My boss fired my coworker yesterday.
He pulled me aside in the morning and said he had thought about it over the weekend and decided he had to follow his instincts and was letting the person go. No room for discussion this time, and if there had been I probably would have wound up shouting at him.
I emailed my former coworker's home email from my private email and told them I was sorry to see them go and offer myself as a reference for them only to learn that my boss had more or less forbade them from even saying goodbye to me. I'm not sure if this is from fear of what I would say about our conversation last week or if he thought my former coworker would bad mouth him to me but it became fruitless in any case.
I would have posted about this yesterday but I now find myself doing my job, my coworker's, training 2 new people who started this week, coordinating an office move/rearrangement, along with dealing with my boss' usual bullshit. I will also be adding to that list job hunting in my off hours because, while it is his right to employ who he chooses, it is my right to not have to stay there and put up with his ethically questionable behavior and bad business sense.
All in all I rank his actions around an 8 on the FT scale because he not only let go a highly qualified employee for no reason but will now lose another valued member of his team because of it.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Moral Conundrum
I work at a fairly small company, about 15 employees. I have some supervisory responsibilities at the company though at the moment there is only one person under that limited authority. Today my boss came to me and put me in an awkward position and moral dilemma. My boss informed me that the one person, who is the only person I have to back me up when we're busy, he was going to "let go" because it "wasn't working out." You should realize that this is the 4th person we've had in that position in less than 8 months and the individual in question is the most competent, hardworking person we've had in the role. My boss said it "wasn't working out" to the other three people after two weeks, one week, and three months respectively.
I pressed my boss to know why and he admitted that the person is very capable and hadn't done anything wrong. The reason he wanted to let them go is because he had a bad feeling about the situation.We wound up having a rather lengthy discussion about why he wanted to fire them and why I thought he shouldn't. At one point I made what I feel is a rather accurate analogy of "you were looking for a needle in a hay stack and found a crochet hook, that's pretty damn close," but at the end of the conversation he said he respected my opinion but he was still going to do it.
I go back to work, feeling generally shitty about having to take on all of this other person's duties yet again, and ten minutes later my boss is pulling me aside again to say that he's thought it over and he's going to keep her for now because of my recommendation. We talk for quite a while longer with me emphasizing that it's really his decision and I will respect what he says (mainly because I don't want to lose my job if she winds up performing poorly).
He asks for me to come tell him if this person is/starts saying anything bad about him behind his back. The truth is, everyone in the office complains about him behind his back, including me. He is a nice guy but very eccentric, seems to have ADD, and is an unreasonable micro-manager. We aren't malicious about it, but whenever he does something that annoys us we sigh and shake our heads because we just know that's the way he is. I now have to walk that fine line between appeasing the boss and ratting out my coworker, who I also consider a friend.
Now I am left wondering, should I tell my coworker that they were minutes away from being fired? This is my moral dilemma and the problem with any work friendship. I have three choices.
1) I can become the toady of my boss (or a proper assistant manager if you prefer) and rat my coworker out without warning them of the imminent danger and probably isolate myself from the rest of my coworkers.
2) I can tell my coworker everything and my boss nothing and run the risk of them ratting me out in anger if/when they do get fired or the tables otherwise turn.
3) I can continue to walk the tight rope, telling nothing on either side. My coworker will be none the wiser but I will feel guilty if they get fired without being warned. My boss I will have to keep happy by diplomatically telling him enough to hide the reality.
I fear the only possible choice for me is number three. My effort to balance empathy with obligation means that I can fulfill neither.
I pressed my boss to know why and he admitted that the person is very capable and hadn't done anything wrong. The reason he wanted to let them go is because he had a bad feeling about the situation.We wound up having a rather lengthy discussion about why he wanted to fire them and why I thought he shouldn't. At one point I made what I feel is a rather accurate analogy of "you were looking for a needle in a hay stack and found a crochet hook, that's pretty damn close," but at the end of the conversation he said he respected my opinion but he was still going to do it.
I go back to work, feeling generally shitty about having to take on all of this other person's duties yet again, and ten minutes later my boss is pulling me aside again to say that he's thought it over and he's going to keep her for now because of my recommendation. We talk for quite a while longer with me emphasizing that it's really his decision and I will respect what he says (mainly because I don't want to lose my job if she winds up performing poorly).
He asks for me to come tell him if this person is/starts saying anything bad about him behind his back. The truth is, everyone in the office complains about him behind his back, including me. He is a nice guy but very eccentric, seems to have ADD, and is an unreasonable micro-manager. We aren't malicious about it, but whenever he does something that annoys us we sigh and shake our heads because we just know that's the way he is. I now have to walk that fine line between appeasing the boss and ratting out my coworker, who I also consider a friend.
Now I am left wondering, should I tell my coworker that they were minutes away from being fired? This is my moral dilemma and the problem with any work friendship. I have three choices.
1) I can become the toady of my boss (or a proper assistant manager if you prefer) and rat my coworker out without warning them of the imminent danger and probably isolate myself from the rest of my coworkers.
2) I can tell my coworker everything and my boss nothing and run the risk of them ratting me out in anger if/when they do get fired or the tables otherwise turn.
3) I can continue to walk the tight rope, telling nothing on either side. My coworker will be none the wiser but I will feel guilty if they get fired without being warned. My boss I will have to keep happy by diplomatically telling him enough to hide the reality.
I fear the only possible choice for me is number three. My effort to balance empathy with obligation means that I can fulfill neither.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
FF Strikes Again-- Lame!
So I thought I'd break my fast from posting at last. Not much has caught my interest, partially because I've been too exhausted to look for it, so I have sought out good old FF for some inspiration and I didn't have to look far.
Today's rant will be focused on ableism. Not familiar? Well, here is an article, quoted by FF, on ableism to give you an idea from an ableist's perspective.
Ready for the fun? Here I go:
I will stick to the major points of contention as it is a long article and I don't want to ramble too much by going through everything I take issue with.
In the very first paragraph I want to comment on the use of the word "uncritical" in two different places. As we all know, uncritical means- not expressing criticism. Basically, that we are accepting the state of things as they are. The examples that they give- walking vs. rolling, speaking vs. signing- really make me wonder because is it not "better" for a child to walk and speak? These things are the natural human state. I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud and confident as a person if you can't walk or speak, but given the choice, very few people would choose to lose these abilities. At the same time, every medical advance to assist the handicapped is designed to give them a life that is a closer representation of the non-handicapped. You wouldn't take a non-handicapped person and make them handicapped because the desirable state to be in is non-handicapped (for an excellent satire on this subject please read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut).
The second paragraph I just find funny as they criticize the use of the word bitch and yet the article is featured on Bitchmedia. I really don't see the difference between using the term lame as meaning uncool and their use of the term bitch in this non-derogatory manner. I am also amused by the their assumption that a person who calls a career women "cold" and "bitchy" is somehow implying that women should be kind, supportive, and have and prioritize family. If you're going to be that broad about it you could also put "independent" on the list of no-nos so why don't we step out of the 1920s and back into the 21st century.
Moving on to the thirst paragraph we start out with this doosy of a sentence: "there is a plethora of words which rely on a shared assumption that to be disabled is inherently bad, inherently less than a person without a disability, inherently unworthy of attention, consideration, or care." Now let's back up a second a get a few things straight. When we determined above that being handicapped was a less desirable state than being non-handicapped we were not speaking of the value of the individual. This is where their linguistic argument has the biggest break down as they make the enormous leap from an assumption about a physical state of being to an assumption about the unique qualities, personality, value, etc. of a human being. These are entirely different things. A healthy, active man who becomes a paraplegic in a car accident does not suddenly have less value, but there has been a detrimental impact on his physical state of being.
And now we turn to the use of words such as "lame". Now, traditionally lame refers to a person's physical state, but in this day and age has come to mean something very different. The linguistic transition from one use to the other had steps where it was a derogatory term for the handicapped, but that is not the common implication today. As a child, I first learned the term lame as a synonym for uncool, not as fun, and even boring, it was not until I got a little older that I was taught (not from social use but through book learning) the term's origin. At the rate things are going, in 100 years the only people who will associate lame with the disabled will be linguists and trying to the eliminate the word's usage through so called "ableist" thinking will only retard the progress. (and yes, the use of the word retard was intentional, as the same concept applies to this word as well)
There are cases where people still use terms like lame, retarded, gimpy, etc. in a derogatory manner which is not only distasteful but downright mean. However, the name of the game is context, context, context. In all speech it is not just what words we use, it is how we use them that matters.
Today's rant will be focused on ableism. Not familiar? Well, here is an article, quoted by FF, on ableism to give you an idea from an ableist's perspective.
Ready for the fun? Here I go:
I will stick to the major points of contention as it is a long article and I don't want to ramble too much by going through everything I take issue with.
In the very first paragraph I want to comment on the use of the word "uncritical" in two different places. As we all know, uncritical means- not expressing criticism. Basically, that we are accepting the state of things as they are. The examples that they give- walking vs. rolling, speaking vs. signing- really make me wonder because is it not "better" for a child to walk and speak? These things are the natural human state. I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud and confident as a person if you can't walk or speak, but given the choice, very few people would choose to lose these abilities. At the same time, every medical advance to assist the handicapped is designed to give them a life that is a closer representation of the non-handicapped. You wouldn't take a non-handicapped person and make them handicapped because the desirable state to be in is non-handicapped (for an excellent satire on this subject please read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut).
The second paragraph I just find funny as they criticize the use of the word bitch and yet the article is featured on Bitchmedia. I really don't see the difference between using the term lame as meaning uncool and their use of the term bitch in this non-derogatory manner. I am also amused by the their assumption that a person who calls a career women "cold" and "bitchy" is somehow implying that women should be kind, supportive, and have and prioritize family. If you're going to be that broad about it you could also put "independent" on the list of no-nos so why don't we step out of the 1920s and back into the 21st century.
Moving on to the thirst paragraph we start out with this doosy of a sentence: "there is a plethora of words which rely on a shared assumption that to be disabled is inherently bad, inherently less than a person without a disability, inherently unworthy of attention, consideration, or care." Now let's back up a second a get a few things straight. When we determined above that being handicapped was a less desirable state than being non-handicapped we were not speaking of the value of the individual. This is where their linguistic argument has the biggest break down as they make the enormous leap from an assumption about a physical state of being to an assumption about the unique qualities, personality, value, etc. of a human being. These are entirely different things. A healthy, active man who becomes a paraplegic in a car accident does not suddenly have less value, but there has been a detrimental impact on his physical state of being.
And now we turn to the use of words such as "lame". Now, traditionally lame refers to a person's physical state, but in this day and age has come to mean something very different. The linguistic transition from one use to the other had steps where it was a derogatory term for the handicapped, but that is not the common implication today. As a child, I first learned the term lame as a synonym for uncool, not as fun, and even boring, it was not until I got a little older that I was taught (not from social use but through book learning) the term's origin. At the rate things are going, in 100 years the only people who will associate lame with the disabled will be linguists and trying to the eliminate the word's usage through so called "ableist" thinking will only retard the progress. (and yes, the use of the word retard was intentional, as the same concept applies to this word as well)
There are cases where people still use terms like lame, retarded, gimpy, etc. in a derogatory manner which is not only distasteful but downright mean. However, the name of the game is context, context, context. In all speech it is not just what words we use, it is how we use them that matters.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Body Mod
As I drove home today an ad came on the radio for laser hair removal and it got me thinking. When you consider the term "body modification" what do you think of?
The first things that come to my mind are tattoos, piercings, and the more extreme miscellaneous items like people who have their tongues split in a snake like style.
In reality, by its pure definition, body modification is anything that changes the body from it's natural state. By this definition things like boob jobs, laser hair removal, face-lifts, botox, etc. are all body modifications in the same sense as the snake-tongue people. But, you'll notice, it is never called body modification in ads, and for obvious reasons. The people who sell these things know that you want your boob job to make you look more like the superstars, not the side show. It is a game of perceptions and connotation in order to sell their product.
You'll also notice that most people who are into "body modification" in the traditional use of the term are regulated to the fringe of society in many respects. The man who has tattooed his entire body to look like a lizard is unlikely to get a job in an executive office because of his modification but the woman with the boob job is, in some cases, more likely to get the position because of her modifications.
Obviously society has no problem with the general idea of altering your body from its natural state, you just have to do it in the ways they tell you to.
The first things that come to my mind are tattoos, piercings, and the more extreme miscellaneous items like people who have their tongues split in a snake like style.
In reality, by its pure definition, body modification is anything that changes the body from it's natural state. By this definition things like boob jobs, laser hair removal, face-lifts, botox, etc. are all body modifications in the same sense as the snake-tongue people. But, you'll notice, it is never called body modification in ads, and for obvious reasons. The people who sell these things know that you want your boob job to make you look more like the superstars, not the side show. It is a game of perceptions and connotation in order to sell their product.
You'll also notice that most people who are into "body modification" in the traditional use of the term are regulated to the fringe of society in many respects. The man who has tattooed his entire body to look like a lizard is unlikely to get a job in an executive office because of his modification but the woman with the boob job is, in some cases, more likely to get the position because of her modifications.
Obviously society has no problem with the general idea of altering your body from its natural state, you just have to do it in the ways they tell you to.
Monday, February 13, 2012
An Image Stolen from FF
I will give credit to FF for posting this on his Facebook page though I draw very different conclusions:
A little blurry but you get the idea.
First I would like to point out that the idea of drug testing people on welfare should be more of a preventative measure. If you know you will lose your benefits if you're hopped up on cocaine then you have to choose between doing cocaine or being on welfare (or figure out how to cheat the test).
Personally, I'm in favor of drug legalization in general which would make this a moot point, but even if drugs were legal I wouldn't allow someone to use government money to get them (and we all know I'm not talking about medication).There are two particular sides to this that I would like to point out (besides the fact that it is a preventative measure which I threw in there for free).
1) Drug testing for a job is perfectly legal and in some fields mandatory. Welfare is a source of income and I'm perfectly fine with the government taking some provisions to ensure that it is used as intended.
2) Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out program. That is what FDR intended through the predecessors of the modern welfare system, though it is rarely used in this capacity today. It stands to reason that the small percentage of addicts who can function "normally" are more often than not in a position to not need welfare. However, the majority of addicts, who cannot function normally and are just looking for their next fix, would love the idea of free government money to spend on their habit. If you are just looking for your next high then the welfare system will not be the leg up it is intended as. There are other programs they may qualify for but they need to get clean, or be in the process of getting clean, before they receive welfare funds.
That being said, I don't think the law is perfect. Here is how I feel the program should be run:
Phase 1) People apply to welfare. If their application looks legit they are assigned a caseworker who actually has the time, effort, and energy to do a real home evaluation and sit down for a meeting with the person or family. At this time, if drugs are suspected, the caseworker should be able to make drug testing a prerequisite to starting benefits, but the testing should not be required for all people because that's just wasting money on the people who are obviously legit. If they fail the drug test they can reapply in 6-12 months but for the next application the drug test is mandatory. They should also be pointed in the direction of programs/resources to help them get and stay clean in the meantime.
Phase 2) Once benefits are approved the caseworker should help guide the person/family towards better housing, employment, education, etc. to improve their circumstances. This may require several visits over the course of the first 3-6 months during which an action plan should be created and agreed to. The caseworker should also assist in bringing resources to the person/family to help them start achieving goals and not just hand over a check each month. Once they are one their way the caseworker should check in and evaluate the situation at least once every 6 months and should be available to the person/family as needed as their circumstances change. If, at any time during this process, the caseworker suspects drug activity they should have the authority to mandate drug testing. A failed test will result in the removal of all benefits, something that should be made clear from the beginning.
Phase 3) The family/person will hopefully begin moving along their action plan to establish better circumstances for themselves and benefits will no longer be needed and discontinued.
I'm way too much of an idealist at times.
A little blurry but you get the idea.
First I would like to point out that the idea of drug testing people on welfare should be more of a preventative measure. If you know you will lose your benefits if you're hopped up on cocaine then you have to choose between doing cocaine or being on welfare (or figure out how to cheat the test).
Personally, I'm in favor of drug legalization in general which would make this a moot point, but even if drugs were legal I wouldn't allow someone to use government money to get them (and we all know I'm not talking about medication).There are two particular sides to this that I would like to point out (besides the fact that it is a preventative measure which I threw in there for free).
1) Drug testing for a job is perfectly legal and in some fields mandatory. Welfare is a source of income and I'm perfectly fine with the government taking some provisions to ensure that it is used as intended.
2) Welfare should be a hand up not a hand out program. That is what FDR intended through the predecessors of the modern welfare system, though it is rarely used in this capacity today. It stands to reason that the small percentage of addicts who can function "normally" are more often than not in a position to not need welfare. However, the majority of addicts, who cannot function normally and are just looking for their next fix, would love the idea of free government money to spend on their habit. If you are just looking for your next high then the welfare system will not be the leg up it is intended as. There are other programs they may qualify for but they need to get clean, or be in the process of getting clean, before they receive welfare funds.
That being said, I don't think the law is perfect. Here is how I feel the program should be run:
Phase 1) People apply to welfare. If their application looks legit they are assigned a caseworker who actually has the time, effort, and energy to do a real home evaluation and sit down for a meeting with the person or family. At this time, if drugs are suspected, the caseworker should be able to make drug testing a prerequisite to starting benefits, but the testing should not be required for all people because that's just wasting money on the people who are obviously legit. If they fail the drug test they can reapply in 6-12 months but for the next application the drug test is mandatory. They should also be pointed in the direction of programs/resources to help them get and stay clean in the meantime.
Phase 2) Once benefits are approved the caseworker should help guide the person/family towards better housing, employment, education, etc. to improve their circumstances. This may require several visits over the course of the first 3-6 months during which an action plan should be created and agreed to. The caseworker should also assist in bringing resources to the person/family to help them start achieving goals and not just hand over a check each month. Once they are one their way the caseworker should check in and evaluate the situation at least once every 6 months and should be available to the person/family as needed as their circumstances change. If, at any time during this process, the caseworker suspects drug activity they should have the authority to mandate drug testing. A failed test will result in the removal of all benefits, something that should be made clear from the beginning.
Phase 3) The family/person will hopefully begin moving along their action plan to establish better circumstances for themselves and benefits will no longer be needed and discontinued.
I'm way too much of an idealist at times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)