Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1414559 times)

2 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5445 on: February 27, 2014, 09:19:33 AM »
This woman worked for the Department of Children and Families and falsified home visit records. Her reported visits were on days she didn't work.

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/former-department-of-children-and-families-worker-arrested-on-charges-of-falsifying-records/24705534

PastryGoddess

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5044
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5446 on: February 27, 2014, 12:37:00 PM »
This woman worked for the Department of Children and Families and falsified home visit records. Her reported visits were on days she didn't work.

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/former-department-of-children-and-families-worker-arrested-on-charges-of-falsifying-records/24705534

She's not only getting fired, but arrested.  Which means criminal charges if she is found guilty.  The mind boggles at the stuff people will do to not work

bopper

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5447 on: February 27, 2014, 01:46:57 PM »
UPDATE on Mr16Y....

He just sent us all a "Today is my last day here. Thank you and goodbye email". I have no idea what happened.  ???

You should have a farewell party for him.  He is not there anymore? All the better.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5448 on: February 27, 2014, 01:53:37 PM »
We had a new hire, nice older lady, but we never clicked. Fine, I don't have to click with everyone.

We had some issues training her (my job), but worked through them. I thought it was odd that she didn't come to three different events she was invited to (all work related), but didn't worry about it.

We found out today that she is leaving, and has already secured another job in a city across the state. She has been taking sick leave to go to interviews.  :o

PastryGoddess

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5044
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5449 on: February 27, 2014, 03:25:32 PM »
We had a new hire, nice older lady, but we never clicked. Fine, I don't have to click with everyone.

We had some issues training her (my job), but worked through them. I thought it was odd that she didn't come to three different events she was invited to (all work related), but didn't worry about it.

We found out today that she is leaving, and has already secured another job in a city across the state. She has been taking sick leave to go to interviews.  :o

Well how else would she be able to interview?  If she's new she probably didn't have PTO days saved up. 

gingerzing

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1006
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5450 on: February 27, 2014, 03:32:56 PM »
Can't remember if I mentioned this PD.    (Sorry it is a little long.  I did cut it down)
For background - I work in a non-profit organization.  Moderate sized office with less than 80 people on staff.  We have a board of directors and a large number of members on various committees and involved other aspects of our organization.  Many have been longtime/lifetime members and even when they "retire" off committees, they stay involved.  Several of our staffers have been here over 10 years - about a quarter of the staff has been here over 20 years. 

Many years ago, our organization hired a new CEO, Mark.  Mark had no experience in our industry, but had been CEO for two start up companies.  (later found out that both went under after about 2-4 years with him at the helm) 
Then at year 2 of his reign, did a major Reduction In Force and fired/laid off about 20% of the total staff.  All the laid off people were his choice and he didn't ask what they did or talk to supervisors, he just got rid of them one day before a morning staff meeting.  Board and members were not impressed. Mark was doing some other things that made some members uncomfortable -firing a popular VP and making some poor judgements on other issues, but we only heard some dark mutterings.

Then Year 6, Mark overstepped and overstepped big time.  Mark decided that we needed to move from our location. He announced one day that we were all going over to the new location of our office.  And that we would be moving in about 3 months.   Never mind that it was basically about 3/4 of the space that we had in our office. Never mind that it had only 6 offices -which meant at least of the VPs wouldn't have an office - and everyone else (from Assistant VP to managers to directors) would have to sit in open "pods" along with the support staff.  And that the whole office set up was poorly done.  Plus the location of the building was hard to get to and had very little parking.  Again, Mark's brillant idea and one he decided on his own.  (Plus the realtor for the space was a personal friend of his)

Yeah, this was not going to fly.  The board was furious that Mark decided this without discussion or proper channels.  And other members were calling staff to find out what was going on.  Every single staffer told memebers to call Mark directly to talk about it.  By the of the month, the moving plan was dropped.  Within other 9 months or so, Mark announced that he was retiring due to health reasons. 

I am still not convinced that the board and many of our members didn't "encourage" him to take an early retirement.



« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 03:37:57 PM by gingerzing »

Hillia

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4104
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5451 on: February 27, 2014, 03:43:02 PM »
This woman worked for the Department of Children and Families and falsified home visit records. Her reported visits were on days she didn't work.

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/former-department-of-children-and-families-worker-arrested-on-charges-of-falsifying-records/24705534

She's not only getting fired, but arrested.  Which means criminal charges if she is found guilty.  The mind boggles at the stuff people will do to not work

this makes me sick.  How many children were left in dangerous situations and came to further harm because she is an evil, lazy...person.  And bow many parents who were trying to change their situations enough to see their kids again had their progress impeded?  I hope she's found guilty, and I hope she gets jail time.  How dare she betray these vulnerable kids?

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5452 on: February 27, 2014, 03:55:21 PM »
We had a new hire, nice older lady, but we never clicked. Fine, I don't have to click with everyone.

We had some issues training her (my job), but worked through them. I thought it was odd that she didn't come to three different events she was invited to (all work related), but didn't worry about it.

We found out today that she is leaving, and has already secured another job in a city across the state. She has been taking sick leave to go to interviews.  :o

Well how else would she be able to interview?  If she's new she probably didn't have PTO days saved up.

She has been here less than a year, but has accrued vacation time. She used it for her child's wedding.

PastryGoddess

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5044
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5453 on: February 27, 2014, 04:26:00 PM »
We had a new hire, nice older lady, but we never clicked. Fine, I don't have to click with everyone.

We had some issues training her (my job), but worked through them. I thought it was odd that she didn't come to three different events she was invited to (all work related), but didn't worry about it.

We found out today that she is leaving, and has already secured another job in a city across the state. She has been taking sick leave to go to interviews.  :o

Well how else would she be able to interview?  If she's new she probably didn't have PTO days saved up.

She has been here less than a year, but has accrued vacation time. She used it for her child's wedding.

gotcha.  I guess my follow up should have been to say that she would have had to take the time off any way to interview.  In fact she did her interviewing the right way. 

To me PD would have been showing up in "interview clothes" and disappearing on errands that caused her to be gone all day long.  Or taking recruiter phone calls in an open plan office and talking at the top her her lungs. 

Sirius

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9990
  • Stars in my eyes!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5454 on: February 27, 2014, 04:44:50 PM »
I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I used to go to a church where the pastor kept threatening to resign.  He'd also have temper tantrums.  Most of the older church members largely ignored him, and his aunt stood up in the middle of one of his temper flares and told him to behave himself.  (His aunt was a small lady of about 85 with a soft voice, but when she talked people listened.)  He shut right up. 

Finally, after about a half dozen threats to resign, we voted him out.  He was shocked that we did so, but the chairman of the trustee committee (another 85-year-old lady just like his aunt) told him flatly, "You kept saying you wanted to resign.  Now you can."  He blew up at the chairman, but she kept her ground so out he went.  This was a very small church and I was on the trustee committee, so I saw all this first hand.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5455 on: February 27, 2014, 04:55:33 PM »
We had a new hire, nice older lady, but we never clicked. Fine, I don't have to click with everyone.

We had some issues training her (my job), but worked through them. I thought it was odd that she didn't come to three different events she was invited to (all work related), but didn't worry about it.

We found out today that she is leaving, and has already secured another job in a city across the state. She has been taking sick leave to go to interviews.  :o

Well how else would she be able to interview?  If she's new she probably didn't have PTO days saved up.

She has been here less than a year, but has accrued vacation time. She used it for her child's wedding.

gotcha.  I guess my follow up should have been to say that she would have had to take the time off any way to interview.  In fact she did her interviewing the right way. 

To me PD would have been showing up in "interview clothes" and disappearing on errands that caused her to be gone all day long.  Or taking recruiter phone calls in an open plan office and talking at the top her her lungs.

It is a 5 hour drive to her new job, so I am not sure she could have pulled that off and this is a work environment where she is first point of contact. My only issue is that she called off sick to interview.

PastryGoddess

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5044
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5456 on: February 27, 2014, 09:31:23 PM »
Lets hope she doesn't ask for references from you guys.

SoCalVal

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5457 on: February 27, 2014, 11:22:57 PM »
...  Dept Director called her on it and commented that she really didn't seem to like her job.  Evil Manager said she didn't.  I think Dept Director asked why doesn't she quit.  Evil Manager agreed to that.  Dept Director told her she didn't need to stay any longer, and Evil Manager left.  I just recall coming in to work one day, and Evil Manager was gone (I was very glad because she did her best to try to make me quit as she couldn't fire me; I never did anything wrong).  Dept Director was an idiot and unpleasant person, too, and I always looked at this as one of her incredibly stupid decisions that did not come to a good end.  I was so happy the day I left that company (and, I was happy to say, of my own volition).

I'm confused.  Even if (or especially if) Dept Director was also an idiot, I would think that allowing the Evil Manager to leave would have been one of her smarter moves.  Sounds like it came to the best end you could hope for!

Well, I should've said what I meant which was "it did not come to a good end for Dept Director because her stupid decision hiring this awful person who hated just about everybody in the division was supported by that person leaving on as bad a note as when she came in."  Yes, it came to a good end for *me* because I no longer had to deal with that awful woman (and I'm pretty sure the reason I got the hateful glare is because Dept Director said bad things about me before introducing Evil Manager around; there was no love lost between Dept Director and me).  Fortunately, the next manager after her was a pretty cool guy.  He had a horrible time of managing our dept (he was a nice-guy manager who believed in giving lots of chances so they ran right over him), but he was one of the nicest managers I've ever had (he was a business reference after I left and is one of my FB friends).



Clareish

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5458 on: February 28, 2014, 01:08:17 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.

Now this is interesting, as it goes against some aspects of newer Critical Disability Theory for me. I have a disability and I used to hear the "person first" language, but newer advocates have been trying to "take back" the language. (FYI, I am also in education at a high level) This means saying 'disabled person'. The idea appears to be, and I am not an expert in Critical Disability, that you would not say "someone with gayness", you would say "gay person" or so on, so why should disability be treated as something outside of your identity?

In specific situations, I do identify as a "disabled person", as to me, I am taking back that label as it is part of my identity.

This is merely an aside, as I find it interesting.

PD Story: Years ago, I worked in administration under a manager who, to this day, I am not sure how they got that job. It was entirely computer-based, with specific programs that were only used in our industry. Did the manager know how to use/access these programs? No. Did they know how to use Word and other standard microsoft programs? No (not even Explorer, which I was pretty shocked by). They did know how to use their phone though, and talk at length about what they had been eating throughout the day, and whether they were adhering to their diet.

I changed industries after working with that manager for a year. They weren't too bad, but the lack of basic computer skills meant that our department got little done, as they couldn't properly manage or coordinate what was going on. (I just remembered that that manager couldn't understand their email either. Standard outlook). The manager also wasted a large amount of time not only on the phone, but also through getting me and my coworkers to continuously show them how to use their computer.

I was always pretty confused about how they could not have that basic basic knowledge, or at least make any effort at retaining what they were shown. It seemed like a pretty silly thing to not know how to do, and to not make any effort to learn, particularly as a manager.

They're still working there.

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6228
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5459 on: February 28, 2014, 01:51:32 AM »
Managers for many years saw "working the computer" as a lower-level secretarial function.  Computers were looked on simultaneously as just improved typewriters AND as mysterious, complicated contraptions that one could blow up simply by clicking on the wrong button.   Just as managers didn't need to learn how to use a typewriter, so they didn't need to learn how to use a computer.  And it would be better if they didn't, because they were certain to press that wrong button.  ::)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~