There are two people at work who drive me absolutely nutty. Neither has seen the inside of a gym in years; both are loud know-it-alls (who don’t know half what they think they know) and both play the power game and crap all over the poor people who work for them (while at the same time telling those same people that everyone else did the crapping but them). I think you can guess that they are both ass-kissing lackeys. They both have abilities, and it’s a shame that they have gone to the dark side.
What is it about human nature that makes me think they are in it solely for themselves and not for the team? I would swear on a stack of Business Weeks that every move they make is designed and preplanned to bring glory to themselves and work and drudgery to others. However, I would bet a paycheck that they believe in their tiny, puny little hearts that they are uber-team players.
I’m writing this in the aftermath of the rancor in DC about the US debt ceiling, and how the leftist commie bastard Democrats just want to raise my taxes, whereas the fascist goose-stepping Republicans want to cut social services for the poor so they can give away more money to the rich and defense contractors. Each side points the finger at the other, and tells the public, “There’s your problem right over there.” But I’m also certain that the both sides see themselves as champions of a greater cause, which of course is the greatest good of the US of A. (There are, unfortunately, exceptions to this, like these particularly worthless cynics.) There’s a juxtaposition here that begs some thought…
One of the fat nincompoops from paragraph #1 is launching a new policy which is designed to improve the safety of many of the individuals in the plant, but it will also put up barriers to the performance of those same people. I think that true leaders are the ones who take down barriers and allow people to do their jobs freely, with no let or hindrance. But is he so wrong? Isn‘t improving the safety of people worth the cost of making their jobs a wee bit tougher/less convenient? As much as I want to think that he is totally “wrong”, there’s a certain part of my argument that is wrong also. Am I really seriously proposing that we do not implement this new rule and allow a safety concern to go unmitigated? Am I really such a cold-hearted bastid that I would do nothing to stop a potential accident even though I know it could happen? (OK it’s like a billion-to-one shot; I’m more likely to win lotto.)
My problem is that I don’t trust the slug to do what I think is the right thing. He is enough of a jerk to do the wrong thing because he can, and then smirk at the row he has created. The rule is not necessary to keep people safe, but politically it’s a savvy move. And that ticks me off more than anything, because I hate style over substance and all this is a too-skinny model walking down a flashy runway wearing scraps of fabric marked up thousands of times because of a name on a label. But once the policy is in place for a while, people will go about their business as before, not realizing the inconvenience, and likely not realizing the decrease in risk either. It would be like the state closing off the freeway exit you take on the way home (because some idiot almost crashed and could have bought it) and never re-opening it. You would get off at the exit before or after and get home a few minutes later, but after a while it would become the habit, and eventually days will pass when you don’t even remember what a pain in the backside the closure is. Unless some fat jerk with a cigar driving a Cadillac cuts you off…but anyway…
At some point you have to realize that the odious bitch pushing the reactionary agenda is doing it because she thinks it’s the right thing, and that it might actually BE the right thing. Here’s the test:
Redaction. You know, what the government does to top secret memos that they have to send out when confronted with FOIA requests…they simply take a black Sharpie and scribble out the key information. In this case, imagine that you do not know the name of the “From” person. Then read the memo or email. (You might need to be Henry Sugar, but give it a try.) If the note still reeks of bald-faced careerism, feel free to reply-to-all and point out the blatant deficiencies. If the note could have been written by you, it’s probably the right thing. Even blind hogs find an acorn now and then.
Comments
Post a Comment