Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1368829 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

nutraxfornerves

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1997
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5655 on: April 24, 2014, 11:20:03 AM »
We had an applicant complain about being interviewed too soon. She arrived early and the interviewee ahead of her was a no-show. The receptionist gave her a choice "would you like to interview now or would you prefer your original appointment?" She chose "now." I'm omitting details, but it was clear to the applicant that her declining to interview early would never be communicated to the people doing the hiring, so there was no pressure to be "cooperative."

Other applicants were better qualified and she was not chosen. Since this was a government job, she filed a formal complaint with the civil service commission, saying that employment counselors always suggest arriving early so you can take time to get yourself in the proper frame of mind before the interview. By interviewing her early, we didn't allow her to compose herself.

The complaint was denied.

Nutrax
The plural of anecdote is not data

katiescarlett

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5656 on: April 24, 2014, 12:43:50 PM »
Quote
Quote
In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

This part seems a bit off to me - I think that someone seasoning their food before tasting it would say to me that they a nervous about the job interview, not necessarily anything more. Or possibly that they have learned from experience that they like their food hotter / saltier than average so always need extra pepper or salt in restaurants! 

I'm sure that there are lot s of things one could pick up on in a restaurant setting which might not come over in a more conventional interview, but that particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

Yvaine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8929
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5657 on: April 24, 2014, 01:08:03 PM »
Quote
Quote
In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

This part seems a bit off to me - I think that someone seasoning their food before tasting it would say to me that they a nervous about the job interview, not necessarily anything more. Or possibly that they have learned from experience that they like their food hotter / saltier than average so always need extra pepper or salt in restaurants! 

I'm sure that there are lot s of things one could pick up on in a restaurant setting which might not come over in a more conventional interview, but that particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

This is just one of those legends that's been attached to lots of different businesspeople over the decades:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/salted.asp

There is an etiquette rule about it, technically (and we had a heated thread about it a few years ago), but I don't think anyone is actually using it in their interviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone heard the legend and copied it, thus making it true. ;)

2littlemonkeys

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3606
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5658 on: April 24, 2014, 02:24:27 PM »
I don't know if this will go down as PD but this person is certainly showing their backside and people are not impressed.

I work for someone who is very difficult. 

Travel arrangements are never good enough (the hotels we are supposed to use are inferior and he always has to book a suite of rooms he found through a friend or something and it's just a general pain in the patootie to get everything arranged.  But management approves it so I have to.)

Expense reports are littered with inaccuracies and non-expensable items and when you flag them, he'll argue to the death about why he needs to expense those items.  I usually refer him to our finance department and they will back me up but generally leave me to police his reports.  It's exhausting. 

His favorite trick is to take his girlfriend on business trips and pretends she wasn't there yet tries to expense all of her incidentals.  Then he acts shocked and outraged when I call him on it.  Sorry.  It just looks weird when he constantly expenses $$ meals for 2 when he's the only one listed on the receipt.  But it was the drug store receipt for tampons that gave him away.  We can't expense that stuff anyway.  I digress.

Due to increased workload, someone else did his expenses for me a couple of days ago.  And boy howdy was he up to tricks.  My coworker did not just fall off the turnip truck and called him on every bit of it.  When he tried to argue with her, she went right to his boss to make sure that account would pay for these bogus expenses before she turned it into the head of finance to approve.  (She has a long working relationship with boss so she could get away with this and it didn't look like tattling.)

Boss is not a happy man.  And Pain just found himself under a microscope.


Amara

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2623
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5659 on: April 24, 2014, 03:52:50 PM »
Wow, what a dunce. I've got one brewing here that's different but a huge eye roller.

We have a union. This woman's job is a union one. However, she is taking so much advantage of her front office mate who meekly accepts her actions that others are taking major notice and are not happy. I printed out an email from one of our regular (and best) temps about some of her tricks, most of which seem to revolve around being at her job and doing work about two hours out of every eight. A little while ago she showed up here at this office with nothing as far as I know. This was about an hour after her shift starts. Two of our best temps are in rebellion; they are refusing to work with her. My director, and her supervisor as well, told me this morning that things are being handled but I don't yet have details.

I am only waiting for my director get back from lunch before I go in with her again. Whatever is going on in this woman's head is serious PD. I can't believe she's going to throw away a decent position with the most fabulous benefits ever ... on very childish behaviors. I swear my eyeballs are going to reach New York in the not too distant future with the amount of rolling they are doing.

greencat

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2543
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5660 on: April 24, 2014, 05:33:22 PM »
Quote
Quote
In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

This part seems a bit off to me - I think that someone seasoning their food before tasting it would say to me that they a nervous about the job interview, not necessarily anything more. Or possibly that they have learned from experience that they like their food hotter / saltier than average so always need extra pepper or salt in restaurants! 

I'm sure that there are lot s of things one could pick up on in a restaurant setting which might not come over in a more conventional interview, but that particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

This is just one of those legends that's been attached to lots of different businesspeople over the decades:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/salted.asp

There is an etiquette rule about it, technically (and we had a heated thread about it a few years ago), but I don't think anyone is actually using it in their interviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone heard the legend and copied it, thus making it true. ;)

I believe it's rude to salt or pepper food at a dinner party before tasting it, as then you are insulting the host by implying that the food is unseasoned, rather than simply not seasoned to your personal taste.  In a restaurant, unless you've eaten there before, it is simply unwise.

Snooks

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2475
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5661 on: April 24, 2014, 05:42:55 PM »
And in the "it's too bizarre to be something you just made up"  :o: Husband pastor's new lover was the woman who organized a 3 day conference featuring a nationally known speaker. The conference was focusing on marriage and how to strengthen it. Wife pastor oversaw a new program called "8 Great Dates to Improve Your Marriage" that went of for a number or years.

Maybe they were both looking for some tips...

EMuir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1383
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5662 on: April 24, 2014, 05:43:55 PM »
Quote
Quote
In addition to the above, when an interviewee was taken to a restaurant, one of the things the interviewer looked at was whether (s)he seasoned the food before tasting it.
In other words, did the potential hire try to change things before knowing whether the change was required.

This part seems a bit off to me - I think that someone seasoning their food before tasting it would say to me that they a nervous about the job interview, not necessarily anything more. Or possibly that they have learned from experience that they like their food hotter / saltier than average so always need extra pepper or salt in restaurants! 

I'm sure that there are lot s of things one could pick up on in a restaurant setting which might not come over in a more conventional interview, but that particular one seems a bit of a stretch to me!

I would not want to work for a company that watched to see if I seasoned my food before tasting it.  It is no one's business if I do that, which I do.  I have a tendency to put black pepper on certain things, and I never taste it before peppering it.  However, seeing how a person treats wait staff could be something to take into consideration.

This is just one of those legends that's been attached to lots of different businesspeople over the decades:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/salted.asp

There is an etiquette rule about it, technically (and we had a heated thread about it a few years ago), but I don't think anyone is actually using it in their interviews. Though it wouldn't surprise me if someone heard the legend and copied it, thus making it true. ;)

There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dogbert was arguing with him about whether you should salt your food before you taste it.  Dogbert's argument was that if the food wasn't salty enough, then he would have had one less bite of perfect food if he didn't salt it first. :P

Mediancat

  • Shibboleth of Shadowland
  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 604
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5663 on: April 25, 2014, 08:37:08 AM »
Naah, that seems silly. If someone serves me a baked potato, or plain peas, I'm always going to pepper them, no matter how good the chef is. Now, if it's mixed vegetables in a marinade, of course I'll try a bite first, but a plain baked potato is a plain baked potato.

And if someone judges me, in a business or personal setting, for putting pepper on my potato, then that's on them, honestly.

Rob
"In all of mankind's history, there has never been more damage done than by someone who 'thought they were doing the right thing'." -- Lucy, Peanuts

Garden Goblin

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 942
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5664 on: April 25, 2014, 10:36:20 AM »
Job interviews are a two way street.  They tell the company if the employee is a good fit, and tell the employee if the company is a good fit.

Anyone fussing about how I mix pepper into my ketchup is probably a micro-manager who reads too many trite 'advice' books, and I certainly never want to work with another of those.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7750
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5665 on: April 30, 2014, 03:55:30 PM »
Heisman trophy winner and Florida State University football player Jameis Winston has been charged with stealing crab legs and crawfish from a Publix grocery store.

This is PD because this young man does not yet have a $$ contract in professional football. We'll see how it plays out.

http://www.wesh.com/news/florida-state-qb-jameis-winston-accused-of-stealing-crab-legs-from-publix/25736390

Lorelei_Evil

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5666 on: April 30, 2014, 06:03:47 PM »
He got suspended from the baseball team.  There's that at least.

darling

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 312
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5667 on: May 01, 2014, 09:59:50 AM »
Here's one:

When your boss picks up an overnight shift because no one else can take it, if you work the morning shift that relieves said boss, you should probably make it a point to be on time, otherwise she is going to be all-worlds of ticked off, especially if she worked it two days in a row, in addition to most of her normal day shift as well (and is salaried).

Yes, that boss is me, and I am fuming.

Thing is, normally this wouldn't be an issue, except the other person who should be here accidentally overslept (she commutes, and is on her way). I'd still talk to him about being late (actually, by now, he's a no-show), but I wouldn't be as angry.

I hate the last couple of weeks of the semester... I'd give the person who decided to be open 24-hours a day during the last couple weeks of class a piece of my mind, except it was my idea.  ::)

MissRose

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5668 on: May 01, 2014, 12:08:25 PM »
I overheard someone saying they have gotten complaints from agents who try to transfer callers to other departments who will do one of the  following: refuse to accept the call even though it is clear it is theirs, pick up the line and say nothing which forces the agent to call back to get someone who will pick up the line, and/or sending certain types of work/issues to departments that are not even trained to do the work.  If only we could have all of the work at my place, our managers are stricter compared to the other location!

NyaChan

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4107
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5669 on: May 01, 2014, 05:37:47 PM »
I overheard someone saying they have gotten complaints from agents who try to transfer callers to other departments who will do one of the  following: refuse to accept the call even though it is clear it is theirs, pick up the line and say nothing which forces the agent to call back to get someone who will pick up the line, and/or sending certain types of work/issues to departments that are not even trained to do the work.  If only we could have all of the work at my place, our managers are stricter compared to the other location!

That drives me bonkers!  I'll get calls from other departments trying to transfer someone to me and they are supposed to explain the problem before they send the call.  A lot just send it over without any introduction of heads up which makes us look bad when I discover that the issue is solely the province of the other department and have to send it right back.  I figure those people just want to get rid of the call.  Then there are the incompetent people who do take the time to thoroughly explain what they need me to do.  Only what they want me to do is completely and entirely their job.  I don't have access to that information, I have no way to answer the question or do those actions for anyone.  It's not even nuanced - I handle content and substantive work for the clients we already have.  They handle getting more clients and the money.  And yet they sound shocked that the client was in fact already in the right place.