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.
No comments:
Post a Comment