Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1319525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7316
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5955 on: June 30, 2014, 03:43:46 PM »
I've never worked anywhere where employees could take more leave than what they had accrued at that point.

I used to work for a company where one major part of it handles federal contracts.  During the US holiday season, I believe that part of the government staff goes on hiatus for two weeks in December.  Therefore, that entire part of the company goes on vacation for two weeks.  If you don't have enough time accrued, it's the one time of year they pay you anyway but then you can't take any vacation time until the time has been "paid back."  I was a temp there so, blessedly, I got my current job before we hit that time of year (I would've gone two weeks with zero income).

At my University, probation is six months so zero vacation leave may be used during that time.  However, you may take unpaid time off (or use CTO -- essentially, overtime banked so it becomes compensatory time off).

Same at my university. We close between Christmas Eve and New Years Day, and temporary class employees go unpaid during that time. That was my class the first six months I worked here.

magicdomino

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4637
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5956 on: June 30, 2014, 04:07:35 PM »
I've never worked anywhere where employees could take more leave than what they had accrued at that point.

I used to work for a company where one major part of it handles federal contracts. During the US holiday season, I believe that part of the government staff goes on hiatus for two weeks in December.   Therefore, that entire part of the company goes on vacation for two weeks.  If you don't have enough time accrued, it's the one time of year they pay you anyway but then you can't take any vacation time until the time has been "paid back."  I was a temp there so, blessedly, I got my current job before we hit that time of year (I would've gone two weeks with zero income).

At my University, probation is six months so zero vacation leave may be used during that time.  However, you may take unpaid time off (or use CTO -- essentially, overtime banked so it becomes compensatory time off).

Not officially.  It just seems like it because so many people take it off with the excuse that they have to use up use-or-lose leave.*  I, on the other hand, enjoy working between Christmas and New Years because there are fewer people to bug me.

U.S. Goverment employees are limited to the amount of leave in their leave balances.  If I am a new employee who has been on the books for 6 months, then I have 52 hours each of annual and sick leave.  You can request advanced leave in an emergency, but must earn it back.

* We can accumulate 240 hours of annual leave.  Anything over 240 after the last pay period of the year evaporates.  We can accumulate as much sick leave as we want.   

hjaye

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5957 on: June 30, 2014, 04:25:06 PM »
If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.

I used to work for an Armored Car company.  There was one guard who would consistently call in sick before a long holiday weekend.
Everyone knew he did it, but management never called him on it. 
December 24th 1981 he called in sick, another guard who didnít normally drive routes was taken away from his regular duties  in the terminal and sent to run the route for the guard who called  in.  The replacement guard was shot and killed picking a deposit from a K-Mart.
The replacement guard was a very nice guy, very popular and a hard worker.  No one wanted to work with the guard who called in sick all the time.  I donít think he was fired, but he was gone shortly therafter. Itís kind of hard to continue working with almost 100 coworkers who think youíre lowest piece  of slime to ever crawl on this earth.

to be quite honest it was not his fault that  the replacement guard was shot and killed unless h planned the robbery.  I guess he works with some pretty awful people if they  are sitting there thinking that  it would have been better if he was shot and killed ranther than the other person.  I would think that  they  shouldn't have blamed him at all.

Well we'll have to disagree then.  In my opinion, he knowingly shirked his duty, like he always did.  However, this time someone got killed because he wanted an extra day off.  He never cared that by calling in he was creating an additional burden on everyone else that went in to work that day.  The replacement never would have been there if the first guard was doing his job like he was paid to do instead of sitting around and taking a four day weekend.  (Christmas was on a Friday that year)

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3557
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5958 on: June 30, 2014, 04:34:44 PM »
If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.

I used to work for an Armored Car company.  There was one guard who would consistently call in sick before a long holiday weekend.
Everyone knew he did it, but management never called him on it. 
December 24th 1981 he called in sick, another guard who didnít normally drive routes was taken away from his regular duties  in the terminal and sent to run the route for the guard who called  in.  The replacement guard was shot and killed picking a deposit from a K-Mart.
The replacement guard was a very nice guy, very popular and a hard worker.  No one wanted to work with the guard who called in sick all the time.  I donít think he was fired, but he was gone shortly therafter. Itís kind of hard to continue working with almost 100 coworkers who think youíre lowest piece  of slime to ever crawl on this earth.

to be quite honest it was not his fault that  the replacement guard was shot and killed unless h planned the robbery.  I guess he works with some pretty awful people if they  are sitting there thinking that  it would have been better if he was shot and killed ranther than the other person.  I would think that  they  shouldn't have blamed him at all.

Well we'll have to disagree then.  In my opinion, he knowingly shirked his duty, like he always did.  However, this time someone got killed because he wanted an extra day off.  He never cared that by calling in he was creating an additional burden on everyone else that went in to work that day.  The replacement never would have been there if the first guard was doing his job like he was paid to do instead of sitting around and taking a four day weekend.  (Christmas was on a Friday that year)

That may very well be true, but it's hardly fair to act as though he was the murderer. He did something not - honorable, true, but he never intended that someone would pay with his life. I find it vindictive beyond belief that they would actually wish he was in the position in which his replacement happened to be.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


TeamBhakta

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5959 on: June 30, 2014, 05:31:55 PM »
The Cracker Barrel employee who got fired the fifth time he gave away free food without permission. Also, the media is annoying me by framing it as "BUT HE ONLY GAVE AWAY ONE TEENY TINY MUFFIN. I GUESS CB WANTS PEOPLE TO STARVE TO DEATH"

hjaye

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5960 on: June 30, 2014, 05:50:09 PM »
If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.

I used to work for an Armored Car company.  There was one guard who would consistently call in sick before a long holiday weekend.
Everyone knew he did it, but management never called him on it. 
December 24th 1981 he called in sick, another guard who didnít normally drive routes was taken away from his regular duties  in the terminal and sent to run the route for the guard who called  in.  The replacement guard was shot and killed picking a deposit from a K-Mart.
The replacement guard was a very nice guy, very popular and a hard worker.  No one wanted to work with the guard who called in sick all the time.  I donít think he was fired, but he was gone shortly therafter. Itís kind of hard to continue working with almost 100 coworkers who think youíre lowest piece  of slime to ever crawl on this earth.

to be quite honest it was not his fault that  the replacement guard was shot and killed unless h planned the robbery.  I guess he works with some pretty awful people if they  are sitting there thinking that  it would have been better if he was shot and killed ranther than the other person.  I would think that  they  shouldn't have blamed him at all.

Well we'll have to disagree then.  In my opinion, he knowingly shirked his duty, like he always did.  However, this time someone got killed because he wanted an extra day off.  He never cared that by calling in he was creating an additional burden on everyone else that went in to work that day.  The replacement never would have been there if the first guard was doing his job like he was paid to do instead of sitting around and taking a four day weekend.  (Christmas was on a Friday that year)

That may very well be true, but it's hardly fair to act as though he was the murderer. He did something not - honorable, true, but he never intended that someone would pay with his life. I find it vindictive beyond belief that they would actually wish he was in the position in which his replacement happened to be.

In an ideal world, no one would be murdered, there would be no need for police, and we would all live in peace and harmony.  Unfortunately we know that's never going to happen.
In this instance, there was a man there who was set to rob the guard of the money he was carrying, and to kill him if necessary.  The murderer did not wake up that morning and decide, "I'm going to go K-Mart and rob the armore car drive when he comes out of the store today.  People that rob armored cars case different routes, they look for the guards who are slack in their duty, not paying attention and someone they believe would be an easy target.  He choose this particular route and this store because he had monitored the guard who called  in sick, and he saw someone he believed  was an easy mark.

So in my opinion, if someone had to get killed that day, yes, it should have been the guard that called in sick.  We all would have been sad that it happened, no one would have been jumping up and down with glee, but to see someone else pay the full price because of his lack of dedication to performing his job, and performing it right..... to this day if  I saw him on the street I wouldn't give him the time of day.

Visiting Crazy Town

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2876
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5961 on: June 30, 2014, 05:58:34 PM »
If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.

I used to work for an Armored Car company.  There was one guard who would consistently call in sick before a long holiday weekend.
Everyone knew he did it, but management never called him on it. 
December 24th 1981 he called in sick, another guard who didnít normally drive routes was taken away from his regular duties  in the terminal and sent to run the route for the guard who called  in.  The replacement guard was shot and killed picking a deposit from a K-Mart.
The replacement guard was a very nice guy, very popular and a hard worker.  No one wanted to work with the guard who called in sick all the time.  I donít think he was fired, but he was gone shortly therafter. Itís kind of hard to continue working with almost 100 coworkers who think you're lowest piece  of slime to ever crawl on this earth.

to be quite honest it was not his fault that  the replacement guard was shot and killed unless h planned the robbery.  I guess he works with some pretty awful people if they  are sitting there thinking that  it would have been better if he was shot and killed ranther than the other person.  I would think that  they  shouldn't have blamed him at all.

Well we'll have to disagree then.  In my opinion, he knowingly shirked his duty, like he always did.  However, this time someone got killed because he wanted an extra day off.  He never cared that by calling in he was creating an additional burden on everyone else that went in to work that day.  The replacement never would have been there if the first guard was doing his job like he was paid to do instead of sitting around and taking a four day weekend.  (Christmas was on a Friday that year)

That may very well be true, but it's hardly fair to act as though he was the murderer. He did something not - honorable, true, but he never intended that someone would pay with his life. I find it vindictive beyond belief that they would actually wish he was in the position in which his replacement happened to be.

In an ideal world, no one would be murdered, there would be no need for police, and we would all live in peace and harmony.  Unfortunately we know that's never going to happen.
In this instance, there was a man there who was set to rob the guard of the money he was carrying, and to kill him if necessary.  The murderer did not wake up that morning and decide, "I'm going to go K-Mart and rob the armore car drive when he comes out of the store today.  People that rob armored cars case different routes, they look for the guards who are slack in their duty, not paying attention and someone they believe would be an easy target.  He choose this particular route and this store because he had monitored the guard who called  in sick, and he saw someone he believed  was an easy mark.

So in my opinion, if someone had to get killed that day, yes, it should have been the guard that called in sick.   We all would have been sad that it happened, no one would have been jumping up and down with glee, but to see someone else pay the full price because of his lack of dedication to performing his job, and performing it right..... to this day if  I saw him on the street I wouldn't give him the time of day.

that is such a horrible attitude to have to me.  You  all seem to completely laying the  actions of someone else at his feet.  He was not to blame, it was not his fault that some person decided to rob the armored car. I sure he probably had to hear a lot of "you  should have been the one to die" from you  and your coworkers and  that  makes me have a lot of sympathy for him.  he may have been a slacking coworker but he wasn't the one that  killed the man that  died.  you  all should have stopped blaming him long ago.

PastryGoddess

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4686
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5962 on: June 30, 2014, 06:01:55 PM »
wow, this is taking the thread way off track  :-\   I think we should get back to PD stories before it gets locked  :-[

cass2591

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5963 on: June 30, 2014, 06:17:52 PM »
Move on from the armored car tragedy, please. It's going nowhere.
There is no pie in Nighthawks, which is why it's such a desolate image. ~ Happy Stomach

I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened. ~ Mark Twain

Adopting a pet won't change the world, but it will change the world for that pet.

HorseFreak

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2768
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5964 on: June 30, 2014, 07:59:14 PM »
If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.
And if you do call in sick don't come back to work with brand new out-of-state license plates on your car.  Local law says you have to get local plates when you move.  Someone will turn you in.  My co-worker committed both Professional Darwinism and Personal Darwinism.   

She was eventually fired, but not over this issue.

Not sure how this is personal Darwinism? Wouldn't that require somebody dying?

I didn't get new plates when I moved since I didn't have the $200 in taxes the state wanted for my 11 year old car + registration and licensing fees. No one turned me in and my employer didn't care a whit. I paid my $10 penalty when I registered the car.

Fliss

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 491
  • Australia - the land that time forgot.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5965 on: June 30, 2014, 09:00:12 PM »
The Cracker Barrel employee who got fired the fifth time he gave away free food without permission. Also, the media is annoying me by framing it as "BUT HE ONLY GAVE AWAY ONE TEENY TINY MUFFIN. I GUESS CB WANTS PEOPLE TO STARVE TO DEATH"

A while ago I worked for a fuel company as the graveyard shift (10pm to 6am). One of the duties was to 'wastage' the old food and get the new out. The station was new, and quite a lot of police would drop in and fill up their cars on shift change about 2am. Since I was disposing of the old sweets, sandwiches, chickens, milk, etc, I would put them all in a garbage bag in a milk crate and hand them over to the cops. Everyone knew I did this.

One day we got a new manager and he didn't approve, so I was told to stop. Which I did, and sent away some very unhappy police that shift.

I don't know who called whom, but the next night, I got a call from the state manager just as I started, who gave me permission to carry on as before and they were very happy that I'd been doing it, etc, etc. So if the article I read is right, and the food was about to be binned, then yes, CB are being idiots. You've already written the food off; does it matter if it's then given out to someone who needs it?
Good news! Your insurance company says they'll cover you. Unfortunately, they also say it will be with dirt.

TeamBhakta

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5966 on: June 30, 2014, 09:22:25 PM »
Quote
So if the article I read is right, and the food was about to be binned, then yes, CB are being idiots. You've already written the food off; does it matter if it's then given out to someone who needs it?

I think the point of "don't give out CB food" is to not put employees or customers in potentially unsafe situations. You (general you) don't want homeless people hanging out in the parking lot, asking for food & money. There's a tendency among the transients to share with each other "you can hit up that place for free food / it's easy to rob / that's a great place to panhandle." There's also the possibility of being sued if someone gets ill from that food; I remember a case about that from law class.

blue2000

  • It is never too late to be what you might have been
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Two kitties - No waiting. And no sleeping either.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5967 on: June 30, 2014, 09:33:16 PM »
The Cracker Barrel employee who got fired the fifth time he gave away free food without permission. Also, the media is annoying me by framing it as "BUT HE ONLY GAVE AWAY ONE TEENY TINY MUFFIN. I GUESS CB WANTS PEOPLE TO STARVE TO DEATH"

A while ago I worked for a fuel company as the graveyard shift (10pm to 6am). One of the duties was to 'wastage' the old food and get the new out. The station was new, and quite a lot of police would drop in and fill up their cars on shift change about 2am. Since I was disposing of the old sweets, sandwiches, chickens, milk, etc, I would put them all in a garbage bag in a milk crate and hand them over to the cops. Everyone knew I did this.

One day we got a new manager and he didn't approve, so I was told to stop. Which I did, and sent away some very unhappy police that shift.

I don't know who called whom, but the next night, I got a call from the state manager just as I started, who gave me permission to carry on as before and they were very happy that I'd been doing it, etc, etc. So if the article I read is right, and the food was about to be binned, then yes, CB are being idiots. You've already written the food off; does it matter if it's then given out to someone who needs it?


Yes. While I do not know what CB's policies are, my store gives damaged goods to shelters. We cannot give food, no matter what, unless it is the rare occasion when something is damaged and still sealed. It is a health and safety issue - we could get sued/fined/etc. if someone gets ill.

And from the sounds of it, giving away free food was actually the most minor infraction on the list of things he did. As nice as he was, he sounds like a nightmare of an employee. :(
You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

JoW

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 913
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5968 on: June 30, 2014, 09:38:46 PM »
If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.
And if you do call in sick don't come back to work with brand new out-of-state license plates on your car.  Local law says you have to get local plates when you move.  Someone will turn you in.  My co-worker committed both Professional Darwinism and Personal Darwinism.   

She was eventually fired, but not over this issue.

Not sure how this is personal Darwinism? Wouldn't that require somebody dying?
The way Darwinism is being used here I didn't think death was required.  Her "personal Darwinism" was the cost of the renewed out-of-state plates she bought but couldn't use.  She put several hundred miles on her car unnecessarily.  I think she also had to go to court to prove that she had purchased the local plates, using up a vacation day.  That was, at least, another shoot-yourself-in-the-foot move. 

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4586
  • So many books, so little time
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #5969 on: July 01, 2014, 12:41:07 AM »
I've never worked anywhere where employees could take more leave than what they had accrued at that point.

I get 5 weeks of paid vacation time a year. If I want more time off than that, I pay for it by loss of wages. The same was the case before I accrued the 5 weeks - I could still take time off, I just had to pay for it.

If you've already tried to get a day off and were told no, don't promptly call in sick for that day.   The bosses aren't stupid.
And if you do call in sick don't come back to work with brand new out-of-state license plates on your car.  Local law says you have to get local plates when you move.  Someone will turn you in.  My co-worker committed both Professional Darwinism and Personal Darwinism.   

She was eventually fired, but not over this issue.

Not sure how this is personal Darwinism? Wouldn't that require somebody dying?
The way Darwinism is being used here I didn't think death was required.  Her "personal Darwinism" was the cost of the renewed out-of-state plates she bought but couldn't use.  She put several hundred miles on her car unnecessarily.  I think she also had to go to court to prove that she had purchased the local plates, using up a vacation day.  That was, at least, another shoot-yourself-in-the-foot move. 

The phrase "professional Darwinism" is used to indicate that their job "dies", which is why you'll see many people refer to something as attempted PD if the person doesn't actually get fired. So I assumed you used "personal Darwinism" in much the same way (especially as this is the original usage from the Darwin awards) and was wrecking my brain how purchasing new plates could in any way be life-threatening.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice