News: IMPORTANT UPDATE REGARDING SITE IN FORUM ANNOUNCEMENT FOLDER.

  • May 23, 2018, 10:00:31 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 4290070 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

KarenK

  • Member
  • Posts: 2112
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4965 on: December 13, 2013, 08:12:27 AM »
Does anyone else ever think, "Maybe I shouldn't be reading this while at work?"

It may have crossed my mind a time or two . . .

That doesn't stop you though, does it? ;)

Doesn't stop me.  ;D

Mental Magpie

  • Member
  • Posts: 4138
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4966 on: December 13, 2013, 08:26:31 AM »
Just a brief look at ranking before I start this on-going train wreck...

From top to bottom:
Shift Commander*
Captain
Shift Leader*
Lieutenant
Sergeant
Officer

*The SC is a captain, but he is the captain over the daily operations of the entire facility but mostly watches one side of the facility.  The SL is a lieutenant, but he is the lieutenant over the daily operations of the other side of the facility.

A fellow officer in my department, upset at how the SL had handled a situation (in effect saying an offender could do something she had said he couldn't), sent the SL an e-mail that said something to the effect of, "If your staff wants to change the rules of my area, your staff can run my area."  Later that day, when the SL ran into her, she proceeded to literally raise her voice yell at and scold him, in front of a sergeant nonetheless.

When counseled by our (her and my) captain, she came crying to me that our captain told her whatever the SL and SC says goes and they have command over our areas, too, as they are responsible for the entire facility.  She has another meeting with our lieutenant and captain this week.  We'll see if she gets herself into more trouble.

The worst part?  When talking to her (read: listening to her) about her yelling at the SL, she told me that if our supervisors had taken care of the issue, it (her yelling) never would have happened.  Sadly, this is a known pattern in her behavior of her not taking responsibility for herself.

I don't know how the meeting went, but I do know she is really digging herself a hole as I witnessed part of it and she told me the other.

We are not able to change our schedules without our lieutenant's approval.  She did that once before and got written up for it; this was months ago.  Just recently, she had an unusual day off (so not her usual weekend), forgot, and showed up to work anyway.  Instead of realizing this and going home, she stayed to work anyway.  Our captain was none to happy and told her so.  She said he was furious, but I am taking that with a grain of salt.  My guess is that he is just fed up with her antics.

Later that day, at shift change, I was talking to both our captain and lieutenant near to the exit as we were leaving.  The captain would acknowledge people leaving by saying their name and doing one of those head nods.  I want to make it clear that he did this to absolutely everyone.  When he did it to her, she snapped his name back at him in disgust.  In front of other people.  She is really not endearing herself to anyone.

PastryGoddess

  • Member
  • Posts: 6445
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4967 on: December 13, 2013, 11:42:41 AM »
^^^^

someone give me a wall so I can go bang my head against it

cwm

  • Member
  • Posts: 2337
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4968 on: December 13, 2013, 11:57:23 AM »
^^^^

someone give me a wall so I can go bang my head against it


TeamBhakta

  • Member
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4969 on: December 13, 2013, 02:36:11 PM »
At a nearly empty restaurant, a waitress seated us near the bathrooms. She refused to let us sit at another table, further from the bathrooms, because it was another waitress' section. And then another party came in a few minutes later and she seated them at the better table we'd asked for. Yeah, the corporate office will be getting an email

Nikko-chan

  • Member
  • Posts: 3509
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4970 on: December 13, 2013, 08:08:51 PM »
At a nearly empty restaurant, a waitress seated us near the bathrooms. She refused to let us sit at another table, further from the bathrooms, because it was another waitress' section. And then another party came in a few minutes later and she seated them at the better table we'd asked for. Yeah, the corporate office will be getting an email


Why on earth did she seat them at the better table when you came along first?!

ladymaureen

  • Member
  • Posts: 115
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4971 on: December 13, 2013, 08:40:32 PM »
Because it was the other waitress's turn.

Jocelyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4972 on: December 13, 2013, 08:59:43 PM »
At a nearly empty restaurant, a waitress seated us near the bathrooms. She refused to let us sit at another table, further from the bathrooms, because it was another waitress' section. And then another party came in a few minutes later and she seated them at the better table we'd asked for. Yeah, the corporate office will be getting an email


Why on earth did she seat them at the better table when you came along first?!
This is common enough, if one is a woman dining alone. Apparently, it fills the other diners with horror, to see someone dining without a companion, so we should be shuttled back to the most obscure and undesirable table.  Either that, or they assume that women just aren't going to tip, so they don't deserve a decent table...and the server needn't come back and see if they need anything else. There's a certain well-known chain that tried this on me twice (once while I was dining with a female friend, once when I was alone) and I won't go back.

TeamBhakta

  • Member
  • Posts: 1167
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4973 on: December 13, 2013, 09:32:12 PM »
At a nearly empty restaurant, a waitress seated us near the bathrooms. She refused to let us sit at another table, further from the bathrooms, because it was another waitress' section. And then another party came in a few minutes later and she seated them at the better table we'd asked for. Yeah, the corporate office will be getting an email


Why on earth did she seat them at the better table when you came along first?!
This is common enough, if one is a woman dining alone. Apparently, it fills the other diners with horror, to see someone dining without a companion, so we should be shuttled back to the most obscure and undesirable table.  Either that, or they assume that women just aren't going to tip, so they don't deserve a decent table...and the server needn't come back and see if they need anything else. There's a certain well-known chain that tried this on me twice (once while I was dining with a female friend, once when I was alone) and I won't go back.

I wasn't dining alone.
*ETA: After that party left, she seated another group at that table.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 09:53:37 PM by TeamBhakta »

Sirius

  • Member
  • Posts: 9073
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4974 on: December 14, 2013, 12:59:51 AM »
When I was a hostess I'd catch flak from the assistant manager if I seated too many tables in one waitress' section over another, even if the customers had requested that particular person or if there was some reason why the customer had to be seated in that section, e.g. we didn't have too many tables where wheelchairs fit easily, or if someone couldn't physically manage a booth, etc.  Then again, the assistant manager was an old bat who was convinced I was after her job (which I wouldn't have taken no matter how well paid it was) so she took every opportunity to chew on me and/or tell on me to the manager, who fortunately took what she said with a considerable grain of salt.

However, the OP said the restaurant was nearly empty, so none of this should have been an issue.   

AngelicGamer

  • Member
  • Posts: 4246
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4975 on: December 16, 2013, 01:39:30 AM »
When firing your head chef over the fact that he would like to off on Christmas because it's his daughter's 1st Christmas, make sure that you have the password to the Twitter account.

Otherwise, this might happen.



iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Member
  • Posts: 3573
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4976 on: December 16, 2013, 02:12:03 AM »
I wonder if the chef is going to be using that excuse every Christmas for the next 18 years. "But I have a daughter!" Drives me crazy. We have people here who demand the big 3 off because THEY have family. As if the rest of us do not.
Nothing to see here.

FauxFoodist

  • Member
  • Posts: 5015
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4977 on: December 16, 2013, 02:30:42 AM »
I wonder if the chef is going to be using that excuse every Christmas for the next 18 years. "But I have a daughter!" Drives me crazy. We have people here who demand the big 3 off because THEY have family. As if the rest of us do not.

I used to have a coworker who stated she needed to have weekends off because she spent every Sunday doing work for the church (it wasn't true as she didn't go anywhere near church ever -- yes, we, her coworkers, all knew this, but I'm guessing she was betting management didn't know this).  Management didn't buy it and didn't give her every weekend off (eventually, they let her have EVERY DAY off because she passed around, at work, pictures of herself posing in lingerie in the hotel room she got in the hotel where the work Christmas party was that year).

I've been under the impression that, in the restaurant industry, it's a sucky-given that major holidays are pretty much mandatory work days due to the nature of the industry (that the busiest days are going to be the major holidays).  If this should be true, then it sounds like that chef has shot himself in the foot for future employment.

MissRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 1698
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4978 on: December 16, 2013, 06:50:58 AM »
I work in an industry where we do have to have some staff available EVERY day of the year.   On the major holidays, most departments will post the schedule via an email, and the managers will often ask first then if not enough volunteers, then by seniority (some may do by most to newest or some do newest to most).  When I was first there, for a while, I worked just about every major holiday.  What really got me is my mother telling me to work them so those with kids could have the day off (did she think I would like to spend time with family lol).  I have a spine now, and do not tell her what holidays I work vs not.

Some types of places always have to have to be staffed due to the nature of the work, and if you go into that type of work (restaurants, hotels/resorts, some stores, medical, police, tech support for internet/cable tv etc), you need to realize that you may have to work some holidays.

weeblewobble

  • Member
  • Posts: 2648
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4979 on: December 16, 2013, 07:42:33 AM »
Ceallach - What? You aren't impressed with their enthusiasm? >:D

There is a fine line between enthusiasm and stalking.