Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1370926 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

checkitnice

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 137
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5385 on: February 17, 2014, 05:05:22 PM »
Ooh, I have a coworker who will be committing PD in a few weeks! 

So I work for a government agency, and we have a strict code of conduct that we must follow.  We've all signed it, and even watched a few cheesy videos with examples of what *not* to do.  One aspect of this code is that we must not accept gifts, tips, or even holiday items from the lawyers.  Pretty basic. 

So what does Oblivious Coworker do?  "Hey, lawyer, will you sponsor my softball team this summer?"  Um wait WHAT?  Even the lawyer knows it's a no-no, and said as such to me ("Oh, we're saying one of his friends asked, so we don't get in trouble"), but I'm waiting until the shirts get printed up and this hits a fan or two.  Then I'll grab the popcorn. 

Dr. F.

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 919
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5386 on: February 17, 2014, 05:14:46 PM »
Ooh, I have a coworker who will be committing PD in a few weeks! 

So I work for a government agency, and we have a strict code of conduct that we must follow.  We've all signed it, and even watched a few cheesy videos with examples of what *not* to do.  One aspect of this code is that we must not accept gifts, tips, or even holiday items from the lawyers.  Pretty basic. 

So what does Oblivious Coworker do?  "Hey, lawyer, will you sponsor my softball team this summer?"  Um wait WHAT?  Even the lawyer knows it's a no-no, and said as such to me ("Oh, we're saying one of his friends asked, so we don't get in trouble"), but I'm waiting until the shirts get printed up and this hits a fan or two.  Then I'll grab the popcorn.

Holy carp! I'm also a Fed, and, wow, my jaw just hit the ground. Oblivious Coworker is lucky if they only get fired. They make it quite clear in the briefings that that kind of thing could lead to Federal charges. That seems unlikely in this case, but how could anyone think that was a good idea?!?

checkitnice

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 137
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5387 on: February 17, 2014, 05:27:42 PM »

[/quote]

Holy carp! I'm also a Fed, and, wow, my jaw just hit the ground. Oblivious Coworker is lucky if they only get fired. They make it quite clear in the briefings that that kind of thing could lead to Federal charges. That seems unlikely in this case, but how could anyone think that was a good idea?!?
[/quote]

Oh, I'm not a Fed.  It's county level, but still obvious as all get out that someone in my department should probably NOT be playing beer-league softball with the name of a sleazy Defense attorney on their back.  Oblivious Coworker is just that, oblivious.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 07:30:07 PM by checkitnice »

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7754
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5388 on: February 17, 2014, 08:21:17 PM »
We have a fairly new mid-level employee who just doesn't seem to grasp the concept that people in other departments have other obligations and that she needs to check with them before scheduling an event at which she needs their help. I very much enjoyed hearing a high-level employee explaining the concept to her.  ::)

rachellenore

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 130
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5389 on: February 18, 2014, 12:05:53 AM »
I had a manager who frequently gave out quasi-legal "uppers" to all of the employees who asked (or sometimes didn't ask). She was just let go recently and it was apparently not an amicable split. I like to think someone witness to these situations told HR and finally put an end to her.

Oh and, if anyone remembers my horrendous Secret Santa, I found out why she was such a spaz - she comes to work completely high on Vicodin every single day. She offered Vicodin as a "birthday present" to one of my coworkers who has been in recovery the last 5 years. Stay classy.

kherbert05

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 10402
    • Trees downed in my yard by Ike and the clean up
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5390 on: February 18, 2014, 12:20:27 AM »
I had a manager who frequently gave out quasi-legal "uppers" to all of the employees who asked (or sometimes didn't ask). She was just let go recently and it was apparently not an amicable split. I like to think someone witness to these situations told HR and finally put an end to her.

Oh and, if anyone remembers my horrendous Secret Santa, I found out why she was such a spaz - she comes to work completely high on Vicodin every single day. She offered Vicodin as a "birthday present" to one of my coworkers who has been in recovery the last 5 years. Stay classy.
:o I shudder to think of all the ways that could have gone wrong - especially if she was drugging people without their knowledge.


When they give me Epinephrine in the ER for allergic reaction - they always tell the person with me "she is going to be hyper - and high as a kite for a while"


What really happens is I go to sleep - then drive everyone crazy sleepwalking/sleeptalking off and on for up to 12 hours.  (They really should keep me till the effects are gone, but they can't do that)


Give me a sedative - and I'll start climbing the walls, try to fly off 3rd story balconies and swing from the rafters  - if you are lucky. Unlucky - I start fights.
Don't Teach Them For Your Past. Teach Them For Their Future

starry diadem

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 443
  • διάδημα: The Glass Hat
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5391 on: February 18, 2014, 02:23:10 AM »
Oh and, if anyone remembers my horrendous Secret Santa, I found out why she was such a spaz -  (rest clipped)

Did you know that word derives from spastic?  Which in the UK at least, is seen as an extremely pejorative way to refer to people with disabilities, particularly those with little or no control over their limbs, and ranks right up there with 'r******' and 'mong'.  It may not have the same sensitivity in the US, but it leapt off the page for me,  made me pause and say "ouch".


ETA :  According to Wiki, there is indeed a very profound difference between the UK and US here, but I'll leave my comment so that people are aware of UK sensitivities over the word.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 03:07:26 AM by starry diadem »
Mysterious ravens go after local farmer's potatoes


Slartibartfast

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11768
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5392 on: February 18, 2014, 03:44:27 AM »
Oh and, if anyone remembers my horrendous Secret Santa, I found out why she was such a spaz -  (rest clipped)

Did you know that word derives from spastic?  Which in the UK at least, is seen as an extremely pejorative way to refer to people with disabilities, particularly those with little or no control over their limbs, and ranks right up there with 'r******' and 'mong'.  It may not have the same sensitivity in the US, but it leapt off the page for me,  made me pause and say "ouch".


ETA :  According to Wiki, there is indeed a very profound difference between the UK and US here, but I'll leave my comment so that people are aware of UK sensitivities over the word.

This is one of many which differ greatly on the other side of the pond.  (I had to look up "mong" - never heard that before.  I grew up near a large Hmong population, which seems to be a bit different!)  "Spaz" is only mildly pejorative here, on the level of "clumsy idiot," despite its etymology.  It's something parents might call their kids when their kids are being wild and crazy.  I've certainly tried to limit my use of it now that I know it can offend people, but I would categorize it as one of many terms where people would be bothered that you're offended - you'd probably get an eyeroll or a sarcastic response from at least 50% of a random sampling here if you tried to explain that it's offensive.  (I'd put it with terms like "witch" and "transgendered" - people who are involved in those communities have preferred terminology and have to deal with incorrect terminology being used against them on a regular basis, but people who aren't in those communities don't have any reason to know better.)

Margo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1616
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5393 on: February 18, 2014, 07:52:01 AM »
'Mong' is short for 'mongol' so is an outdated and pejorative term for people with Downs Syndrome.

Both it and 'Spaz' are definitely very offensive here in the UK, I think an equivalent might be describing with physical disabilities as a cripple. They are not terms, here, which would be seen as 'outdated but part of normal vocabulary for the general population'  as opposed to people within specific communities, or where you'd be getting eye-rolls for being offended!

It's interesting that the terms haven't fallen out of use in the US - is it still the same with the terms '*******' and 'retarded'? I've never come across '*******' as anything other than a pejorative here in the UK, but I understand it was used officially / descriptively in education in the US until fairly recently  (not sure whether it is still used in that way)

(On a similar note, 'handicapped' has fallen out of use here - it's much more usual to hear people described as having disabilities, and things like parking spaces and permits are described that way. I think 'handicapped' is a term which would be seen more as outdated than offensive, in the general population, however) 

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5394 on: February 18, 2014, 08:31:25 AM »
I think this is one of those situations where we need to be mindful that this forum has an international audience. I think once you're made aware that a term is likely to offend a significant percentage of the people you're hanging out with, it's probably best not to use it, regardless of whether it's considered offensive where you are. Similarly, I tend to refrain from using phrases like 'oh my g*d' here on the forum because there are a large number of religious folks here who are more likely to be offended by it than in my local area.

Spaz and cripple are definitely massively offensive where I live, unless they're being reclaimed and used ironically by the people who are affected by it, of course, but that's a whole different ballgame.

cabbagegirl28

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1184
  • violinp's my sister :)
    • My Fitness/Singing Blog
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5395 on: February 18, 2014, 08:39:40 AM »
'Mong' is short for 'mongol' so is an outdated and pejorative term for people with Downs Syndrome.

Both it and 'Spaz' are definitely very offensive here in the UK, I think an equivalent might be describing with physical disabilities as a cripple. They are not terms, here, which would be seen as 'outdated but part of normal vocabulary for the general population'  as opposed to people within specific communities, or where you'd be getting eye-rolls for being offended!

It's interesting that the terms haven't fallen out of use in the US - is it still the same with the terms '*******' and 'retarded'? I've never come across '*******' as anything other than a pejorative here in the UK, but I understand it was used officially / descriptively in education in the US until fairly recently  (not sure whether it is still used in that way)

(On a similar note, 'handicapped' has fallen out of use here - it's much more usual to hear people described as having disabilities, and things like parking spaces and permits are described that way. I think 'handicapped' is a term which would be seen more as outdated than offensive, in the general population, however)

At least in education terminology, it's a bit of a divide. The original legislation which allowed intellectually disabled to come into public schools refers to them as "mentally retarded". However, when learning about disabled children as a music therapy student, we're instructed to use person-first terminology, such as "person who is blind" or "person who is intellectually disabled". We're also asked to use terms such as intellectually disabled.


"To study and practice the goodness of life, the beauty of art, the meaning of music...To speak the words that build, that bless and comfort...And again, to practice./This is to be our symphony."

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7754
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5396 on: February 18, 2014, 08:42:10 AM »
I very much appreciate the information about terms that I don't personally use but hear quite often from others.


nutraxfornerves

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1997
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5397 on: February 18, 2014, 10:50:44 AM »
CareerBuilder, a job web site, recently surveyed US employers about interviews. Much of it is standard stuff about things that put off potential employers (e.g.  Dressing inappropriately, Answering a cell phone or texting during the interview) but the press release lists "the most outrageous mistakes candidates made during a job interview."

My favorites are the candidate who took out his teeth while discussing dental benefits and the one who admitted being on too much Valium during the interview.

Employers Share Most Memorable Interview Blunders

Nutrax
The plural of anecdote is not data

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28633
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5398 on: February 18, 2014, 11:00:11 AM »
Honestly, I think the interviewer who simply said "Impress me!" and had the candidate set fire to his newspaper had himself to blame.

Particularly if the interviewer were the one reading it (the article is a little obscure about who the "he" in "while he was reading it" was). I'd say any interview where someone is reading a newspaper is doomed from the start.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5462
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5399 on: February 18, 2014, 12:56:31 PM »
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.


We use gmail for our work e-mail; there is a chat function.  You can add a custom message under your name for everyone to see.  I logged in briefly today (random day off) and saw that her's said, "ready for a new job!".  I also noted that our captain was also logged in at the time.  I sure hope he saw it.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.