skiving little fucker

[Grandma Death]

But has anybody told you that the term "wadical" is rather more boring and just as unoriginal?

Apart from you no.

 

[jonH]

don't get on your high horse

 

[poster342002]

If being pissed off about people being kicked around and treated like shit by their "betters" makes me a "wadical" than it's a badge I'll wear with pride.

 

[Jografer]

If being pissed off about people being kicked around and treated like shit by their "betters" makes me a "wadical" than it's a badge I'll wear with pride.

..and good for you, so don't mind when the rest of us laugh...

 

[poster342002]

..and good for you, so don't mind when the rest of us laugh...

Yeah, it's funny watching the proles complain about the way their masters treat them, ain't it. You laugh it up, mate.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think this would be better left where it is since the argument appears to be exhausted.

 

[Jografer]

I think this would be better left where it is since the argument appears to be exhausted.

..aww, c'mon.... it's like picking scabs innit...

 

[Grandma Death]

If being pissed off about people being kicked around and treated like shit by their "betters" makes me a "wadical" than it's a badge I'll wear with pride.

So is it all people in authority you have a problem with then?

 

[poster342002]

So is it all people in authority you have a problem with then?

I have a "problem" with authority when it is unaccountable, unjust and undemocratic - which is exactly what it is in the vast majority of workplaces.

I defy anyone to say that's an unreasonable position to take.

 

[paulhackett]

Of course it's unreasonable.

They're paying you to do a job that you will have agreed to do for an agreed amount of money (in other words you've made a contract)?

Their authority is that it is their company, and that they shouldn't have to explain every nuance of decision to every employee (unworkable in a large org.).

If you want to change it, then you need to get in a position within wherever it is you work and try to push through changes yourself.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I have a "problem" with authority when it is unaccountable, unjust and undemocratic - which is exactly what it is in the vast majority of workplaces.

I defy anyone to say that's an unreasonable position to take.

That's an unreasonable position to take, democratic - do you think people should have votes on what work to do or something?.

 

[poster342002]

If you want to change it, then you need to get in a position within wherever it is you work and try to push through changes yourself.

That's like opposing Dracula whilst seeing nothing wrong with becoming a vampire yourself.

 

[kabbes]

If only there were no bosses. Then there would be no poverty, no misery, no hunger, no crime. We'd all just laze about in luxury every day, if there were just no bosses.

Sigh. I pine for that boss-free world.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

If only there were no bosses. Then there would be no poverty, no misery, no hunger, no crime. We'd all just laze about in luxury every day, if there were just no bosses.

Sigh. I pine for that boss-free world.

might i recommend a swift knock on the noggin and some valium as this will no dobut induce such a world, nothign else is likely to...

 

[Grandma Death]

I have a "problem" with authority when it is unaccountable, unjust and undemocratic - which is exactly what it is in the vast majority of workplaces.

I defy anyone to say that's an unreasonable position to take.

Are you saying most managers are unaccountable? I'd hate to work in the some of the places you obviously have.

 

[poster342002]

Are you saying most managers are unaccountable? I'd hate to work in the some of the places you obviously have.

Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to those underneath their boot? Have you worked ANYWHERE where they're not just automatically backed to the hilt by the chain of command whenever they'rein dispute with a subordinate?

 

[Mr Retro]

Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to those underneath their boot?

 

[Yelkcub]

Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to those underneath their boot? Have you worked ANYWHERE where they're not just automatically backed to the hilt by the chain of command whenever they'rein dispute with a subordinate?

I have. Particularly when the manager's manager is aware of the role of the worker and how he/she does it. Althought the manager is accountable to his manager not the worker, natch.

 

[poster342002]

I have. Particularly when the manager's manager is aware of the role of the worker and how he/she does it. Althought the manager is accountable to his manager not the worker, natch.

How that works in practise, in my and others' experience, is that the manager's manager just goes through the motions and - surprise, surprise, backs the original manager against their staff.

 

[Yelkcub]

How that works in practise, in my and others' experience, is that the manager's manager just goes through the motions and - surprise, surprise, backs the original manager against their staff.

I have a feeling your employment experienced is coloured by your attitude towards your employer.

 

[poster342002]

I have a feeling your employment experienced is coloured by your attitude towards your employer.

Oh, dear, it's the "attitude problem" thoughtcrime now ...

"A still tongue makes for a peacefull life"

"Questions are a burden unto others and answers a prison for oneself"

Embrace Big Brother! Don't fight him!

 

[kabbes]

What kind of accountability are you looking for?

We are each accountable on a personal level to everybody that we deal with.
A manager is accountable in a business sense to his company for how well he manages his staff.

Successful management will mean a well-motivated and well-trained team, which in turn will lead to success. Poor management will mean a poorly motivated and poorly trained team, which will lead to failure. Companies are not fond of failure.

It sounds to me an awful lot like you were actually at fault in a situation at work that you got into trouble for, couldn't see that you were in the wrong and ended up with a massive chip on your shoulder as a consequence.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Oh, dear, it's the "attitude problem" thoughtcrime now ...

are you genuinely serious?

you think that in some way work is different to the rest of life and that the attitude you go in to a situation with won't affect the outcome of that situation. so if you are overly arsey then you will be met with and overly defensive response and so on. The response to anything is always proportional not the information contained with in it but to how it's deleivered.

christ for a pinko you aren't that bright are you, there's even a whole industry set up around and about this entirely basic human trait called marketing?

"A still tongue makes for a peacefull life"

Just where has anyone said such a thing, however i reffer you to my previous point. go to someone and say this and this and this are shit and you are a useless cunt and this company suck and that's why it's not happening. Isn't going to enamour you to your co workers or manager, however saying i am concerned that this area is causing issues with these areas amd also this is causing issue. get's a better response.

why well it's very simple really, do you like dealing or helping overley aggressive people? Or attempting to justify actions to them, particularlly if they aren't fully aware of the entire situation merely the end result or some part of it?

No one likes dealing with overly agressive people. No one. regardless of their job, role or positition.

"Questions are a burden unto others and answers a prison for oneself"

Ask yourself this question does the information i'm requesting affect as in directly affect my job in any way, if it doesn't then it's none of your business. Unless, you are the MD, if it does then only well reasoned arguments will be looked at not some manicial loon screaming it's all fuckries...

Embrace Big Brother! Don't fight him!

aren't you being a tad overly dramtic here; hysterical even.

Big brother? in the work place? you are having a bubble right? When was the last time you worked for any company which didn't require employees to ask after every interaction do you want fries with that?

most work places are hot beds of departmental squabbling and endless gossip with the bare minimum of work being done at all and often in the most cumbersome outdated process.

The idea that any business is some kind of omniptant being with an ever watching eye and armies of thought police waiting at every turn to trap you and then drag to room 101 until you are a reformed worker, is well in fantile in it's rhetoric...

 

[kabbes]

How that works in practise, in my and others' experience, is that the manager's manager just goes through the motions and - surprise, surprise, backs the original manager against their staff.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

If the manager is successful, his manager in turn will give him the benefit of the doubt. Why should it be otherwise?

If the manager is not successful, his manager will not be impressed. If the manager has been unsuccessful for a while, his manager may well be glad of the opportunity to get rid of him.

It's quite easy to measure the manager's performance under both financial and non-financial criteria and act accordingly.

I am finding it hard to envisage what kind of situation you are talking about, where a genuinely bad manager (as opposed to one just perceived to be bad by one under-performing member of staff) is somehow backed by their managers despite waves of complaints and poor results.

 

[poster342002]

We are each accountable on a personal level to everybody that we deal with.
A manager is accountable in a business sense to his company for how well he manages his staff.

Successful management will mean a well-motivated and well-trained team, which in turn will lead to success. Poor management will mean a poorly motivated and poorly trained team, which will lead to failure. Companies are not fond of failure.

Well-spouted from the" little red book" of management doctrine.

It sounds to me an awful lot like you were actually at fault in a situation at work that you got into trouble for, couldn't see that you were in the wrong and ended up with a massive chip on your shoulder as a consequence.

It MUST be our fault, eh? The system and it's heirarchy CANNOT be wrong.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It MUST be our fault, eh? The system and it's heirarchy CANNOT be wrong.

eh?

what do you think you are capable of doing then son? really? name the type of society you have build with out the reliance on these systems in any way and how is it's quality of life compared to the current one? Can you show any practical examples of this new life style?

have you even worked out a flawless alternative on paper whcih we could all consider whist you establish this new birght shiney future?

What's that?


you haven't?

oh?

so what you are saying in effect is that people shouldn't conform to the current method of society at all that even though it is something that they were born into has raised them and nutured them educated them to interact with in that world they should reject all that because you feel it's wrong and the alternative they have is nothing?

no alternative at all?

not even a basic tennant or ideal?

you can't change the system by being outside of it because then your voice isn't just marginalised it's non existant.

outside system: hey it's all bollocks your doing it wrong...
system: have you tried it? do you actually know anything about it?
no well stfu then until you do. know it all teenage wadicals.
outside system: your all just indoctrinated cattle.
System: sorry was that an attempt to belittle the socity or culture which you have chosen to opt out of and therefore have no direct contact with or any experince of? have you been at the sugar again?

 

[Jografer]

eh?
have you even worked out a flawless alternative on paper whcih we could all consider whist you establish this new birght shiney future?

Tried that argument a while back, #42, but a neat 'I'd hate to derail' sidestep was used.....

I'm not going into a derail abotu what a post-capitalist socuiety (fat chance of getting near one with today's attitudes), but in the meantime peopel don't have to go out of their way to help the system beyond what they have to do just to keep afloat.

Policy, forward planning .... management job, innit...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

This is exactly what I am talking about.

If the manager is successful, his manager in turn will give him the benefit of the doubt. Why should it be otherwise?

If the manager is not successful, his manager will not be impressed. If the manager has been unsuccessful for a while, his manager may well be glad of the opportunity to get rid of him.

It's quite easy to measure the manager's performance under both financial and non-financial criteria and act accordingly.

I am finding it hard to envisage what kind of situation you are talking about, where a genuinely bad manager (as opposed to one just perceived to be bad by one under-performing member of staff) is somehow backed by their managers despite waves of complaints and poor results.

Oh come off it. As long as Manager A (yours) isn't absolutely running the department into the ground in a blatantly obvious way which is resulting in pressure being put on Manager B (A's manager) to do something about it - or B doesn't like A, or A is unpopular and B thinks he can get some sort of advantage out of kicking him, etc - B doesn't give a toss what you think.

B deals with A and not you and doesn't know or likely care much what's actually going on. Part of the point of a management hierarchy is that B doesn't _have_ to micromanage your job. And if you make a fuss in an attempt to get B to realise what's going on, you run the risk of being labelled as having an "attitude problem".

There are all sorts of ways in which A could be crap in a way that isn't significantly damaging to the business, at least not in an obvious way, but makes staff's lives miserable. I've known managers just like that in every job I've had. As long as a department keeps on ticking away, the company doesn't care, and this is particularly the case in industries where there's high turnover and low security anyway.

 

[poster342002]

I am finding it hard to envisage what kind of situation you are talking about, where a genuinely bad manager (as opposed to one just perceived to be bad by one under-performing member of staff) is somehow backed by their managers despite waves of complaints and poor results.

And herein lies the problem: management almost always acts on an automatic presumption that the complainant(s) "must" be an underperforming whinger(s). Even after the manager has sacked the umpdred-and-umpty-umpth "useless" member of staff.

 

[kabbes]

Oh come off it. As long as Manager A (yours) isn't absolutely running the department into the ground in a blatantly obvious way which is resulting in pressure being put on Manager B (A's manager) to do something about it - or B doesn't like A, or A is unpopular and B thinks he can get some sort of advantage out of kicking him, etc - B doesn't give a toss what you think.

B deals with A and not you and doesn't know or likely care much what's actually going on. Part of the point of a management hierarchy is that B doesn't _have_ to micromanage your job. And if you make a fuss in an attempt to get B to realise what's going on, you run the risk of being labelled as having an "attitude problem".

There are all sorts of ways in which A could be crap in a way that isn't significantly damaging to the business, at least not in an obvious way, but makes staff's lives miserable. I've known managers just like that in every job I've had. As long as a department keeps on ticking away, the company doesn't care, and this is particularly the case in industries where there's high turnover and low security anyway.

This is, of course, entirely true and I have oversimplified enormously.

However, poster's blanket claim that all management will come into step behind "one of their own", regardless of that manager's own performance, feedback, history or anything is preposterous.