Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1248787 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TeamBhakta

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2460
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3810 on: May 31, 2013, 12:25:03 PM »
I was using coupons at a grocery store. The cashier said he had to get the manager and a key to ring them up. So he and a girl at customer service decided to spend a couple minutes goofing with each other by hollering back and forth (and occasionally over the phone / intercom) "Go get the key. I don't want to. You do it. You go get (manager)." Which really ticked me off. And then Customer Service Girl finally dragged her butt over to the register. But not to give him the key. Nope. The cashier told me she was a lazy girl.  Customer Service Girl told him "I just didn't feel like doing it." She turned to me and said "I didn't want to 'cuz I'm high." And she was not kidding either. Erratic movements, glassy eyes, slurry speech, the whole shebang  :o Then she shuffled off. The manager showed up after that with the key. I emailed the corporate office when I got home. Haven't heard back from them yet
*ETA: I asked the cashier twice if anyone was coming with the key
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 12:26:45 PM by TeamBhakta »

Amara

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2492
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3811 on: May 31, 2013, 12:35:10 PM »
Please update us when you hear, TeamBhakta!

Shalamar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3812 on: May 31, 2013, 12:37:08 PM »
WOW.   :o

ica171

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1416
    • Must Add Fabric Softener
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3813 on: May 31, 2013, 01:04:05 PM »
I hope you let the manager know, too. Although with some stores the manager's response is less than enthusiastic until they get corporate breathing down their neck.

z_squared82

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 381
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3814 on: May 31, 2013, 03:23:51 PM »
My first job was at a Mom-and-Pop bakery. I only worked two days during the school year, three days when school was out. They had three locations, all in my area of town. The donuts, bread, coffee cakes, etc., were baked at Location A. The baked goods meant to stock Locations B and C were driven there very early in the morning. The men dropping off the baked goods were also in charge of picking up the cash and checks from the previous day.

Over the course of the 15 months I worked there, I think the driver stole the previous dayís take more than a dozen times. I donít know if it was always the same driver, I certainly hope not, but all my 16-year-old self could think was, ďWhy canít they hire an honest driver?Ē

I think the older couple just didnít care anymore. He had cancer, she liked to gamble. The business closed while I was in high school. Too bad, too. They had the best glazed yeast donuts in town.

bloo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3815 on: June 02, 2013, 01:32:26 PM »
Ten to one it's Comic Sans.

This literally made me LOL, Diane. And made me think of this:

http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/07/19/the-53rd-annual-punctuation-posse-round-up/

Second picture down.  ;D

Winterlight

  • On the internet, no one can tell you're a dog- arf.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9665
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3816 on: June 02, 2013, 07:43:01 PM »
This may end up ruining a designer's career.

Marimekko is somewhat famous internationally for really colorful and large prints, in Finland they're everywhere. One of their designers, the daughter of possibly their most famous designer, has admitted to using a Ukranian artist's painting in one of her fabric designs. It was found out when there was a news story about how that design had been chosen to be painted on an airplane and a reader recognised it from a book on Ukranian folk art he had bought in 1960s. I wonder what they're going to do to the plane now.

I didnít think about copyright or that I appropriated someone elseís creative work.

Translated- I stole it and don't care except that I got caught.
If wisdomís ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how, and when, and where.
Caroline Lake Ingalls

Reader

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 636
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3817 on: June 04, 2013, 12:55:00 PM »
I think one of my current renter's R is committing PD currently.  He works for an agency run by my state.  At the beginning of his employment he signed an employment contract/agreement which goes over the rules and firable offenses.  R recently violated a work rule, a possible firable offense, and now has a disciplinary meeting with his union steward and his supervisor this Wednesday and is not allowed to work until the outcome of that meeting.

z_squared82

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 381
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3818 on: June 04, 2013, 04:36:51 PM »
At the media outlet I used to work for, there were several jobs that required frequent driving. Sales, reporters, photographers, etc. One such person had evidently had a DUI but it was a first offense, so he could still drive for work (or whatever those rules are).

Well, he had to go to a probation hearing. His *own* probation hearing Ė for that DUI. Dingbat shows up drunk. We arenít even given an option to find a work-around, corporate (via the employee handbook) required he be fired immediately and we spent the rest of the day (week, month, year, as they refused to replace him) scrambling to cover his work.

CharlieBraun

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 618
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3819 on: June 04, 2013, 04:56:24 PM »
At the media outlet I used to work for, there were several jobs that required frequent driving. Sales, reporters, photographers, etc. One such person had evidently had a DUI but it was a first offense, so he could still drive for work (or whatever those rules are).

Well, he had to go to a probation hearing. His *own* probation hearing Ė for that DUI. Dingbat shows up drunk. We arenít even given an option to find a work-around, corporate (via the employee handbook) required he be fired immediately and we spent the rest of the day (week, month, year, as they refused to replace him) scrambling to cover his work.

A friend of mine was a regular speaker at MADD meetings, where we used to live.  The county where we lived mandated that anyone convicted of a DUI in any form had to attend a MADD impact-statement meeting.  Everyone had to be registered, had to be signed in and signed out when they left.  And breathalyzed.  The only acceptable reading was 0.00 .

She told me that at least four people at every one of these events (which were held about every month and had about 200 mandated attendees) were over the legal drinking limit.  If I didn't know her to be a completely truthful person, I would have had some doubts.   But it was true - some attendees drank while on their way to a mandated legal consequence for breaking the law when drinking.

Mind boggle.
"We ate the pies."

Shalamar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1096
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3820 on: June 04, 2013, 05:00:36 PM »
When my daughter was taking Driver's Ed at school, the instructor gave the usual lecture about how the only blood-alcohol level the police would accept was 0.0 (until the driver reached a certain age - 21, I think).    The mother of one of the kids put up her hand and said "My son likes to have a few beers when he goes to parties.  He can still drive afterwards, right?"  The instructor somehow managed to not roll her eyes and said "No.  0.0 means no alcohol, period."  "Oh.  But just one would be okay, right?"   ::)

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3821 on: June 04, 2013, 05:35:18 PM »
When my daughter was taking Driver's Ed at school, the instructor gave the usual lecture about how the only blood-alcohol level the police would accept was 0.0 (until the driver reached a certain age - 21, I think).    The mother of one of the kids put up her hand and said "My son likes to have a few beers when he goes to parties.  He can still drive afterwards, right?"  The instructor somehow managed to not roll her eyes and said "No.  0.0 means no alcohol, period."  "Oh.  But just one would be okay, right?"   ::)

Does she want the short answer or the long answer?
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

KarenK

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2018
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3822 on: June 04, 2013, 05:48:24 PM »
Just read an email exchange that looks like a combo of potential PD and plain demanding snowflakeyness...

PD: The company I work for provides a service to clients. We're in the process of taking on a new client. The client project manager just replied to a request email for information scolding by our Project Manager for asking for information that had apparently already been provided (he's a new project manager here, and new on the project and probably did make a mistake by not asking for all the information from our side first, so that particular fault was a genuine complaint that our PM should have avoided).

But the snowflakey bit came when the client PM also included a very scolding diatribe about how it looked unprofessional to have all the emails in the email reply chain in different fonts, so she had reformatted all the emails below her reply into one font, and demanded we comply with that as well in all future communication, or she would be looking for a new service provider. So when replying to her or just emailing her anything, we are expected to change the font we use for all our company communication to match her font in her emails.

That's a whole new level of demanding.

I don't know, is this client going to be worth the hassle?

Survey Says NO!
We have no choice in the matter. Management says to bring them on board and work with them, no matter how demanding or rediculous they are. <shrug>

Did she actually specify that her font be used? Because it would be fairly easy to just select all and change everything to the same font of your choice. Every time. Every reply - including hers.

Come to think of it, how would you know for sure what font she uses? What if you don't have that particular font?

Ten to one it's Comic Sans.

Everything is better in Comic Sans!

nuit93

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3823 on: June 04, 2013, 06:23:28 PM »
When my daughter was taking Driver's Ed at school, the instructor gave the usual lecture about how the only blood-alcohol level the police would accept was 0.0 (until the driver reached a certain age - 21, I think).    The mother of one of the kids put up her hand and said "My son likes to have a few beers when he goes to parties.  He can still drive afterwards, right?"  The instructor somehow managed to not roll her eyes and said "No.  0.0 means no alcohol, period."  "Oh.  But just one would be okay, right?"   ::)

That may vary by state, when I took Driver's Ed in 1999 (in Washington State), we were taught that the legal limit for under-21 year olds was .02, since certain items like mouthwash could register on a breathlyser.

Reika

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3824 on: June 04, 2013, 06:41:28 PM »
My call center uses a good number of temps with the theory that if someone doesn't work out, they can be replaced. Realty is very different. However, one particular individual found out just how temp he can be.

CT (Clueless temp) had this attitude that he could do no wrong and that he was immediately management material. My escalation team (we assist the supervisors who are often on the floor) handles reports, among other duties, being sent to our claims department for claims to be reviewed. 90% of them end up being closed because the claim processed correctly and the reps who sent them just weren't paying attention. Among other things.

We do give a lot of leeway to the new reps because they're still learning. However, after being on the floor for 3 weeks, we were seeing the same requests from CT when everyone else who had been in his class stopped making the same mistakes after it was addressed a couple of times. We gave him professionally polite FYIs both directly to him and through his supervisor.

His response? That we didn't know what we were doing. Riiight. The guy who had been on the floor for less than a month knew more than my team, all of whom had been doing this job for at least 5 years. Then he said we were picking on him. That didn't go over too well either.

But that isn't what got him sacked.

Quality failed him on a call, not just a few marks off, but completely and utterly failed him. As an example, when his supervisor reviewed the call, she counted no less than 9 times that the caller asked for a supervisor above this guy before he finally transferred her to one of my teammates.

Supervisor coached CT about the call, and he said that he understood and won't do it again. That everything was okay.

While CT's supervisor is at lunch, he gets in touch with the VP over customer service, completely bypassing all of the management in between. Now I know the VP, she's an awesome lady you can go to if everything else you've tried has failed. In this case, she told him that he needed to resolve his issue with his supervisor since that's who would handle any of his quality issues.

Not happy with that response, he contacts the temp agency about the situation. The temp agency liaison backed the supervisor and VP.

Truly enraged, CT contacts the supervisor above the liaison with the demand, not request, demand of "You are going to put me in another position at the company since the call center is beneath me."

It wasn't a nicely worded request of "Is there anywhere else that I can be placed?" He demanded another position.

As a result, he is no longer in my call center. In fact he is no longer with the agency and is now on the Do Not Ever Hire list with both companies, which are good sized national companies.