Libertarian,
You’re luring me into your web of deceit and misconceptions…I know it.
Maybe I am arrogant…for thinking the boss’ wife is a moron.
Oh well, okay, so I am arrogant. What’s it to you? This is a rant on “these kinds of people”. Meaning…religious freaks (yes freaks) who wish to not have alcohol served to everyone because it’s the devils work. Fine. I’m arrogant.
I love it.:rolleyes:
Let’s not get the whole point of this out of hand. 
Out of hand? There are 200 posts in this thread. We’ve long sailed past “out of hand”.
Well damned if that’s not the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.
But if may disagree I would say:
(1) She is calling her husbands boss an idiot, because she is annoyed about the party, and see’s no reason for the decision unless it is to please his wife.
(2) She is venting. God knows we all do that
(3) She is fully allowed to say that as an adult, she should be allowed to drink at what is meant to be a social occasion.
(4) It’s what?
(5) see 3 above.
YMMV, etc, etc. I’ve also been invited to company parties where it was perfectly obvious that alcohol would not even be considered as an option - for example at company offices in Muslim countries, etc. But for a christmas bash in the US, what’s wrong with wanting to be able to buy a couple of g&t’s at the bar. Or the odd pint of Lagavulin, according to cultural preference.
I have yet to see a company that discriminates between levels when setting a holiday party allowance. (“Holiday parties may only be enjoyed by Tier III and above employees. Everyone else gets a canned ham.”) Have you? So I’ll bet he COULD have a party for his staff on the company dime.
I work for a Fortune 100 company, which may be the same one Siemsi’s husband works for. My boss, the director of our department, is attending a holiday “gathering” with the CEO later this month at one of those walnut-paneled men’s clubs.
My boss is also HOSTING a party for his staff this Friday at his home, complete with valet parking, appetizers, and (one presumes) alchohol.
In BOTH cases, the corporate policy is clear: $7.95/pp max, including spouses and children where appropriate. Anything in excess of that is picked up… by the host! I don’t even WANT to know how much the CEO is paying for his dinner, but I know my boss is paying well into the thousands, out of his own pocket, for our party.
So don’t assume that the company is picking up the tab entirely. They very well might not be. Which might explain why Siemsi’s husband’s boss isn’t having an open bar. It might also explain why her husband is having a kick-ass party for his staff.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: What a sniveling harpy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I’m curious. Are you deliberately trying to miss the point, or what?
And Diane, six roll eyes in one post is a pittable offence in itself. Who were they aimed at?
Gary wrote:
(1) Maybe what she “sees” is not the totality of the circumstances
(2) She isn’t just venting. She wants the rules changed to suit her personally. That is, she recognizes herself as the standard of importance by which her boss’s decisions should be made.
(3) Why? Why are her own personal preferences, rather than those of the host, definitive for the event? Besides, she’s gone out of her way to say that this is not the same as a social event, that she would honor a request from a hostess at a friend’s party for no drinking.
(4) Unmitigated. In other words, she can’t be satisfied with a mere hour (which the company IS allowing) to get liquored up. She wants the whole evening.
(5) Likewise.
I know. I hurt my fingers typing them.
They were aimed at Ms. Smilie. While I agree that Christmas parties are soooooooooo much better with booze, I think her OP came off as one of those cliche harpy co-worker wives who piss and moan about everything.
Read the OP in a Roseanne Barr whiney voice and you’ll see what I mean.
The main reason for the YMMV, is that I could easily say
(1) If my boss decided to have a dry bar, or even a dry bar except for one hour, I too would call him an idiot, fuckwit, nimrod, git, etc. That’s not an analysis of the whole situation, just a rant.
(2) Hardly. Without being able to take a strawpoll of her husbands colleagues, I’d still wager that many of them and their partners would also prefer the “rules changed”
(3) Because there is more of an imposition in the statement “you cannot drink” than the statement “I would like a drink”.
(4) But that’s not mitigating. If it’s ok to drink for an hour, why shouldn’t people be allowed to buy themselves drinks throughout the night.
(5) This really is just going to come down to personal opinion, so what say we call it and give the hamsters a break? Besides, the bar is open and I could murder a pint.
Libertarian,
You can keep bitching about me all you want. But I did not state in any way, shape or form, that I wanted the rules changed to suit me. Did I actually say that I wanted my hubby’s boss to change the party from 1 hour of liquor to 6 hours of liquor because I said so??!?! Did I say that? Did I say anything about that? If so, please quote.
Again…I’m not being lured into your “bitching back and forth” session.
You know… I just may talk my husband into throwing our own holdiday bash…complete with all types of liquor, beer, wine and illicit drugs.:rolleyes: Perhaps even an animal sacrifice. No, that would just be going too far.
Oh! Did I offend someone by that smilie. OH well. Here’s another one for you
Lighten up. It’s the holiday season.
(OH shit. There I go again with the cutesy smilies.)
Hmmm… a bit of practical advice first. In Britain we have the rather unpleasant custom of “lining them up”. This is due to our ridiculous licencing laws that require venues to cease serving alcohol at 11pm. However, unpleasant or not you might want to take a leaf from the book. You have an hour, yes? Well how many pints can you purchase/obtain in an hour? Just make sure that you have a nice big table to line them up along and you’re set for the next 6 hours.
Eris, I love you too. And it isn’t leave that’s the problem - it’s overwork. When you are faced with the prospect of staying at work to 2am, the idea of extending that due to SD-time becomes less appealing.
But back to the issue at hand: whether or not Siesmi is some unreasonable ungrateful cow because she bemoans the complete unobtainability* of alcohol at an event at which she and her partner are, in essence, forced to go to.
Er, I keep losing track of the arguments in favour of this proposition. What were they again?
Ah yes, Lib has enumerated them. Thank heavens, because I can’t see a cogent relevant point in the rest of the posts put together.
So here:[list=1][li] The boss has no mind of his own — he is his wife’s robot[/li]
This is what she is objecting to, yes. And it would certainly appear to be the case too. Unless he agrees with her, in which case he is simply an overpromoted twat who clearly has no idea how to motivate his employees. Not much of a choice that, is it?
[li]What Siemsi wants is what everyone should want[/li]
No, what Siesmi wants should be given due acknowedgement. Or do I have to replay the “what’s the point in having this party in the first place” card? I very much doubt she’s the only one to feel this way, so this expensive bash is causing the opposite effect to that intended. That’s what happens when you don’t listen to what people want.
[li]Her own opinion matters more than the boss’s[/li]
You’re stretching now. How is that implied? However, I would say that in a company-sponsored event with the sole purpose of improving morale, the opinion of the rank-and-file actually does matter more than the boss’s.
[li]The one hour open bar is unmitigating[/li]
Not unmitigating, but not enough. And stupid. Yes, that is the implication. I agree with it too. Unless the boss intends everyone to do the ol’ lining up trick.
[li]The boss’s wife is opinionated, but she (Siemsi) isn’t[/li]
She never said that she wasn’t opinionated. And also she isn’t having a go at the wife for being opnionated. She’s objecting to the actions not the attitudes. The wife can be opinionated all she wants, but when she starts pushing that on others she crosses a line.[/list=1]Really folks - are these the best objections there are to Siesmi’s little rant? Do we not have some oceans we can try to empty with teaspoons or anything?
pan
*subject to my paragraph one above, of course
You think the Christmas party is given to raise morale?
It is given for a number of reasons, including (1) the fact that much of its cost can be expensed, (2) it is customary, (3) a significant portion of the company’s management or shareholders is Christian, and (4) it provides a context for networking.
The whole problem with Siemsi’s rant is that she is entirely interchangeable for that purpose with the boss’s wife. In other words, had Siemsi (who doesn’t work for the company, but is an employee’s wife) been the one who allegedly influenced her husband to do the liquor a certain way, we could easily have had the boss’s wife here bitching and moaning about Siemsi’s alleged influence.
The point is that the decision belongs to Mr. X. And Siemsi happens to be married to Mr. Y. It is nothing more than a classic sour grapes rant.
Now there’s the holiday spirit! I’m sure everyone will have a ball. (Except for the spouses who’ll go around gossiping that your husband is pussy-whipped and will do whatever you ask him to do. But they can’t be pleased so don’t bother trying to appease them.)
I’m such a glutton for punishment because I read this entire thread. heh.
I think Gary is probably correct in the OP’s intention - but the dramatic fashion (These people make me sick!) in which it was presented prompted some pretty dramatic responses. It was quite a bit of ire when what Gary posted (not having the freedom to drink) was probably very well said.
Siemsi doesn’t seem off her rocker but she does seem dramatic and I think she’s admitted as much. Next time, maybe a less flamboyant rant for what could be said more casually (such as by Gary). heh. Interesting!
Tibs.
I think the difference between Siesmi and the bosses wife is that the bosses wife is TAKING AWAY someone’s choice, whereas Siesmi is asking that a choice be given. The bosses wife is taking away a choice, a far more selfish action IMHO.
That depends on how you look at it. What about people who would choose the company of more sober peers?
Given that the boss’s wife isn’t a peer, she could stay away.
I am sorry but how many people go to a Christmas party to enjoy sober company?
I think all this talk about Siemsi “imposing her opinion” is, frankly, a bit silly. She isn’t. She’s having a bit of a moan on a public message board, in a section that’s devoted to having a bit of a moan. There’s no way that a post in the Pit is actually going to influence her boss or her boss’s wife.
Unless the SDMB has some sort of strange voodoo effect, and reality changes to conform to a poster’s wishes … in which case, I’m starting a “Why is Steve Wright not being sexually gratified by double-jointed supermodels?” thread RIGHT NOW.
Pray god, let this thread die. It’s suffered enough!
(1) It’s still a cost. The fact that you can get a tax break on that cost doesn’t stop it from being a cost.
(2) And why do people care about the custom? Because they like it. Why do the company care that they like it? Because they are trying to maintain staff morale.
(3) We’re not talking about a staff church service here, Lib. I see your point but I can’t honestly believe that the companies have a staff party because the board believe in Jesus Christ. Aside from anything else, if that were the reason the shareholders might have something to say about wasted funds. Even minority shareholders can sue if they believe the company money is being wasted.
No - at the end of the day staff parties are justified to shareholders because they increase shareholder value as a result of more efficient workers as a result of improved morale.
(4) Just how much networking does the pool secretary need to do? THe networking we’re talking about here is team building aka staff morale improvement.
Whichever way you cut it, it comes back to a financial outlay with the aim of keeping the staff happy. And in Siemsi’s husbands case it clearly isn’t working.
pan