My most recent employer initially wasn't terrible, but like everything else in this world, the honeymoon didn't last long, especially when many of their promises were as empty as Kim Kardashian's head. I was basically thrown into my job and pretty much expected to learn everything myself because the former area manager (demoted) doing the "supposed" training was busy texting and calling her kids and boyfriend almost the entire time she was supposed to be training. I never got any feedback as to whether or not I was doing things correctly until I got an annual review (which was actually very good, though I didn't get a raise or anything out of it).
One of the biggest problems came when my one-year anniversary came around and the company tried to fuck me out of 24 hours of vacation time because they didn't rollover vacation time (which I think is very chicken shit, as well as not making employees aware of this). Bad enough that they only give one week of vacation no matter how long you've been at the company (unless you're management, I'm sure). I did get paid 16 hours of the 24 owed, but I was left with a pretty bitter taste in my mouth.
About a month later, my co-worker was fired, and the district manager dumped all of said co-worker's workload on me. In other words, I got to do the work of 2-3 people with no extra pay or incentives or help. I was told that when needed, the aforementioned "trainer" would step in and help me out, which was bullshit because she either never showed up or came in and complained about her kids and boyfriend and then left without taking any work with her. I was not only supposed to do all this work, but also field calls every week from literally hundreds of angry people demanding to know where there records were. Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with hard work. I just don't think it's necessary or warranted to dump all the work on one person and expect them to take all the complaints and headaches and then not at least compensate them for it.
After several months of this, on top of the district manager refusing to communicate with me at all, the "trainer" advised me that because I have a bad attitude that I was about to be fired. WTF? I just can't imagine why anyone would have a bad attitude in this situation. And how fucking tacky and unprofessional of the district manager to send her little minion to tell me this instead of talking to me personally about the situation. It was not something the "trainer" should have even known about since she was not a manager or supervisor. What the Hell did they expect? I'm human, and I'd bet that most other humans would react in much the same way.
Showing posts with label Greed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greed. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Friday, December 2, 2011
Corporations Can Get Away With Murder
Lo and behold, I found yet another reason to bitch about Citi: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=17846187#.TtP_Ru2mNUc.email Basically what this article says is that Citi committed crimes, Citigroup and the Securities and Exchange Commission then came to some sort of agreement (e.g., payoff), and now the SEC is shielding the public from details of the firm's wrongdoing.
As if Citi doesn't make enough money gouging people with exhorbitant fees and interest rates that would make the Mafia blush, they also have to mislead investors in order to make even more obscene profits.
According to this article: "U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said the public has a right to know what happens in cases that touch on "the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives." In such cases, the SEC has a responsibility to ensure that the truth emerges, he wrote." Pretty amazing that the SEC would allege criminal activities and then run away with their tail between their legs; of course, they probably had a suitcase full of money to buffer any apprehensions they might have had about not forcing Citi to admit guilt or wrongdoing.
And as if that weren't enough to make one vomit every time one sees anything with the Citi logo, there's another article listing CEOs who are job killers, which I've posted previously, but this time with a video clip on Vikram Pandit's slide that reads: "Citigroup board gives Pandit a big raise." http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878 Warms the heart to know that Vikram is getting raises even as Citi is announcing projected layoffs to cut costs. These stories of corporate greed, corruption, and malfeasance keep getting more and more frequent and more and more ludicrous.
As if Citi doesn't make enough money gouging people with exhorbitant fees and interest rates that would make the Mafia blush, they also have to mislead investors in order to make even more obscene profits.
According to this article: "U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said the public has a right to know what happens in cases that touch on "the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives." In such cases, the SEC has a responsibility to ensure that the truth emerges, he wrote." Pretty amazing that the SEC would allege criminal activities and then run away with their tail between their legs; of course, they probably had a suitcase full of money to buffer any apprehensions they might have had about not forcing Citi to admit guilt or wrongdoing.
And as if that weren't enough to make one vomit every time one sees anything with the Citi logo, there's another article listing CEOs who are job killers, which I've posted previously, but this time with a video clip on Vikram Pandit's slide that reads: "Citigroup board gives Pandit a big raise." http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878 Warms the heart to know that Vikram is getting raises even as Citi is announcing projected layoffs to cut costs. These stories of corporate greed, corruption, and malfeasance keep getting more and more frequent and more and more ludicrous.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Prophetic Post?
I hate to be a know-it-all, but back in July, I posted "Why Robots Are Better Employees Than Humans" and I prattled on about Citicorp, one of the many evil empires who gleefully accepted some of the free cash that was being liberally strewn about for the poor banks and corporations who were really hurting for funds. Nevermind that these business were suffering due to poor management; don't confuse the issue with facts. Citicorp, headed by Vikram Pandit, who also happens to be one of the top ten CEOs who are job killers (http://money.msn.com/investing/ceos-who-became-job-killers-thestreet.aspx?cp-documentid=6834878>1=33002) has recently announced that is seeking to trim costs and is considering cutting about 1 percent of its work force or 3,000 (or more) workers. http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Citigroup-considers-3-000-job-cuts-2273202.php Aren't we glad that they got some of our hard-earned tax money in that gigantic bailout that was meant to not only keep the companies afloat but to help them grow and create jobs? Heaven forbid that Vikram should have to eat anything lesser than lobsters caught near Fourchu and flown fresh to whichever home he happens to be at (depending on the season, of course).
I wonder how many other companies who received bailout money have been or are planning on getting rid of employees ostensibly in the interest of cutting costs. And in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie scandal where millions have been paid out in bonuses so these companies can retain "talent," my question is: Why do these big-wigs not have to earn their millions in salary and bonus BEFORE the salary and bonuses are paid? Why do they not have to save the companies prior to getting compensation since that's what they were hired to do? And if the companies go under, or don't do as well as they should have, why should this "talent" get paid at all? What does a CEO really do that is so special to warrant earning 6- or 7-figure salaries and bonuses? I've never seen a CEO or CIO or executive of any kind actually roll up their sleeves and participate in anything except meetings or news releases or, at worst, "sexting" subordinates while they're sitting in their office and arranging to meet for an afternoon tryst.
The Occupy Wall Street protest was inevitable when people who have lost touch with reality and have nothing to lose treat their subordinates like pawns in a terrible game.
I wonder how many other companies who received bailout money have been or are planning on getting rid of employees ostensibly in the interest of cutting costs. And in the wake of the Fannie-Freddie scandal where millions have been paid out in bonuses so these companies can retain "talent," my question is: Why do these big-wigs not have to earn their millions in salary and bonus BEFORE the salary and bonuses are paid? Why do they not have to save the companies prior to getting compensation since that's what they were hired to do? And if the companies go under, or don't do as well as they should have, why should this "talent" get paid at all? What does a CEO really do that is so special to warrant earning 6- or 7-figure salaries and bonuses? I've never seen a CEO or CIO or executive of any kind actually roll up their sleeves and participate in anything except meetings or news releases or, at worst, "sexting" subordinates while they're sitting in their office and arranging to meet for an afternoon tryst.
The Occupy Wall Street protest was inevitable when people who have lost touch with reality and have nothing to lose treat their subordinates like pawns in a terrible game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)