Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1338347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AngelicGamer

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4034
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3180 on: December 07, 2012, 01:32:58 PM »
Was it the nurse? I thought I read it was the hospital receptionist that transferred the call to the nurse. So very sad.

The woman who apparently committed suicide is a nurse, but she was not the nurse who divulged the details. She was the one who accepted that the pranksters were real, and put the call through to the ward, where it was handled by another nurse.

Ugh, I hope those DJs get charged with something.

They should be charged no differently than if the woman had not committed suicide.

That's a good point.

Well, I just heard that the radio hosts are not going back to their radio show until further notice out of respect for the nurse.  I hope that further notice is a day after never.




"Life's tough, huh?  And then you die." ~ Buck, the Magnificent Seven.

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6158
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3181 on: December 07, 2012, 02:14:43 PM »

Rude Attendant shoved the bag toward me. I took it, without checking it (my fault) and when I got home, I realized that  Rude Attendant still ended up giving me the wrong bag.  I ended up with a double cheeseburger afterall. (Facepalm.)
Rude Attendant counts on people in the drive-thru being in a hurry -- that's why they aren't actually coming in and sitting down. They're in too much of a hurry to (a) check their meal*  and (b) go in and complain to the manager**.  Maybe even in a sufficient hurry to not pay attention to how much change they should be getting.  An extra $1 to $3 per customer will really add up at the end of her shift.

*Sorry, people behind me -- I check before leaving the pickup window.  I've had waaaaaaaay too many hamburgers that I ordered with ketchup ONLY come to me with everything but ketchup.

**And either they fix it promptly and politely, or I WILL go in and complain to the manager.  >:D I've done so more than once.  And a certain McDonald's near me is never getting my business again, nor will the closest Chick-fil-ay.  I cannot "just scrape the mustard off" and eat it anyway -- does "food allergy" mean nothing to them?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4537
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3182 on: December 07, 2012, 02:29:53 PM »
All industries come with their own alphabet soup :)

One company I used to work for had numbers in theirs...

My industry is a leader in TLAs...

Three-Letter Acronyms   >:D

Mine, too!  We call ourselves the Ministry of TLAs.  Even the acronym for our Ministry is a TLA.

(Negative?) Bonus points for acronyms that use acronyms.

Double bonus in that TLA *is* a TLA.
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7459
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3183 on: December 07, 2012, 05:07:46 PM »
Was it the nurse? I thought I read it was the hospital receptionist that transferred the call to the nurse. So very sad.

The woman who apparently committed suicide is a nurse, but she was not the nurse who divulged the details. She was the one who accepted that the pranksters were real, and put the call through to the ward, where it was handled by another nurse.

I had just seen the story and am heartbroken over it. Action leads to reaction. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/07/royal-prank-call-nurse-reportedly-commits-suicide/?test=latestnews

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7459
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3184 on: December 07, 2012, 05:11:11 PM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3185 on: December 07, 2012, 05:29:19 PM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

The girl is 14. I'm not sure of how the mechanics of the enquiry will pan out, so maybe I was mistaken in calling it PD, but I know taking your 14 year old out of school for 5 weeks leading up to yearly exams and letting her get a tattoo while drunk has not made a great impression on me or the other staff members I reported it to.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3186 on: December 07, 2012, 05:36:45 PM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

My sons have had drinks in countries where it's legal. If someone wants to report me or my ex to CPS for that, they're going to have a very serious fight on their hands.
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. -Mark Twain

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5316
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3187 on: December 07, 2012, 06:36:54 PM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

My sons have had drinks in countries where it's legal. If someone wants to report me or my ex to CPS for that, they're going to have a very serious fight on their hands.

Which is fine and something I would do, too, but you can't fault the mandatory reporter for doing her/his job.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

A.P. Wulfric

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 905
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3188 on: December 07, 2012, 07:36:09 PM »
Ahh fun with school stuff.

I had a parent threaten to sue me for giving his child an F on her project.  Why? Child hadn't done anything on the project b/c out of the 10 periods allotted for doing project, child was out for 7 of them.  Now, in a regular circumstance, I'd obviously give an extension, except this was May, and the project was due in February.  See, when you miss 130 days and come in late for another 20 or so, it's awfully hard to get caught up.  (Our school year is 187 days.)  No, there were no extenuating circumstances whatsoever. 

In terms of darwinism, I had a just had a colleague scream at a theatre-arts teacher for sending out a request for a student to make-up a missed musical audition during HER class period.**  Screaming colleague teaches an elective study skills course-the closest my school has to study hall.  Regardless of the subject though, when you teach junior high, you have to be flexible in terms of scheduling and all that stuff. It really is a three-ring circus. Anyways, screaming colleague pulled musical teacher out into the hall, in front of kids, and reamed her out.  At her next break, she then stormed down to the principal to lodge a complaint against musical teacher.  She proceeded to trash musical teacher and the entire theatre arts department as a waste of time.

That was until the principal informed screaming colleague that SHE had asked musical teacher to accept a late audition and suggested the skills time.   She also reminded screaming colleague that there had been an email and a faculty meeting both mentioning this and the need for flexibility, and also reiterated that speaking professionally to co-workers is not optional in our district.  Screaming teaching can't figure out why she keeps being passed over for open positions that she covets. 

**Student was out due to a death in the family and was very upset that she had missed the audition.**


Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3189 on: December 08, 2012, 01:30:04 AM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

My sons have had drinks in countries where it's legal. If someone wants to report me or my ex to CPS for that, they're going to have a very serious fight on their hands.

Why? A mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter. If your child is old enough to drink then they're old enough to understand what mandatory reporter means. Don't go to school and tell your teacher about your drinking session. It's not that hard. We don't keep it secret or anything.

FWIW I live in a country where the legal drinking age is 18 and I see nothing at all wrong with someone from a place with a drinking age of 21 giving their 19 year old a drink while they're here. I also don't see anything wrong with parents who give their child a 'taste', European style, although it's not what I choose to do. But - and this is the important bit - my personal opinion doesn't matter. That's what mandatory means. You can disagree with the system all you want and I certainly agree that it's OTT in many cases, but I really don't care enough to lose my job over it.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

RingTailedLemur

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2847
  • Rudeness is a small person's imitation of power.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3190 on: December 08, 2012, 02:10:58 AM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

My sons have had drinks in countries where it's legal. If someone wants to report me or my ex to CPS for that, they're going to have a very serious fight on their hands.

Why? A mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter. If your child is old enough to drink then they're old enough to understand what mandatory reporter means. Don't go to school and tell your teacher about your drinking session. It's not that hard. We don't keep it secret or anything.

FWIW I live in a country where the legal drinking age is 18 and I see nothing at all wrong with someone from a place with a drinking age of 21 giving their 19 year old a drink while they're here. I also don't see anything wrong with parents who give their child a 'taste', European style, although it's not what I choose to do. But - and this is the important bit - my personal opinion doesn't matter. That's what mandatory means. You can disagree with the system all you want and I certainly agree that it's OTT in many cases, but I really don't care enough to lose my job over it.

But why would the mandatory reporter report it?  No-one did anything illegal.

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3191 on: December 08, 2012, 02:24:26 AM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

My sons have had drinks in countries where it's legal. If someone wants to report me or my ex to CPS for that, they're going to have a very serious fight on their hands.

Why? A mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter. If your child is old enough to drink then they're old enough to understand what mandatory reporter means. Don't go to school and tell your teacher about your drinking session. It's not that hard. We don't keep it secret or anything.

FWIW I live in a country where the legal drinking age is 18 and I see nothing at all wrong with someone from a place with a drinking age of 21 giving their 19 year old a drink while they're here. I also don't see anything wrong with parents who give their child a 'taste', European style, although it's not what I choose to do. But - and this is the important bit - my personal opinion doesn't matter. That's what mandatory means. You can disagree with the system all you want and I certainly agree that it's OTT in many cases, but I really don't care enough to lose my job over it.

But why would the mandatory reporter report it?  No-one did anything illegal.

Again, not my call. If a minor child tells me they were drunk, it's not my role to ask which country they were holidaying in and research the laws relevant to that country. It just isn't. It's my job to TELL the person whose job it IS to follow things like that up. If nothing illegal was done it will simply be dropped, and everything will be fine, but that's not my role in this.

I have even made reports like "Student X was trying to tell me how stoned they were. I'm pretty much 100% sure they were making it up just to annoy me, but anyway, now I've told you." They probably ARE making it up, they may be taking medicinal marijuana, they may have been in a country where it's legal, but it's Not My Call. It's never, ever my call.
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

VorFemme

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12964
  • Strolls with scissors! Too tired to run today!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3192 on: December 08, 2012, 02:13:07 PM »
^ The truancy talk reminded me of a potential case of PD I encountered recently.

I WISH it was against the law for parents to take their child on vacation during school term in my country. One of my students just missed 5 weeks of school (the timing was such that she had to do her final exam on the first day back too  ::)). On her first day back she was telling me all about her wonderful activity that she did on holidays. Except "I wasn't really happy with [aspect] because I was pretty drunk when it happened".

Great. I'm a mandatory reporter of course, so that will now be investigated and questions will probably be asked of her mother who took her on the holiday. The professional darwinism part is that her mother is a police officer. *facepalm*


I think it depends on the laws of the country she was holidaying in and the age of the student.  This doesn't automatically ring awful to me.

I have friends whose children vacation in Ireland (where the legal drinking age is much lower than the US) and in Israel (where wine is served to children as well as adults). However, those children would never be allowed sufficient quantities to get "drunk".

I am also a mandatory reporter, so I can sympathize.

My sons have had drinks in countries where it's legal. If someone wants to report me or my ex to CPS for that, they're going to have a very serious fight on their hands.

Why? A mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter is a mandatory reporter. If your child is old enough to drink then they're old enough to understand what mandatory reporter means. Don't go to school and tell your teacher about your drinking session. It's not that hard. We don't keep it secret or anything.

FWIW I live in a country where the legal drinking age is 18 and I see nothing at all wrong with someone from a place with a drinking age of 21 giving their 19 year old a drink while they're here. I also don't see anything wrong with parents who give their child a 'taste', European style, although it's not what I choose to do. But - and this is the important bit - my personal opinion doesn't matter. That's what mandatory means. You can disagree with the system all you want and I certainly agree that it's OTT in many cases, but I really don't care enough to lose my job over it.

But why would the mandatory reporter report it?  No-one did anything illegal.

Because the law is written in black & white terms - if they KNOW (or seriously suspect) then they have to report it and let the investigation begin.......or risk their own job if circumstances "out" the information and it comes out in THAT investigation that "mandatory reporter" knew anything (or had reason to suspect) that something was going on.

DH is also a teacher and a mandatory reporter.
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I say more?

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3193 on: December 08, 2012, 04:01:15 PM »
I'm not going to give the mandatory reporter grief. I understand their position (both my wife and my ex are mandatory reporters.) It's what happens to that report that is my issue.
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. -Mark Twain

MissRose

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2929
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3194 on: December 08, 2012, 04:05:54 PM »
Back to PD ....

When I worked at the Golden Arches many years ago, I worked with this one guy who was slow as molasses in January.  He was always placed in the grill area to work that didn't require a lot of speed, and he drove many people nuts including me.  How he didn't commit PD I will never know, I know he was still there for a few years longer after I left for an office job.