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   

  • December 16, 2017, 08:42:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 3782479 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Jocelyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3360 on: February 04, 2013, 10:14:44 PM »


I've posted about this previously also - in college sites like this were still in the testing/working the bugs out phase.  I was dinged for properly attributed quotes that the software recognized (prof sorted it out) and also dinged for using my own papers as sources (again, properly attributed).
You can now set it to ignore proper citations, bibliographies, and short phrases. There's just not that many synonyms for 'President of the United States'.

POTUS.  :D
Acronyms must first be spelled out in APA style (which is what we use). And I think I'd ding a student for writing, repetitively, 'The POTUS' does this or that.  ;D  And 'The Chief Executive of the USA' would also work...but there's some short phrases you just have to use, in covering some topics. Such as names of theories, and the names of their originators. S. Freud, the parent of analyzing the psyche, and all that. >:D

onikenbai

  • Member
  • Posts: 1126
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3361 on: February 04, 2013, 11:13:44 PM »
A cross over between student and professional Darwinism:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/10/chris_spence_suspected_plagiarism_found_in_articles_speeches_dissertation.html

Not only is his entire career now down the tubes as he has been relieved of the position of head of the Toronto District School Board, the University of Toronto is revoking his doctorate. Having graduated from UofT myself, I know they take a fairly firm stand on plagiarism and there is no way he's ever going to get a chance to get that back.  The school won't let him back in.  Ever.  No word on whether he gets to keep his lower degrees, but I would imagine so as I doubt there is any evidence still around that he copied other people's work.  Given his age, he likely got those degrees before the internet made essays live forever.

MissRose

  • Member
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3362 on: February 05, 2013, 08:03:38 AM »

Jocelyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3363 on: February 05, 2013, 09:05:29 AM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst
I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

dawbs

  • Member
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3364 on: February 05, 2013, 09:12:18 AM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst
I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

This is how I landed.
You know the worst part about working with the public?  the public.
I mean, I voluntarily work with 'the public' and I think I manage to do a fine job most (not all, but most) of the time.  That doesn't mean that some nights, I don't go home and tell my husband there is no hope for humanity and the collective public has an IQ that officially puts them on par with nematoads.

The guy in question shouldn't have said it quite like that to a new employee and should have been smarter while on the clock...but I trained some of my new employees at my job last week and one of the things I said, word for word is "You're to be polite and professional but you won't always make people happy.  Sometimes, people are unreasonable.  Sometimes, they're having a bad day and you're the closest target.  Sometimes, working with the people who come in is miserable and sucks a lot.  You don't have to be 'nice' to these people or give them what they want, but you have to be polite and professional--if you start reaching the point where you can't be polite and professional, that's the time to find me." 
That's something that does need to be told to new employees--explaining that the public is demanding and unreasonable and they can only do what they can do is part of the training message--or should be.

magicdomino

  • Member
  • Posts: 5806
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3365 on: February 05, 2013, 09:19:50 AM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst
I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

I suspect there was a lot more that didn't make it on the show.  I don't know how much time the bosses spend in particular positions, but it is probably at least one day.  An employee who says he hates customers but is otherwise all right will pass.  An employee whose attitude problem lasts all shift, bleeds into his relationships with fellow employees, and causes him to do a lousy job won't survive an encounter with the boss.

pierrotlunaire0

  • Member
  • Posts: 4579
  • I'm the cat's aunt!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3366 on: February 05, 2013, 11:10:34 AM »
If I have mentioned this before, I apologize.  I used to work in mental health, and one of my coworkers had just completed her MSW, and was trying to start a counseling practice.

She was showing is all the paperwork she had: lease for an office, her yellow pages ad, business cards, and a male coworker said, "Wow, you are a certified Substance Abuse Counselor?  How long did that take you?"

She looked confused.  "Well, I have my MSW, and that took --."

"No, I mean all the specialized courses, classes, and the practicum that you have to have to be a certified Substance Abuse Counselor."

Well, she wasn't one.  She had her master's in Social Work, and she always wanted to specialize in Substance Abuse, and she thought that was all that was needed.  The male CW had a substantial background in substance abuse, and he explained that the specialty she was claiming was a BIG DEAL.  It was almost the equivalent of listing PhD after your name because you thought it looked cool.

I don't know what she did with the cards.  Those had already been paid for.  Knowing her, she could well have handed them out, reasoning that most people wouldn't know.
I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three cars across a sizeable desert.  Which makes me officially...Three Cars Crazy

andi

  • Member
  • Posts: 2453
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3367 on: February 05, 2013, 12:02:24 PM »
It amazes me when people don't realize the equipment (computers) they work on AT WORK do not belong to them.  My old HR department was very clear on company policy during orientation - and IT would send out reminders they would be doing system sweeps

  We had one guy who'd filled close to 90% of his system with music from Nabster (back when it first came out). IT came out to see why it was running so slow and almost died!  Guy could not understand the big deal and was NOT happy at getting written up.

Then there were the completely inappropriate emails people would forward. Every quarter there would be a "mass let go" and they'd all be surprised

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Member
  • Posts: 2800
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3368 on: February 05, 2013, 12:05:28 PM »
I once had a friend forward an inappropriate email (silly joke with related animated images of unclothed female anatomy) to my work e-mail address - AT A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY. Seriously? I replied with a very stern reminder that silly stuff needs to go to the PERSONAL email, not the GOVERNMENT WORK email. He never did it again. :-)
What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

wheeitsme

  • Member
  • Posts: 3821
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3369 on: February 05, 2013, 12:08:41 PM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst
I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

I suspect there was a lot more that didn't make it on the show.  I don't know how much time the bosses spend in particular positions, but it is probably at least one day.  An employee who says he hates customers but is otherwise all right will pass.  An employee whose attitude problem lasts all shift, bleeds into his relationships with fellow employees, and causes him to do a lousy job won't survive an encounter with the boss.

For me, it was what I read came after. 

"'I would tell them my attitude would change but I didn't think it was that terrible,' he said, out of earshot of Bittorf after the big reveal." and "'It's not wrong of me to hate people,' he said."




faithlessone

  • Member
  • Posts: 2533
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3370 on: February 05, 2013, 02:19:45 PM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst


Having seen a few episodes of that show, I'm surprised it doesn't cause more people to get fired.

I saw one episode (I think it was from "Yankee Candle"?) where there was an employee who was often required to do a craft with children. He said that he frequently wanted to kick/punch/strangle his customers, and acted incredibly hostile during the demonstration. He also swore and made several threats against the company during his segment. As far as I can remember, the boss just asked him to be a part of a committee improving the customer experience at the stores. I actually hope he was fired off-camera.

Jocelyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3371 on: February 05, 2013, 05:25:35 PM »
For me, it was what I read came after. 

"'I would tell them my attitude would change but I didn't think it was that terrible,' he said, out of earshot of Bittorf after the big reveal." and "'It's not wrong of me to hate people,' he said."

I agree he was an unpleasant person, and I don't blame them for letting him go. What bothered me, though, was that they went ahead and used the footage. It's humiliating enough to be fired...you don't have to put it on TV so that future employers will remember the worker's name and face. It's understandable that he got defensive and said some idiot stuff at the end. Of course he didn't think his attitude was that much of a problem; would it have killed the 'boss' to have spent some time trying to guide a foolish young man? Instead, he was just a disposable part to her...get rid of him, replace him with another widget, there's always another widget out there. I thought she was more interested in portraying herself as a tough guy, and since she wasn't the real boss, she may well have the job of corporate hatchetman. I also found it squicky how she made the job offer to the third worker...we don't want you to leave, therefore we're going to pressure you on TV to stay...and our wonderful job offer will require you to move away from your friends and family. The woman acted happy...but I bet she knew better than to say, 'I don't want to move' on camera if she wasn't ready to resign her job. I don't doubt in the least that the company was pressuring workers not to take their breaks, fancy software or not. A good manager doesn't NEED fancy software to notice if a worker needs a break, and really, why would they develop or buy break-scheduling software if it wasn't a widespread problem? 

Miss Tickle

  • Member
  • Posts: 176
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3372 on: February 05, 2013, 07:39:28 PM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst
I have to question the judgment of Undercover Boss in using the footage. I'd like to know WHEN he signed his consent form, before or after he knew he was being fired on national TV. Past weeks have shown people making similar statements, and the boss reacting with understanding. A lot of people who hate their jobs hate them because they're frustrated with unreasonable demands (on the same episode was a worker who said that they never get breaks!) or because they weren't trained properly. I agree something needed to be done, but I think she handled the situation improperly. It didn't leave me with a warm cozy feeling about Boston Market.

The premise of Undercover Boss is a meta-reality show, so all employees would sign releases before any filming or they likely wouldn't be scheduled to work that day. I doubt employees can be forced to appear on camera if they aren't willing. Everyone knows they are being filmed all the time they are with the trainee. That's the point of the show.

There's nothing wrong with a little humility. Sounds like this isn't the place for him, but rather than get himself a job where he doesn't have to put up with 'demands', he badmouths the people putting food on his table. On camera. It's not the job of the Exec to guide this man, it's her job to remove him before he ends up on Youtube. He was hoist by his own petard.

Jocelyn

  • Member
  • Posts: 2013
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3373 on: February 05, 2013, 10:21:16 PM »

The premise of Undercover Boss is a meta-reality show, so all employees would sign releases before any filming or they likely wouldn't be scheduled to work that day. I doubt employees can be forced to appear on camera if they aren't willing. Everyone knows they are being filmed all the time they are with the trainee. That's the point of the show.

There's nothing wrong with a little humility. Sounds like this isn't the place for him, but rather than get himself a job where he doesn't have to put up with 'demands', he badmouths the people putting food on his table. On camera. It's not the job of the Exec to guide this man, it's her job to remove him before he ends up on Youtube. He was hoist by his own petard.

My point exactly-if he signed the release BEFORE, he didn't exactly consent to be fired on network TV.
Other execs on Undercover Boss did, however, guide erring employees, including referring them for additional training so that they wouldn't make their mistakes again, rather than firing them. I don't see that it's the JOB of an exec to treat people as disposable, although I suspect it is part of Boston Market culture. Which is why I think she did far more damage to her precious brand than an employee Female Dog in the back room.

squeakers

  • Member
  • Posts: 1789
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #3374 on: February 05, 2013, 11:41:43 PM »
Caught on camera and broadcasted, and deserved to be let go from his job....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273585/Boston-Market-employee-rants-hating-customers-undercover-boss-FIRED-spot.html#axzz2K22gNdst

From the en.wikipedia for undercover boss: "Undercover Boss has been criticised as a "reality show" for presenting scenarios and situations which rarely happen to employees in real workplaces and are in fact dramatic tricks.[17] Others point out that CEOs in real life workplaces do not typically go out of their way to provide gifts and other extra benefits to front-line employees at the expense of the bottom line"

So that leaves me wondering if the employee really was one.. or if the firing and reason for firing was just a ratings ploy.  I would take a nice chunk o cash to do either: pretend to be a bad employee who gets fired or pretend to be an employee.. who says bad things and gets fired.
"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin