Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1410613 times)

2 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Cherry91

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 723
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #6570 on: Today at 06:42:22 AM »
Cherry - the reason it would have gone through is that hotels/motels often have license to take extra payments in the instance that someone has caused damage to the room, undiscovered until after the guests have checked out.

But also - they technically did have the information in their contracts, even if it's a ludicrous clause. So even though it's idiotic, technically they were OK to take the money.

Oh, that actually makes a lot of sense. I don't like it in the slightest, but at least it makes sense. I don't spend a lot of time in hotels, so I wasn't aware that was a thing.

Gyburc

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1773
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #6571 on: Today at 06:49:58 AM »
I heard about the hotel charging for bad reviews on the radio yesterday. They are refunding the money, and according to the discussion, their policy may very well be against the law. (No details, to avoid getting too far into legal territory!) DH and I were agreeing how shortsighted a policy it was, anyway!
When you look into the photocopier, the photocopier also looks into you

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8252
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #6572 on: Today at 10:10:19 AM »
I heard about the hotel charging for bad reviews on the radio yesterday. They are refunding the money, and according to the discussion, their policy may very well be against the law. (No details, to avoid getting too far into legal territory!) DH and I were agreeing how shortsighted a policy it was, anyway!

Their 'policy' certainly resulted in a lot more negativity than a single bad review, didn't it?  Someone should have taught them the word "backfire"!

Celany

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1777
  • the soul of a cat, in the body of a person...
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #6573 on: Today at 12:39:29 PM »
There's a little epilogue, however. In 2010, I moved back to that town for a few months. I befriended a woman who did volunteer work in a Church (none of the Churches mentioned above, but one of the same local community). I volunteered a little with her and I got to meet the staff of the Church --including the assistant pastor, Pastor John. Apparently, people in the Church (aside, most likely, from the staff) don't know about his past and I figured he's paid his debt to society, he's learned his lesson, and he is entitled to a second chance. I bet he's not in charge of the finances, though

That's a good attitude to have, but I know I'd wonder if they knew everything (they should, just to protect their finances).
[...]


It was a small town and the story had been front page news a few years before so I'm sure all the local Church leaders remembered it. Additionally, the guy had spent a few years in a State prison for his crime. Had it been in another town, that would have been a real concern, however.

Well this is pulling up a really old part of the discussion, but all the talk of second chances reminded me of this story (and it's going to take me a while to get to the end of this thread so I'll have forgotten it by then!)

I was meeting with a forensic accountant to discuss what he could do for my clients (divorce/child support type stuff).  His firm also does criminal work - tracing assets that have been stolen, embezzled, etc.  He had a couple of good stories (all of which would qualify for this thread) but the following is the one that blew my mind the most.

Years ago, "Bob" embezzled money from a smallish family owned business.  Despite this, the company decided to give him a second chance.  The accountant didn't know the "why" behind the embezzlement, but I'm going to assume he had to have a compelling story.  At this point though, I think the company was being incredibly compassionate and kind.

The company puts Bob back in charge of finances/doing the books, and apparently never checks up on him (or stops checking up on him, he was there many years after the first incident).  And Bob embezzled over a million dollars from them over several (many?) years!  It boggled my mind.  Partly that Bob would do that again but mostly that the company placed that much trust in him! I'm all for second chances, but that's insane!

I agree with you!  I can see a kind-hearted employer giving an employee a second chance for something like being late to work, because that's just laziness.

But embezzlement is a conscious act.  It's a decision to be dishonest, commit fraud, steal.  You don't just do that by carelessness or laziness.  No way would I trust that person again.

OT because it's about a married couple (and sadly the wife is not "firing" the husband), but my friend Tania had the same problem with her husband. He feels he should be in charge of the finances, because he's the man of the house. So she let him (this was over 10 years ago), which resulted in nearly having a car repossessed and having their electricity turned off. She took over the bills, but he chafed about it, so she gave him a second chance (and didn't do the smart thing & log onto accounts to make sure he was paying). This caused her to lose the house they were living in (she'd bought it before they got married, & it was still in her name). She finally learned, & he doesn't get any more chances with finances.

And for the record, he's just terrible with money. No sense of the whole "most of the pay needs to be kept to go towards mortgage & car payments, not treats for the daughters & new electronic toys". It wasn't malicious, just stupid. Not that knowing it wasn't malicious did much to help her feel better about the whole thing.

On topic, I can't remember if I wrote about this one before, but an IT guy made a big mistake at a previous job, and accidentally sent the ENTIRE company a p0rn clip. Which he got fired for. Depending on your sense of humor, you may find this offensive, or hilarious (I found it hilariously offensive): The computers at this company were really crappy (the company was super-cheap about updating technology), and if you tried to open a .mkv file it would take *forever* (any video file would take forever). The company did sometimes send us video files with announcements or funny stuff, so it was the normal MO of most people to see a video file, try to open it, be aware the the computer would be useless for a few minutes as it froze & then slowly opened/ran the file, so they'd go to the bathroom or get more coffee or start working on something that didn't require using the computer.

So what happened is that everybody got this innocuously named file from "Tom", everybody tried to open it, & then got up to go get coffee/go to the bathroom/etc until the file started up. And then suddenly, 30-some computers in this big room all load the video with in a few seconds of each other, so there's this explosion of surround-sound-off-sych moaning and squeaking. Everybody just went  :o and then dashed back to their desks to turn it off, while trying not to laugh hysterically at the sheer absurdity of it.

Tom was gone by the end of the day.
I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior. ~ Hippolyte Taine

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4732
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #6574 on: Today at 01:35:55 PM »
I heard about the hotel charging for bad reviews on the radio yesterday. They are refunding the money, and according to the discussion, their policy may very well be against the law. (No details, to avoid getting too far into legal territory!) DH and I were agreeing how shortsighted a policy it was, anyway!

Their 'policy' certainly resulted in a lot more negativity than a single bad review, didn't it?  Someone should have taught them the word "backfire"!

Not to mention the phrase "Streisand Effect."
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2849
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #6575 on: Today at 01:45:55 PM »
I heard about the hotel charging for bad reviews on the radio yesterday. They are refunding the money, and according to the discussion, their policy may very well be against the law. (No details, to avoid getting too far into legal territory!) DH and I were agreeing how shortsighted a policy it was, anyway!

Their 'policy' certainly resulted in a lot more negativity than a single bad review, didn't it?  Someone should have taught them the word "backfire"!

Yea, but it also resulted in a lot of publicity. And to some minds, all publicity is good publicity.
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