A Case Of The Mondays: Vent Your Work Spleen Here

[ParadoxLost]

5 hours ago, blueray said:

I just experienced an online interview for the first time. I'm looking to transfer to a different position in a different department of the same company. I of course signed in 10 minutes early only to watch as the clock pasts the time of the interview. I checked again to make sure everything was working on my end but I shortly determined it is. I then figured I'd give them 10 minutes to figure it out and if not call them. But they did come on toward the end of that timeframe. Hopefully that wasn't to long to wait that it looked bad, I just didn't want to appear annoying or something. Then they asked me the usual questions but it felt kind of in-personal due to it being over zoom.  And I know I struggled to answer one question and kind of talked in circles without actually saying anything lol. But other ones I think I did answer pretty good actually. Then they short of ended abruptly after about 15 minutes and didn't give me time to ask any questions (which I was prepared for as I thought of some while I was waiting for them to join). But it kind left me feeling cold. Has anyone else experienced this or have tips in case I have to do it again? I really hope things go back to normal soon so I can at least return to my current job (which I do like but is closed due to Covid). 

Who was the person interviewing? I ask because this is kind of a red flag on the person who was interviewing you.  If it was a potential manager or a co worker it would make me kind of leery of what I'm stepping into.

I am a manager and have hired someone from a zoom call during covid. i can say a few things.

Being prompt is required.  Its required of the interviewer not just you.  If I were 10 minutes late to an interview I would explain myself and it would be something like I'm bleeding out on the floor.  I'm late to almost everything because meetings overlap, etc. or I hit snooze on the meeting reminder one too many times.  But meetings with people interviewing for a job or performance evaluations, etc.  Those types of things you are never late for.  You bail out of whatever you are doing and pay attention to the time.  Waiting on them doesn't reflect badly on you it reflects badly on them.

I didn't really find the zoom interviews I did impersonal.  That is not necessarily a given.  But it takes two people to engage and it doesn't sound like the interviewer was engaging.  Being late and leaving abruptly after 15 min tends to make me think this might be more about the interviewer than the interview.  

I also set the expectation in every interview that the process is as much a chance for the job applicant to interview me as it is for me to interview them because it does neither of us any good if the person gets hired and then finds that its not a good fit for them.  So I don't really get not giving you a chance to ask questions.

That is why I asked who the interviewer was because from my view the interviewer did everything so wrong that I don't know that its possible for you to salvage it somehow.  Maybe someone has some ideas on how to manage a job interview where its not in the skillset of the interviewer to be doing the interviewing.

[blueray]

Quote

Who was the person interviewing? I ask because this is kind of a red flag on the person who was interviewing you.  If it was a potential manager or a co worker it would make me kind of leery of what I'm stepping into.

She is a manager in HR. I think honestly she is new to using the technology and she did apologize to me. I was just surprised that they cut it short and didn't give me chance to ask questions about the job. But maybe they already know they are going to hire someone else and were already behind as they had other interviews.  Thanks for responding, I am feeling better as it does seem like it is on them and nothing that I did. 

 

[BookWoman56]

6 hours ago, blueray said:

She is a manager in HR. I think honestly she is new to using the technology and she did apologize to me. I was just surprised that they cut it short and didn't give me chance to ask questions about the job. But maybe they already know they are going to hire someone else and were already behind as they had other interviews.  Thanks for responding, I am feeling better as it does seem like it is on them and nothing that I did. 

 

Based on your description, this very much sounds like a pro forma interview where they already knew they were hiring someone else. But there is zero excuse for the interviewer being significantly late for the interview. IMO, there’s also little excuse for being unfamiliar with the technology, either. She could have gone through a dry run with a colleague a day or two before your interview to ensure everything worked and she wouldn’t be fumbling around with the technology. 

The only advice I have for you going forward is to jot down your own questions for the interviewer ahead of time, and then tweak your questions as needed during the interview. It sucks that she ended the interview early without even giving you the chance to ask any questions. That to me is a huge red flag that the interviewer is inept and that she had zero interest in you as a job candidate, presumably because another candidate has the inside track for this position. 

I wish companies would be more honest about this kind of situation, where they have really already made the hiring decision but have to hold token interviews with other applicants for various reasons. If they were up front in the job posting itself, then they might not get any other applications, but FFS during the interview itself, don’t lead the other applicants on by making them think they have a serious shot at getting the job. Just describe the job and ask the applicant relevant questions, without phrasing it as “In this role, you would be performing A, D, and C” and so forth. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by BookWoman56

[emma675]

In my company, we're required to open jobs to both internal and external candidates and interview both. Even if we already know who we're going to hire, we still interview all qualified candidates for the position, just in case someone ends up being a better fit than we thought. I interviewed an internal candidate for a spot on my team a few years ago, even though my team had already agreed we wanted another external candidate. But you know what I did? I was on time to the interview with the internal candidate, I asked her the same questions I asked everyone else, I let her ask me questions, and I treated her as if she had a genuine shot at the job (which she really would have if the other candidate hadn't already been identified before her). And I'm not even in H.R. It's just common courtesy and professionalism, which blueray's interviewer apparently completely lacked. Which says a lot about her and how she thinks of her job. 

[BookWoman56]

I’ve conducted interviews before where I was 90% sure I was going to hire a specific candidate, based on what was in that candidate’s resume compared to the other applicants’ resumes. If my preferred candidate had flamed out in the interview, I would have adjusted my choice. During the interview process for one position, the applicant who had looked on paper to be 2nd choice became a non contender, and the previous 3rd choice applicant became 2nd choice. But I have also conducted interviews in which 2-3 candidates seemed about equal on paper, but one candidate really stood out during the actual interview. We’re required to ask each candidate the same questions, and those questions have to be approved in advance by HR. 
 

That said, I have been exposed to interviews where the hiring manager was already 100% committed to a specific candidate, generally someone already on the team who had applied for a higher position, and so unless that candidate completely imploded during the interview and told the hiring manager that he or she didn’t want the job, it was a done deal. That’s where I feel sorry for the other interviewees, because there is no way in hell they’re going to be even seriously considered for the job. The best they can hope for is making enough of a good impression that the hiring manager passes their name along to someone else who is hiring for a similar position. 
 

In that sort of situation, where someone internal has already been identified, I much prefer what my manager’s manager did with me. A higher position opened up, he outright promoted me into that position, and then got me to post my old position to find a replacement for most of the work I had previously been doing. To me, that seems like a more humane approach, but I realize that’s not always possible. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by BookWoman56

[magicdog]

Well, we had an interesting morning!  Breaking news, traffic mishaps and of course, local Chanukah celebrations tonight.  

The latter is particularly important since this year celebrations are going to be virtual and 1/2 of our morning crew happen to be Jewish and often participate in local events.

Then the new anchor read the story....

Anchor: "Tonight will mark the first night of Cha-NOO kah!"

Me:  [Face Palm]    

I'm just waiting for the complaints from viewers to come in for that one!  

[Moose135]

2 hours ago, BookWoman56 said:

We’re required to ask each candidate the same questions, and those questions have to be approved in advance by HR. 

Tell me about a time...

😉

[Scout Finch]

On 9/29/2020 at 10:20 PM, Bastet said:

I recommend against this; it's obnoxious, even if it's true.  It's not an "I'll never hire anyone who says X" situation by any means, but applicants do dig a hole with a "flaw" that's just sucking up - my biggest flaw is how hard I work.

Everyone has flaws, so pick one that's negative but not a deal-breaker and give a concrete example of what you've done to improve in that area so it's a flaw, yeah, but not an actual problem for your employer or co-workers.

For me, I do consider it a flaw if looking at it from the perspective of my employer. I can be rather anal-retentive and often don't focus on the big picture. Basic stuff, like the other AP person will put "grout,paint,nails." I am compelled to use proper capitalization and punctuation: "Grout, paint, & nails." It's more important that things look just as good aesthetically instead of it looking half-assed, even though it can slow me down. Although, I am the AP Ninja and can post 100 invoices within a few hours. So, to me, my perfectionist tendencies cause me to get hung on small, ultimately inconsequential details. But, damn it, I'm happy with how things look and at least my invoice postings are always uniformly consistent, unlike my co-worker's. However, I've been with this nonprofit for 16 years--with the exception of being furloughed this summer for what ended up only being a month--so it apparently isn't a problem for others!

[SuprSuprElevated]

2 hours ago, magicdog said:

Well, we had an interesting morning!  Breaking news, traffic mishaps and of course, local Chanukah celebrations tonight.  

The latter is particularly important since this year celebrations are going to be virtual and 1/2 of our morning crew happen to be Jewish and often participate in local events.

Then the new anchor read the story....

Anchor: "Tonight will mark the first night of Cha-NOO kah!"

Me:  [Face Palm]    

I'm just waiting for the complaints from viewers to come in for that one!  

Me:  (in my best John McEnroe voice) "You.can.not.be.serious!?!"

1 hour ago, Moose135 said:

Tell me about a time...

😉

• Sell me this pencil
• "Where do you see yourself in five years?"
• "What's your biggest fault?" **

**Someday, I hope to be able to answer, "As of today, it's agreeing to do this interview", followed by a knowing look to the interviewer, and walking confidently out of the room.

Edited December 10, 2020 by SuprSuprElevated

[magicdog]

Had a decent week at the office.  Best thing about Christmas/New Years is the light work load and the presumption hardly anyone is watching and those who are don't really care!

I automatically had Christmas off (they run a yule log on our shift, so no AM  show!).  I managed to get the whole week off to relax.  Came back for New Year's week while my edit partner took off this week.  Her usual replacement, a photog who only edits when needed for these situations came in and we had a ball!  The producers pack on the packages and the "Year In Review" features interspersed with local fireworks.  We were over an hour ahead and no issues!  Plus we brought all kinds of snacks to share (today he splurged and got us some quesadillas!) and didn't have to worry about the outside world!  Most relaxing day at work I had all year!

Monday, it's back to the grind, but I'm cool with it.

[magicdog]

First week back and it's been ok, although we are now using new graphics (every few years somebody bamboozles management into getting the latest ones) and... they aren't going over well.  Both anchors and even viewers have complained how the new graphics are harder to read and they can't even see the clock in the bottom right corner of the TV screen (even editors couldn't see it, but it doesn't matter much to us!).  

I asked since I have new background graphics to use for the AM show, would our entertainment show (aka "The More Show") have new ones as well and where I could find them should I need to use them.  I was told the More staff HATED them and refused to use them!  They're sticking with the old ones!

 

[magicdog]

Boy it's been some news week!  Our replacement field reporter this week was supposed to report on CES (which is being held virtually this year but typically is the biggest convention in Las Vegas) but she barely has been able to report it once during an hour without a famous local dying or the impeachment updates breaking during the newscast! 

Meanwhile, the producers decided to switch hours which has caused some discord for the editors.  While the usual producers had their hours lined up and perfectly prepared, the switch has caused confusion and a bit of havoc.  It's taking longer for stuff in the early hours of the show to be completed and not all messages are getting through.  I'm not saying it isn't a good idea to do these switches since it's good for producers to get used to doing different hours since the tone is a bit different, but I wish it could have been done when viewership was especially low and easier to load (like Christmas or New Years' week).

I'm also going crazy because we seem to be (IMO) over reporting certain stories in which we risk using the same video over and over again!    Management has been giving us flak for looping (repeating) video but I tried to explain that sometimes we only have so much video from our normal sources (and on my own I'd look for additional video from the archives).  If the story is local, we're limited by what the photog shot.  Sometimes it's a safety issue (sketchy neighborhood to shoot video of a murder), or the cops tell them to get out of the way, other times the photog is the only one on duty and has to run to another potential scene. 

It's getting to the point that everything is getting to me.

[magicdog]

Somebody seems to be expecting trouble.  I came into work last night to find concrete barriers placed in front of the front entrance of the station (it's where guests typically enter, not the employee entrance, which is already gated with a card key to open it).  The barriers seem to be placed rather sloppily - like trying to prevent a vehicle from being driven though the glass doors - but it wouldn't prevent anyone from walking up to them and smashing them with a rock or something.

Also, the studios have been locked and one now needs a card key to get access.  Of course, any employee can.  Are they afraid the revolution is going to be televised?

 

[Moose135]

16 hours ago, magicdog said:

Are they afraid the revolution is going to be televised?

They are taking precautions in case some of these terrorists decide to lash out against the "fake media". I worked for a newspaper on 9/11, and they increased security measures at our facility because of it, including blocking off the driveway to our main entrance.

[theredhead77]

18 hours ago, magicdog said:

Somebody seems to be expecting trouble.  I came into work last night to find concrete barriers placed in front of the front entrance of the station (it's where guests typically enter, not the employee entrance, which is already gated with a card key to open it).  The barriers seem to be placed rather sloppily - like trying to prevent a vehicle from being driven though the glass doors - but it wouldn't prevent anyone from walking up to them and smashing them with a rock or something.

Also, the studios have been locked and one now needs a card key to get access.  Of course, any employee can.  Are they afraid the revolution is going to be televised?

 

They are probably there to prevent a vehicle from being driven through the front door. Just like those red balls outside of Target aren't just there for decoration. There have been far too many newsroom hostage take-overs over the past decades. One is one too many, and when I went looking for this one involving David Horowitz KNBC in Los Angeles I came across more. 

Stay safe. 

[magicdog]

On 1/19/2021 at 4:32 PM, theredhead77 said:

They are probably there to prevent a vehicle from being driven through the front door. Just like those red balls outside of Target aren't just there for decoration.

I don't doubt that.  The problem is, it's still easy for someone to just walk right up to the glass doors and bash them in with a rock or something.  I've noticed that security measures have increased plenty since 9-11 which was the beginning of using card keys, putting up fences and adding (unarmed) security to patrol the grounds at night.  If *it* hit the fan, there are only 2 places in the building I'd consider safe if one couldn't get out of the building:  the control booth (which is where the producer, director, etc control the show) and the studios which all have locks which require a card key to open them.  Every other room would be a death trap - especially for an office shooter since all of them are enclosed by glass and can be easily penetrated!

[Callietwo]

46 minutes ago, magicdog said:

Every other room would be a death trap - especially for an office shooter since all of them are enclosed by glass and can be easily penetrated!

Last year,  our offices were changed to bullet proof glass in the lobby & area surrounding the main office structure but then should someone breach that outer barrier, we were all sitting ducks in open cubicles.  That bullet proof door did not inspire any confidence whatsoever.  Particularly, since we serve the public at large and they were escorted into and out of the office all day long anyway.  The BPG meant nothing really other than fake security measures.  

[magicdog]

Well, Bitcheroo's minions strike again!

I had an update to a news story this morning.  I alerted the producers since they were running it all morning, and the news desk.  Bitcheroo sent me an email last year forbidding me to sending potential news stories (ideas - because according to her I'm not allowed to have them) to anyone else in the newsroom other than the desk.  I gave the link of the news update to the desk, who had the nerve to tell me if it didn't come from CNN or FOX (or the Daily Mail), they couldn't report it!  The link was from a legit news organization (not one that reported on Bigfoot sightings), but they were not going to take it any further.  

Pisses me off no end!  

 

On a separate issue, can anyone tell me if the ladies restroom is considered a "common area"?  AFAIK, it would NOT be, since only women can use it and it's not exactly a hangout.  Some snot is claiming I have to wear my mask there too.

Edited January 22, 2021 by magicdog

[Browncoat]

We require mask-wearing in the restrooms as they are shared areas.  Sorry!

[Callietwo]

If we are in the building, we are only allowed to take our masks off in our own offices (which are actually cubicles- and what they really mean is when we are sitting at our desks.) 

Any movement beyond our desk & chair requires a mask.  

 

(as a contracted employee, though- I am not allowed in the building, so for me it is all moot)  

Edited January 22, 2021 by Callietwo

[emma675]

Yep. bathrooms are common areas where I work, too. Plus, there are no lids on the toilets so every time someone flushes, you just know all kinds of particles go flying into the air. You couldn't pry my mask off me in there. 

[RealHousewife]

After not seeing most of my coworkers for nearly a year, I just miss those assholes. Lol 

[magicdog]

I'm really getting frustrated with TPTB when it comes to what's appropriate for air!

Naturally, 1/2 the stuff we've been doing lately is related to the vaccine, but after more than 15 years (without complaint to my knowledge) it was decreed we cannot show the needle going into people's arms.  They reason some people are squicked out by it.  Then when every other story is vaccine related, FOX & CNN put out video of people getting needles in the arm.  Naturally we editors have to be creative and cut around it but some editors on other shifts act like they never received the memo and use the needles.  Then the producers use the video ID numbers from the previous broadcast and are distressed (!) to see needles on screen.

When politicians go on live TV to get it, by all means, they say, show needles and all!!

Then we're back to, "No needles!!  Think of the children!".

I don't understand why it's such a problem to show this.  Mainstream news companies clear this with their departments and it's not like we're looking at video shot for foreign markets (which have different standards) so it's meant for viewing in the US without violating FCC standards.

They also gave us grief over the Kobe plane incident.  We ran video of the crash site at the time (for days!) yet, when talking about an update on the investigation, we're forbidden to use that and use only file of him.    It's not as if the crash scene had body parts in it or anything inappropriate. 

Meanwhile, the producers did the old switcheroo today and for some reason, were a slow as molasses for the first 2 hours of show.  Even my partner noticed this and we both brought this up to the supervisor.  He said he'd talk to them, but I can't help but think they are not listening.  Or maybe getting passive aggressive.    

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by magicdog

[isalicat]

1 hour ago, magicdog said:

Naturally, 1/2 the stuff we've been doing lately is related to the vaccine, but after more than 15 years (without complaint to my knowledge) it was decreed we cannot show the needle going into people's arms.  They reason some people are squicked out by it.  Then when every other story is vaccine related, FOX & CNN put out video of people getting needles in the arm.  Naturally we editors have to be creative and cut around it but some editors on other shifts act like they never received the memo and use the needles.  Then the producers use the video ID numbers from the previous broadcast and are distressed (!) to see needles on screen.

To be fair, some of us (like me!) are seriously needle phobic and the endless shots of needles and needles going into arms that are on every single newscast right now is really distressing. On the other hand, I am a grown up and perfectly capable of averting my eyes from the screen! And if it helps to spread the word that getting the vaccine is really no big deal and actually really helpful to us all, please continue to film and show all the needles in the world, 'kay?

[Bastet]

It doesn't diminish the story in any way to not show the needle going into someone's arm, so while I don't think it's problematic to show it, I also don't have any issue with deciding not to in order to avoid unnecessarily causing squeamishness in what may be a notable percentage of the audience (it's not exactly unheard of for people to respond negatively to such images, so they're not inventing an issue here).

[Browncoat]

It might be nice if they were consistent -- show the needle, don't show the needle.  Pick one and stick with it.

[magicdog]

5 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

It might be nice if they were consistent -- show the needle, don't show the needle.  Pick one and stick with it.

This!!  Oh so much this!!

Quote

 I am a grown up and perfectly capable of averting my eyes from the screen! 

This is also my point.  I've grown up seeing injections on TV News, so even if it did bother me (or anyone else), they could just choose to look away.  Interestingly enough, there is never a complaint about scenes we shoot for blood drives, which have people hooked up and seeing bags filling with blood!

Edited February 12, 2021 by magicdog

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Pick one and stick with it.

I see what you did there!

[BookWoman56]

Last year was not great for the financial services industry in general.  I had resigned myself to getting a meets expectations performance rating, a decent but not great bonus, and a decent but not great raise. Instead I got the highest possible performance rating, a much higher bonus than expected, and not only a higher than expected raise but also a salary adjustment from HR, who decided I wasn’t at the correct point in my salary range. The salary adjustment essentially doubled my raise. 

Color me a little surprised. I have almost always been a very strong performer in the workplace, but I wasn’t really feeling that my work last year was significantly better than the previous year. Maybe the difference is that year before last, I was having to deal with my mother’s quickly declining health and then death, whereas for most of last year, I was able to focus on work. In any event, I am seriously happy about the larger than expected bonus, which allowed me to finish paying off some medical debts sooner than anticipated. It’s just funny to me how often our own perceptions of our work don’t match what others perceive. This is not the first time I’ve gotten a much higher rating than expected, but there have also been years in previous jobs when I felt like I deserved an award and my manager was sort of like, Oh, your work was fine but we need to give the award to someone who has shown a lot of improvement. 
 

Work itself hasn’t changed much other than an influx of new executives, some of whom have the mindset of not wanting to understand how things work before they want to make drastic changes just for the sake of change and putting their own stamp on things. Why not take the time to understand how and why things work the way they currently do before trying to “improve” things? 

[bilgistic]

On Friday, our "boss" told us (my work "partner" and me) that our jobs are being changed from temp to long-term (open-ended) contractor! We were only going to have work through November 2020, then February 2021, then May, so this is a huge relief.

I'm still formally employed by the placement agency, as that's how the company operates for some reason for maybe a quarter of their staff, i.e., we get no benefits, but I'll be getting company-provided equipment and a company email, so I'll be "legitimate". We'll continue to work remotely for the foreseeable future, thank goodness. It's not what I would ultimately like to be doing but ain't that the story of my "career". It pays the bills and I don't have to see people!

I currently do document formatting/setup and some accounting--land sales reconciliation and considerable work in Excel. We're going to be trained in doing more AP and AR work. My background in real estate and having worked for a public company helps quite a bit.

Unfortunately, my partner is planning to start law school in the fall (she's a wee babe of 25), so while I'm thrilled for her, I'm going to so miss collaborating with her! She's the best coworker I've had in my entire 30-odd years of working.

[MargeGunderson]

Congratulations @BookWoman56 and @bilgistic! 

[auntlada]

Yay, @bilgistic! I'm so happy for you! (You can tell because I used exclamation points. I almost never use exclamation points.)

[BookWoman56]

That’s great news, @bilgistic. 

[SuprSuprElevated]

On 2/12/2021 at 5:01 PM, magicdog said:

This!!  Oh so much this!!

This is also my point.  I've grown up seeing injections on TV News, so even if it did bother me (or anyone else), they could just choose to look away.  Interestingly enough, there is never a complaint about scenes we shoot for blood drives, which have people hooked up and seeing bags filling with blood!

I grew up with the Vietnam War on my television every evening for years on end.  I'm okay with the image of an inoculation.  Seems we've becomed fixated on denying masking reality.

[theredhead77]

On 2/12/2021 at 2:48 PM, magicdog said:

I'm really getting frustrated with TPTB when it comes to what's appropriate for air!

Naturally, 1/2 the stuff we've been doing lately is related to the vaccine, but after more than 15 years (without complaint to my knowledge) it was decreed we cannot show the needle going into people's arms.  They reason some people are squicked out by it.  Then when every other story is vaccine related, FOX & CNN put out video of people getting needles in the arm.  Naturally we editors have to be creative and cut around it but some editors on other shifts act like they never received the memo and use the needles.  Then the producers use the video ID numbers from the previous broadcast and are distressed (!) to see needles on screen.

When politicians go on live TV to get it, by all means, they say, show needles and all!!

Then we're back to, "No needles!!  Think of the children!".

I don't understand why it's such a problem to show this.  Mainstream news companies clear this with their departments and it's not like we're looking at video shot for foreign markets (which have different standards) so it's meant for viewing in the US without violating FCC standards.

 

For sure they need to pick one path and stick with it. The mixed messaging and changes have to be absurdly frustrating.

On 2/12/2021 at 3:52 PM, isalicat said:

To be fair, some of us (like me!) are seriously needle phobic and the endless shots of needles and needles going into arms that are on every single newscast right now is really distressing. On the other hand, I am a grown up and perfectly capable of averting my eyes from the screen! And if it helps to spread the word that getting the vaccine is really no big deal and actually really helpful to us all, please continue to film and show all the needles in the world, 'kay?

 

On 2/12/2021 at 4:21 PM, Bastet said:

It doesn't diminish the story in any way to not show the needle going into someone's arm, so while I don't think it's problematic to show it, I also don't have any issue with deciding not to in order to avoid unnecessarily causing squeamishness in what may be a notable percentage of the audience (it's not exactly unheard of for people to respond negatively to such images, so they're not inventing an issue here).

That's me. I know shots involve needles but I have a horrid needle and shot phobia that the images over and over and over again were giving me increased anxiety. Yes, I am a grown woman who knows how to advert her eyes; however, sometimes those stories or "coming next" jump right into JAB imagery.

16 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

I grew up with the Vietnam War on my television every evening for years on end.  I'm okay with the image of an inoculation.  Seems we've becomed fixated on denying masking reality.

It's not about masking (or hiding) reality. Most people above a certain age (5, 6?) know inoculation means a shot. It's the repeated imagery of needles being jabbed into arms, that is probably having an adverse reaction from the audience. It certainly was for me.

[Blergh]

OK, here's one:  I had one supe who seemed to think the sound of their voice was THE most important thing going on in our workplace at the time.  For example, onetime we had someone from HR give an info session about changes and updates in policy and the HR person then asked for questions. I immediately raised my hand and asked a relevant question   over matters  that had NOT been covered by the info session- but before the HR person could begin to answer, the supe repeated verbatim to the syllable exactly what the HR had just said.  No, the supe didn't attempt to soften it with a 'Excuse me. Before you answer Blergh's question, I'd like to repeat for the staff what you just said. .' just instantly did the whole' BLAH BLAH BLAH' bit in a much louder tone of voice than the HR person had used (  and, yes,  the HR person was perfectly audible and coherent to everyone in the room) without the slightest attempt at any apology to the HR person or myself before or after the fact. The stunned and annoyed HR person just asked me to repeat my question and I said that I'd try again while doing my best not to lose my temper in front of everyone over the supe's rudeness. It seemed to me as though the supe wanted everyone in the room to know that NOTHING counted that anyone else had said unless the supe themselves had droned it. Let's just say that this was one quality that I wasn't sad to have to no longer deal with after that supe's departure. 

[BookWoman56]

@Blergh, I‘ve encountered people like that, where it doesn’t matter who originally made a statement or announcement; it’s not “official” until this person repeats the message. Even more than that, though, there are way the hell too many people who apparently love the sound of their own voice so much that it takes them forever to just shut up. Invariably when everyone else is ready for a meeting to end or ready to move on to the next agenda item, this person will ask a gazillion questions that are extremely tangential to the topic and could better be addressed via email, or if not asking questions, just start throwing unsolicited opinions and advice right and left. I wish one could simply say, “could you please just STFU?” but apparently that’s too rude. Occasionally I will suggest that in the interest of time, we need to move on to the next agenda item. Thank goodness these are online meetings only, so I don’t have to worry someone else is going to spot me rolling my eyes or worse. 

[auntlada]

We used to have a woman who always came late to morning meetings because they would start at 9, and she got to work (ostensibly) at 8:30, but she was always late to work and then had to spend time putting her stuff in her office and talking to people and doing the stuff you do when you get to work before coming to the meeting. So when she got there, we'd already started, and she would start asking questions about stuff we'd already discussed. We'd start the meetings at 9 so she could be there, but she was always 15-30 minutes late.

Another guy who used to work here would take 30 minutes to answer someone's question about how to do something, but wouldn't actually tell them how to do it. I swear he started every answer with, "First, the earth cooled, and then the dinosaurs came."

[magicdog]

2 minutes ago, auntlada said:

Another guy who used to work here would take 30 minutes to answer someone's question about how to do something, but wouldn't actually tell them how to do it. I swear he started every answer with, "First, the earth cooled, and then the dinosaurs came."

This is why I often avoid "all employee" meetings.  They drone on about stuff that has little to do with us directly (talking about shareholder stuff, etc.) and it's nothing that couldn't have been sent in a succinct email.  They try to get us to come by offering free stuff (re:  cheap crap from promotional junkets) via a drawing.  They would hand out the tickets to all who attended and at the end of the meeting they announce the "winner" - usually a keychain that has the logo of a (now defunct) TV show we used to broadcast.

I swear no one knows how to speak anymore.

[ginger90]

I don’t appreciate mass emails that are actually addressing  a few people, and have nothing to do with the majority. The individuals that should be addressed should be written up, or fired, IMO.

Some examples in a recent email:

You must log in and out in the App from the client’s residence. Anywhere else is considered fraud.

Call off procedure, do not message on Facebook, or email. Call the office number, there is always someone on call to handle covering your shift.

Sleeping  on the job. “This is a no no, and also fraud”.

 

Nonsense like above should be directed at those who are not following obvious guidelines. 

 

[ABay]

The great benefit of virtual meetings is that you can walk away and do something useful when assholes speak.

[magicdog]

1 hour ago, ABay said:

The great benefit of virtual meetings is that you can walk away and do something useful when assholes speak.

I wanted to do that during a mandatory meeting last week.  I was able to do a zoom meeting from home rather than at work.  I was afraid to walk away for too long because I wanted to be able to prove I was present.

[supposebly]

I've done that for short times. Bathroom breaks, feeding the cats, getting some water...It's nice. Just make absolutely sure your mic and video is off before you get up. And it helps if you generally keep it all off when attending meetings with the same boring people who are just wasting everyone's time. I've been known to get some grading in while in a meeting....

[BookWoman56]

Thank goodness my work discourages video meetings. We mostly use Skype for business, so you dial into a conference call and the presenter can share a PPT presentation, Word docs, or whatever without everyone being on video. Unless I am the meeting facilitator, I don’t hesitate to take a bio break or go make a cup of tea, or just walk around a few minutes. I keep my phone on mute most of the time, and adjust my activities if it’s a general meeting with a lot of attendees versus a small meeting in which people may have questions for me or I may need to comment on something. I think at least 50% of those general meetings could be replaced by an email. Almost always after those big meetings, they send out the presentation deck and often have a video replay of the meeting available. For me the only value for having the big meetings is having a Q&A part at the end, because attendees will occasionally raise questions of interest. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by BookWoman56

[EighteenTwelve]

Working from home has made me aware of one thing I hate above all others: people who send me emails wanting me to do things that actually cross something off their own task list.  "Please send me all this information I could look up easily myself, but you're tangentially related to it, so now it's your problem and I need it in an hour."

[magicdog]

45 minutes ago, EighteenTwelve said:

people who send me emails wanting me to do things that actually cross something off their own task list.  "Please send me all this information I could look up easily myself, but you're tangentially related to it, so now it's your problem and I need it in an hour."

How lazy can one get???  Especially if the person isn't even in the office.

[Growsonwalls]

My boss at work sends about 2 dozen emails a day. Most are forwarded news articles or invitations to workshops. A few are actually important. He sends these emails at all hours of the night. But on the rare occasion an email contains important information he'll just casually say "Oh I sent an email about it three weeks ago." Which involves an endless search for all the emails I might have deleted from him because really, it's one email that's important for 100 that are just forwarded articles. 

[jenh526]

I work in government and my boss' boss has been actively trying to keep me from advancing ever since she got that job several years ago. You can't apply for positions unless she tells you that you can (and she always has one person pre-selected). If you try, she will cut you down in the interview. I am so sick of seeing people who are much, much less capable get promoted over me. I'll be 55 this year and I'm trying to just hang in for another five years for the pension. But I don't know if I can. My physical and mental health are suffering. It's extremely hard to find something else. I'm at the point now where I have really slowed down my work. I used to be the most productive employee, even though I never got rewarded for it. Now I'm just done. I don't understand how people can be so cruel.

[magicdog]

8 hours ago, jenh526 said:

I am so sick of seeing people who are much, much less capable get promoted over me. I'll be 55 this year and I'm trying to just hang in for another five years for the pension. But I don't know if I can. My physical and mental health are suffering. It's extremely hard to find something else. I'm at the point now where I have really slowed down my work. I used to be the most productive employee, even though I never got rewarded for it. Now I'm just done. I don't understand how people can be so cruel.

Trust me. I feel ya!  I'm in the private sector and am dealing with the same.  I'm working on becoming my own boss (I'll be eligible to retire in 2 years if I don't choke Bitcheroo first) because I want to work on my own terms.  I'm tired of idiots having so much control over my life (people in political office, my office).  Maybe you should consider doing something like owning your own business (traditional or remote). 

Or maybe you could run for local political office.  You'll get paid and maybe be able to change some policies.

[jenh526]

3 hours ago, magicdog said:

Trust me. I feel ya!  I'm in the private sector and am dealing with the same. 

Sorry you’re going through the same.