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 Irritating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irritating. Show all posts
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Saturday, July 13, 2013
How To Be A Great Boss
1. Don't show your emotions, especially if you get angry or upset with your employees. I had a boss who sent me an email asking, "Can you explain to me why you didn't do this?" after I neglected to change a status in our sales app for a customer. Treating an employee with contempt does nothing for their morale, and will probably make them resent you.
2. Don't bad-mouth your employees, especially in writing. I worked for two guys who acted like Beavis & Butthead: they fucked off and giggled like two little girls all day long, harassed and intimidated their employees, sent emails between themselves disparaging the employees and talking about all the drugs they'd been doing.
3. Don't make stupid bigoted comments about sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, weight, etc. I've had a couple of bosses who asked me to "do a friend a favor" or what they should serve for breakfast at a morning meeting because "being a woman" I would know about what to serve for breakfast.
4. Don't let your insecurities (or other mental illnesses) get in your way. A woman I used to work for always told everyone she had a degree in Communications (the degree people get when they can't hack an English Literature degree), but couldn't spell potato and did everything in her power to fire me after I teased her about it. Guess what, Barbie doll: you look like a moron when you try to make yourself look smart by bringing up your degree but can't spell or use "big" words properly.
5. For God's sakes, do not micromanage! I used to work for a CIO who couldn't tie his shoes, much less manage anyone. This imbecile claimed it only took "five clicks" to troubleshoot and fix PC problems, mainly because he wanted to outsource our PC techs to India. If we experienced an outage or problem, he had to be right in the middle of everything, telling us what to do and how to do it. Consequently, it always took twice as long to fix anything because he didn't know his ass from his elbow and his meddling only inhibited the actual problem solving.
The best bosses I've had simply get the hell out of the way, lead by example, and offer guidance when necessary.
2. Don't bad-mouth your employees, especially in writing. I worked for two guys who acted like Beavis & Butthead: they fucked off and giggled like two little girls all day long, harassed and intimidated their employees, sent emails between themselves disparaging the employees and talking about all the drugs they'd been doing.
3. Don't make stupid bigoted comments about sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, weight, etc. I've had a couple of bosses who asked me to "do a friend a favor" or what they should serve for breakfast at a morning meeting because "being a woman" I would know about what to serve for breakfast.
4. Don't let your insecurities (or other mental illnesses) get in your way. A woman I used to work for always told everyone she had a degree in Communications (the degree people get when they can't hack an English Literature degree), but couldn't spell potato and did everything in her power to fire me after I teased her about it. Guess what, Barbie doll: you look like a moron when you try to make yourself look smart by bringing up your degree but can't spell or use "big" words properly.
5. For God's sakes, do not micromanage! I used to work for a CIO who couldn't tie his shoes, much less manage anyone. This imbecile claimed it only took "five clicks" to troubleshoot and fix PC problems, mainly because he wanted to outsource our PC techs to India. If we experienced an outage or problem, he had to be right in the middle of everything, telling us what to do and how to do it. Consequently, it always took twice as long to fix anything because he didn't know his ass from his elbow and his meddling only inhibited the actual problem solving.
The best bosses I've had simply get the hell out of the way, lead by example, and offer guidance when necessary.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
How To Know If It's Time To Quit Your Job
When your company is spending lots of money refurbishing the break rooms while laying people off.
When your boss kicks and punches multi-million-dollar equipment because he's "upset" about not getting a bonus.
When your boss starts talking to you (and treating you) like you're a dimwitted 3-year-old.
When your boss asks you to answer a question about breakfast because, "...you're a woman and you fix breakfast." (Same boss wouldn't hire another woman because he, "...already had a woman in the department.")
When your boss signs up for an MLM and puts all of his (and your) energy into it. News Flash: MLMs don't work, they never have, they never will (except for the person/people who start the MLM. Think "Bernie Madoff.")
When your boss throws you under the bus for something he did.
When your boss changes your job description such that you don't qualify for your own job.
When your boss stops acting like an adult and/or professional.
When your boss won't communicate information to you but gets mad at you because you apparently can't read minds and don't have the information that's not being communicated to you.
When you don't receive your paycheck. Twice.
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.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Social Media as a Job Killer?
I recently participated in a comment war via a local newspaper the other day because the editors posted an article stating that they felt that people should be careful what they post on Facebook and other social media sites because employers are monitoring these sites and either terminating employment or not hiring people based on what is found. I say BULLSHIT. This smacks of discrimination and NO ONE seems to be objecting to it. In fact, several people chastised me for saying that employers do not have the right to terminate employment based on social media posts, especially if those posts are not made while the employee is at work. Many people seemed to think it was OK to fire someone or not hire them if they posted that they got "wasted" on the weekend or posted too many swear words, apparently accepting that discrimination is OK if you agree with it. If these same people were excluded, or terminated, from employment due to something they said or posted on the internet, they would scream bloody murder. The haters also criticized me for posting information online and then expecting privacy. First and foremost, I don't post anything and then expect privacy. What I DO expect is FREEDOM OF SPEECH - you know, the FIRST AMENDMENT in a little thing called the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
I do agree that anyone posting anything on the internet should have no expectation of privacy, and probably should have more sense than to post that their boss sucks big green donkey dicks. However, we all have the right to say what we want, and as long as it's legal and we're not at work when we're saying or posting questionable or tasteless rhetoric, our employer does NOT have the right to terminate employment or exclude anyone from employment because of it.
It sets an extremely dangerous precedent to say that employers have the right to terminate employment or exclude people from being hired based on what they post on social media. Why? Because we then give permission to discriminate. You're thinking, "I don't post anything offensive." But do you post that you're female? Do you post what your religion is? Do you post that you belong to the Red Hat Society? Do you post pictures of your kids? What if an employer was allowed to exclude potential candidates because they don't want to hire someone with a bunch of kids, fearing that person will call in sick too much? What if your employer decides to terminate your employment because they found out you're a member of AARP and they feel that you're too old to work? Or terminates your employment because they found out you're a member of a different religion from them (or - horror or horrors - an Atheist)? What if an employer excludes you as a potential candidate because they saw a picture on Facebook that shows you're in a wheelchair? It's bad enough that employers are excluding candidates for other ludicrous reasons such as wearing too big of a diamond ring to an interview - let's not give them any more excuses to be assholes.
I do agree that anyone posting anything on the internet should have no expectation of privacy, and probably should have more sense than to post that their boss sucks big green donkey dicks. However, we all have the right to say what we want, and as long as it's legal and we're not at work when we're saying or posting questionable or tasteless rhetoric, our employer does NOT have the right to terminate employment or exclude anyone from employment because of it.
It sets an extremely dangerous precedent to say that employers have the right to terminate employment or exclude people from being hired based on what they post on social media. Why? Because we then give permission to discriminate. You're thinking, "I don't post anything offensive." But do you post that you're female? Do you post what your religion is? Do you post that you belong to the Red Hat Society? Do you post pictures of your kids? What if an employer was allowed to exclude potential candidates because they don't want to hire someone with a bunch of kids, fearing that person will call in sick too much? What if your employer decides to terminate your employment because they found out you're a member of AARP and they feel that you're too old to work? Or terminates your employment because they found out you're a member of a different religion from them (or - horror or horrors - an Atheist)? What if an employer excludes you as a potential candidate because they saw a picture on Facebook that shows you're in a wheelchair? It's bad enough that employers are excluding candidates for other ludicrous reasons such as wearing too big of a diamond ring to an interview - let's not give them any more excuses to be assholes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)