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   

  • November 22, 2017, 12:42:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3712607 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hillia

  • Member
  • Posts: 3360
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3225 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 #3226 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 #3227 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: 3589
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3228 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 #3229 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 #3230 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: 11907
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3231 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: 7254
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3232 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 #3233 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: 11907
  • Not all those who wander are lost
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3234 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: 1664
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3235 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 #3236 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

snowflake

  • Member
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3237 on: January 08, 2013, 12:14:48 PM »
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.

I must agree.  I think one of the basic rules of keeping a job is to not tax the resources of those around them.

I also think that even if you aren't in your career of choice, you are hurting your chances of a real job if you blow off the just-for-now job.  When he applies for a "real job" he's probably going to have his co-workers say, "Well we really couldn't count on him." which is going to hurt.

I know managers who will approve time off because they don't know how to say no.  It's not fair that they aren't giving honest feedback, but it still is up to the employee to show some awareness here. 

Ceallach

  • Member
  • Posts: 4490
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3238 on: January 08, 2013, 04:31:42 PM »
I'm starting to think one of my staff is heading down the PD route.      She can't seem to prioritize her work correctly.   She works hard, gets lots done, but somehow she manages to ignore the really important things such as when myself or my boss (the CEO) send her important tasks or even simple questions, or where she has unhappy clients etc.   She'll offer to help other staff and take over basic tasks from them even when she has emails from us outstanding or things I've asked her to do that she hasn't done.   So while she's working, she's ignoring the work she *should* be doing!  I've spoken to her so many times about this but it doesn't seem to sink in.   I feel I have to start micromanaging her more and more to get her focused on the right tasks. 


Example of the kind of thing that happens:

1. Something goes wrong over the weekend at one of our jobsites, "Kate" should have followed up Monday to let the client know, but made a mistake and forgot (that's ok, it happens)
2. On Tuesday morning the client emails her asking what happened on Saturday and why she (the client) hadn't been notified about it.   The client cc's our CEO which indicates she thinks it's a Big Deal.
3. Two hours later I notice Kate still hasn't replied or done anything with the email from the client.   I forward it on to her and remind her that it's super urgent, and also clearly note how she should handle it.  No response.
4. In the afternoon I'm in meeting and I call Kate and ask if she's replied yet.  She says no.   I explain that it's crucial she replies to the client by COB, and give her very clear, step-by-step instructions as to what to put in the email (basically just answering the questions the client had asked!).  I confirm she understands, I repeat back.   

Did it happen?   Nope.  I ask why, she says "Oh Nancy emailed <client> because she was working on XYZ".  I look at what Nancy (who works in another department) has emailed to the client - it's not a reply to the client's email, and includes none of what I asked Kate to put in the email.    < face palm >.    These are not difficult instructions by the way.   We're talking about a basic response to questions e.g. "I apologise for not notifying you on Monday, it was an oversight. What happened on Saturday was _________."   Not hard!  And it's the tiny things like that e.g. communicating well that keep a client happy!

This is just one example - and it's one where I was micromanaging the situation (which I hate having to do!) to avoid it happening.  The sad part is that I think it's because she overthinks the big things - she is so concerned about getting them right she leaves them sitting there and mulls them over, instead of just getting them done.   Unfortunately at some point soon I'll have to start performance managing her for this as it's driving our CEO crazy - the other day she emailed a request to Kate saying "Can you please confirm for me what you did about XYZ, please reply by X day as I need to let <important client> know" and gets NO response to that or her follow-ups, even when I was also verbally reminding Kate too that she needed to reply to the CEO's email.      It makes me sad, because Kate is lovely and despite all of the above she is very capable, she just seems to be missing a very important point - doing what your boss and the company want you to do is the most important part of doing your job, not flitting around doing whatever YOU think needs doing!
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


starofwinter

  • Member
  • Posts: 109
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3239 on: January 08, 2013, 08:36:49 PM »
I don't work at the place anymore, but I was just informed that one of my former coworkers (great worker and a coordinator in the store) has been sacked.  Why?  Because he was going to a friend's house and was bringing a bottle of alcohol, and stored it in his locker during his shift.  When a coworker (notoriously immature and a terrible worker, but a favorite of the manager) demanded he give her some - still on the clock - he refused, and she reported him to the manager.   Moral of the story?  Don't bring alcohol to work, and don't tick off the manager's pet.