News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • October 20, 2017, 08:12:19 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3617038 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Pippen

  • Member
  • Posts: 863
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2880 on: October 17, 2012, 02:42:51 PM »
Or the local Real Estate Agent who was caught doing something very naughty when he thought he was alone at an open home.

FauxFoodist

  • Member
  • Posts: 4983
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2881 on: October 17, 2012, 02:52:51 PM »
LOL! I've had managers who said "You can be replaced!"

I had an office manager years ago who told me I needed to improve my attitude and said if I worked in the main branch I would've been let go a long time prior (I had a great skillset that would've been difficult to find from anyone else at the rate they paid).  Granted, she might've been right about the attitude, but her threat really didn't help.  Anyway, the person (who I actually liked and did have the "can-do" attitude she was mandating from me) who she was comparing me to was a temp who got hired in the main branch shortly thereafter...and was fired a few months after that (guess that can-do attitude didn't work for him either).

Not too long later, Office Mgr hired a second assistant because the workload I was handling solo had greatly increased.  Office Mgr said she was hiring based on personality because anyone could be taught to do what I do but that it was hard to find a good personality.  I'm really not surprised that the brokers 2nd Admin supported were really frustrated because she didn't know how to do anything (a 20-something recent college graduate who didn't even know how to use the tab key in Word, rather than using the spacebar -- this was 2002 so not that long ago and not unreasonable that she should've known how to use a computer reasonably well).  2nd Admin didn't last very long either but, fortunately for her, she resigned of her own volition (nice girl but really had no business doing computer-based tasks).

FINALLY, glory came after 3-4 years of Office Mgr's snarking at me and unreasonable requests (like demanding in my annual evaluation that I get a local physician, rather than the one I was still seeing two hours away -- I pointed out and, I believe, wrote as a response in my evaluation, that I used my vacation time for my out-of-area medical appointments so she could not dictate to me how to use my vacation time...yeah, she backed down on that one, among others).  She didn't listen to her own advice so rather than get the licensing for herself requested by one of the major brokers in our office, he got her booted from our office as Office Mgr.  She was transferred to the main branch but, because she lost about 2/3 of what her job duties were (1/3 was event planning) but was still getting paid a huge salary, she got "laid off."  I wonder if anyone told her, "You can be replaced" (because she sure was and with someone who had more years of experience in event planning).

The best part?  After I resigned (on good terms -- I moved away), I still maintained contact with my old office (they were my job references).  I learned from the broker manager that it took three attempts to finally find someone who could sufficiently replace me (meaning they hired three different individuals before finally finding someone who could do what I did).

Twik

  • Member
  • Posts: 28826
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2882 on: October 17, 2012, 04:13:53 PM »
I wouldn't trust him around my clients - he showed bad judgment and a lack of basic civility with that comment.  Not someone that I want to represent me.  If he'll do that in public to a grieving family just to see what would happen, what might he do while he is working?

That's it. If I were an employer, I would think, "This person can be viciously cruel and doesn't seem to have any real regrets for it. Even if my customers don't find out he works here, and show up with tar and feathers, do I really want someone with this sort of behaviour working for me?"

(In fact, one wonders if he'd been disliked in the workplace already. If he were a well-loved staff member, perhaps he would have been forgiven more readily. I can't imagine someone with this sense of humour (loosely termed) being fun to work with.)

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."

thedudeabides

  • Member
  • Posts: 553
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2883 on: October 17, 2012, 07:19:23 PM »
In the US, at least, most employees work in an "at will" environment where their employers need little actual reason to fire them provided the employees are not fired for reasons falling under federally protected classes.  That means they have a lot of latitude when it comes to determining what aspects of an employee's behavior outside the workplace they disapprove of.  Just ask Violentacrez.  Apparently his bosses didn't want their business associated with someone who posted and encouraged the posting of pictures of underage girls, unconsenting women, women being beaten, and dead girls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html

BabyMama

  • Member
  • Posts: 1946
    • Jamberry Nail Wraps
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2884 on: October 17, 2012, 07:24:16 PM »
In the US, at least, most employees work in an "at will" environment where their employers need little actual reason to fire them provided the employees are not fired for reasons falling under federally protected classes.  That means they have a lot of latitude when it comes to determining what aspects of an employee's behavior outside the workplace they disapprove of.  Just ask Violentacrez.  Apparently his bosses didn't want their business associated with someone who posted and encouraged the posting of pictures of underage girls, unconsenting women, women being beaten, and dead girls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html

I was just coming here to post him!

Ceallach

  • Member
  • Posts: 4490
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2885 on: October 17, 2012, 09:13:47 PM »
I have a scrap of sympathy for him, in that he posted anonymously, and didn't expect it would connect to him or his employer.

That sympathy is swamped like an ant in a tidal wave with disgust at him being so vile as to post such things on a memorial forum, while hiding behind anonymity and "I just wanted to stir the pot".

I think people REALLY need to learn that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences". If your speech reveals you to be a vile, revolting person - well, yes, the rest of society may not want to be around you. Words, as well as actions, have consequences, even if you don't get jailed by the government for them.

I think the way he sort of shrugs and claims that he really feels badly for the family - while telling them he's rejoicing their daughter is dead - indicates a strange sort of disconnect some people have. It's as though they really don't see their words as having any meaning in the real world. Yes, he wanted to play troll, and have everyone mad at him (anonymously, of course). That they were angry because he was causing real pain, and behaving disgustingly, doesn't seem to occur to him. I presume (until he finds himself unemployable in the small town he lives in) he still thinks it was a rather witty joke.

This is beautifully written Twik, it sums up exactly how I feel.   

I too feel a scrap of sympathy for him - I'm sure he's just your everyday guy, who doesn't go around acting as heinously as his online comments might indicate.   But actions have consequences, and life is choices.   He wanted to be a troll, his employer didn't want to be associated with that kind of heartless behaviour.   His attitude towards the whole thing is off - he's sorry he lost his job, not sorry that he potentially caused greater hurt to an already grieving family and friends.     
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


Minmom3

  • Member
  • Posts: 2713
  • Life moves onward and upward
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2886 on: October 17, 2012, 09:22:08 PM »
WARNING - may include emotional triggers.

Man who posted "glad girl is dead" loses job - says he's "sorry if he offended anyone". http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1272587--ontario-man-fired-from-job-over-comment-posted-on-memorial-page-to-amanda-todd

Oh, and he "feels a little regret and remorse". Just so you don't think he's a jerk or anything. I mean, he's got his feelings, right?

Oh, now THERE'S a non-apology if I EVER heard one.  IF?!  Ya think???  What a complete toad.   >:(   The point he feebly tried to make after the dust up - that people should have reached out before she died, that would have helped HER a lot more - quite valid.  Yes, indeed.  SO NOT WHAT HE SAID, though!  Bet he's SHOCKED, SHOCKED AND CONFUSED that he got fired....  He needs to go back under his rock and stay there for a very long time...  And he's not a 'pot stirrer', he's a feces stirrer.  There's a lot more malice in what he said than just stirring the pot. 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 09:26:20 PM by Minmom3 »
Double MIL now; not yet a Grandma.  Owner of Lard Butt Noelle, kitteh extraordinaire!

Mental Magpie

  • Member
  • Posts: 4138
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2887 on: October 17, 2012, 09:24:38 PM »
I have a scrap of sympathy for him, in that he posted anonymously, and didn't expect it would connect to him or his employer.

That sympathy is swamped like an ant in a tidal wave with disgust at him being so vile as to post such things on a memorial forum, while hiding behind anonymity and "I just wanted to stir the pot".

I think people REALLY need to learn that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences". If your speech reveals you to be a vile, revolting person - well, yes, the rest of society may not want to be around you. Words, as well as actions, have consequences, even if you don't get jailed by the government for them.

I think the way he sort of shrugs and claims that he really feels badly for the family - while telling them he's rejoicing their daughter is dead - indicates a strange sort of disconnect some people have. It's as though they really don't see their words as having any meaning in the real world. Yes, he wanted to play troll, and have everyone mad at him (anonymously, of course). That they were angry because he was causing real pain, and behaving disgustingly, doesn't seem to occur to him. I presume (until he finds himself unemployable in the small town he lives in) he still thinks it was a rather witty joke.

This is beautifully written Twik, it sums up exactly how I feel.   

I too feel a scrap of sympathy for him - I'm sure he's just your everyday guy, who doesn't go around acting as heinously as his online comments might indicate.   But actions have consequences, and life is choices.   He wanted to be a troll, his employer didn't want to be associated with that kind of heartless behaviour.   His attitude towards the whole thing is off - he's sorry he lost his job, not sorry that he potentially caused greater hurt to an already grieving family and friends.   

FTR, I don't totally disagree.  I just don't think his job had anything to do with it. 

LEMon

  • Member
  • Posts: 1638
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2888 on: October 17, 2012, 09:51:42 PM »
I have a scrap of sympathy for him, in that he posted anonymously, and didn't expect it would connect to him or his employer.

That sympathy is swamped like an ant in a tidal wave with disgust at him being so vile as to post such things on a memorial forum, while hiding behind anonymity and "I just wanted to stir the pot".

I think people REALLY need to learn that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences". If your speech reveals you to be a vile, revolting person - well, yes, the rest of society may not want to be around you. Words, as well as actions, have consequences, even if you don't get jailed by the government for them.

I think the way he sort of shrugs and claims that he really feels badly for the family - while telling them he's rejoicing their daughter is dead - indicates a strange sort of disconnect some people have. It's as though they really don't see their words as having any meaning in the real world. Yes, he wanted to play troll, and have everyone mad at him (anonymously, of course). That they were angry because he was causing real pain, and behaving disgustingly, doesn't seem to occur to him. I presume (until he finds himself unemployable in the small town he lives in) he still thinks it was a rather witty joke.

This is beautifully written Twik, it sums up exactly how I feel.   

I too feel a scrap of sympathy for him - I'm sure he's just your everyday guy, who doesn't go around acting as heinously as his online comments might indicate.   But actions have consequences, and life is choices.   He wanted to be a troll, his employer didn't want to be associated with that kind of heartless behaviour.   His attitude towards the whole thing is off - he's sorry he lost his job, not sorry that he potentially caused greater hurt to an already grieving family and friends.   

FTR, I don't totally disagree.  I just don't think his job had anything to do with it.
I go to look up the person who is going to be working with me and discover this:  Will I be using the company?  So connected to his company, in my opinion, but most importantly in his boss' opinion.

Mental Magpie

  • Member
  • Posts: 4138
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2889 on: October 17, 2012, 10:13:34 PM »
I have a scrap of sympathy for him, in that he posted anonymously, and didn't expect it would connect to him or his employer.

That sympathy is swamped like an ant in a tidal wave with disgust at him being so vile as to post such things on a memorial forum, while hiding behind anonymity and "I just wanted to stir the pot".

I think people REALLY need to learn that "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences". If your speech reveals you to be a vile, revolting person - well, yes, the rest of society may not want to be around you. Words, as well as actions, have consequences, even if you don't get jailed by the government for them.

I think the way he sort of shrugs and claims that he really feels badly for the family - while telling them he's rejoicing their daughter is dead - indicates a strange sort of disconnect some people have. It's as though they really don't see their words as having any meaning in the real world. Yes, he wanted to play troll, and have everyone mad at him (anonymously, of course). That they were angry because he was causing real pain, and behaving disgustingly, doesn't seem to occur to him. I presume (until he finds himself unemployable in the small town he lives in) he still thinks it was a rather witty joke.

This is beautifully written Twik, it sums up exactly how I feel.   

I too feel a scrap of sympathy for him - I'm sure he's just your everyday guy, who doesn't go around acting as heinously as his online comments might indicate.   But actions have consequences, and life is choices.   He wanted to be a troll, his employer didn't want to be associated with that kind of heartless behaviour.   His attitude towards the whole thing is off - he's sorry he lost his job, not sorry that he potentially caused greater hurt to an already grieving family and friends.   

FTR, I don't totally disagree.  I just don't think his job had anything to do with it.
I go to look up the person who is going to be working with me and discover this:  Will I be using the company?  So connected to his company, in my opinion, but most importantly in his boss' opinion.

Depends what his job is, really, and that's part of why I don't think it has anything to do with his job.  If he was a high school teacher, I would think it does have to do with his work.  If he's a video game programmer, not so much.

LEMon

  • Member
  • Posts: 1638
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2890 on: October 17, 2012, 10:31:26 PM »

Depends what his job is, really, and that's part of why I don't think it has anything to do with his job.  If he was a high school teacher, I would think it does have to do with his work.  If he's a video game programmer, not so much.
Apparently he worked at a men's clothing store, which I take to mean he was a salesperson.  Now I would feel extremely like he needed to get out of his line of work if he worked at a younger person's store, but I still feel he 'represents the store to the public'.  So I am more neutral than I was because I had crossed this man and the realtor mentioned briefly.  That is were my original comment focused - a person who I would use for a major transaction where their character would impact me.

The 'stirring the pot' comment felt really wrong.  You want to make a conversation?  Do it on your pages, not on the page dedicated to mourning the dead. 

I guess if I were his boss and I had a choice, I would let him go.  But I can see why someone would make the opposite decision.

onikenbai

  • Member
  • Posts: 1126
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2891 on: October 17, 2012, 10:38:27 PM »

Apparently he worked at a men's clothing store, which I take to mean he was a salesperson.  Now I would feel extremely like he needed to get out of his line of work if he worked at a younger person's store, but I still feel he 'represents the store to the public'. 

He worked at the Richard's Big and Tall.  Now, I don't know if you have them in the US, but it is a store specifically targeting people who are often the target of cruelty and ridicule.  Let's just sit back and enjoy the irony...

artk2002

  • Member
  • Posts: 13811
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2892 on: October 17, 2012, 11:55:59 PM »
WARNING - may include emotional triggers.

Man who posted "glad girl is dead" loses job - says he's "sorry if he offended anyone". http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1272587--ontario-man-fired-from-job-over-comment-posted-on-memorial-page-to-amanda-todd

Oh, and he "feels a little regret and remorse". Just so you don't think he's a jerk or anything. I mean, he's got his feelings, right?

I don't think he should have been fired for something he did on his own Facebook page.  Please don't get me wrong, I think what he did was reprehensible, even if he was "just curious"; but I don't think it had anything to do with his job.

I think he should. He's shown he has no moral compass whatsoever. That's not somebody I want working for me. How could I possibly trust him?  There are plenty of people out there who would like the job who don't have the emotional age of a toddler. What he did was just as stupid as poking a wasps nest with a stick -- somebody got (fatally) stung. That shows an incredible lack of judgment.

People keep wanting compartmentalize their lives. That their private life has absolutely nothing to do with their work life. The world doesn't work that way. You can't be an angel at work and a demon outside -- the demon will leak through.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Slartibartfast

  • Member
  • Posts: 10770
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2893 on: October 18, 2012, 02:16:59 AM »
In a situation like the one linked above, I tend to agree with the employers.  Is it this person's fault that they happened to win the media lottery and get tons of attention for saying something that plenty of other people do anonymously with no repercussions?  No, that part is just bad luck.  But they did have the choice whether or not to do something so news-worthy and mind-blowingly callous that it necessarily grabbed media attention when it was brought to light - and they chose to do it anyway.  "But I didn't think I'd get caught!" isn't a valid excuse from my four-year-old and it shouldn't be a valid excuse for an adult either.

Iris

  • Member
  • Posts: 3252
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #2894 on: October 18, 2012, 02:29:18 AM »
In the US, at least, most employees work in an "at will" environment where their employers need little actual reason to fire them provided the employees are not fired for reasons falling under federally protected classes.  That means they have a lot of latitude when it comes to determining what aspects of an employee's behavior outside the workplace they disapprove of.  Just ask Violentacrez.  Apparently his bosses didn't want their business associated with someone who posted and encouraged the posting of pictures of underage girls, unconsenting women, women being beaten, and dead girls: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/michael-brutsch-reddits-biggest-loses-job-identity-gawker_n_1967727.html

I was just coming here to post him!

Is it wrong that this makes me happy?
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.