Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1292060 times)

1 Member and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PastryGoddess

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4652
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4920 on: November 20, 2013, 08:25:36 AM »
I'm blind..I rolled my eyes so hard they fell out.  someone let me know if they see them

MissRose

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2925
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4921 on: November 20, 2013, 08:25:57 AM »
Mr 16 Years is continuing to steadily dig a PD grave for himself.

Start of last week he got called into HR for a meeting with the female head of HR about receiving a written warning for violating procedures (there's a very good reason we do things the way we do them, we've all been told plenty of times how to do it, and Mr 16 Years went ahead and ignored all of them). He responded by telling the head of HR that he would have to consult with his lawyer first because this was unfair and unprofessional of the company to do this to him. The head of HR apparently had had it with him and gave Mr 16 Years a darn good talking to, but since the head of HR is a woman, it was probably ignored.

End of last week, Mr 16 Years sent out a document for review. He had completely ignored all the precendents and guidelines for how the document should be formated. Basically we have a master document for each project, where all the necessary changes are listed so that we can keep track of all the changes. Mr 16 Years created an entirely new document in a completely different format, so basically if anyone wanted to review the changes for the project, Mr 16 Years' changes would be overlooked entirely because they're not in the main document. Another coworker (a male one, and one of the few Mr 16 Years would still talk to or take feedback from) had had enough of this and pointed out in a rather blunt email CC'd to a lot of other people that the correct procedure was [X] and by now Mr 16 Years should know how to do this properly.

Mr 16 Years accused male coworker of being "negative and unhelpful". It escalated into a verbal exchange where male coworker (usually very chilled out and very calm) finally finally lost his temper and responded to one excuse for not using the main document with "Bullpucky!" (although I mean the rude version, not the censored version I just typed). Mr 16 Years promptly emailed everyone documenting this as a hostile action and saying he was going to log a complaint with HR about this sort of abusive threatening behaviour.

Senior Analyst popped her head into the head of HR's office to warn her that there was probably going to be another complaint from "your favourite employee" about hostile workplace behaviour. Head of HR just sort of thumped her head on the desk and grumbled "Arrrgh".

Mr 16 Years didn't come to work the last two days (off sick apparently), conveniantly missing a prescheduled meeting for everyone reminding them "This is how we document changes". So now the meeting has been postponed until Mr 16 Years gets back, although we're now taking bets as to whether Mr 16 Years will somehow managed to "take lunch" during the meeting time and simply not pitch up for it. He's very good at missing "This is how we do things" meetings so he can claim he's never been told how to do XYZ so he's done it this totally unregulated way instead.

Why has he not been given his walking papers and escorted out the door? ?  ?  ?


cwm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2427
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4922 on: November 20, 2013, 10:38:46 AM »
Don't know if this will turn into PD, but it's a good candidate.

Some BG. My company is known among its employees for doing awesome stuff and holding awesome fundraisers. We've had some amazing sales to support several charities. The company will occasionally bring in food for us. Also, we regularly get flyers at our desks letting us know about various events and if there's going to be anything on sale.

So this girl came by today handing out flyers on everyone's desk. Woman behind me was grumbling because she was getting paid to hand out flyers, but nothing new. I looked at the flyer, looked like a "Holiday Mart" type thing, except they were only selling gift cards. Okay, weird, but not unheard of. Then I looked at the bottom.

The girl handing out the flyers? It's her MLM business. And she's going to be set up in the break room at the head office (across the highway, not too far away at all). The company has regularly denied request for people to do their own sales and fundraising in any form for any reason, and I don't know if this girl thought ahead to ask the people in charge. But yeah, it's going to be interesting fallout.

Midnight Kitty

  • The Queen of Sludge
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
    • The Stoddard's Hale
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4923 on: November 20, 2013, 01:15:53 PM »
The girl handing out the flyers? It's her MLM business. And she's going to be set up in the break room at the head office (across the highway, not too far away at all). The company has regularly denied request for people to do their own sales and fundraising in any form for any reason, and I don't know if this girl thought ahead to ask the people in charge. But yeah, it's going to be interesting fallout.
Oh, this is going to be good! Please keep us posted. >:D
"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

Dr. F.

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 890
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4924 on: November 20, 2013, 09:18:59 PM »
I'm blind..I rolled my eyes so hard they fell out.  someone let me know if they see them

They're off having an eyeball party with mine somewhere. Good grief! How long is this going to be allowed to go on?

Lillie82

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 135
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4925 on: November 20, 2013, 09:57:01 PM »
On the "I'm Never Shopping There Again," thread (Reply #5104), I just posted about the funeral home that just forwarded, to the charity my mom heads up, some donations made to that charity in honor of someone who passed away...in November 2012. A year went by in between the funeral and the sending these donations on. The donation made by check may not be acceptable to the bank, because it's dated a year ago.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=83832.5100

When further investigation was made, the staff person at the funeral home vaguely said, "Oh, yeah, my secretary just went through some old files." My mom's acknowledgements to the people who donated were pretty grovelling,=: "So sorry we're just now thanking you, but we only just got this!" She wondered how the funeral home could NOT be grovelling.

WolfWay

  • They burnt down my house... They ate my tailor!
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2468
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4926 on: November 20, 2013, 10:55:15 PM »
I'm blind..I rolled my eyes so hard they fell out.  someone let me know if they see them

They're off having an eyeball party with mine somewhere. Good grief! How long is this going to be allowed to go on?
My country has some heavy-duty labour laws about how much evidence you need before you can fire someone. You can't simply say "you're fired" unless they've broken the law or clearly violated their contract conditions. HR have to build up a solid paper trail before they can dismiss someone, to prevent lawsuits. I think mostly they're trying to push Mr 16 Years into changing jobs and from what I've heard he's looking and interviewing for jobs at the moment.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 10:56:46 PM by WolfWay »
It's best to love your family as you would a Siberian Tiger - from a distance, preferably separated by bars . -- Pearls Before Swine (16-May-2009)

Sophia

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11729
  • xi
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4927 on: November 21, 2013, 12:45:02 AM »
I've heard that when calling references for a job or rental applicant, that you should pay most attention to place before their current place. 
Imagine HR getting a reference request on Mr. 16.  You know they are going to give him a glowing review just to get rid of him. 
Same with a really bad renter.  Great review from the current landlord. 

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4759
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4928 on: November 21, 2013, 04:35:26 PM »
I've heard that when calling references for a job or rental applicant, that you should pay most attention to place before their current place. 
Imagine HR getting a reference request on Mr. 16.  You know they are going to give him a glowing review just to get rid of him. 
Same with a really bad renter.  Great review from the current landlord.

Absolutely!

I have had employees in the past whom we have specifically decided to give good references to in the hopes they will just be gone!    We also address the problematic behavior though so normally they see the writing on the wall and quit anyway before getting to the point of a new job.  But I would absolutely give them a glowing reference if it got rid of them.  In the future?  I would be honest as to what the issues were.
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


Margo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4929 on: November 22, 2013, 07:39:55 AM »
You can't do that here (UK). There is a legal obligation for a reference to be fair, accurate, and not misleading.

It tends to mean that someone who is not impressed with an employee will give a very basic reference which simply says "X was employed here from [date] to [date] as a [job title]"

We recently had a member of staff where that was literally all we felt we could say in the reference..

(We could have said a lot more while still being accurate and non-misleading, but he really would not have wanted us to. And yes, we did have to point that out when he tried to talk us into adding some glowing recommendations. It would have been fun...)

I recently wrote a reference for a friend of mine who needed a personal reference as well as a professional one. I took a copy of the form in case I made any mistakes and needed to rewrite  and am thinking about doing a more flamboyant one to send to her  as a joke (she already has the job she was applying for, so there are no negative associations to worry about)



pierrotlunaire0

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4179
  • I'm the cat's aunt!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4930 on: November 22, 2013, 08:41:10 AM »
I recently wrote a reference for a friend of mine who needed a personal reference as well as a professional one. I took a copy of the form in case I made any mistakes and needed to rewrite  and am thinking about doing a more flamboyant one to send to her  as a joke (she already has the job she was applying for, so there are no negative associations to worry about)

I did that once.  Key points:
    Punctuality - Has never been late for lunch.
    Accomplishments - Can stare off into space for hours at a time.
    Communication - keeps her coworkers informed as to the status of her monthly cycle.

My friend didn't want to use it - go figure.
I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three cars across a sizeable desert.  Which makes me officially...Three Cars Crazy

Ceallach

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4759
    • This Is It
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4931 on: November 23, 2013, 07:26:19 AM »
You can't do that here (UK). There is a legal obligation for a reference to be fair, accurate, and not misleading.

It tends to mean that someone who is not impressed with an employee will give a very basic reference which simply says "X was employed here from [date] to [date] as a [job title]"

We recently had a member of staff where that was literally all we felt we could say in the reference..

(We could have said a lot more while still being accurate and non-misleading, but he really would not have wanted us to. And yes, we did have to point that out when he tried to talk us into adding some glowing recommendations. It would have been fun...)

I recently wrote a reference for a friend of mine who needed a personal reference as well as a professional one. I took a copy of the form in case I made any mistakes and needed to rewrite  and am thinking about doing a more flamboyant one to send to her  as a joke (she already has the job she was applying for, so there are no negative associations to worry about)

I would never lie, but in my experience many people who take references are exceedingly poor at it or simply following a form of preset questions. Therefore it is easy without saying a lot to portray it as either negative or positive.   I've never had an employee with no redeeming features I can focus on if needed - I hire good people, very occasionally they're just not the right fit or have some kind of personality issue that causes problems.

However I see you refer to writing a reference.  We don't provide written references here under any circumstances so I think what we are referring to is possibly very different.
"Nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something"


*inviteseller

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1821
  • I am Queen Mommy
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4932 on: November 23, 2013, 10:08:05 AM »
My former boss had to institute the rule of giving references =giving just the facts of actual employment after we were threatened by some woman with a lawsuit for saying why she was let go.  We didn't lie or go off on a rant, we were asked "Why is this woman no longer at your company?" and I said "Because she had difficulty with the job requirements and was unhappy with a switch of positions."  I am sure the nice lady figured out what I meant was "She wouldn't do her job and she was demoted to a grunt position so she walked out."  We started only giving dates they worked, position they held, and a simple yes or no as to whether we would hire them back.  I called a reference for a woman we had actually already started a few days before in training (desperate to get someone started and she had experience).  She told us she would have to give notice at her last job when we called her after the interview and we thought that professional and told her to call us with a start date.  She called a few days later to say she could start the next day, so boss said just call her last employer when you get a chance but she seems fine.   Well, she lasted a day and a half because when I called her former employer, she hadn't exactly given notice...she had been fired 3 weeks prior and was under indictment for felony theft from them!  We let her go about 5 minutes after I hung up and got my jaw off the floor!

Nikko-chan

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4933 on: November 23, 2013, 10:22:00 AM »
My former boss had to institute the rule of giving references =giving just the facts of actual employment after we were threatened by some woman with a lawsuit for saying why she was let go.  We didn't lie or go off on a rant, we were asked "Why is this woman no longer at your company?" and I said "Because she had difficulty with the job requirements and was unhappy with a switch of positions."  I am sure the nice lady figured out what I meant was "She wouldn't do her job and she was demoted to a grunt position so she walked out."  We started only giving dates they worked, position they held, and a simple yes or no as to whether we would hire them back.  I called a reference for a woman we had actually already started a few days before in training (desperate to get someone started and she had experience).  She told us she would have to give notice at her last job when we called her after the interview and we thought that professional and told her to call us with a start date.  She called a few days later to say she could start the next day, so boss said just call her last employer when you get a chance but she seems fine.   Well, she lasted a day and a half because when I called her former employer, she hadn't exactly given notice...she had been fired 3 weeks prior and was under indictment for felony theft from them!  We let her go about 5 minutes after I hung up and got my jaw off the floor!


I think you might win... this page at least....

Sirius

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9830
  • Stars in my eyes!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4934 on: November 23, 2013, 04:50:26 PM »
"No one would be better at this job than X."  Take that any way you like.