I do not consider consensual bondage to be treating people badly. I consider it to be treating the people who enjoy it … quite well.
Thanks for the clarification. Now can you get the image of Foxxy Love and Captain Hero out of my head? 
Does anyone here truly think that Joan has the self-insight to learn from this and change her behavior?
I strongly doubt it, but am willing to hope that for her. I seriously doubt that anyone here is chortling and saying, “heehee! Joan is gone! Hope she ends up under the highway bridge!” Most posters here seem to be saying kudos to Maureen for handling this professionally, with a bit of “well, that obstacle is overcome…exclesior!” And why not?
I, too, wonder about EC’s age–because he sounds very naive, untried, and unscarred by the workplace. Work is well, work. It is hard enough to try to mold people so that they all cooperate and support one another’s tasks to get the job done, to have to do that with X number of disparate employees AND have one of them stirring shit for no good purpose is too much to ask of most companies.
My employer has excellent benefits, with access to mental health counselors and professionals-most health care related companies do. All to the good. But if an employee won’t avail herself of that resource or denies that she needs it at all…what is a company to do?
Think of it like a ship–if all don’t pull together, the ship could well sink. If one person disrupts the operations of the ship to the extent that others are no longer functioning as they once did–time for that person to leave the ship. Now, a firing may be a bit like walking the plank, but maybe Joan has a life-raft or even an island in view.
You cannot proclaim that this is so hard and awful for her unless you know the context of her circumstances. She may have a great career op waiting for her–or here is her chance to go back to school or even not work. Maybe she’s a PHB because she had a job she hated.
Who knows? None of those scenarios are Maureen’s company’s business or problem–they’re all Joan’s. And I think that she probably thinks that 1. the company can’t survive without her and 2. she is too good for such a place anymore. Such are the coping mechanisms for the Joans in this world.
I can’t help thinking there is something in the name–I, too, had a cow-orker named Joan. She got promoted to assistant nurse manager and proceeded to make our lives HELL. She told nurses on another unit that she had a list of all the people she was going to fire (I was third on that list); she threatened me with physical violence at one point (or does the sentence, “I’m going to find you in the parking lot one day and you won’t forget it” not mean that?)–I could go on.
She was finally fired by the new NM and the whole unit celebrated. We did NOT celebrate her lack of a paycheck one bit–we celebrated the removal of an unbalanced and hostile coworker from our midst.
Thinking about it, I have addressed this issue, although tangentially, in GD. Several (Many?) months back … I tried a couple of searches but can’t find the thread … I was proposing a program to make capitalism more efficient and reduce the economic stress caused by downturns in it by setting up a government program to fund research in economically new industries independent of the economic cycle. The idea would be that even in tough times (frex, the economic bust and drying up of venture capital in Silicon Valley that followed the dotcom bust) there would be this economic agency funding new ideas that might create new technologies, etc., that would fuel future economic booms … sorta like NASA did in the 50s and 60s.
The key thing for me was that it would also employ skilled people dumped on the labor market by such busts, so they could turn thier skills to good use instead of asking people if they want fries with that. Or offing themselves. Because being laid off sucks, too.
So I don’t think it’s fair to say I haven’t been addressing this problem in GD. Firing is just one aspect of the problem, though a particularly tough one.
Payroll is the number one expense at the majority of companies and is an enormous burden for smaller outfits. Carrying counter-productive people can literally mean life or death to a smaller company or department within a larger company. If you can come up with a workable alternative, fine, but simply injecting your dismay over what you perceive to be one unfair aspect of life (which, I note, has a lot of unfair aspects) does not strike me as a serious attempt to fight ignorance, but simply a way of letting you vent your spleen on a topic that makes you feel bad.
[/QUOTE]
I actually don’t mind all the hijackings; my part has pretty much ended. It’s beginning of the month, busiest time, quarterly and annual draws are flooding in, and we’re slammed. And for once, I didn’t have someone (Joan) waltzing into my office at precisely 9am to tell me about all the dramas of her day that I missed yesterday. And besides, the thread is moving into a very interesting area.
I believe that although help should be readily available to whoever wants it as it is at both eleanorigby’s and my companies, there is a point where we have to allow that everyone is responsible for themselves. Liberal I am; idealist I am not. You cannot force anyone to take help if they don’t want it. And at some point, everyone must take responsibility for their own actions. If you will not accept help for your problems, then you must accept responsibility for the mess those problems will eventually bring about. Especially if you’re told of those problems over and over and ignore the root cause. If “everyone” is against you, then maybe it isn’t them. Maybe it really is you. Maybe you need to change the way you look at things.
I think this is partially fall out from our (collective, societal “our”) obsession with never being wrong about anything. As if being wrong is a sin or a character flaw. It’s okay to admit to being wrong.
Can you tell I was thinking about this a great deal yesterday? 
I don’t have any pity left for Joan. I’m all pitied out. She’s been confronted with her issues and problems multiple times and still refuses to address them. That is not being professional. It isn’t even being adult.
In that case, I’d like to thank those who said they would hire me.
Hell no. She seems like one of those people who think there’s nothing wrong with her. Like I said, people like her probably know how to manuver around the system, so I doubt she’ll end up in much trouble. Bah.
Somehow I doubt that. I know people with views similar to his and they work their rear ends off. Some make more money than a lot of people here. Some are idealist, others are now.
Who knows with EC? It shouldn’t be anyone’s concern what he does and what his age is and I really don’t see how his life is relevant to his views.
I am not all that interested in EC’s age or his views, but this intrigues me.
How is anyone’s life NOT relevant to his or her views? My life experiences definetly color my views, for good or ill. I am not completely ruled by them, but they do have an impact.
Well, if he’s old enough to remember NASA as a government agency that funded new ideas and therefore found jobs for the likes of Joan and her ilk I’d say he’s old enought to have chewed a lot of blotter acid. Is that stuff still around?
I don’t necessarily remember it from personal experience. Steven Levy’s book “Hackers” and the book “Engines of The Mind” both had lots of reference stuff about computer and communication technology coming from military progs: the Internet from a DARPA project, computers originating from a WWII project to develop faster ballistics calculators for artillery, and various micro and comm devices from NASA.
Fine. But you seem to be equating NASA, which has a mandate concerning space exploration, with an agency that is essentially providing venture capital for technology start-ups. And from that concluding that such enterprises will act as a safety net for fired workers. It is not so much a plan as it is wishful thinking. Where would the money come from? Who would administer it? How would you judge the success of the investments? And most of all, why the heck do you think that such businesses would look to find staff among people who have been fired for cause? It just does not work that way.
Do some heavy lifting and come up with a nuts and bolts plan and let the smart folks around here (not me) critique it for you. If it has merit you will find nothing but useful advice. So far all you have are pipe dreams.
Definitely. I’m definitely more forgiving of someone who demonstrates naive idealism like that in their twenties – and I think most people are.
I remember when I first started working I basically thought of my employers like surrogate parents who were obliged to take care of me forever, so long as I did my chores. (Though I would never have expressed it that way, of course.)
After a while, though, there’s an expectation that reality will set in and a person will accept that they’re responsible for getting along in the world, and nobody’s obliged to look out for the interests of someone who consistently tracks shit all over the place. You don’t shrug off stealing, you don’t need to tolerate someone who constantly creates drama out of nothing, and you sure as shit don’t pat someone on the head and give them a cookie when they repeatedly making disparaging remarks about your company’s ability to work effectively to clients (inside clients or outside clients) and stubbornly insist there’s nothing wrong with that when confronted about it.
To do so is like allowing raccoons to build a den in your livingroom. Sure, they might be warm and comfortable and depend on what’s in your cupboards to survive, and it might be “mean” to encourage them to take it outside and find another way to get by, but that’s not your problem. Your problem is the 'coon shit all over the place, ruined groceries, shredded upholstery, and facial lacerations received when trying to watch the Superbowl.
Of course, there will always be some schmuck to come along and say you’re abrogating your duty to live in peace and harmony with the animal kingdom, but it’s a safe bet he’s never had to suffer through a suite of rabies vaccinations or faced the possibility of having his home condemned before the mortgage is paid.
I stretched that analogy too far, didn’t I?
Could have been worse; could have been skunks.
Easy. Opinions among groups of people can be very diverse. It’s commonly believed that those left of Liberal are simply wealthy/middle class college kids or “jealous poor people”, but many of those same people are also conservatives, largely indifferent, democrats, Libertarians and gods know what else.
While I was in high school/college, I was a Republican/Libertarian. Now, I’m, eh, well beyond that and I had jobs back then and I have one now. My Livejournal friends list is full of Left-Wingers that aren’t Ivory Tower naive people, well out of college, that DO work and that live away from their parents. I have a couple of Republicans in a similar boat. Yet they are all different in their views. And I’m different than they all are.
Of course life/experiences shape some views, but lots of other things(education, travel, debates, books, etc) are huge factors. I just don’t see how Evil Captor’s life beyond this has anything to do with what he is saying. If he didn’t live at home, if he worked, if he isn’t what you think he is, what then? Would his views be any more valid? Or less? Or does he have to think the same way that you do so he wouldn’t be considered “naive” or “someone who lives in his mommy’s basement”?
I do a lot of global work - many of my coworkers I have never seen face to face. I spend a lot of time one the phone.
So I once said to my boss (and I think maybe a couple levels up) - “Its always nice to meet people in person - its nice to know whether what you are hearing on the phone is naive idealism from someone in their twenties that we can beat out of them eventually, or just stupidity and its hopeless.”
Yes, unfortunately I saw those after I’d posted. But thanks!
Me too. Plus, you’re a crack up sometimes. I bet you’d be fun to work with.
Such as?
As one who has been fired or laid off a number of times (for the most part normal RIFs) I beg to differ. Being fired can be tough yes. But living in a fantasy world where one is always right and where reality is a very distant never visited planet is FAR more dangerous to a person, both those who are “normal” and those who may be mentally unsound.
Surely you have heard of the unfortunate individuals who do not have the capacity to feel pain? They are in danger of bleeding to death, among other things if they don’t happen to see an injury.
It is very “harsh” when a child disobeys a parent’s admonition to “don’t touch” and gets burned on a hot stove. But the child then learns that mom and dad have a good reason for the “don’t touch” rule. Some things hurt.
If a person has gone through life with a hugely inflated and false sense of entitlement, it is to his or her betterment, not their detriment if they learn an important lesson such as how to behave like a normal responsible adult.
Yes, it may be painful but it is a lesson that needs to be learned. And I for one certainly HOPE it has “lasting effects”. Just because something is harsh, or painful doesn’t make it a bad thing. Some of life’s greatest treasures and lessons are gained from horribly painful experiences.
Are you of the opinion that everything for everyone should be completely pain free and free of charge?
Really? And have any of your ideas on how to protect these poor hapless “victims” come to fruition? Again, if a person is hellbent on being a fuckup, sometimes the ONLY thing that will work is for them to have to face the consequences of their actions.
Can I just say this is one of my favourite threads ever.
Even if I agreed with this (which I don’t), the blame still lies with the employee if they are being fired with cause. If someone goes out driving drunk and wrecks their car or gets injured, I’m not going to jump for joy, but I’m not going to cry a thousand tears, either. They chose to drive drunk, and they should pay the consequences. If you choose to be an incompetent or destructive worker (as mentioned in the OP), sure, it sucks to be you that you’re fired, but why should I care? They chose to act that way.
I am actually in a position to hire and fire people. Here’s the thing: there are lots of people who want to work, too, and can’t get hired if there aren’t spots. I’d rather hire someone who is going to do a good job (or give them a chance to) than keep a known detriment or non-producer. Why should I reward them with pay if they don’t want to do the job?
Workers have the right to leave a job at any time, regardless of the impact. Notice is requested, but not required in any legal sense, barring a particular contract. It would hurt my company a great deal (efficiency-wise, recruiting and training a replacement, and, not to toot my own horn, but morale-wise) if I just never came in again. Yet, I have that right if another job comes along or if I just feel like it. It’s not an act of ‘violence’. I don’t owe the company my presence or my efforts; if they don’t treat me right, I’ll leave, and if I don’t treat them right, I should expect to get fired. Much like if a company gets nothing out of an employee that they’d fire them, I’d leave if I wasn’t getting paid. There’s nothing violent about it. That’s the way that capitalism works.