Secure and postal

Remember when postal workers were "going postal"? I have thought it is odd you don't hear a lot about security guards going "secure." There must be at least a comparable amount of maddening office politics. Maybe guards aren't paid enough to be able to afford a gun. My theory, or the one that makes sense to me whoever is the author of the theory, is that it is a mistake to believe we are all so sane that we can't snap like O.J. and maybe blackout and let unconscious rage erode choice. I think it is better to assume that the alcoholic should stay out of the bar, the overeater should stay out of the bakery, and the angry divorcee should stay away from interaction with a former spouse. By the same token, if there is a powder keg in the workplace it serves nobody to pretend it is less a problem than it is. Too often we pride ourselves in what we can tolerate or what won't get to us. But we will never know the limit until it is too late. It may not even take much to turn a functional working environment into an unworkable and hostile one. And backing down is not a solution, because you will also never know how far back you have to back down and how much your opponent will take advantage. For this reason, I persist with issues that have to be nipped in the bud. And there are tao choices - assertive (which is what I strive for) and passive-agressive (which is the powder keg caused by allowing spin or blame-shift to prevail).

This anectote may be extremely boring for most people, since it just involves politics of a security company. Do not operate heavy machinery after reading this blog. I have omitted names and such, but I have no problem with airing dirty laundry. One drawback is that it's not a very heroic or chivilrous position I'm taking, unless you remember the chiv part of the word is a knife. Nobody likes to admit having someone on staff who brazenly disrespects one's supervisory authority - let alone someone successfully circumventing and undermining it. Sure, I've had many compliant guards and I've earned respect but it's not much comfort when you are faced with the one staff person you supposedly have to supervise during the day thumbing her nose at you essentially. And that's one rotten apple that has to be dealt with before the rot spreads.

I have worked for a company that is careful to hold workshops and hand out
pamphlets about the workplace environment and ethics and so on, and
which promotes the idea that if you have a problem with your immediate
superior you can do "upward communication" which is going over their head.
Perhaps going upside their head would be more productive.
A bunch of bosses work down the hall from each other and they are mainly
in the business of fending off lawsuits. I'm not saying I'd have the
patience to go for that, but seeing as how I have now spoken to three
ranks of bosses it seems that there is either a reader comprehension problem
on their part or they aren't even reading anything.

In short, suppose you are a supervisor on a job site and one of your staff
decides that her job can be easier and there is a short cut -- maybe she
doesn't have to wait around for the next shift, she can just leave and YOU
will have to stay. And for weeks she has been leaving nobody on the site
when you have gone. And she says she got this permission from someone
above you at head office, a spouse or whatnot who works there.

Both of you are gunning for each other and would slit each other's
proverbial throats if you had the chance. She tries and temporarily
succeeds to turn a major co-worker of the client against you. This
is fixed thanks to discussion with the client, but the threat remains
that this person is putting spin on any admonishment you give.
You can't just suspend this person and send her home, which is the
logical impulse, because you have to get confirmation from head office
about whether she is making empty threats about her connections or whether
they are real and you are therefore toothless.

But no such confirmation nor reassurance comes. Only irrelevant and
mimimalizing silence and stretches of nothing. The subordinate makes
snarky remarks in your brief book for staff - directed at you. So you
advise that the day shift must clear briefs with yourself verbally and
not write in the book. Then you find a little doodle with page numbers
inside the cover, with the name of a head office boss. Next thing you know
she is hiding this book in a drawer. Finally, you come to work one morning
and find out someone from head office has TAKEN the book to head office.
No word whatsoever about why, and no response when you tell head office that
the book had emergency contact numbers in it.

Two weeks later you have been away on sick leave and find out that
the book was never returned and your staff has been without those numbers.

My title was Site Supervisor. At head office there is an Account Supervisor (a new guy whom I have not met face to face), the Account Manager (whom I have seen in person and who seems quiet), and the Field Operations Manager who has been boss for a long time. I've pitched to all three. As a team they've pitched back. Three strikes and I'm out.

There is one person in schedualing I respect very much, named Craig, who has a good reputation among many employees I have spoken to over the years. There is also a pleasant-sounding guy that I have not clashed with over the years but I suspect this is the husband of my nemesis. And I know what you're thinking - if you are clashing with a female you have one hand tied behind your back. True. But even if it was a male connected to people from head office I would still have to pull my punches and I would still be waiting around anxiously for a straight answer.


From: William [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:09 PM
To:
Subject: up-com, ethics, poison workplace

The following issues were conveyed in e-mails and were
mimimalized to an extent that I feel the process and
relations between C P, J S and
at least one person in schedualing should be scrutinized.

The opportunity to comment and argue these issues
has been put off repeatedly by the gentlemen above,
so this is offered for the record.

After being employed by ******* 10 years, it has taken
a lot (over a very small span of 4 weeks) to alienate me
to the point where I can't do my job as site supervisor
of (****************):

(My) Grievances from January/February 2011


1. That these issues could have been dealt with when they were current,

before I went on sick leave, but answers were further put off during

that period ostensibly to protect me from answers that would impede

healthy recovery. . .leaving me with the same unresolved issues and

anticipatory stress during said ongoing recovery.



2. Key concern not taken seriously – that s/o ??????? on my site

turned a minor site organizational issue into a grandstand and told

me off as s/s on the grounds that she is not under my authority. This

case was immediately conveyed to J in a Monday e-mail and

by Friday the main insubordination issue was glossed over and the

threat that head office shows preference for this s/o over me as s/s

appears to stand proven (or fail to be disproven to offer reassurance).



3. The active brief book of the site was taken by PSD ostensibly

for delivery to C, but no answers given as to whether he asked

for it or ???????? did, the latter possibility compounding the

danger of issue #2. There was also no answer as to what was gleaned

from inspection of said brief book. Even after I advised that the guard

numbers and emergency contact list for OSMOS et cetera were in

that book, there was no comment and no return of it to site.



4. Not advised of any reaction or action taken over the fact that

s/o ???????? attempted to (and temporarily succeeded) turn a

key client rep (safety guy) against me and create a poison workplace

we have to share. I was flabbergasted by this episode, and was able

to diffuse it after a couple of days by talking to the main client but

it shouldn’t have happened and it illustrates that any disciplinary

gesture from myself as s/s will result in such tactics by Sarfraz and

leave an unruly impression of (____) staff.



5. Just before December 15, s/o ??????? was advised by “scheduling”

that she did not have to continue a procedure for end of shift she had

complied with for months. I was not advised by this schedualing person

despite the obvious possibility for confrontation. I did not push the matter

at the time because Samina was supposed to transfer to another site.

In the new year I had to revisit this because she had changed her plan.

There should be no secrecy about who advised her, yet the question

met with a very threatening outpouring from ???????? meant

to discourage any supervisory admonishments in the future.

It was urgent that I get the matter straightened out from

Head office – WHY does ???????? think she is pulling rank on

her s/s? And yet I have still heard nothing to reassure me that I

can realistically co-exist on that site with ???????.



6. No reaction to my suggestion that arguments about

“special coverage” versus “regular” shifts and the related

problems of relief be solved as follows: My 0700-1600

shift is technically over-complicated by being broken into

0700-0800 special coverage and then 0800-1600 regular.

So that I don’t relieve anyone by coming early and their

only relief is the “special coverage” 0800-1600 who I am

told now has no obligation to show up on time or stay to

be relieved by anyone. ??????? has many times arrived

after 0800 and may or may not seek me in the dock to

use the site cell to call on as I have instructed people.

My solution was: Change the semantic designation of my

0700-1600 shift to “special coverage” which seems more

suited to a supervisor. Leave the 0800-1600 as “regular.”

If there is a change, I could always be plugged back into

the “regular” but a reduction to 1 guard during days is

not expected for a long while.


--


These are the key issues of my complaint, the root of which

perhaps being the question of whether ???????????? has

allies at head office who have had any influence on the

items of concern which have not panned out in my favor

and fail to support my authority/responsibility as a site supervisor

(or anyone else who follows in that capacity).



I realize that pushing these items upward

will alienate people further, but the situation is already

unworkable and the only way to move forward is with clarity.



I see red flags of ethics and no concern about

poison work environment. At this place, all I can do is

present the issues above. I don't have the energy to fix

something so broken, but at least I can see that you are

aware at your level. Even if the matter is academic.

Thanks for your time.

(name)


Subject: RE: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:41:50 -0500
From: *****
To: e@hotmail.com

William,

Am aware that you are off on leave due to an ongoing illness, hope that your recovery is going well.

When an employee is on a medical, leave ****** has no expectation of the employee to deal with site or company issues or have contact with the client, but to utilize the time on medical leave to rest and recover from the condition of the illness. Believe this has been conveyed to you via email from C P on more than one occasion.

Do not take kindly to the accusation that favouritism is being shown to individual employees or issues that are raised are being swept under the carpet. The protocol being followed on your concerns was to follow up on the matter, meet with you upon your return from medical leave and hopefully resolve the issues. Again believe this was conveyed to you by C P via e mail.

Thank you

R S

Manager Field Operations


*****

Toronto, Ontario

Tel:

Fax:

Direct:

Web: .com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited.


REMARQUE DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ : L’information contenue dans ce courriel est de nature privilégiée et confidentielle. Son usage est réservé uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité nommée ci-dessus. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser nos bureaux immédiatement. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous êtes par la présente avisé que toute utilisation, distribution, diffusion ou copie de ce courriel ou de tout fichier joint est strictement interdite.

(Fu*k that sh*t !!!!)

My final reply:


All of the issues could have been addressed and resolved before I went on sick leave.
I am no longer on sick leave.
I don't expect someone to take kindly to an accusation that is correct, but there it is.
The whole thing has been demoralizing enough that I have resigned, R***.
Thanks for your time.

separate schools

Another Eye Weekly thing. I got a generously long e-mail response when I questioned an Eye assertion that "we" the general public fund separate schools and that they are anwerable to all taxpayers. I still say I'm right.

Separate School trusties or board members are elected by Catholics who in turn DON'T get to vote for public school board members. Board members should be answerable to those who voted them in and will vote them in again.

Even though head count determines how much tax goes into each school system, parents do get to indicate on tax forms which system they want to support.

Those two issues - the votes and the tax allocation - are an agreement already made. For someone from a competing system to step in and say "Gee, those tax dollars should be part of the whole pool, and you should conform to the values and mores of the faithful Eye Weekly reader and back pages patron" would be a betrayal of a contract.

Even those like myelf who attended a Catholic Secondary School and grew up to question some positions of the Catholic Church and its prejudices must acknowledge that Catholic is the brand chosen by the parent (and in some cases also the student) and it should follow the expected course. A gay student who knows he/she is gay might be wiser to choose a more accepting public board in which to start a club, as opposed to where it is going to provoke antagonism. By the same standard, there is nothing stopping such a group from being hosted by its members instead of asking a political body (a school board) to officially accept or endorse it.

But of course my argument and my e-mail was reduced to one sentence that stripped away any level of reasonableness and my name was printed in the editorial column with my out-of-context quote.

Here is a more full version:

I appreciated the generous e-mail I got in response to my concerns about this article, but I don't buy the idea that money going to Cathic schools should be diverted to the public system at the expense of agreements already in place. I still say that - like it or not - Catholic voters vote in the Catholic board members and do not have a voice in electing the public board, so their respective trustees are accountable ONLY to those who VOTED THEM IN. That's where their loyalty belongs. And even if it is head count that determines the amount of tax money a system gets, and not just the space filled on a tax form, by sending one's children to one or the other system that still is a CONTRACT and EXPECTATION that certain antiquated values will be promoted. And with the proposed gay club you are asking a political body to take responsibility for use of a school room after hours and openly endorse it to what end? To antagonize those who voted you in, or those whose taxes pay for the school? Or to satisfy the opponent or competition? The safety of gay kids is a worthy issue, and it's not a case where Catholic students are reporting bullies and not getting action taken by the staff. That would be another story. We're talking about what might be a reverse-bullying of the Catholics by uber-liberal media.


I much prefer the old way of printing even a truncated version of the letter itself.

Here are som older letters to the editor:

Outreach and grasp
I say the positive principles we get from religion or stories that are considered religious in origin will survive the badgering of skeptics and the like. As a Catholic I would much prefer that my religion and its leaders embody these principles rather than pay lip service to them. The God I continue to believe in would not be so insecure as to hold atheism against one of his/her/its children. All the same, there is something a little precious and stuffy about organized atheism. If you are not smart enough to be invited into Mensa, you may still have a club. It still boils down to wanking away intelligence. Want to be considered a "scientist" without getting a degree? Join the atheist club and pay lip service to science. That's how it reads.

Older blurbs printed in Eye Weekly:

Tony Scott was involved
Re your review of The A-Team: In all fairness, the movie was well done. I can’t say as much for the reviews I’ve looked at. In EYE WEEKLY’s review, the critic says the movie should have been done by Tony Scott. Well, it is a Scott Free production, so both he and Ridley Scott would have consulted on it. But I will say your review is not the worst sample I’ve seen. Most critics will have this movie reviewed before they actually see it anyway, knee-jerk politics being what they are. » William La Rochelle

PORNO-TASTIC
I don’t know what’s wrong with Jason Anderson in his review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno (On Screen, Oct. 30). I mean it can’t out-­subversive EYE WEEKLY, but this movie has the groove those of us who are Kevin Smith fans look forward to. It has the individual stamp that allows for extreme filth to co-exist with earned sentiment. It feels truthful even in its depiction of the cheap and false world of pornography, but it is more about community and affirmative vibes amid the mischief.

Jason Mews has the audacity to casually shock us and somehow the worst you can expect is OK. Brandon Routh even gets to thumb his nose at gossipmongers with an excellent bit of casting. Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks are, yes, a perfect fantasy match in my eyes and likely to enrage (and have enraged) some female critics who want to go off on the obvious tangential rant. That might account for the movie not having a more uniform high rating.

It’s a good movie, fun, and exactly what it should be. I’m shocked that anyone focused on having too few fake porn titles. It has a little fun with that, but the movie has better things to do. And it’s not Kevin Smith trying to do a Judd Apatow style; it is clearly, scene for scene, a Kevin Smith movie, right down to Zack’s inspiration about a last-minute shoot location. It still has a personal voice and hopefully will reach a wider audience for Smith. WILLIAM LA ROCHELLE