In this case, it’s a difference without a distinction.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re right. Let’s grant that she was merely exploiting the national emergency for her own purposes. How does that exonerate her?
It doesn’t. It still suggests that she’s the type of person who would put her own paycheck over and above the safety of the nation. Hardly the mark of a “loyal” employee.
So then you agree with us that she should have been removed. Everyone agrees that she got a raw deal and deserved to be compensated. She should not have used the crisis as leverage. How is you position different? That Michelle just should have been nicer?
Sarah would agree with your assessment, which is why Michelle instantly recognized her as a liability.
Poetic license. She knew what happened, but I feel secure in saying she hasn’t had time to get into the details, and thus was not in a position to render any sort of decision other than “I’ll look into it”. That it wasn’t said in a touchy-feely way when worrying about further terrorist attacks and field agents in danger within an 8-mile radius blackout should not be condemned. Sarah should have been given the blow-off at that moment in time. Michelle should not be worrying about either Sarah’s feelings or pay grade. She needs to focus on Jack and Marwan, and in getting very smart very fast about what’s happening outside the doors of CTU.
Then she should not have been there. She should have gone home. She can still file suit.
Michelle did nothing to Sara she needs to be exonerated for.
I’d have to rewatch the ending, but I think it was both “You’ll regret this” and “You’ll be sorry”. A case could be made that this was an implied threat. Considering the crisis on hand, that’s enough for incarceration. (And, of course, complaining to Heller about mistaken torture would be an amusing conversation)
(a) It’s a TV show.
(b) Sarah “forgave” her torture when she traded recourse for a salary bump. I have no problem with that. My point has nothing to do with the inappropriateness about what happened to her. My point is that she was not mistreated by Michelle. She was treated by Michelle exactly as she should have been treated by Michelle, who was not party to any previous doings. Sarah should have backed down, and there is no reason Michelle should have been worried about Sarah’s record nor Sarah’s pay grade at that point in time.
If memory serves, Driscoll mentioned to Heller that Sarah had worked for her for 8 months and that she never did anything that would put her loyalty to question.
They were very quick to break out the taser on Sarah. Too quick. But that’s TV and they have to fit the show into a 24-hour period.
Another question is why have it expunged at all. I would think having,
would look great in your personnel file, as well as decrease the likeliness of having you loyalty questioned the next time.
Really? You don’t see a difference between:
“You need me right now. Give me more money or I walk.”
and
“Your predecessor agreed to promote me in exhange for my willingness to stay and assist CTU in spite of the fact that I should be recovering from the severe trauma I went through earlier today. I want to make sure that agreement is honored.”?
I think it’s different. YMMV.
It would have never gotten to the point where Sarah tried to use the crisis as leverage, if Michelle had been reasonable in the first place. Michelle’s initial response was completely unreasonable, yet you expect Sarah’s reaction to be. That’s unfair. Why should Sarah be required to show loyalty to CTU when they could not return the favor?
I don’t understand. How would she have been a liability? I don’t recall her threatening to do anything other than go home, which is what should have happened anyway, after what happened to her.
That’s a new one. 
Whoah, dude. You’re way understating that. She definitely gave her the “blow-off” vibe. A bunch of us noticed that. I have no doubt that there was a notation in the script as to the tone. It was really obvious.
Doesn’t exonerate Michelle.
I disagree. Hey, even Tony raised an eyebrow at her behavior. 
I don’t see how.
I don’t know about that. Heller was pretty damn steamed when he found out his son was tortured. He only changed his mind when he discovered his son really was hiding something.
But I agree to an extent. The way this fictional CTU is run, I would guess one wouldn’t get too far trying to take them on. If they’re not worried about torturing private citizens w/o probable cause, I doubt they’d be too concerned with a wrongful termination suit.
Fortunately, that has nothing to do with my point. I think Sarah made a severe miscalculation, there’s no doubt about that. However, that doesn’t change the fact that she got a raw deal from CTU.
Gee, ya think? :rolleyes:
They didn’t just taser her, IIRC. That’s just the part they showed.
Michelle doesn’t even work there, and she doesn’t know for a fact that there was any such agreement. She gave Sarah an attitude, which I think is understandable given the circumstances, but I’m not sure what else she’s supposed to do.
I think the problem is that you are trying to equate this is a regular job. If you work for a regular company, there is an expectation (which doesn’t always happen) that the company shows loyalty to the employee as well as the employee showing loyalty to the company. But this is a job that deals with national security. It’s not just loyalty to CTU, but to the country as well.
In case you haven’t noticed, in this show CTU employees have been asked to continue working after a bomb blast. CTU employees have been asked to walk into virus infested buildings. Michelle was asked to allow herself to be recaptured by terrorists. Jack was asked to sacrifice himself by flying a bomb to a remote area. Do you know how many CTU red shirts have been cold cocked by Jack? Is it reasonable to expect them to remain loyal to the job and country, or is it okay for them to take the mentality that they don’t owe CTU any loyalty? You know who the last person was who felt they didn’t owe any loyalty to CTU? Nina.
All Sarah was asked to do was let it go until after the crisis.
I would have thought this point is obvious. In your experience, does an employee who feels she doesn’t owe the employer shit do a great job or a bad job. In the context of a national emergency, do you want a critical job assigned to someone you thought didn’t owe you shit? Do you want the people lives put in the hands of someone you felt held a lot of resentment?
Sigh. This is getting tedious. I don’t mind the sudden pile-on, and the fact that all the folks who were on MY side seems to have dropped out of the thread. But could you guys at least stop saying things that have already been covered?
Again: The wording as well as the tone of her response made it very clearly not an earnest reply by Michelle. A bunch of us saw it that way. If you have it on tape, watch it again. I can’t prove that it was a blow-off response; I just know it because I watched the episode.
That’s false. A verbal contract is legally just as binding as a written contract.
You don’t know that. Besides, Driscoll’s motivation is irrelevant. She promoted Sarah. She can’t say, “I just did that to shut her up.” Doesn’t work that way.
Why do you say “under-the-table”? There was nothing illicit about their agreement.
As I said, the existence of the deal could easily have been confirmed.
But we COVERED this. Go back and read the initial posts about this. Michelle could have given a MUCH more satisfactory response than she did. “I’ll look into it” WOULD have been enough, if she had only said it in a reasonable way.
And I can see it now:
Next week: “I just wanted to confirm with you the salary increase that Miss Driscoll promised me.”
“Huh? What salary increase? Why are you just mentioning this now?”
O.K., I’m now going to ignore any comments that refuse to acknowledge the tone of Michelle’s response.
Did you see any evidence that she wasn’t doing a good job? The only person who wasn’t doing her job was Driscoll.
Not give her an attitude?
Now all you’ve done is painted yourself in a corner. We’ve whittled down your arguments to ‘tone’ now?
You’re telling me that if Michelle had been nicer about it, we would not be arguing. So if Michelle said, “I’m so sorry that happened to you, Sweety. Give me a hug. ::hug:: I promise that when this is all over, I will make sure you get everything that Driscoll promised”, but Sarah had insisted on insisted on instant gratification then and only then would Michelle have been justified?
Is Michelle supposed to tiptoe around every CTU employee that is having a bad day, or only the ones who had the misfortune to be tortured by CTU?
Oops, missed this gem.
Yeah, I saw Sarah get into a pissing match with the new boss, and got all huffy when Michelle was gruff and not very empathetic. Does that count?
What’s your problem, archmichael?
True. The taser was first, though, and it was brought out way too early.
Sarah wasn’t under the gun as long as Heller’s son was, and at one point, Heller approved continued torture of his son. Wasn’t Sarah’s situation rectified in the very next episode? (not snarky, just not sure).
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Even if it was meant as a blow off, I believe it was an appropriate reaction to Sarah’s questioning at a very inappropriate time. Not discounting the fact that Sarah had a rough day, and herself was probably not all that rational (although she seemed fine talking to Driscoll, and even chided Edgar about Driscoll losing her daughter when Edgar had just as recently lost his mother). But she picked the wrong fight at the wrong time, she was just as at fault if not more so than Michelle, and she got her ass handed to her.
None at all. But we know what your problem is:
Which is coloring your perspective of a simple conflict.
Should Michelle have been nicer. Sure, that is a good policy in any situation. Would most people excuse her tone in the light of a national emergency? Yes. You just seem to be the only one who finds her tone unacceptable.
Then why are you acting hostile?
You obviously didn’t read the whole thread. Look, I’m done with you. I’m sorry if I offended you. You seem upset, so I’m just not going to respond to you anymore.