Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1473294 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Tea Drinker

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1515
  • Now part of Team Land Crab
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4785 on: October 31, 2013, 08:06:55 PM »
I am not sure if this is PD or what, but being in the middle of it is getting annoying.

There is an agency we work with that makes "cookies" for us.

We feed these cookies to other departments in the agency, other agencies and a host of other people.

Sometimes we have to ask for the cookie to be changed -maybe it needs more icing, or less chocolate. Maybe we have to replace it with oatmeal raisin.
So I spend a lot of time swapping cookie recipes with this agency.

Lately, they have a new staff of bakers and things are getting...interesting.

I've sent in routine orders and gotten answers like:

"You need to get the recipe right the first time. This is too much work."
(Ummm....recipe changes come from the Master Baker, or from other Big Heads. Your job is to make them whatever cookies they need.)

"We don't know where your cookie is and we're not going to look for it. You have to wait until it shows up."
(But....it's two weeks late. And the Head Baker wants it.)

"If you change the recipe, we won't give you a new cookie. You'll have to make the changes on the one you have and use that one."
(I'm sure the delivery staff, and the cashier will be happy when they realize they don't know what cookies to deliver or charge for!)

So when the Master Baker and Chief Chef ask me about where the cookies are and why do was have the wrong batch, I just send them a copy of the order and all the responses I've gotten to my questions.

I am told there is going to be a meeting soon to discuss baking procedures.
I sure hope so!


Now I want cookies.   ??? ::) ;D
Me too, and could you add more frosting and more chocolate?

Are all of the responses from the same baker or is the whole kitchen falling on their spatula?

They are pretty much all from the same baker, but I think he is speaking for the whole bag of nuts because he uses "we" a lot.
So either he is speaking for the group or speaking from the throne. (The royal kind, not the other kind...)

"The royal 'we', the editorial 'we', or the 'we' of people with tapeworms."
Any advice that requires the use of a time machine may safely be ignored.

laud_shy_girl

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 446
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4786 on: October 31, 2013, 08:09:51 PM »
I am not sure if this is PD or what, but being in the middle of it is getting annoying.

There is an agency we work with that makes "cookies" for us.

We feed these cookies to other departments in the agency, other agencies and a host of other people.

Sometimes we have to ask for the cookie to be changed -maybe it needs more icing, or less chocolate. Maybe we have to replace it with oatmeal raisin.
So I spend a lot of time swapping cookie recipes with this agency.

Lately, they have a new staff of bakers and things are getting...interesting.

I've sent in routine orders and gotten answers like:

"You need to get the recipe right the first time. This is too much work."
(Ummm....recipe changes come from the Master Baker, or from other Big Heads. Your job is to make them whatever cookies they need.)

"We don't know where your cookie is and we're not going to look for it. You have to wait until it shows up."
(But....it's two weeks late. And the Head Baker wants it.)

"If you change the recipe, we won't give you a new cookie. You'll have to make the changes on the one you have and use that one."
(I'm sure the delivery staff, and the cashier will be happy when they realize they don't know what cookies to deliver or charge for!)

So when the Master Baker and Chief Chef ask me about where the cookies are and why do was have the wrong batch, I just send them a copy of the order and all the responses I've gotten to my questions.

I am told there is going to be a meeting soon to discuss baking procedures.
I sure hope so!


Now I want cookies.   ??? ::) ;D
Me too, and could you add more frosting and more chocolate?

Are all of the responses from the same baker or is the whole kitchen falling on their spatula?

They are pretty much all from the same baker, but I think he is speaking for the whole bag of nuts because he uses "we" a lot.
So either he is speaking for the group or speaking from the throne. (The royal kind, not the other kind...)

"The royal 'we', the editorial 'we', or the 'we' of people with tapeworms."

I don't know if it's just that I am tired or being pregnant, but this exchange has me crying with laughter. DH thinks I'm being weired. I love this site.
“For too long, we've assumed that there is a single template for human nature, which is why we diagnose most deviations as disorders. But the reality is that there are many different kinds of minds. And that's a very good thing.” - Jonah Lehrer

Katana_Geldar

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1976
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4787 on: October 31, 2013, 10:03:51 PM »
There's some lovely over here..

Minmom3

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2463
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4788 on: October 31, 2013, 11:51:23 PM »
Sigh.  Onion chip cookies.    ;D

Is it sad that I think the mention of them is hilarious, while I think the original occurrence as posted was a little sad?  I'd have been crushed if I were the child they happened to.  Am I bad to find it after the fact funny?
Mother to children and fuzz butts....

Mel the Redcap

  • Scheming Foreign Hussy!
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4789 on: November 01, 2013, 04:11:26 AM »
Now I want cookies.   ??? ::) ;D
Me too, and could you add more frosting and more chocolate?

Are all of the responses from the same baker or is the whole kitchen falling on their spatula?

They are pretty much all from the same baker, but I think he is speaking for the whole bag of nuts because he uses "we" a lot.
So either he is speaking for the group or speaking from the throne. (The royal kind, not the other kind...)

"The royal 'we', the editorial 'we', or the 'we' of people with tapeworms."

But is it a giant Satanic tapeworm called George?

(Despite the obscurity of that reference, I fully expect at least one EHellion to recognise the source! ;D)
"Set aphasia to stun!"

Iris

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4790 on: November 01, 2013, 05:24:24 AM »
Sigh.  Onion chip cookies.    ;D

Is it sad that I think the mention of them is hilarious, while I think the original occurrence as posted was a little sad?  I'd have been crushed if I were the child they happened to.  Am I bad to find it after the fact funny?

There were really onion chip cookies? I thought that was whimsical hilarity. What have I missed?
"Can't do anything with children, can you?" the woman said.

Poirot thought you could, but forebore to say so.

Tsaiko

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4791 on: November 01, 2013, 08:33:39 AM »
A section of my company is going through some reorganization. Management of that section has been replaced, and the employees under them are having to reapply for their positions, which are being relocated to a centralized facility and reduced in number for a variety of reasons. I am interviewing the old employees to see which (if any) will be rehired.

It's important to know that the employees have two main tasks: produce product A and follow procedure B when updating anything. Product A can take up 6-8 months to complete the first time, but should only take 2-3 months on subsequent versions. These can be done every 2-3 years. And procedure B comes into play because employees often have to do many, many updates in order to create product A.

We interviewed our first internal candidate a few days ago. This guy has worked for us for over 7 years, with a short break in there where he worked for another company. We asked him about what he had done in his position. He talked at great length about having produced product A, not once, but twice! during his 7 years of employment. Okay, a little slow on releasing and updating product, but reasonable.

I then asked about procedure B. Candidate then proceeded to tell me that he'd never really looked at procedure B, it must have been created sometime during his brief stint at other company (it wasn't, it was completed and released well before that), and besides which, he was much too busy doing tasks C, D, E, F, and G to worry about following procedure B.

So basically he told us that not only was he not doing half his job for 7 years, but that he didn't follow procedure B when producing product A either time, meaning his product A probably isn't up to specifications. He was also wasting time doing tasks that he was not authorized to do.

He then had the nerve to say when we hired him back, he expected his full relocation costs to be covered. Not if, when.

Yeah, no.

Jones

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2673
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4792 on: November 01, 2013, 12:21:55 PM »
I am holding off ordering our newest technician's business cards.

You see, he was hired a year and a half ago as an assistant. He worked his way up to technician via learning about the products and getting certifications (which the company paid for). He knows all the rules and procedures. So, imagine our surprise when he's gotten his promotion and suddenly all the paperwork has mistakes. Some are improperly turned in. His inventory is a mess after 2 weeks.

But, today he was posting pictures to Facebook while driving. Company vehicle. Company phone. Did I mention he is FB friends with both his supervisor and the general manager?

So, although I was to order his business cards today I'm going to hold off until next week.

cwm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2427
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4793 on: November 01, 2013, 02:16:49 PM »
Sigh.  Onion chip cookies.    ;D

Is it sad that I think the mention of them is hilarious, while I think the original occurrence as posted was a little sad?  I'd have been crushed if I were the child they happened to.  Am I bad to find it after the fact funny?

There were really onion chip cookies? I thought that was whimsical hilarity. What have I missed?

Is it my onion cookies? My mom gave me a knife she'd just used to cut onions for me to cut tube sugar cookies. They were horrid.

And it's not bad to find it funny, it's one of the things I still tease my mom about, years later. It's more proof that my whole family is crazy, not just me.

Editeer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 306
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4794 on: November 01, 2013, 02:56:01 PM »
There's a family story about my great-aunt, my very polite sister, and the onion cookies . . . let's see, which thread does it beling in . . .

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4866
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4795 on: November 01, 2013, 04:23:48 PM »
Sigh.  Onion chip cookies.    ;D

Is it sad that I think the mention of them is hilarious, while I think the original occurrence as posted was a little sad?  I'd have been crushed if I were the child they happened to.  Am I bad to find it after the fact funny?

There were really onion chip cookies? I thought that was whimsical hilarity. What have I missed?

Is it my onion cookies? My mom gave me a knife she'd just used to cut onions for me to cut tube sugar cookies. They were horrid.

And it's not bad to find it funny, it's one of the things I still tease my mom about, years later. It's more proof that my whole family is crazy, not just me.

That was my "onion chip cookie" reference, yes.  ;D
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

chi2kcldy

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4796 on: November 01, 2013, 04:45:04 PM »
This act of PD happened at my company's holiday party. My company moved a new division into our corporate office in early December. One of the new ppl was a lady named "June." Our cubes were back to back.

We would chat here and there. Nothing overly personal. The basics like children, weather and lunch. As we continued talking, I thought we may have a nice friendship outside of work one day. That was up until the holiday party.

The party is open bar and is held at the corporate office. A group of about 6, myself included, are upstairs talking. June interrupts the conversation and suggest we do a round of shots. We declined. June calls us a bunch of stiffs and goes over to the bar. During this time her husband is sitting in a chair quietly.

Later I notice June is drunk. Not tipsy but drunk. Another co-worker (Mary) and I tried to keep June in one place hoping she would sober up. I was hoping for assistance from her husband. He did nothing. Just sat in the same spot.

Well after noticing you couldn't keep June in a corner, I exited the situation. My DH and I continued to mingle and enjoy the night. Later Mary's husband ask if I would go into the bathroom and check on her. I ask if everything is ok. He said that Mary took June to the restroom. They have been gone a while.

I go into the ladies room. There is Mary trying to convince June to pull up her pants. June does not want to pull up her pants b/c she is hot. I tell June she is at work, pull it together. She looks at me and lets out a loud wicked yell. It's the type of noise a witch would make when she is flying on a broom. 

I look at Mary and say you are on your own. When i'm exiting the ladies room Mary is hot on my heels. She left June on the toilet. We tell June's husband where to find his wife.

A few moments later the VP's wife found a pants-less June in the ladies bathroom. Needless to say, June quit shortly there after.

White Dragon

  • Formerly St Monica
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4797 on: November 01, 2013, 11:20:46 PM »
Now I want cookies.   ??? ::) ;D
Me too, and could you add more frosting and more chocolate?

Are all of the responses from the same baker or is the whole kitchen falling on their spatula?

They are pretty much all from the same baker, but I think he is speaking for the whole bag of nuts because he uses "we" a lot.
So either he is speaking for the group or speaking from the throne. (The royal kind, not the other kind...)

"The royal 'we', the editorial 'we', or the 'we' of people with tapeworms."

But is it a giant Satanic tapeworm called George?

(Despite the obscurity of that reference, I fully expect at least one EHellion to recognise the source! ;D)

So....all of a sudden my office has been flooded with cookies.
Somebody shook a tree and the cookies fell out. All my missing cookies have come home to roost.
This is good, but it has made me kinda busy. :)

Next week I get to learn how to make my own cookies.
I guess if I can't stand the heat U should stay out of the kitchen. ;D

Library Dragon

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1556
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4798 on: November 02, 2013, 12:24:33 AM »
Sometimes it's hard to get people past their probationary period due to PD.

Our newest hire (NH) who's on temporary restricted physical duty.  Okay, I modified the schedule so NH wouldn't be physically stressed. NH went on to do a task that involved heavy lifting, bending, pushing, etc., and that was assigned to someone else. All the time muttering about cussing someone out before the day is over.  Manager hears and asks if everything is okay.  NH is upset because of having to do this physical task. Manager asks why NH did it when it was assigned to someone else.  "I wanted it done now," is the response. 

NH then complained about the other staff talking bad about NH in the break room at b o'clock. Later Manager and I are talking about how to handle the other staffers when volunteer comes in and apologizes for monopolizing staff from a o'clock to c o'clock reviewing her recent big trip.  We casually asked if she met NH.  No, she never saw NH and no one even mentioned that NH was on staff. 

So, we have NH stepping in doing someone else's job and complaining about doing it. Then whining about being "bad mouthed" when NH wasn't even mentioned.   

Some are determined to make their lives miserable.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 12:26:18 AM by Library Dragon »

            Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

misha412

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 453
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4799 on: November 02, 2013, 07:23:30 PM »
I hope I haven't posted this before. I apologize if I have.

b/g I used to work in the IT department of Company A. Company A is in a very specific industry without a lot of competition. The owners of Company A used to work for Company B, also in the same industry. When Company B was bought out after the owner's death, the buyer let most of Company B's staff go. The owners of Company A basically went out the day they were let go and started the new company. Over time, they ended up hiring a good number of staff from Company B. I was NOT part of the Company B staff members. end b/g

Company A was growing quickly and lagging behind as far as IT staff. I had been there a couple of years at this point. The head of the department got the budget to hire a couple of contractors to bolster the IT staff. I got assigned to do the initial orientation with the two contractors (showing them what we do, giving them overview, etc.)

So, I spent the Monday morning they arrived giving them the overview. I then took them on a tour of the building to orient them to where certain things were. Along the way, I introduced them to a few people. One of the introductions was to the VP of Finance, a woman who used to work at Company B. She gave one of the contractors (I'll call him Walter) a very odd look during the introductions. This was very unusual for this woman who was always very professional, even with people she didn't care for. W didn't seem to know her or show any sign of it.

After I returned from lunch, I found Walter had been escorted out of the building.

Long story short, Walter had worked for Company B many years before. He had been fired for sexual harassment and making threats. The VP of Finance had recognized him and talked with the head of IT about him. The company had no use for a guy like this.

What gets me the most is that Walter acted like he didn't know anything about the particular industry that both companies are a part of. He had worked in the IT department of Company B for at least a year before being fired. So, he was faking lack of knowledge the entire time he was with me.