• Mike (unregistered)

    What's the problem??  My boss does this all the time.  He usually informs me of deadlines by saying, "If you can't finish this by Friday, I'll find someone else who can."

    As if.

  • rbb36 (unregistered) in reply to Michael
    Anonymous:
    eddieboston:
    If you want people to be happy to give you 5/7ths of their lives, you have to give them a reason.

    They do; every week. It's signed too.



    The paycheck is why you show up and do the job. The environment is what makes you happy to do so. The productivity of some jobs is not much affected by employee job-satisfaction. In others (generally those with large creative, intuitive, or personal interaction components), employee satisfaction has a huge impact.

    A manager in a field of the latter type, who doesn't recognize that the paycheck only induces attendance and feigned attentiveness, is doomed to failure.

  • Jason (unregistered) in reply to VGR
    • You are integral to the success of a current project, and leaving now would be more unprofessional than scaring off interviewees.
  • John Hensley (unregistered)

    T. J. Watson Sr. (Mr. IBM) recalled that a manager showed up at NCR for work one day after annoying the big boss. He found his desk on the front lawn

    ... on fire.

  • (cs) in reply to Colin
    Anonymous:
    I would be happy to attend the spectacle so long as I get a piece of cake.  Cuz last year I didn't receive one.

    Are you talking about the piece of cake or about the spectacle???
  • (cs) in reply to Hubert Farnsworth

    Do anyone suppose that it was Paula that was in the elevator?

    Potential Employee: "So, is this place good?"
    Paula: "They work you like a dog around here!  I have been trying to get this code done for the past few weeks, and they keep checking up on me to see if I made any progress.  They never did that at my old place!"
    Potential Employee: "Uh-huh, and the boss?"
    Paula: "Oh, he is Brillant!"

    Just thought we needed a brillant for today!


  • (cs) in reply to BiggBru
    BiggBru:
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    Once this person is identified they will be fired immediately and in quite a spectacular fashion.

    <FONT face=Georgia>And how do you fire someone in "spectacular fashion"? Is he going to have an orchestra playing on the background, circus acrobats twirling behind them, possibly even a sports announcer and play-by-play commentator giving everyone the breakdown?</FONT>

    <FONT face=Georgia>I definitely wouldn't work for the company, but I would attend one of their firings.</FONT>

    Man eating sharks .. with lasers attached to their heads.

  • (cs) in reply to John
    Anonymous:

    That's bad for a CEO...

    I once had a manager who said "I would fire two thirds of you if I could" to her IT staff.

    My director of IT got fired and they got a replacement.

    He came in and told the whole staff ... "I wouldn't have hired any of you."

    needless to say production went down rapidly

  • (cs) in reply to Hubert Farnsworth
    Hubert Farnsworth:
    Anonymous:
    I would be happy to attend the spectacle so long as I get a piece of cake.  Cuz last year I didn't receive one.

    Are you talking about the piece of cake or about the spectacle???

    Gotta watch Office Space again, apparently.
  • AC (unregistered) in reply to not me
    Anonymous:
    Madly googling "Jim +CEO" +Corp
    RIM?
  • BAReFOOt (unregistered)

    The sad thing is, that such mails normally come from the most incompetent guy in the company who also is the exact reason why this happened inthe first place. If i were the CEO, i would ask oth poeple him to speak absolutely open without any consequences, an then let them realize themselves whey they have to quit, or fire them if they don't come up with pretty good reasons why to stay.

    the best tactic still is thousands of years old and does work the best. it's from sun-tsu (aka. "sunzi") (sorry, this is translated from german):

    If the words of command are not clear precise, if the orders are not understood, then it's the fault of the general (boss).
    But when his orders are clear, and yet the servicemen do not obey, then it's the fault of the officers.

    I may add, that if you want to have success, then the orders not only have to be clear and precise, but they must also not be stupid!!!

    You only have to decapitate the one who's fault it is.

    Well. If i think about it: The whole system of a hierarchy with mamagers is outdated and does not really work. Nowadays you don't need a hierarchy. You can let an open source program do the mamagement stuff. With rules that are decided by the team.

  • Anonymous (unregistered)

    I don't see the problem here. Someone actively sabotaging the company deserves to be booted out hard and fast.

  • BAReFOOt (unregistered) in reply to mooney

    Very... very... VERY funny!

    You never heard of the problems of finding a new job?
    First you hardly can find one. Second you have a chance of one in thousand to get a job interview, because of the concurrents. and then the inverviewer will rather not hire someone who quits jobs, because he can get other poeple for less who don't quit even if they are threated as slaves.

    Remeber that there is always someone who is more stupid than you and accepts the stuff you don't. this counts for crappy products, contracts, jobs and everythign else.
    So let's hope ther will be some epidemic plague to kill them all. ;)

  • BAReFOOt (unregistered) in reply to Matt

    Sure as hell it was! >:-D

  • Zilly McZee (unregistered) in reply to BAReFOOt

    These posts don't even make a bit of sense.

    The job sucks, so rather than leaving, you sabotage the company, putting all the jobs in jeopardy.

    Do you think the job is some sort of entitlement? That it will always be tehre even when the smarties who find themselves too good to be working there have won, and trashed the company in everyone's eyes?

    Stupid, stupid.

    Yeah, I've been on both sides of this, and i've stayed up late worrying about keeping companies going. If you've never done that, you've got not real place to speak here. Be a good, quiet little wage slave and don't fuck things up or maybe your job will just completely go away along with the company, k? Maybe that would make you happy? I can't see the logic in it, but hey, wtf do i know.

  • (cs) in reply to WeatherGod
    WeatherGod:
    Do anyone suppose that it was Paula that was in the elevator?

    Potential Employee: "So, is this place good?"
    Paula: "They work you like a dog around here!  I have been trying to get this code done for the past few weeks, and they keep checking up on me to see if I made any progress.  They never did that at my old place!"
    Potential Employee: "Uh-huh, and the boss?"
    Paula: "Oh, he is Brillant!"

    Just thought we needed a brillant for today!



    Thank you, thank you very much...
  • wage-slave (unregistered) in reply to Zachary Palmer
    Zachary Palmer:
    I'm just thinking about the candidate's perspective. Ignoring other requirements and assuming I think I could find a job somewhere else, I would be a bit spooked by the employee in the elevator saying "don't join us". I would be a great deal more spooked by the telephone call saying "we'll give you a sack of money to identify this guy so we can fire him." And, between those two things and without other severe mitigating circumstances, that would be enough for me to reject just about any offer they could throw me.

    The elevator employee's etiquette is, at the very least, quite questionable. I do have to say, though, that it's likely that employee thought that he/she was doing the candidate a favor. I know I'd appreciate the warning if I were the candidate.

    And, thusly, I don't think I would feel comfortable backstabbing the disgruntled employee for a small check and/or "brownie points". How big would the check be? How much financial damage have I just done to the employee who tried to warn me off? How magnified is that damage as a result of whatever condition it is which has made this employee stick with a job despite its unpleasantness? How well would I sleep? I'm not saying that the action on the part of the elevator individual was entirely appropriate, but I'm also saying I can understand saying something like that, especially if you've had a bad day and you don't think too hard about it first.

    If I were the candidate, I'd at least refuse to do the identification. I might show up, say "it wasn't any of these people", demand my check, and go find a different job. If I were thinking fast enough, I might be tempted to submit a bogus description so I could say "it wasn't any of these people" with impunity... although if I were thinking that fast, I probably wouldn't mention the incident to the recruiter in the first place.

    Sad, sad events. Best of luck to the lot of them.

    IMHO, I have to agree - if I were that applicant, however much I might think the employee had no business bad-mouthing his current employer, I'd probably be grateful for the warning to not jump from whatever frying pan I might be in - into the fire.

     

  • (cs) in reply to wage-slave

    I don't know that I've met anyone who has been completely unable to complain about their job.  Maybe it's just on a bad day, maybe it's just part of their nature.

    But I do know that I want to work with people who, whether they complain or not, know that where they are is the best place for them to be.  They can take interviews at other companies, and if they think the grass is greener, let them jump the fence and see what the world beyond is like.  For one thing, it'll help them focus their complaints on improvements (or let everyone recognize it as simple venting).  I never want to work with sheep (or with people who are so afraid of complaining that they don't know who to suck up to next).

    On the other hand, during the downturn, a buddy of mine had the guts to park himself outside the VP's door in an "Angel of Death" costume on Hallowe'en.  Fortunately, the VP seemed to get the joke, but some others considered it a CLM ("career limiting move").

  • awfeawefwafefewa (unregistered) in reply to TomCo

     

    TomCo:

    Anonymous:
    eddieboston:
    I don't understand why it is so difficult for management types to understand that employees that are not happy are usually that way for a reason.  Laying people off never, ever results in a better company.  If you want people to be happy to give you 5/7ths of their lives, you have to give them a reason.

    pi
    au

    Not true.  One company I worked at had a round of "layoffs" so that they could get rid of dead weight.  Morale improved immensely afterwards.

    Problem being how is "dead weight" measured.  I think very subjectively! [:^)]

    It was almost impossible to get fired at the place I was at.  They had to go through the "layoff" process so that they could get rid of the people without handing out massive severance packages (because that is what the company normally does).
     
    They fired four people out of about 300 (IT staff).  It was a great day.
  • Freman (unregistered) in reply to Mike

    What's the problem??  My boss does this all the time.  He usually informs me of deadlines by saying, "If you can't finish this by Friday, I'll find someone else who can

    -----------------------------------------

    A boss once said something similar to me, my reply was:  and if you need it fixed by Tuesday, you'll know where to find me.

  • (cs)

    The given memo spells "doomed company" from my past experience. Employees at that place can't complain that they weren't warned after that incident.

    l.

  • (cs)

    All these assumptions based on what the CEO said he heard the recruiter say the candidate said that the employee said.

    Look at it from the candidate's perspective. If you were on a job interview, and you got a minute unsupervised in an elevator with an employee, wouldn't you asked pointed questions about what it's really like to work there? Wouldn't you want to know that there's been "a series of pay cuts, mandatory overtime, and benefits slashing"? Would you consider getting truthful answers "cowardly" or "shit-talking" or "sabotage"?

    And why does everyone, including the CEO, assume the employee isn't quitting? Maybe he was in the elevator on his way out the door.

    Candidate: Say, isn't that a box of personal effects you're carrying?

    Employee: Well, now that you mention it--

    Ding

    --RA

  • (cs)

    wow.... talk about fascism...

  • {} (unregistered) in reply to An anonymous bitcher
    Anonymous:
    The company had to cut pay and slash benefits, but they had the money to pay a recruiter to hire a candidate.  There's a WTF!



    That happened somewhere I worked.  Not that uncommon.  Person doing the recruiting isn't always the one 'letting staff go' and isn't always informed either.
  • (cs) in reply to Zilly McZee
    Anonymous:
    These posts don't even make a bit of sense.

    The job sucks, so rather than leaving, you sabotage the company, putting all the jobs in jeopardy.

    Do you think the job is some sort of entitlement? That it will always be tehre even when the smarties who find themselves too good to be working there have won, and trashed the company in everyone's eyes?

    Stupid, stupid.

    Yeah, I've been on both sides of this, and i've stayed up late worrying about keeping companies going. If you've never done that, you've got not real place to speak here. Be a good, quiet little wage slave and don't fuck things up or maybe your job will just completely go away along with the company, k? Maybe that would make you happy? I can't see the logic in it, but hey, wtf do i know.


    Mate, you have to add those irony/sarcasm tags for people to get it, 'k?
  • NancyBoy (unregistered) in reply to John
    Anonymous:

    That's bad for a CEO...

    I once had a manager who said "I would fire two thirds of you if I could" to her IT staff.

    Wow, not only is she announcing her powerlessness to everyone, but she is almost demanding that people conspire to oust her.  She couldn't possibly have lasted in that position, could she?

    CAPTCHA:  Zork, feel the memories!

  • management vacuum (unregistered)

    "If you don't like this company -then GET THE HELL OUT.
    The rest of us are trying to accomplish something here."


    There's a senior manager at my company who writes this kind of stuff fairly regularly.    Don't worry - when the time is right I'll quit.


    My rule of manager recognition (resembling Catch 22's definition of an enemy):
    Someone who provides neither direction nor support for my project when I ask for it is not my manager - no matter where he apears on the org chart.
  • NancyBoy (unregistered) in reply to Zachary Palmer

    Anonymous:
    I'm just thinking about the candidate's perspective. Ignoring other requirements and assuming I think I could find a job somewhere else, I would be a bit spooked by the employee in the elevator saying "don't join us". I would be a great deal more spooked by the telephone call saying "we'll give you a sack of money to identify this guy so we can fire him."

    Well the boss man is almost certainly bluffing about that.  If he had any hope of ID'ing the rogue employee, there would be no need for the puffed out speech about how "we'll find ya out, ya might as well confess!"  I mean, does that even work on little children?

    It would be less effort if he were to just show up to work in a T-shirt reading "I am a huge jackass".

  • NancyBoy (unregistered) in reply to Zilly McZee

    Anonymous:
    These posts don't even make a bit of sense.

    The job sucks, so rather than leaving, you sabotage the company, putting all the jobs in jeopardy.

    Do you think the job is some sort of entitlement? That it will always be tehre even when the smarties who find themselves too good to be working there have won, and trashed the company in everyone's eyes?

    Stupid, stupid.

    Yeah, I've been on both sides of this, and i've stayed up late worrying about keeping companies going. If you've never done that, you've got not real place to speak here. Be a good, quiet little wage slave and don't fuck things up or maybe your job will just completely go away along with the company, k? Maybe that would make you happy? I can't see the logic in it, but hey, wtf do i know.

    Wow, I sense a lot of impotent rage talking there.

  • Chad (unregistered) in reply to Matt

    No it wasn't a little bit funny, it was hilarious!

  • andre (unregistered) in reply to Nomen Nescio
    Anonymous:
    Employee retention devices sometimes retain the wrong people. Meanwhile, they may not be good enough to keep the people you want to stay.


    I think the original post made it pretty clear who the wrong person is in that company.
  • annonymous (unregistered) in reply to ptomblin

    I had a manager like that once.  I was "managed out" partially because I spoke up for the group.  After I was canned, the group stopped speaking behind his back and a few months later the manager was out on the street looking for a new job.

  • Original Poster (unregistered) in reply to NancyBoy
    Anonymous:

    Wow, I sense a lot of impotent rage talking there.



    V. funny dr. freud, but no.

    you guys sound pathetic. Go to work. do the job. take the check . you don't like it? don't clog up the world with the whining. it's boring as hell hearing the same stuff over and over from wage slaves who find "empowerment" by talking about how the man be keepin' them down.

    okey dokey?

  • comunist (unregistered) in reply to Original Poster

    I would sense more than impotent rage, I would sense fascism.

    Writing an email out of anger with hate and agressivity is not a smart moves. I would say that a normal adult try to avoid that. Now, it comes from a CEO... WTF??? I hope he feels bad about it.

    But I still think the candidate should have kept his mouth shut.
  • (cs) in reply to cconroy

    cconroy:
    <FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" size=1>
    Anonymous:
    This is certainly an eyebrow raiser, but hardly WTF worthy.  I love this site and I read it everyday, but let's not let it become an InternalMemos.com clone.</FONT><FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" size=1>


    <FONT size=2>Actually, I wouldn't mind... there's no way in hell I'm paying $45 a month to look at some marginally humorous corporate letters.</FONT></FONT>

    <FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" size=1><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>

    </FONT></FONT>

    <FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" face="Times New Roman">Me either.  I was just on that site and found it entirely worthless.  Used to be you could get lots of funny stuff for free, and the the site itself was worth something.  Now it's a bunch of losers whacking their penises and posting 'first'.  Abolute shite.  </FONT>

    <FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" size=1><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT>
    </FONT><FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" face="Times New Roman">

    cconroy:
    </FONT>

    <FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" size=1>

    Anonymous:
    </FONT><FONT style="FONT-FAMILY: verdana" size=1>I believe the tagline for TDWTF is "Curious Perversions in Information Technology", but this post has nothing to do with IT.


    <FONT size=2>True... but it's nice to have a break from all the VB-Java-.NET-SQL-etc. bashing that normally goes on here.  Let's call it "Casual WTFriday".
    </FONT>
    </FONT>

    <FONT face=Arial>Exactly.  No reason it has to be exclusively IT stuff.  </FONT>

     

     

    <FONT face=Arial></FONT>
  • Hoehepa (unregistered) in reply to BiggBru
    BiggBru:
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    Once this person is identified they will be fired immediately and in quite a spectacular fashion.

    <font face="Georgia">And how do you fire someone in "spectacular fashion"? Is he going to have an orchestra playing on the background, circus acrobats twirling behind them, possibly even a sports announcer and play-by-play commentator giving everyone the breakdown?</font>

    <font face="Georgia">I definitely wouldn't work for the company, but I would attend one of their firings.</font>



    Lol the visuals of this cracked me up. I like the bluntness of the CEO guy, nothing wrong with that.
  • PL (unregistered)

    It's amazing these glimpses into the US corporate world you get sometimes and how employees are treated in you country.

    In Sweden it's an absolute right to express any view you have without the risk of lossing your job or risk the CEO comaing after you with a blow torch.

    Another thing I recently heard was that a lot of compnaies had threathen to fire people that participated in the demonstrations against the new proposed immigration laws, again, to exercise your democratic rights it's an absolute right in Sweden and you coudl NEVER get fired for that.

    How can you stand this kind of behaviour ? How about demanding your rights as human beings, demand to be treated like valuable human beings and not just somethign that can be disposed of at any time ?

    Of course, here in Sweden it's been taken too far, to the point where companies are almost afraid to hire to people because of all the regulations, but in the US it seems you can be fired for just about anything and that's just not right in a supposedly democratic country.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to comunist
    Anonymous:

    I would sense more than impotent rage, I would sense fascism.

    Writing an email out of anger with hate and agressivity is not a smart moves. I would say that a normal adult try to avoid that. Now, it comes from a CEO... WTF??? I hope he feels bad about it.

    But I still think the candidate should have kept his mouth shut.


    OP here again.. You're inventing stuff that wasn't there... I remain amused by the ongoing amateur psychoanalysis, which like most amateur psychoanalysis, says more about the analyst than the subject.

    btw, the manager's e-mail was completely out of line and I've never said otherwise... I've not commented on the manager previously, but on the postings here about the incident... take another look at this thread and i think you will see lots of real pent-up impotent feelings from the posters.

    Wage slaves, you're always gonna be wage slaves if you keep acting like this... sabotaging your source of income and your co-workers/peers/fellow sufferers is never a path to anything good.
  • 57451 (unregistered)

    I think most people here miss an important lesson.

    Loyalty is earned, not handed out for free.

    Obviously there is a reason for the person who told the candidate that it was a shitty place to work.
    Being a manager implies that you are the one to keep the workforce productive, and that can only be done when you care for their needs.


    This CEO should be ashamed of himself.
    The whole event should be an alarm-clock that something isn't right within the company, and efforts should be made to solve the problem with unhappy employees.

    2 Swedish crowns from me.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    sabotaging your source of income and your co-workers/peers/fellow sufferers is never a path to anything good.


    IMO it's not sabotage to tell a candidate that the company is a shitty place to work if this is actually true. It's a truth that is hard to hide in the long term; so if the (unwarned) candidate started working here, he would probably leave anyway soon after, causing additional costs. Only desperate people work at a shitty place, so let's say the hint from the employee was a "deperate enough" screening of the candidate.
  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to PL

    Anonymous:
    Of course, here in Sweden it's been taken too far, to the point where companies are almost afraid to hire to people because of all the regulations, but in the US it seems you can be fired for just about anything and that's just not right in a supposedly democratic country.

    In the United States, a distinction, at least in the past, was made between the government and private individuals/businesses.  The government is bound by the Constitution to not violate its citizens' freedoms.  However, that does not mean a private individual (or business) is required to facilitate/promote anothers freedom when the two have entered into a voluntary association.  Some would view your arrangement in Sweden as totalitarian - the government threatens to use its monopoly on the use of force to coerce a private organization to its will.

  • 57451 (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    That's a false assumption. Organizations shall not have any right whatsoever to regulate the rights of the people.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to ammoQ
    ammoQ:
    Anonymous:
    sabotaging your source of income and your co-workers/peers/fellow sufferers is never a path to anything good.


    IMO it's not sabotage to tell a candidate that the company is a shitty place to work if this is actually true. It's a truth that is hard to hide in the long term; so if the (unwarned) candidate started working here, he would probably leave anyway soon after, causing additional costs. Only desperate people work at a shitty place, so let's say the hint from the employee was a "deperate enough" screening of the candidate.


    Consider the contradictions in what you've written for a moment, and the content of this thread that I was writing about.

    I wasn't reflecting on this candidate-employee interaction, but on the posts here not only defending it but calling for (and bragging about) even more such acting-out... feeling good about all the crappy things an employee can do in a crappy company to make it even worse.

    This is imo not smart, not praiseworthy, not something to brag about or emulate.

    btw i've at least a few times nudged people away from situations that were obviously inappropriate. In one case, a manager in an academic lab made clearly inflated promises to a recruit. I didn't have to bad mouth the manager, didn't call him a "liar" or say that his students didn't like his research group, to solve this. I gave the candidate a few pointers about some more information he could find on his own, had a small chat with some of my peers he'd also be talking to, and left it at that. In the end, the kid made the right decision and the other research group self-corrected in time. It wasn't our place to make the decision for him, but it was our prerogative to help him find enough information to make his own informed decision.


  • PL (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:

    Anonymous:
    Of course, here in Sweden it's been taken too far, to the point where companies are almost afraid to hire to people because of all the regulations, but in the US it seems you can be fired for just about anything and that's just not right in a supposedly democratic country.

    In the United States, a distinction, at least in the past, was made between the government and private individuals/businesses.  The government is bound by the Constitution to not violate its citizens' freedoms.  However, that does not mean a private individual (or business) is required to facilitate/promote anothers freedom when the two have entered into a voluntary association.  Some would view your arrangement in Sweden as totalitarian - the government threatens to use its monopoly on the use of force to coerce a private organization to its will.

    Well, I didn't say the state did anything, as with anything the state sets a framework with a number of laws but then it's up to the union and the companies to make agreements.

    The thing is, in Sweden and most european countries the union is very powerful for the simple reason that the politicians want them to be, the laws regulating the job market is in place to protect the unions and the workers rights, that doesn't mean they can't fire people but they have to negotiate with the union everytime they want to fire someone.

    It's kind of hard to explain the differences between our systems in a short forum post, but if you really think Sweden is totalitarian you should come and visit sometime.

    I would say having military posted in every street corner in NY and allowing the police to do "sweeps" where they check everyones bags and personal belongings int he subway is WAY more totalitarian than having laws that protect the workers rights.

    But like I said previously, It's gone to far in this country, it's way too hard to get a job because the companies know it's hard to get rid of people.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to not me

    Gotta be Jim Marshall at Agentis Software. He was famous for this kinda behavior at Apple.

  • NancyBoy (unregistered) in reply to Original Poster
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    Wow, I sense a lot of impotent rage talking there.



    V. funny dr. freud, but no.

    you guys sound pathetic. Go to work. do the job. take the check . you don't like it? don't clog up the world with the whining. it's boring as hell hearing the same stuff over and over from wage slaves who find "empowerment" by talking about how the man be keepin' them down.

    okey dokey?

    So, did you ever find out which of your employees warned off the job applicant?  Or did that misguided crusade go down in flames like so many others before it?

  • John Hensley (unregistered) in reply to PL
    Anonymous:
    Of course, here in Sweden it's been taken too far, to the point where companies are almost afraid to hire to people because of all the regulations, but in the US it seems you can be fired for just about anything and that's just not right in a supposedly democratic country.

    I'm pretty sure John Locke never wrote anything about people being entitled to indefinite employment.

  • John Hensley (unregistered) in reply to PL
    Anonymous:
    Another thing I recently heard was that a lot of compnaies had threathen to fire people that participated in the demonstrations against the new proposed immigration laws, again, to exercise your democratic rights

    I recently heard that the moon is made of cheese. People can be fired for unannounced absence no matter what they're doing. Someone who voluntarily takes the day off without getting it cleared first is screwing the management, who had goals for that day, the customers, who were expecting products that day, and all the employees who played by the rules and came in to work. "I was out protestin" is not an excuse for that kind of irresponsibility.

  • NancyBoy (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    Anonymous:
    Wage slaves, you're always gonna be wage slaves if you keep acting like this... sabotaging your source of income and your co-workers/peers/fellow sufferers is never a path to anything good.

    Beyond your officious need to call everyone here a "wage slave" (when were you born, 1920?), I'm not sure what you get out of this.  According to you, you're not defending the CEO (whom you persist in calling "manager" for some bizarre reason), you're just attacking everyone who is pointing out what a jackass he is.  And you're puzzled why people think you have pscyhological issues.  That Internet sure is a great release for you, isn't it?

  • PL (unregistered) in reply to John Hensley

    John who ? Seriously, where did you get "indefinite employement" from ? Did I say that ?

    My posts was about the fact that you don't seem to have ANY protection for employees over there.

    Being sacked for expressing your views, excercising your democratic rights...etc

    That's the real WTF here, you certainly need to mature as a society, you've had 500 years, what have you been doing ?

Leave a comment on “The Motivator”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article