News: IMPORTANT UPDATE REGARDING SITE IN FORUM ANNOUNCEMENT FOLDER.

  • May 22, 2018, 06:58:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 4287996 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mental Magpie

  • Member
  • Posts: 4138
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3210 on: January 05, 2013, 08:21:00 PM »
In Florida, we have CO's who are killed by inmates every year. Usually, there is another CO who is found to be at fault. So senseless and tragic.

Wow.  Just wow.  In the entirety of my state's correctional history (1887), only 21 officers have been killed, 11 of which happened in one riot.  I cannot imagine being a CO in Florida.  So senseless and tragic.

ladyknight1

  • Member
  • Posts: 12217
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3211 on: January 05, 2013, 09:28:17 PM »
The federal prisons here have lower rates than the state prisons do.
“All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
-J.R.R Tolkien

I'mnotinsane

  • Member
  • Posts: 2388
  • My mother had me tested
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3212 on: January 05, 2013, 10:51:20 PM »
Why on earth would one start a fight over ketchup? Maybe it wasn't his idea of a good sandwich, but if the customer wants ketchup, and you have ketchup, why (at best) lose a customer over a couple of cents that are the company's, not yours, and (at worst) end up with jail time?  :o

As far as I know, Subway doesn't carry ketchup and never has. It might be one of the ones in a Wal-Mart, in which case, yeah, the customer could go buy his own. But that's a bizarre reason for either guy to suddenly go caveman on each other.

It is-it was mentioned in the article.  Not that he should have to buy a bottle of ketchup.

What do you mean? Of course he should. The Subway is under no obligation to provide it for him.

The customer is under no obligation to buy his sandwiches from subway.  The article didn't say whether or not he asked for ketchup from the beginning or after the sandwich was made.  If I order a sandwich with an ingredient a restaurant doesn't have the employee needs to inform me of that fact upfront. 

Hillia

  • Member
  • Posts: 3438
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3213 on: January 05, 2013, 11:39:31 PM »
To be fair, at Subway you watch your sandwich being made as it moves down an assembly line, and condiments are the very last stop.  So the customer wouldn't have asked for ketchup til the very end, and wouldn't have known there was no ketchup until then.

Why the employee lost his mind is a mystery.

Giggity

  • Member
  • Posts: 8342
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3214 on: January 06, 2013, 10:06:09 AM »
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.

Why? This is no dumber than any other radio prank in the history of ever. It's not the DJs' fault that the woman killed herself.
Words mean things.

Giggity

  • Member
  • Posts: 8342
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3215 on: January 06, 2013, 10:08:11 AM »
I was an educator when No Child Left Behind was adopted, and I had not clue what she was talking about so had to open another tab to find it.

I was a librarian when Accelerated Reader program was started and did all the computer programing for them and manually labeled all of the books myself. Kids would come in for 'AR' books and I would just look at them blankly.

Pretty much except for FBI as an acronym, I'm lost. That includes staring at the computer screen and having to think about what DH means. No hope for me, I gress.

I know what it means in this context, but I keep thinking "Designated Hitter."

Rob

That's why I hate acronyms and don't use them.
Words mean things.

cass2591

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3612
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3216 on: January 06, 2013, 12:18:58 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.

Why? This is no dumber than any other radio prank in the history of ever. It's not the DJs' fault that the woman killed herself.


Move on, please. No reason to start this again.
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.

Kaora

  • Member
  • Posts: 731
  • I'm just a singer in a rock and roll band
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3217 on: January 06, 2013, 06:27:12 PM »
In Florida, we have CO's who are killed by inmates every year. Usually, there is another CO who is found to be at fault. So senseless and tragic.

Wow.  Just wow.  In the entirety of my state's correctional history (1887), only 21 officers have been killed, 11 of which happened in one riot.  I cannot imagine being a CO in Florida.  So senseless and tragic.

My Uncle on my mum's side is a Federal CO in Puerto Rico.  You have my respect.

Giggity

  • Member
  • Posts: 8342
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3218 on: January 07, 2013, 07:19:24 AM »
Move on, please. No reason to start this again.

Sorry, wasn't aware it had been discussed.
Words mean things.

ladyknight1

  • Member
  • Posts: 12217
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3219 on: January 07, 2013, 08:32:27 AM »
We have a young man who works as our receptionist. He has a Master's degree and only works here because his fiancé attends school here. He is doing a fairly good job.

Here is the PD part. He took a week off mid-December, returned and worked a few days before our eleven day holiday break and then took the first three days of the new year off. He is an hourly employee and gets three weeks of vacation a year, and has already used two weeks in the last month, plus the time we were closed. Before he came back to work (today), he had already contacted his manager about taking a week off in March and another in May.

He has only been here a year, so he has used all the time he has accrued, and will not accrue another week by his March requested time off.
“All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
-J.R.R Tolkien

TurtleDove

  • Member
  • Posts: 7380
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3220 on: January 07, 2013, 09:32:30 AM »
We have a young man who works as our receptionist. He has a Master's degree and only works here because his fiancé attends school here. He is doing a fairly good job.

Here is the PD part. He took a week off mid-December, returned and worked a few days before our eleven day holiday break and then took the first three days of the new year off. He is an hourly employee and gets three weeks of vacation a year, and has already used two weeks in the last month, plus the time we were closed. Before he came back to work (today), he had already contacted his manager about taking a week off in March and another in May.

He has only been here a year, so he has used all the time he has accrued, and will not accrue another week by his March requested time off.

I am guessing that he does not see the receptionist job as a career so he is not overly concerned about this situation. 

ladymaureen

  • Member
  • Posts: 115
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3221 on: January 07, 2013, 07:49:03 PM »

Here is the PD part. He took a week off mid-December, returned and worked a few days before our eleven day holiday break and then took the first three days of the new year off. He is an hourly employee and gets three weeks of vacation a year, and has already used two weeks in the last month, plus the time we were closed. Before he came back to work (today), he had already contacted his manager about taking a week off in March and another in May. He has only been here a year, so he has used all the time he has accrued, and will not accrue another week by his March requested time off.

Well ... it's not necessarily PD to ask for time off. He asked for permission, and his manager said yes. So, that's between him and his manager, right? If he runs out of vacation time, then he may have to take unpaid time. Still not PD, in my opinion.

ladyknight1

  • Member
  • Posts: 12217
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3222 on: January 08, 2013, 06:59:12 AM »

Here is the PD part. He took a week off mid-December, returned and worked a few days before our eleven day holiday break and then took the first three days of the new year off. He is an hourly employee and gets three weeks of vacation a year, and has already used two weeks in the last month, plus the time we were closed. Before he came back to work (today), he had already contacted his manager about taking a week off in March and another in May. He has only been here a year, so he has used all the time he has accrued, and will not accrue another week by his March requested time off.

Well ... it's not necessarily PD to ask for time off. He asked for permission, and his manager said yes. So, that's between him and his manager, right? If he runs out of vacation time, then he may have to take unpaid time. Still not PD, in my opinion.

There is no allowance for unpaid time barring family or medical leave. He has been told he can't take any more vacation time until he accrues enough leave. Unfortunately, when he is away, we have to find staff to fill in, to keep the front desk manned and it is becoming a big issue.
“All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost."
-J.R.R Tolkien

MissRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 1698
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3223 on: January 08, 2013, 07:52:13 AM »
I would say the person with the issues with the person taking so much time off in a short time as described could be a candidate for PD.  Yes, we are entitled to use our vacation time at work.  At the same time, if I was a manager, I would not have approved so much off time off in that short period of time for someone who is new.  I know I took very little time off right at the beginning of starting a new job that I have been at for a long time now (first 3 to 6 months) to show my dedication and learning my job duties.

Midnight Kitty

  • The Queen of Sludge
  • Member
  • Posts: 2310
    • The Stoddard's Hale
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3224 on: January 08, 2013, 10:57:48 AM »
If I had a new employee who was "on vacation" that much, the next time s/he asked for a week off when s/he had not accrued enough vacation time, I would say s/he could take the vacation requested.  In fact, they could stay on vacation because we had learned how to function without them at work. >:D

Long ago, when I first met DH, I was employed with a prestigious engineering firm.  The position was over my head.  They took a chance with me, but it was clear that I needed a master's degree to do the work.  DH, then my fiance, scored last minute tickets to a ball game.  I called in and asked if I could take vacation that day to attend a ball game.  I knew my notice was coming any day & didn't want to miss the game for a job I knew I couldn't keep anyway.  Still ... when they agreed without hesitation, I knew they didn't need me there.  Time for job hunting ...
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 11:01:18 AM by Midnight Kitty »
"The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit.  The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are."

Marcus Aurelius