badly the company treated the sales staff. 

He also was the only sales rep who would get advances on his commissions.  I would get a call from the Sales Manager (SM), "Hey Derek needs a paycheck of at least $500.  How much does the gross check have to be for the net to be $500?"  I would figure this out, say $600 (deducting taxes), and Derek would receive an advance on his future commissions.  It wasn't too difficult to figure out, because aside from Social Security taxes, there was next to no withholding.  Although single with no dependents, Derek was claiming 9 dependents on his W4.  But I figured, that was between Derek and the IRS when he filed his taxes.

Except Derek had not filed any tax returns for at least 5 years, during which time very little withholding was done on his paychecks.  I found this out the day I received an official levy from the IRS.  Now I had handled a fair number of garnishments, but this levy was brutal.  The IRS was estimating that Derek owed $17,000, and I was instructed that any paycheck would first of all have 1 exemption.  Then from the net, I would take $25, which would be Derek's net paycheck for a two week period, and the balance would be sent to the IRS until the $17000 was paid in full.  I was sitting there, looking at the instructions in the levy, just shaking my head, and I get a call from the sales manager.  "Derek needs a check from $500.  How much does the gross check have to be to equal $500?"  I picked up the levy, "Um, $17500 should do it."  The sales manager thought I was joking at first.  I explained, Derek hung his head and admitted (although the $500 he needed that day was for his rent, not taxes).

The company was extremely kind.  The company CFO helped Derek prepare 5 years of income tax returns.  The company law firm helped him approach the IRS to set up a payment plan (the IRS revenue agent did mention that they had been sending Derek letters for 6 months, which he had ignored).  Someone even offered to sit down with Derek and help him map out a budget.  /EndBG

Three months later, Derek places 3 large envelopes in the outgoing mail.  The mail room clerk picks up the 3 envelopes (size 8 1/2 by 11), and the postage to mail these out is pretty substantial because they are manuscript size.  The clerk takes them to her supervisor, because the postage needed will empty out the meter, and there is other mail that needs to go out.  Supervisor notices that the envelopes are addressed to company's top 3 competitors.  Well, they are on company stationary and were supposed to receive company paid postage, so she opens them.

Derek was mailing out his resume to our competitors, along with a chunk of the company's sales database, with a cover letter explaining that if they hired Derek, he would bring the entire database with him.  This database had customers, contact persons, what equipment they had, who had authorized previous sales, etc.  The kind of info that could make or cripple a company.  Obviously, Derek was immediately escorted from the premises.

I never could understand the mindset.  The company had really helped Derek.  A lot.  For him to try to steal confidential information was just mind blowing.  And he was stupid enough to use company stationary and postage!  Someone said the gossip on the sales floor was that he had a drug problem.  I don't know.  It would explain where his money went (his gross paycheck was much bigger than mine, and obviously his net paycheck was huge compared to mine, and I didn't have to ask anyone to help me make my rent).  Maybe it also explains his sense of entitlement.

I don't know what happened to him.  No one ever ran into him.


Holy Moly!

Nikko-chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 3454
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11554 on: January 19, 2018, 04:57:02 PM »
Sweet mother of Murgatroyd!

ladyknight1

  • Member
  • Posts: 12137
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11555 on: January 19, 2018, 05:05:20 PM »
While not up to the level of Derek, I have a PD story of my own.

Director C has been with the organization for a long time, has done very well, and was considered to be a rising star. I enjoyed working with her in special committees and going to events with her.

For whatever reason, C decided to leave organization and go to a private sector job.

This is not PD. C told her direct boss, and the top boss when she had been offered the new job, and while the paperwork was still being done.

C decided that she didn't need to come into the office much anymore, once she gave her resignation, effective more than three months in the future.

C has become obnoxious since turning in her resignation. She came into the office singing at the top of her voice that her contract was "signed, sealed, and delivered", interrupting a class in the process.  :o

C has been in the office a total of 6 hours this week, and flex time is not part of her position.

I feel terrible for the people trying to keep business running as usual while C is performing these antics.
ďAll that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
-J.R.R Tolkien

siamesecat2965

  • Member
  • Posts: 9250
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11556 on: January 22, 2018, 10:20:30 AM »
I have a friend who, while not necessarily committing PD as she works for a single accountant, but may have some tax consequences herself. She has worked for said accountant, for close to 18 years, as a contractor, so is responsible for paying her own taxes etc. In that time, and I've known her a bit longer than that, i honestly do not think she's ever filed a tax return. She's never mentioned it, but of course could, and never said anything, but as she is pretty open about everything else, I find it odd she's never mentioned, even in passing, filing taxes.

Also, and before she worked for this guy, she worked as a contractor, in IT. She had asked me if she could bring stuff for me to shred for her as she didn't have a shredder. I said sure. one thing was, and i swear i wasn' being nosy, but it was right there and i got a glance as i shredded, the SS statement that used to be sent out annualy., for which she had zeros for a number of years. Which, if you are paying taxes as a contractor, that's part of it, and would show something.

But not my circus, not my monkeys, but I do find it odd she may not be filing, yet owrks for an accountant.

goldilocks

  • Member
  • Posts: 875
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11557 on: January 22, 2018, 11:59:58 AM »
Speaking to a friend recently, I was reminded of a case of PD from about 25 years ago. 

BG/ I was the payroll person for a company that sold, installed, and serviced business telephone systems.  The company was sales driven, and the sales reps were pampered compared to the rest of us, but hey, it was their sales that made the company succeed and provided jobs for the rest of us.  Derek was a good sales rep, not one of the top ones, but pretty solid.  He was also extremely entitled.  He complained to me on several occasions how badly the company treated the sales staff. 

He also was the only sales rep who would get advances on his commissions.  I would get a call from the Sales Manager (SM), "Hey Derek needs a paycheck of at least $500.  How much does the gross check have to be for the net to be $500?"  I would figure this out, say $600 (deducting taxes), and Derek would receive an advance on his future commissions.  It wasn't too difficult to figure out, because aside from Social Security taxes, there was next to no withholding.  Although single with no dependents, Derek was claiming 9 dependents on his W4.  But I figured, that was between Derek and the IRS when he filed his taxes.

Except Derek had not filed any tax returns for at least 5 years, during which time very little withholding was done on his paychecks.  I found this out the day I received an official levy from the IRS.  Now I had handled a fair number of garnishments, but this levy was brutal.  The IRS was estimating that Derek owed $17,000, and I was instructed that any paycheck would first of all have 1 exemption.  Then from the net, I would take $25, which would be Derek's net paycheck for a two week period, and the balance would be sent to the IRS until the $17000 was paid in full.  I was sitting there, looking at the instructions in the levy, just shaking my head, and I get a call from the sales manager.  "Derek needs a check from $500.  How much does the gross check have to be to equal $500?"  I picked up the levy, "Um, $17500 should do it."  The sales manager thought I was joking at first.  I explained, Derek hung his head and admitted (although the $500 he needed that day was for his rent, not taxes).

The company was extremely kind.  The company CFO helped Derek prepare 5 years of income tax returns.  The company law firm helped him approach the IRS to set up a payment plan (the IRS revenue agent did mention that they had been sending Derek letters for 6 months, which he had ignored).  Someone even offered to sit down with Derek and help him map out a budget.  /EndBG

Three months later, Derek places 3 large envelopes in the outgoing mail.  The mail room clerk picks up the 3 envelopes (size 8 1/2 by 11), and the postage to mail these out is pretty substantial because they are manuscript size.  The clerk takes them to her supervisor, because the postage needed will empty out the meter, and there is other mail that needs to go out.  Supervisor notices that the envelopes are addressed to company's top 3 competitors.  Well, they are on company stationary and were supposed to receive company paid postage, so she opens them.

Derek was mailing out his resume to our competitors, along with a chunk of the company's sales database, with a cover letter explaining that if they hired Derek, he would bring the entire database with him.  This database had customers, contact persons, what equipment they had, who had authorized previous sales, etc.  The kind of info that could make or cripple a company.  Obviously, Derek was immediately escorted from the premises.

I never could understand the mindset.  The company had really helped Derek.  A lot.  For him to try to steal confidential information was just mind blowing.  And he was stupid enough to use company stationary and postage!  Someone said the gossip on the sales floor was that he had a drug problem.  I don't know.  It would explain where his money went (his gross paycheck was much bigger than mine, and obviously his net paycheck was huge compared to mine, and I didn't have to ask anyone to help me make my rent).  Maybe it also explains his sense of entitlement.

I don't know what happened to him.  No one ever ran into him.

Something similar happened at my company, and charges were filed.  The person involved was in court for nearly 3 years, no telling what his legal fees were.  No jail time, but a hefty fine.

DanaJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11558 on: January 22, 2018, 02:00:09 PM »
Something similar happened at my company, and charges were filed.  The person involved was in court for nearly 3 years, no telling what his legal fees were.  No jail time, but a hefty fine.

Us too. Our thieving sales reps didn't know that we had "seeds" in our list, so unauthorized use would alert us because the company they sold this list to would unknowingly contact us. For example, fake entries actually go to a mail service which forwards everything to us. So if we get mail from our competitors addressed to Fakey McFakepants, we know something is up.

I don't think ours resulted in criminal charges (I may be wrong), but there was a very expensive lawsuit that forced our competitors to settle.

Twik

  • Member
  • Posts: 28973
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11559 on: January 24, 2018, 09:21:49 AM »
I told my husband, only half-jokingly, that the delay in sending out the "Oops" might have been because the person responsible spent the next 20 minutes in an utter panic, wondering what on earth to do.

I work in I.T., and on the (thankfully) rare occasions that I've screwed up royally, it usually takes me several minutes to gather my courage to tell my boss.

(Mind you, my mistakes aren't liable to result in a statewide panic ...)

According to the news today, the governor of Hawaii was unable to send out a message announcing it was a false alarm - because he couldn't remember his twitter password.
"The sky's the limit. Your sky. Your limit. Now, let's dance!"

bopper

  • Member
  • Posts: 14093
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11560 on: January 24, 2018, 10:18:48 AM »

Chez Miriam

  • Member
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11561 on: January 24, 2018, 10:21:15 AM »
I told my husband, only half-jokingly, that the delay in sending out the "Oops" might have been because the person responsible spent the next 20 minutes in an utter panic, wondering what on earth to do.

I work in I.T., and on the (thankfully) rare occasions that I've screwed up royally, it usually takes me several minutes to gather my courage to tell my boss.

(Mind you, my mistakes aren't liable to result in a statewide panic ...)

According to the news today, the governor of Hawaii was unable to send out a message announcing it was a false alarm - because he couldn't remember his twitter password.

In one way I'm quite impressed that the Governor does his own tweets! ;)

Love that cartoon, bopper. ;D
"All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."  - Julian of Norwich

Bada

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11562 on: January 24, 2018, 06:33:27 PM »
Lots in today's news:

Already PD:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/female-journalist-goes-undercover-at-posh-men-only-london-fundraiser-reports-widespread-groping/ar-AAv5SzH?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Female journalist goes undercover at posh 'men only' London fundraiser, reports widespread groping
...
"The result was bombshell story in the Financial Times that set off an immediate uproar Wednesday. The Presidentís Club charity announced it would close and distribute any funds left in its accounts to needy causes ó if they could find any that would now take its money.

"Earlier, the chairman of the event, David Meller, stepped down as nonexecutive director of Britainís Department for Education. At the same time, both donors and recipients of donations, as well as politicians, were scurrying to distance themselves from the scandal."

[It says recipients of the money are giving it back.  Would you? I'd think you could kick up a fuss enough about the methods of getting it being awful that you could keep it and be in the clear when you said you'd use the money for Good now.]

Hopefully PD 1):
http://myfox8.com/2018/01/24/angry-taco-bell-employee-accused-of-beaning-boss-with-hot-burrito/

Spartanburg police say an employee who was upset after being assigned a morning shift threw a hot burrito at his supervisor.

The incident happened on Monday after the supervisor allegedly told the employee to ďstop being a crybaby,Ē right before she was beaned.

[Hopefully they're both fired!]

2)
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/lawyer-hotel-valet-gave-his-dollar300000-ferrari-to-wrong-man/ar-AAv7oev?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Lawyer: Hotel valet gave his $300,000 Ferrari to wrong man
...
""I was just trying to impress the girl I just met at the Vinoy," he [the driver, Levi Miles] told officers.

"But Miles says he's innocent of grand theft, because the valet gave him the keys. He also faces charges of cocaine possession and habitually driving with a suspended or revoked license. Rimmer [the woman he was trying to impress] faces a charge of marijuana possession.

"Fowler [owner of car], meanwhile is accusing the hotel and valet, 717 Parking Enterprises, of negligence. "



Elisabunny

  • Member
  • Posts: 1821
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11563 on: January 24, 2018, 07:29:55 PM »
Lots in today's news:

Already PD:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/female-journalist-goes-undercover-at-posh-men-only-london-fundraiser-reports-widespread-groping/ar-AAv5SzH?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Female journalist goes undercover at posh 'men only' London fundraiser, reports widespread groping
...
"The result was bombshell story in the Financial Times that set off an immediate uproar Wednesday. The Presidentís Club charity announced it would close and distribute any funds left in its accounts to needy causes ó if they could find any that would now take its money.

"Earlier, the chairman of the event, David Meller, stepped down as nonexecutive director of Britainís Department for Education. At the same time, both donors and recipients of donations, as well as politicians, were scurrying to distance themselves from the scandal."

[It says recipients of the money are giving it back.  Would you? I'd think you could kick up a fuss enough about the methods of getting it being awful that you could keep it and be in the clear when you said you'd use the money for Good now.]


I couldn't tell from the linked article- were there already rumors of bad behavior that the journalist was confirming?  I must be old, because when I read about a men's-only party, the dress code for the "hostesses," and warnings of "annoying" behavior, the party turned out pretty much like I would expect.  That doesn't make it right, just not surprising.
You must remember this: a ghoti is still a fish...

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Member
  • Posts: 2865
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #11564 on: January 24, 2018, 10:42:17 PM »
I would guess that's why the journalist signed on.
What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture